Friends and colleagues continue to take on the latitudinarian blog Reformed Academic. John Byl opens up on Jitse Vandermeer’s notion that human suffering and death existed for thousands of years before Adam’s fall. Jim Witteveen dismantles Freda Oosterhoff’s insistence that young-earth creationism is dangerous for our missionary and evangelistic efforts. If I can add something to what my colleague writes, I find Oosterhoff’s statement ridiculous, to put it mildly. When I was a missionary, the people among whom I was working found the Darwinist mythology just as incredible, and even laughable, as I did. The notion that people are descended from monkeys was just another crazy white-man’s idea. A vast number of the world’s population would share that sentiment. Many non-Christians (especially in the two-thirds world) still find a six day creation ex nihilo more credible than Darwinian evolution. As Jim writes, it’s the cross that they really stumble over. What’s dangerous is not young-earth creationism, but latitudinarianism. Follow that route and before long we may not have a gospel for our missionaries to preach.
Tag Archives: Reformed Academic
On the Ref-net (a Reformed e-mail discussion group), someone posted a link to an item on the official website of the Gereformeerde Kerken (Vrijgemaakt) — GKV. The GKV are sister churches of the CanRC and are also in ecumenical relations with the URCNA and RCUS. This news item speaks about an organization called ContrariO which is attempting to create more tolerance and understanding for gays and lesbians by addressing students in Reformed high schools in the Netherlands. Among other things, we’re told that “ContrariO does not speak out about whether or not one should enter into or have homosexual relationships. ContrariO finds this open to multiple Biblical interpretations and a deeply personal private choice.” (my translation). Again: note that this item is on the official website of the GKV and therefore approved by the federation. ContrariO is a “Reformed club for gays and lesbians.” You can find more information (translated via Google) here. Part of their aim is to provide a “gay-friendly” environment in Christian schools and promote the visibility of the gay Christian in society and in Christian circles.
Over at Reformed Academic, the GKV are held up as an example of the more tolerant direction that the Canadian Reformed Churches should be moving in with regards to our understanding of biblical authority. Do not be deceived: this is the inevitable fruit of the hermeneutical drift taking place in the Netherlands among our sister churches.
A couple of days ago, I mentioned this post by John Byl connecting some of the stuff at Reformed Academic with earlier missteps in the history of biblical interpretation. As I’ve been reading volume 2 of Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I’ve seen confirmation of this. Let me give one example.
Francis Turretin is well-known as an orthodox Reformed theologian of the seventeenth century. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology are still in print and widely-respected. Francis had a son named Jean-Alphonse. Jean-Alphonse Turretin aimed to develop “an irenic theology, more attuned to the demands of reason but also more in touch with the needs of piety than that of the seventeenth century orthodox” (140). J-A Turretin was part of a movement that eventually resulted in near-total theological capitulation to the Enlightenment ethos. Muller goes on:
Despite the echo of his father’s strict orthodoxy, the tendency of the argument and the underlying sense of the conformity of Scripture and Christian doctrine to the light of reason both draw profoundly on the more rationalistic, apologetic, but nonetheless genuinely pious theology of Tronchin. The more rationalistic side of the younger Turretin’s approach to the text is seen, in addition, in his hermeneutics and in his theory of accommodation — which is a rather different view of accommodation than that offered by Calvin or by the orthodox writers of the seventeenth century, and occupies what might be characterized as a position, strongly influenced by Cartesian philosophy and halfway toward the view proposed later in the eighteenth century by Semler. The younger Turretin, for example, did not hold the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be a precise history or a scientific account: he was able to argue a valid theological and religious meaning to the stories of creation, fall, the flood and the Tower of Babel without feeling constrained to debate either matters of historical detail or of scientific cosmology. He saw no need to reconcile the narrative of Genesis with a post-Copernican view of the world. And, very much like Spinoza, Turretin could argue that Scripture was intended to lead people toward faith and obedience rather than to rational or scientific knowledge of the world order. (141 — emphasis added)
The great philosopher Yogi Bera was right: it’s deja vu all over again. There’s a lot of recycling that goes on in the history of theology.
Then, as now, the central issue concerned the nature of biblical authority and interpretation. The Cartesians argued that the Bible was not a source of knowledge in natural philosophy but that the Bible was accommodated to fallible human opinion. The orthodox Reformed theologians, on the other hand, insisted on a fully authoritative, inerrant Bible that must be interpreted in a literal, rather than allegorical, manner.
Upon reading the detailed account by Rienck Vermij The Calvinist Copernicans: The reception of the new astronomy in the Dutch Republic, 1575-1750 [2002, 452pp], one is struck by the remarkable similarity between the view of Scripture of the Cartesian theologians and that of the ReformedAcademic in its current attack on the historicity of Genesis 1-11.