"Our supposedly eminent Bible scholars are now going on record to say that we must subordinate the authority of Scripture to the higher and more objective standard of secular science."
[RP] If we agonize endlessly over trajectories and relationships, the concept of Biblical separation is drawn out into meaninglessness.True, but lumping and dumping isn’t a good alternative either.
[RP] The question is whether we can recommend young men going to seminary at Westminster or Knox or Gordon-Conwell where they may sit under these teachers, be influenced, and accept these ideas? What do you think?
That’s a good question. The answer is not so obvious as it might seem to some. One reason is that guys who go do seminary are supposed to be learning to deal with all the currents of Christian thought of our day. So any education worth its salt will expose them to these ideas a good bit. So it’s not like there is such a thing as a “safe” education somewhere.
But since I’m both a Baptist and a dispensationalist, I strongly recommend a Masters degree at some place like CBTS or DBTS or maybe CTS (don’t have quite as much personal familiarity with them) or BBS (Clark Summit) and maybe doctoral work at one of these others. But if you’re Reformed (capital R!) it makes sense to go for seminary at the most conservative Reformed seminary you can find to begin with. I don’t really know which what would be.
But it’s true that Reformed guys have historically been a bit ambivalent about young earth vs. old earth etc. It’s important to note the overall context of their thinking before concluding that they are doing “the same thing” as someone else who arrives at similar conclusions (or just seemingly similar conclusions). I’m personally encouraged to see some Reformed folks pushing for YEC and sounding alarms about what others like Waltke and Enns seem to be saying.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I haven’t had much opportunity to look at BJS and I didn’t attend BJ at the seminary level myself. So I don’t know much about the strength of the program or where it’s headed. I do know there are some very sharp guys there and I suspect that, on the whole, its “product” is far better than many think.
I’m not sure who “our young men” are anymore. But I do know of guys going to TMS and Mohler’s school in Louisville and now Piper’s in Minneapolis that I wish had made different choices. But I don’t lose any sleep over it either. These are also good schools. There are trade-offs anywhere you go.
I’m not sure who “our young men” are anymore. But I do know of guys going to TMS and Mohler’s school in Louisville and now Piper’s in Minneapolis that I wish had made different choices. But I don’t lose any sleep over it either. These are also good schools. There are trade-offs anywhere you go.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Roland,
I actually agree with many ideas in your post. I concur that, in general, Reformed theologians prefer to be in conversation with scholarship in all fields. I think this is a good thing most of the time, as it allows them to benefit from general revelation and to avoid bizarre and parochial ideas that have dominated many of the more fideistic sects (SDA, Church of Christ, Landmark Baptists, etc.). However, I also concur that this does indeed lead them into tensions, where there are apparent contradictions between a certain reading of Scripture and an interpretation of science. At this point, there is going to be a divergence within the Reformed community, because Reformed denominations are currently straddling two epistemologies. The first is Scottish Common Sense Realism, which originated in Scotland and dominated old Princeton. SCSR takes a relatively straightforward approach to the problem of knowledge, placing great faith in inductive reasoning and the scientific method. The second is (for lack of a better word) Van Tillianism, which derives from Dutch theologians such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper, is something of a Christianized Kantianism. This second approach stresses more the “antithesis” between Christian and non-Christian thought, and is perhaps more able to do a consistent worldview critique.
I don’t believe that the origins question is actually split neatly along those epistemological lines, since Poythress is probably more of a Van Tillian, but it’s clear how such an ambiguity within the Reformed community could lead to an atmosphere in which improperly eclectic positions may emerge. Both the epistemological reflections of Reformed scholars and the status of evolution (its several forms) in the scientific community are in flux, so the next few decades may bring some more clarity to the issue. I don’t think that there is anything in Reformed theology itself that pushes people toward one side or the other. My seminary was entirely 6/24 creation, and one of the popular old Reformed theologians, Wilhelmus a’Brakel, actually argued for geocentrism on the basis of Scriptural authority. So, I think it’s more accurate to say that Reformed theology allows a wide range of approaches to the relationship between general and special revelation. Also, though I am aware of the alleged Western vs. Eastern views of knowledge contrast, I think it’s mostly bunk and almost entirely irrelevant to intellectual history. It’s characteristic of 19th century liberal historiography to claim the centraldogma or key position from which an entire thinker or family of thinkers derives, and I think that their speculation has been taken over by some conservatives who do not really understand the issues.
I actually agree with many ideas in your post. I concur that, in general, Reformed theologians prefer to be in conversation with scholarship in all fields. I think this is a good thing most of the time, as it allows them to benefit from general revelation and to avoid bizarre and parochial ideas that have dominated many of the more fideistic sects (SDA, Church of Christ, Landmark Baptists, etc.). However, I also concur that this does indeed lead them into tensions, where there are apparent contradictions between a certain reading of Scripture and an interpretation of science. At this point, there is going to be a divergence within the Reformed community, because Reformed denominations are currently straddling two epistemologies. The first is Scottish Common Sense Realism, which originated in Scotland and dominated old Princeton. SCSR takes a relatively straightforward approach to the problem of knowledge, placing great faith in inductive reasoning and the scientific method. The second is (for lack of a better word) Van Tillianism, which derives from Dutch theologians such as Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper, is something of a Christianized Kantianism. This second approach stresses more the “antithesis” between Christian and non-Christian thought, and is perhaps more able to do a consistent worldview critique.
I don’t believe that the origins question is actually split neatly along those epistemological lines, since Poythress is probably more of a Van Tillian, but it’s clear how such an ambiguity within the Reformed community could lead to an atmosphere in which improperly eclectic positions may emerge. Both the epistemological reflections of Reformed scholars and the status of evolution (its several forms) in the scientific community are in flux, so the next few decades may bring some more clarity to the issue. I don’t think that there is anything in Reformed theology itself that pushes people toward one side or the other. My seminary was entirely 6/24 creation, and one of the popular old Reformed theologians, Wilhelmus a’Brakel, actually argued for geocentrism on the basis of Scriptural authority. So, I think it’s more accurate to say that Reformed theology allows a wide range of approaches to the relationship between general and special revelation. Also, though I am aware of the alleged Western vs. Eastern views of knowledge contrast, I think it’s mostly bunk and almost entirely irrelevant to intellectual history. It’s characteristic of 19th century liberal historiography to claim the centraldogma or key position from which an entire thinker or family of thinkers derives, and I think that their speculation has been taken over by some conservatives who do not really understand the issues.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion