Wow. Really eye opening information
from Francis Schaeffer. Now that’s a real indictment, coming from
such a giant as him. Thanks, Jude. iz From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor JD
writes: Stop with the
lie, Judy. You have nothing to back up your claim but when
has that slowed you down in the past. You want Barth to be a threat
THEREFORE he is. He spent his lifetime presenting the
Message of scripture -- a lifetime. He is all
about the biblical message and you are all about making up
stuff. Quite a difference. No JD, it isn't only me, even though you would
like it to be. Barth is one of those liberal German theologians who began
the decline of belief in the authority of God's Word in this country.
Lord help us! Please remove these blinders..... As
Francis Schaeffer stated so eloquently, courage for confrontation over matters of truth and
righteousness in the hearts of Christian leaders in Neo-Orthodoxy infects the
Evangelical Ranks - This was the kind of academic atmosphere that prevailed during the 20
years from 1947 to 1967 when many evangelical seminaries and colleges sent
their bright young scholars to European universities to get their doctorates. A
large percentage of these young scholars were infected with liberal and
neo-orthodox views of the Bible; and then they returned to their evangelical
schools to teach a neo-orthodox view of the Bible (what they
sincerely believed were the "latest, most scholarly" views) to their students.
These partially "corrupted" young professors did not openly challenge
their denomination's or institution's historic view of inspiration of the
Bible. It was more subtle than that and less obvious than the open battle over
the Bible of the 1920s and 1930s. Most
of these young professors were infected with neo-orthodoxy; the then
fashionable "reformed" liberalism of Swiss theologian Karl Barth.
Neo-orthodoxy claims that the human words of the Bible are not the very words
of God, but rather are a fallible human "witness" to the words of God
and are therefore in a sense, the "Word" of God to man. In some cases
they claim that the words of the Bible "become" the Word of God to
man at a particular existential moment when that man senses God speaking to him.
Others have spoken of the Bible "containing" the Word of God. Neo-Orthodoxy Undermines the
Reliability of Scripture Since most neo-orthodox theologians attempt
to honor God's word in some sense, their presentation to their students of
their existential and relativistic re-interpretation of the Bible does not
appear to be, nor is it intended to be, an attack upon the Bible. But, since most neo-orthodox men
accept most of the higher critical theories of theological liberalism and since they usually believe (with Kant and
Barth) that human language is incapable of communicating absolute, unchanging,
and inerrant truth from God to man, therefore they are essentially liberals in
their view of scripture. In
addition, most neo-orthodox "evangelicals" believe they cannot count
on the Bible being absolutely true in matters of time and space, science and
history, or ethics and anthropology (that is, areas that are open to scientific
verification or falsification), but they do comfort themselves by saying they believe
the Bible may be capable of communicating undistorted truth in
"spiritual" matters such as eternity and heaven, faith and salvation,
or piety and theology (areas that are not open to objective empirical
verification). Thus they ask us to subjectively believe the Bible in those
areas of "faith and practice" that we cannot, by the nature of the
case, "prove" and then expect us to understand that the Bible is not
totally reliable in matters of history and science. In a nutshell, a liberal and neo-orthodox view of Scripture
considers the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible to be part
true and part false and that their theological experts must help us to
determine what parts of the Bible are true and what parts of it are false. That
is the essence of theological liberalism under whatever name it travels even if
it goes by the name of "evangelicalism." Thus, a
professor infected with a neo-orthodox view of Scripture will tend to not
believe that Moses wrote all five books of the Pentateuch; that Isaiah wrote
the whole book of Isaiah; that Daniel was written in Daniel's time; that the
flood of Noah was a universal flood covering the whole earth; that all of
present mankind came from Noah's family; etc., etc. They will also tend to
teach students that neither Jesus nor the Church Fathers believed the inerrancy
of view of Scripture that was taught by the Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin,
Wesley, Spurgeon, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and Schaeffer. They teach that the
inerrancy view is a late development in church history. Neo-Orthodoxy Entrenches Itself
in Evangelical Institutions - Since the 1960s, many evangelical seminaries and
colleges, denominations and organizations have been infected by the prevailing fog of neo-orthodoxy.
Many sincere evangelicals, including many pastors and professors, are
neo-orthodox liberals in regard to Scripture and don't even know there is
anything wrong with their view. In light of all this, we felt we had to launch
the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in 1977. By 1976, a
neo-orthodox and liberal view of Scripture and therefore a relativistic view of
doctrine and morals had permeated all levels of evangelicalism in every
denomination and organization. The prevailing mood among educated people was
openness to the liberalized view of scripture and a general fear of being
labeled a "narrow inerrantist" who still believed the old,
"unscholarly and medieval" view of Scripture. If a Christian in many
evangelical circles really believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, they tended
to remain "in the closet." Furthermore, we, who felt God wanted
us to stand up for the traditional, inerrancy view of Scripture and call our
churches and organizations to be consistent with the statement on scripture in
that organization's founding documents, were often attacked as troublemakers
and told to be quiet or to go away. Almost
no one wanted to face up to an honest, open evaluation of how far a church or
organization had slid down the slippery slope towards increasing
liberalization. Christian leaders then, who believed in the inerrancy of the
Bible, found themselves becoming lonely warriors who were misunderstood,
feared, and sometimes gently persecuted. And almost no one seemed to be willing
to make it a national Christian issue and get it settled if it meant losing
friends or a position in their organization. The A Call to Unite and Plan
Strategies for the In
September 1976, prior to the |
- RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst .... ... ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our midst ... Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our mi... knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in ou... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy i... knpraise
- Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthod... Kevin Deegan
- RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in our mi... ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy in ou... Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthodoxy i... ShieldsFamily
- Re: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Orthod... Lance Muir
- RE: [TruthTalk] Warning!!! Neo-Or... ShieldsFamily