A Prophet?

Recently, I have been reading Francis Schaeffer's Escape from Reason, which details the decline of modern thought from the time of Thomas Aquinas to the modern day. While the book in general has been very interesting, I found something of particular significance toward the end of the book. Schaeffer, writing about the way in which modern philosophy had affected modern theology, stated the following:

"The evangelical Christian needs to be careful because some evangelicals have recently been asserting that what matters is not setting out to prove or disprove propositions; what matters is an encounter with Jesus."

As if this wasn't enough of an indictment, he continues on:

"If what is placed upstairs (two circle theory of knowledge) is separated from rationality, if the Scriptures are not discussed as open to verification where they touch the cosmos and history, why should one accept the evangelical upstairs any more than the upstairs of the modern radical theology? On what basis is the choice to be made? Why should it not just as well be an encounter under the name Vishnu? Indeed, why should one not seek an experience, without the use of any such words, in a drug experience?"

Later on, he writes:

"I have come to the point where, when I hear the word 'Jesus' - which means so much to me because of the Person of the historic Jesus and His Work - I listen carefully because I have with sorrow become more afraid of the word 'Jesus' than almost any word in the modern world. The word is used as a contentless banner, and our generation is invited to follow it. But there is no rational, scriptural content by which to test it, and thus the word is being used to teach the very opposite things from those which Jesus taught."

Finally, he concludes with this:

"If evangelical Christians begin to slip into a dichotomy, to separate an encounter with Jesus from the content of the Scriptures...we shall, without intending to, be throwing ourselves and the next generation into the millstream of the modern system."

As I read these passages, several thoughts went through my mind. First, isn't this exactly where some of the emerging church movement is leading us? They have said to us, "It's not about knowing, it's about feeling." They have told us to give up revelation for an experience. Why? Because nobody can debate with an experience. So, their problem is either fear or laziness or both. Second, I thought about the teaching of liberal theology, which basically says follow your heart. If you really believe that your doing is what Jesus wants you to do, then you better do it. It doesn't matter whether or not it is contrary to what Jesus actually taught because he continually revealing himself in new ways to us. Well, if this is true, then Jesus isn't actually truly knowable. Third, I found myself remembering the words of John Calvin.

He wrote in the Institutes:

"Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly testify. . . Again, I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself, (John 16: 13) but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends."

Well said, well said...