In the January 1971 issue of Outlook, Rev. Peter De Jong wrote an article entitled, The Inroads of Subjectivism. In this article Rev. De Jong accuses De Graaff, Schrotenboer, and others who are vitally connected with the AACS [Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship] of subjectivism. Rev. De Jong correctly defines a subjectivist as one who “makes the starting point in his thought and life not the Word of God and its authority but . . . one’s self and his own experience.” If subjectivism were making inroads among those who are seeking to give Christian direction in our troubled times, there certainly would be cause for alarm. I think, however, that the article of Rev. De Jong gives reason for all those who love the Christian Reformed Church to be truly alarmed. Not because Seerveld, De Graff, and others arc subjectivists (they are not) but because they are being fundamentally misunderstood by ministers in the Christian Reformed Church.
Rev. De Jong feels that in DeGraaff’s writings he can detect subjectivism at work. One immediately suspects that there must be a misunderstanding here if one realizes that De Graaf follows in the line of thought of Calvin, Kuyper, and Dooyeweerd. The philosophy of Dooyeweerd is known as the philosophy of the Law Idea. The very name of this philosophy means that all of creation is subject to the Law-Word of God. Let us look for a moment at what Dooyeweerd says.
According to Dooyeweerd the key of knowledge is tho central meaning of the creation, fall, and redemption in Jesus Christ. True knowledge of God and true self-knowledge are dependent on neither philosophy nor theology.1 True knowledge of God and self arc the presuppositions of biblical theology and philosophy. Theology is not sacred while philosophy is secular. In fact, theology as a science is dependent on philosophy. 1beology in its scientific sense is dependent on certain philosophical fundamentals which are dependent on the “central religious motive” of thought. According to Dooyeweerd: “Christian philosophy does not have the task and competence to go into the dogmatic and exegetical problems of theology except insofar as the philosophical and central religious fundamentals of theology as a theoretical science are at issue.”2
Man is dependent on neither philosophy nor theology for his salvation. If we understand this we begin to see why De Graaff makes the statements that he does. When De Graaff says that the Scriptures do not contain any “rational, general theological statements about God and his creation,”3 he is attacking the view that Scripture contains theological-scientific truth. The Bible docs not contain any logical-scientiflc statements (propositions) about God from which we can deduce truths. Rather, the Scriptures speak directly to the heart of man demanding his total allegiance.
De Graaff also attacks a misuse of Scripture that he calls moralizing. The Bible, he says, does not contain any moral lessons. It docs not teach human virtues as such. Rev. De Jong cannot understand why De Graaff says that it is plain falsehood to moralize the story of Joseph as meaning that “industriousness and honesty are the surest way to succeed.”4 According to De Jong this moralizing view is inadequate but surely not false. Rev. De Jong seems to be saying, why not read this passage and from it teach our children that honesty and industriousness are good? De Graaff says because the point of the story is that, “The Lord was with Joseph,” not that Joseph was good, pious, and with the Lord. De Graaff says:
. . . in that impossible situation when all seemed lost, God was present, revealing his faithfulness, busily working on the coming of his kingdom. If we so listen to this story, we hear the amazement and the surprise in this exclamation: “Yahweh was with Joseph!” not as a foregone conclusion, but as a proclamation. And that good news can build our faith today and give us hope for tomorrow.5
The story of Joseph is not a story about a pious, industrious man but about God keeping Covenant with his people. To focus on the virtues of Joseph is to miss the thrust of the story.
After criticizing De Graaff’s view that Scripture does not contain propositional truth, Rev. De Jong shifts to the conclusion of De Graaff”s The Educational Ministry of the Church. In his conclusion Dr. De Graaff tried to give some perspective on theology. Abraham Kuyper tried to derive every theological discipline from Scripture. De Graaff criticizes the view that theology should be solely derived from Scripture. He here refers to J. M. Spier’s articles in the Phil. Ref. in 1950 and 1951. The theologian cannot limit himself exclusively to Scripture because the Word-Revelation cannot be separated from the revelation of creation. They are not two separate sources of revelation but are one. Scripture does reveal to us, as De Graaff says, “the norm for our faith, it proclaims to Whom we ought to direct ourselves in our believing, and it tells us how man has responded to this revelation.”6 This is not, however, a theoretical or scientific account of these norms. De Graaff looks to Christian philosophy for a theoretical account of the law-structure of creation.
At this paint it might be good to remind ourselves again that theology is not sacred and philosophy secular. A Christian theology, according to Dooyeweerd, cannot be had without certain Christian philosophical assumptions. Rev. De Jong criticizes De Graaff here for appealing to creational ordinances discovered by the “superior light” of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. Rev. De Jong seemingly wants to drive a wedge between the Word-Revelation and the revelation of creation. From Scripture itself we know that Cod does not reveal himself solely in the Bible. We all confess this in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession. Dr. De Graaff and others of the AACS are not trying to “attack” Scripture but are trying to wake Christians up so they will allow their whole lives to be led by the Word of God.
ROBERT HILLEGONDS, South Holland, Illinois
1, 2. Dooyeweerd, Herman. In the Twilight of Western Thought. The Craig Press. Nutley, New Jersey, 1965. p. 120, 148.
3, 4, 5. De Graaff and Seerveld. Understanding the Scriptures. p. 2, 24.
6. De Graaf, Arnold. The Educational Ministry of the Church. The Craig Press, 1968. p. 156.
REV. PETER DE JONG REPLIES
I appreciate Mr. Hillegonds’ effort to clear lip what he believes is my “misunderstanding” of the view of some of the AACS leaders. I wish that characterizing their view especially of the Bible as a kind of subjectivism were a misunderstanding. Mr. Hillegonds’ explanation, however, instead of removing the criticism reinforces it. His explanation is just another demonstration of the way the “philosophy of the Law Idea” is thrust in between us and the Bible.
The intricacies of the argument as he summarizes it are interesting. While “true knowledge of God and true self-knowledge” are said to be “dependent on neither philosophy nor theology,” the “key of knowledge” is said to be the “central meaning of the creation, fall, and redemption in Jesus Christ,” which Dooyeweerd makes the basic idea of his philosophy. “Theology as a science is dependent on philosophy.” And this “Christian philosophy does not have the task and competence to go into the dogmatic and exegetical problems of theology except insofar as the philosophical and central religious fundamentals of theology as a theoretical science are at issue.”
In other words, this philosophy, which is admittedly not generally competent to study and explain (exegete) the Scriptures carefully must be made the basis of Christian theologyl See how careful systematic study of the Scriptures is shoved into the background with such a construction? And this is not mere theory. This is exactly what is wrong with what these writers too often are doing in practice. And if one points it out he is apt to be brushed all as a “biblicist” or “Fundamentalist.”
On the basis of idolizing this philosophy, De Graaff makes the same claim as the modern existentialists or Barthians that the Scriptures do not contain any “rational, general theological statements about God and his creation.” Dr. Machen in his What is Faith? (p. 47, 48) answered the attack of the liberals of his time against “propositional truth” by citing Hebrews 11:6: “he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.'” As Dr. Machen points out: “faith is here declared to involve acceptance of a proposition.” “The words, ‘God is,’ or ‘God exists’ . . . constitute a proposition; yet they are here placed as necessary to that supposedly non-intellectual thing that is called faith. Confidence in a person is more than intellectual assent to a series of propositions about the person, but it always involves those propositions and becomes impossible the moment they are denied.” “One cannot trust a God whom one holds with the mind to be . . . non-existent . . . .”
If the AACS men only say that the Bible is much more than a collection of propositions and that our faith must be far more than assent to propositions we heartily agree; when they, however, deny that the Bible teaches any propositions which must be believed, we must regretfully but insistently point out that they are contradicting the Scriptures; and, whether they intend this or not, they are supporting the current existentialist attack on the Christian faith as the Scriptures teach it.
The, same principle applies to the moral teachings of God s Word. If Dr. De Graaff and his defenders merely want to say that to see the story of Joseph as embodying the lesson that industry will be rewarded is to do much less than justice to what the Word of God is teaching, we heartily agree. If, however, they say that it tells us nothing about how God’s people are to face temptation and affliction as far as their behavior is concerned, we must just as heartily disagree. Just because “the Lord was with Joseph” he was enabled to stand up against the demoralizing atmosphere of Egypt as one “diligent in his business” and to face temptation with the answer, “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” To fail to see this in the story is to miss something very important in it and to do less than justice to the way in which God’s grace operates within as well as towards his people. The philosophical approach to the story which singles out one dominating thought in it and then dismisses everything else is a good example of the way an idolized philosophical idea can blind one to the riches of God’s Word.
I recognize, of course, that we must take account of Cod’s revelation in creation as well as in Scripture, but the critical question is which of these two we follow as our authoritative guide. The Lord and His prophets and apostles teach us to receive the Scriptures as such a· guide, and doing this has been characteristic of evangelical Christianity. The creation was to be understood in the light of the Scriptures. When one turns this around and makes creation, or really one’s philosophical reflections on the creation, the real authority by which Scriptures are to be “interpreted” or criticized, it becomes increasingly plain that the Scriptures are really being set aside in the interest of men’s opinions.
The results of such downgrading of the Scriptures must be disastrous for the Christian church and its faith. Let us pray that the Lord may help us all see that danger and save us from it.
PETER DE JONG, Dutton, Michigan
Rev. De Jong feels that in DeGraaff’s writings he can detect subjectivism at work. One immediately suspects that there must be a misunderstanding here if one realizes that De Graaf follows in the line of thought of Calvin, Kuyper, and Dooyeweerd. The philosophy of Dooyeweerd is known as the philosophy of the Law Idea. The very name of this philosophy means that all of creation is subject to the Law-Word of God. Let us look for a moment at what Dooyeweerd says.
According to Dooyeweerd the key of knowledge is tho central meaning of the creation, fall, and redemption in Jesus Christ. True knowledge of God and true self-knowledge are dependent on neither philosophy nor theology.1 True knowledge of God and self arc the presuppositions of biblical theology and philosophy. Theology is not sacred while philosophy is secular. In fact, theology as a science is dependent on philosophy. 1beology in its scientific sense is dependent on certain philosophical fundamentals which are dependent on the “central religious motive” of thought. According to Dooyeweerd: “Christian philosophy does not have the task and competence to go into the dogmatic and exegetical problems of theology except insofar as the philosophical and central religious fundamentals of theology as a theoretical science are at issue.”2
Man is dependent on neither philosophy nor theology for his salvation. If we understand this we begin to see why De Graaff makes the statements that he does. When De Graaff says that the Scriptures do not contain any “rational, general theological statements about God and his creation,”3 he is attacking the view that Scripture contains theological-scientific truth. The Bible docs not contain any logical-scientiflc statements (propositions) about God from which we can deduce truths. Rather, the Scriptures speak directly to the heart of man demanding his total allegiance.
De Graaff also attacks a misuse of Scripture that he calls moralizing. The Bible, he says, does not contain any moral lessons. It docs not teach human virtues as such. Rev. De Jong cannot understand why De Graaff says that it is plain falsehood to moralize the story of Joseph as meaning that “industriousness and honesty are the surest way to succeed.”4 According to De Jong this moralizing view is inadequate but surely not false. Rev. De Jong seems to be saying, why not read this passage and from it teach our children that honesty and industriousness are good? De Graaff says because the point of the story is that, “The Lord was with Joseph,” not that Joseph was good, pious, and with the Lord. De Graaff says:
. . . in that impossible situation when all seemed lost, God was present, revealing his faithfulness, busily working on the coming of his kingdom. If we so listen to this story, we hear the amazement and the surprise in this exclamation: “Yahweh was with Joseph!” not as a foregone conclusion, but as a proclamation. And that good news can build our faith today and give us hope for tomorrow.5
The story of Joseph is not a story about a pious, industrious man but about God keeping Covenant with his people. To focus on the virtues of Joseph is to miss the thrust of the story.
After criticizing De Graaff’s view that Scripture does not contain propositional truth, Rev. De Jong shifts to the conclusion of De Graaff”s The Educational Ministry of the Church. In his conclusion Dr. De Graaff tried to give some perspective on theology. Abraham Kuyper tried to derive every theological discipline from Scripture. De Graaff criticizes the view that theology should be solely derived from Scripture. He here refers to J. M. Spier’s articles in the Phil. Ref. in 1950 and 1951. The theologian cannot limit himself exclusively to Scripture because the Word-Revelation cannot be separated from the revelation of creation. They are not two separate sources of revelation but are one. Scripture does reveal to us, as De Graaff says, “the norm for our faith, it proclaims to Whom we ought to direct ourselves in our believing, and it tells us how man has responded to this revelation.”6 This is not, however, a theoretical or scientific account of these norms. De Graaff looks to Christian philosophy for a theoretical account of the law-structure of creation.
At this paint it might be good to remind ourselves again that theology is not sacred and philosophy secular. A Christian theology, according to Dooyeweerd, cannot be had without certain Christian philosophical assumptions. Rev. De Jong criticizes De Graaff here for appealing to creational ordinances discovered by the “superior light” of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. Rev. De Jong seemingly wants to drive a wedge between the Word-Revelation and the revelation of creation. From Scripture itself we know that Cod does not reveal himself solely in the Bible. We all confess this in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession. Dr. De Graaff and others of the AACS are not trying to “attack” Scripture but are trying to wake Christians up so they will allow their whole lives to be led by the Word of God.
ROBERT HILLEGONDS, South Holland, Illinois
1, 2. Dooyeweerd, Herman. In the Twilight of Western Thought. The Craig Press. Nutley, New Jersey, 1965. p. 120, 148.
3, 4, 5. De Graaff and Seerveld. Understanding the Scriptures. p. 2, 24.
6. De Graaf, Arnold. The Educational Ministry of the Church. The Craig Press, 1968. p. 156.
REV. PETER DE JONG REPLIES
I appreciate Mr. Hillegonds’ effort to clear lip what he believes is my “misunderstanding” of the view of some of the AACS leaders. I wish that characterizing their view especially of the Bible as a kind of subjectivism were a misunderstanding. Mr. Hillegonds’ explanation, however, instead of removing the criticism reinforces it. His explanation is just another demonstration of the way the “philosophy of the Law Idea” is thrust in between us and the Bible.
The intricacies of the argument as he summarizes it are interesting. While “true knowledge of God and true self-knowledge” are said to be “dependent on neither philosophy nor theology,” the “key of knowledge” is said to be the “central meaning of the creation, fall, and redemption in Jesus Christ,” which Dooyeweerd makes the basic idea of his philosophy. “Theology as a science is dependent on philosophy.” And this “Christian philosophy does not have the task and competence to go into the dogmatic and exegetical problems of theology except insofar as the philosophical and central religious fundamentals of theology as a theoretical science are at issue.”
In other words, this philosophy, which is admittedly not generally competent to study and explain (exegete) the Scriptures carefully must be made the basis of Christian theologyl See how careful systematic study of the Scriptures is shoved into the background with such a construction? And this is not mere theory. This is exactly what is wrong with what these writers too often are doing in practice. And if one points it out he is apt to be brushed all as a “biblicist” or “Fundamentalist.”
On the basis of idolizing this philosophy, De Graaff makes the same claim as the modern existentialists or Barthians that the Scriptures do not contain any “rational, general theological statements about God and his creation.” Dr. Machen in his What is Faith? (p. 47, 48) answered the attack of the liberals of his time against “propositional truth” by citing Hebrews 11:6: “he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.'” As Dr. Machen points out: “faith is here declared to involve acceptance of a proposition.” “The words, ‘God is,’ or ‘God exists’ . . . constitute a proposition; yet they are here placed as necessary to that supposedly non-intellectual thing that is called faith. Confidence in a person is more than intellectual assent to a series of propositions about the person, but it always involves those propositions and becomes impossible the moment they are denied.” “One cannot trust a God whom one holds with the mind to be . . . non-existent . . . .”
If the AACS men only say that the Bible is much more than a collection of propositions and that our faith must be far more than assent to propositions we heartily agree; when they, however, deny that the Bible teaches any propositions which must be believed, we must regretfully but insistently point out that they are contradicting the Scriptures; and, whether they intend this or not, they are supporting the current existentialist attack on the Christian faith as the Scriptures teach it.
The, same principle applies to the moral teachings of God s Word. If Dr. De Graaff and his defenders merely want to say that to see the story of Joseph as embodying the lesson that industry will be rewarded is to do much less than justice to what the Word of God is teaching, we heartily agree. If, however, they say that it tells us nothing about how God’s people are to face temptation and affliction as far as their behavior is concerned, we must just as heartily disagree. Just because “the Lord was with Joseph” he was enabled to stand up against the demoralizing atmosphere of Egypt as one “diligent in his business” and to face temptation with the answer, “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” To fail to see this in the story is to miss something very important in it and to do less than justice to the way in which God’s grace operates within as well as towards his people. The philosophical approach to the story which singles out one dominating thought in it and then dismisses everything else is a good example of the way an idolized philosophical idea can blind one to the riches of God’s Word.
I recognize, of course, that we must take account of Cod’s revelation in creation as well as in Scripture, but the critical question is which of these two we follow as our authoritative guide. The Lord and His prophets and apostles teach us to receive the Scriptures as such a· guide, and doing this has been characteristic of evangelical Christianity. The creation was to be understood in the light of the Scriptures. When one turns this around and makes creation, or really one’s philosophical reflections on the creation, the real authority by which Scriptures are to be “interpreted” or criticized, it becomes increasingly plain that the Scriptures are really being set aside in the interest of men’s opinions.
The results of such downgrading of the Scriptures must be disastrous for the Christian church and its faith. Let us pray that the Lord may help us all see that danger and save us from it.
PETER DE JONG, Dutton, Michigan