Gordon Clark: STUDY COMMITTEE ON AMSTERDAM PHILOSOPHY (RPCES Minutes)

1975. STUDY COMMITTEE ON AMSTERDAM PHILOSOPHY. Minutes of the 153^rd General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod. May 30-June 5. pgs. 179-189

STUDY COMMITTEE ON AMSTERDAM PHILOSOPHY

The report was made by Dr. Richard C. Chewning as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Reporting on the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship and its Institute for Christian Studies (AACS/ICS) presents a challenge and requires that everyone reading this report clearly understand the limitations of the report, the nature of it, and the spirit of the findings.

This report is not an attempt to establish what Dooyeweerd's philosophy is nor to establish a relationship between the aforementioned philosophy and the AACS/ICS. An understanding of the systematic and technical aspects of these movements and philosophies is very important when examining and evaluating the "well-spring" of thought from its presuppositional stage to the concluding statements. But such a technical understanding is not necessary for the General Synod to evaluate whether or not published statements produce confusion, misunderstanding or even on occasion give the appearance of being completely out of conformity with the positions of historical Christianity.

In addition this report is not an attempt to correct error but to show that it exists. The movement under study is not a part of our denomination and therefore we have no disciplinary relationship with it.

This report is not directed at any particular individual(s). Those who make up the AACS/ICS, either at its core or on its periphery, do not agree on matters within their own body. As is true in any movement, it is fluid and diverse. An example of this internal struggle is seen in an "open" letter sent to Nicholas Wolterstoff by Dr. Hendrick Hart in January, 1975 in which he said:

"There can be little doubt that many an AACS devotee in the past displayed attitudes that are not known as virtues in the Christian Church. That was and is inexcusable." (Page 3)

"At any rate, we reacted with an often judgmental attitude that was sometimes presented with bitter and sarcastic overtones. We were responsible for that and are guilty as charged... And we are sorry for having caused so much disruption with these peculiar growing pains." (pages 3&4)

"We would very much like to be given the opportunity to live down our past mistakes. We would like to be forgiven. We have made many serious mistakes. Our critics have made us think and in many ways have convinced us. Now that we not only own up to that and apologize, but also try to live differently, our opponents would honor us by taking us for who and what we are today. Perhaps some day they may even admit some of our critique. Whatever the case, we would like to receive the opportunity to make our contribution. We are ready to serve." (Page 9)

The study committee takes note of such searching and prays that it will continue on a broad basis within the movement so as to produce a genuine healing under the light of our Lord. As commendable as these beginning searchings are they have not progressed to the point of undertaking concrete steps that will lead to a specific solution of the problem as it currently exists. There has been no specific retraction or correction of published theological positions.

OVERVIEW

This Committee perceives that the basic problems generated by the AACS/ ICS stem from their failure to establish the clear supremacy of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct. Saying that Scripture is supreme is not sufficient when the presentation of the material is so structured and the emphasis on subordinate elements is so heavy that many individuals repeatedly perceive that the high view of Scriptures held by Reformed Christians is lacking. The AACS/ICS affirms that Scripture is the only "infallible authority" for men in matters of "Salvation" and that "Scriptures... are the final court of appeal, the first and last word." ("Perspective", special issue, Vol. 8, No. 6, November, 1974; page 6.) In the same article, however, the AACS/ICS returns to the affirmation that the Bible does not "exhaust the Word of God", and with this, negative implications arising from their historical inability to clearly handle such a concept are once again brought to the forefront.

The AACS/ICS often seems to be struggling to affirm old truths on the one hand while insisting that they stay away from familiar categories of expression. But how one says something is also a part of what is said, and often their expressions have caused problems which have not been cleared up.

Frequently the work of the AACS/ICS has brought numbers of Christians to perceive that they (AACS/ICS) operationally structure reality in a linear manner as follows:

Culture-Creation Word-Inscripturated Word-Incarnate Word-Preached Word

Questions of authority can be raised and become confusing in a relation· ship where everything is assumed, implied or perceived to be on the same operational level. The Scripture and Westminster Confession would insist on the following structure:

Inscripturated Word { Creation Word/Preached Word/Culture

In this system the lines of authority are clear. All who will are called to the authority of Scripture and all who call can point to no other final authority against which all of life must be tested.

PROCEDURE

This report will give some concrete examples to demonstrate that the AACS/ICS is responsible for publishing some material that is neither in conformity with Scripture nor with the system of doctrine contained therein as it finds expression in the Westminster Standards. This report contains, as an appendix, a partial bibliography. The articles and books listed in it have been read by members of the study committee and are offered as supporting material, the reading of which produces a great many other examples similar to the ones used in this report.

The specific items incorporated here were selected because they are basic, understandable in non-technical terms, and are concerned with the specific issues given this Committee, viz., "The committee should give special attention to such sensitive aspects of this philosophy as touch upon the Word of God, and the Church's task relating to the missionary and cultural mandates.:'

CASES OF ERROR

Word of God.

The following six paragraphs come from the first chapter of Understanding the Scriptures by A. Degraff and C. Seerveld. These paragraphs were specifically chosen because they are statements by leaders of the movement on the Word of God; they are from a major work of seven years ago that was a primary cause for many Christians crying out against this movement; and! this book serves as a reference point against which we can examine later works to see if their positions are shifting. Recent printings of this volume have not been altered even though some AACS members have said that the form of expression is ill-advised.

"But let me first state my main thesis. If you should ask me how you should read your Bible, then my answer would be that you must read it as the book of the acts of God. The Scriptures are first of all the recital of God's mighty acts in Jesus Christ through Whom He created and re-created the world. Secondly, they contain man's response to God's revelation. Inescapably, the Bible confronts us with the covenant keeping, redeeming and judging Creator of heaven and earth, Who demands our faithful, loving, and obedient response. This means that you distort the Scriptures when you read them as a collection of objective statements about God and man, as truths in propositional form, or as a collection of moral lessons. They do not contain any rational, general, theological statements about God and his creation, from which we can deduce some moral applications. The authors of the Scriptures never abstract, they never theologize, not even Paul. This is the main thesis I would like to work out in some detail today and Monday. This morning I am going to deal primari1y with the kerygmatic nature of the Word of God, which excludes the idea of Scripture as a collection of propositional truths. Monday I hope to deal mainly with the Word of God as religious Directive, which excludes the idea of Scripture as a collection of moral lessons."

(page 2)-{Study Committee's italicizing)

"Just as the Bible does not answer our abstract questions about the existence of the idols, so the Scriptures fail to satisfy our intellectual curiosity about the nature of God. The Bible authors are not interested in an Unmoved Mover or a Pure Spiritual Substance, nor do they care to prove God's existence logically by making Him a part of a syllogism and comparing Him to other minds. The Scriptures know nothing about God's essence or about his incommunicable and communicable attributes. This entire Greek-Scholastic way of thinking about God is foreign to the Bible. As G. Ernest Wright put it in his God Who Acts; Biblical Theology As Recital,

'The being and attributes of God are nowhere systematically presented but are inferences from events. Biblical man did not possess a philosophical notion of deity whence he could argue in safety and 'objectivity' as to whether this or that was of God. This ubiquitous modem habit of mind which reasons from axioms and principles or universals to the concrete would have been considered as faithless rebellion against the Lord of history who used history to reveal his will and purpose. Hence the nearest approach to atheism which the Old Testament possesses is the fool who says in his heart there is no God (Ps. 14:1; 53:1). Yet the Psalmist means by this, not a theoretical atheism, but rather the practical atheism of a sinner who calls God's works, not his being, into question.'

'Summarizing our findings thus far we can say that it is not the purpose of the Bible to inform us about the nature of God's being or his attributes. To treat the Scriptures as if it did contain such general, theological statements and propositional truths, therefore, would be to distort the very nature and purpose of the Word of God. The Bible wants to proclaim, not to explain! It is only in his actions that God's being and his attributes are revealed to us." (Page 9 & 10){Study Committee's underlining)

"The Bible is certainly not irrational, and un-historical, and it is certainly not without directives, but neither is it rational, or historical, or moral in nature. The Bible is of a religious nature and the historical, and analytical aspect of Scripture, which it undeniably has, is only that, one side of Scripture and nothing more. It is only through a process of abstraction from the total, loving Word of God that one can get these different aspects of Scripture into focus. Often people ask, "Does this view of Scripture not lead to an irrationalistic, existentialistic, or Barthian position?" I am not always sure if people know what they mean by these adjectives. But my answer is; no, the Scriptures are neither rational nor irrational in character. They have an analytic side, just as they have a historical, a lingual, and an aesthetic side, but they are not characterized by any of these aspects. Moreover, there is greater danger on this continent to fall into a rationalistic reduction of the Scriptures than an irrationalistic." (page 18){Study Committee's italicizing)

Throughout history, error that has found its way into the church has arrived infolded in a great deal of truth. In fact it pleads for acceptance because it is accompanied by so much truth. But truth is not established by association. In a like manner, much of what AACS/ICS has published is accompanied by sentences, paragraphs and pages of acceptable material while parts of it cry for clarification and correction.

The italicized sentences in the above paragraphs certainly are open to the charge that they do not support a "high view of Scripture" or even to the charge that they are "just plain wrong". There are many such statements in the AACS/ICS publications that have caused confusion, debate, and division over the past decade. Two questions should now be asked and answered. Have later works by the same people clarified or corrected such statements? Are we dealing only with semantics? The answer in both cases must be "no". Those associated with AACS/ICS point to a later work entitled Will All the Kings Men... and say that this answers many of the criticisms received from earlier work. It is the conclusion of this committee, however that this is not the case at all. While this later work does not contain the inflamatory and grossly misleading phraseology of some of the earlier work, it does nothing to clarify, renounce or retract earlier work. When someone makes a statement that is called into question, the only way of obtaining an understanding is to explain the specific statement. Covering the same material with new and less inflamatory phraseology without explanation means that in all probability the reader's original perception will still be operating and used to interpret the new material.

A broader reading of papers, pamphlets and more extensive works leaves the committee with the conclusion that there has been no real shift in the theological position of the AACS/ICS's concerning the Word of God. The Rev. H. L. Downs has written a book entitled Power-Word and Text-Word in Recent Reformed Thought which discusses in great depth the issues surrounding the discussion of the AACS/ICS's position on the Word of God. (See Bibliography). In the committee's judgement, error is still very evident in the published material of AACS/ICS.

Law of God

The following four paragraphs found in Chapter III of Understanding the Scriptures are included to bring before Synod this movement's views on morality and to give the general context in which the particular italicized sentences are found. This section also serves as an important bridge to the next section of our report which discusses the confusion surrounding the position of the AACS/lCS on the relationship between the Cultural and Missionary mandates of Scripture. In reading, please note the tone and manner of articulation as well.

"God requires that we unconditionally surrender ourselves to his service and that we radically deny ourselves for his sake, following after Christ. This kind of discipleship requires a great deal more and often something much different than the standards of our society demand. The righteousness, the covenant faithfulness that we are commanded to seek above anything I else in life, requires radical commitment and total self-denial. It may mean, even today, "Sell all that you have, ... and come, follow me." It may require acting neighborly, that is, like one may expect from a true partner, toward Samaritans, toward people that ordinarily we would not consider associating with. It may mean that in obeying God we must disobey Caesar, even if that brings imprisonment or death."

"Civil obedience, like other commandments, is a relative norm, relative with respect to the great commandment. Without that relative position, the state becomes another god over against Yahweh for us. Then we start to act unrighteously in the name of the Lord. Then Western Christianity happily joins in, with approval of the pope and the blessing of the protestant ministers, in the killing of six million Jews and other inferior species. "Jesus saves, you little bastard!" And there goes another little baby, thrown right from a second story window into an open truck already full of Jews. If you have ever seen documentary mms of these things, then you know what I am referring to: ministers standing in line watching the parade next to the army brass, shouting "Heil Hitler!" and people being rounded up like cattle and shot like unwanted mongrels. Such deification of state and race gives to think!"

"The great commandment relativizes every other commandment the Scriptures contain. That is a hard lesson to learn for us moralists. It is much easier to hide behind a formal system of 'absolute' laws, because autonomous little rules for every situation do not have to be worked out; they do not appeal to our responsibility, for law is law, unchangeable like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. This kind of law we can fulfill without committing ourselves and without denying ourselves."

"Not so the religious directives of the Scriptures, they always refer us back to the great commandment; they always demand radical self-denial and total commitment. These dynamic directives of Scripture inescapably confront us with God's righteousness, which demands that we respond as true partners. God's laws are religious principles, beginnings that want to take on concrete form in our lives in such a way that it becomes evident that we are God's partners and, therefore, our neighbors partners. The Scriptures contain only one Directive, and that is the great commandment. Even the ten words (not commandments) are specifications of this central religious Directive. All the other ordinances are nothing more than concrete outworkings, positivizations of this Directive within a particular period of history. None of them can be literally followed or applied today, for we live in a different period of history in a different culture. But this does not make these commandments, not even those of Leviticus and Numbers, or Paul's admonitions with regard to a woman's hairdo and her keeping silent, irrelevant. On the contrary, these religious directives are divinely given directives, examples, crosscuts and depth dimensions of what it means to be a true partner. They are inscripturated in order that we might take them to heart, and act in that same radical manner as exemplified in- these divinely given directives."

(Pages 35-36)-(Study Committee's italicizing)

This discourse on the Law is highly suggestive of potential antinomian-- ism and is recognized by the authors of Understanding the Scriptures as potentially confusing. The next quotation included in this report came from the very next page following the above quote and the authors admit that people might accuse them of presenting "situational ethics", which they deny. But the drift of the book seems to flow from a view of the Word of God that does not support a high view of Scripture, to a highly questionable view of the Law, and finally to a position which has lead many to believe that the AACS/ICS is also responsible for making statements which lead to confusion concerning the relationship between the Cultural and Missionary mandates of Scripture.

Missionary and Cultural Mandates

The next assignment given this Committee by Synod is concerned with possible confusion emanating from statements by the AACS/ICS concerning "the church's task relating to the missionary and cultural mandates." The Committee perceives that this problem results from a practical working out of their statements when it is done against the backdrop of a low operational view of Scripture.

The second section of the Committee's report, entitled OVERVIEW, set forth the perception held by this Committee that the AACS/ICS is guilty of operationally structuring a horizontal relationship between the Inscripturated Word, Creation Word and Culture. [Some members of the Committee perceive that the AACS subordinates the Written Word to the Creation Word and Culture.] This can easily result in the possibility of the untutored or naive Christian implicitly equating the missionary mandate to, "Go ye therefore," with the cultural mandate to, "Be fruitful... subdue... and have dominion."

When a low view of Scripture, at the operational level, is coupled with a very strong emphasis on the Creation Word, natural revelations and the need for each man to establish his "office" and calling as a teacher, politician, and artist (all of which are appropriate when held in a proper balance and tested step by step against Scripture), much room for errors in fact, errors in emphasis, and errors in perception may result, When a foundational presupposition (high view of Scripture) is called into question, all else falls under a shadow.

The following paragraph begins on the page following the paragraphs quoted above in the section on the Law of God. Those paragraphs lead into and are part of the justification and rationale for the following:

"In this way all the Scriptural directives, more general or very specific, must be read. And if we so read our Bibles, we will not lose the Way, Neither a casuistic legalism nor a situation ethics can help us in this Reformational understanding of the Scriptural directives. Perhaps some of you may be inclined to call what I presented to you "situation ethics." However, that would not be a correct understanding of this perspective. We do have more than the love commandment to go by in the widely varied situations of our daily lives. The meaning of the great commandment has been spelled out for many concrete situations in the Scriptures, in order that we may do likewise. However, these fundamental religious directives remain just that, directives, principles, beginnings. It is our religious calling to give concrete form to these directives for our times in our situations. But even in this 'positivizing' we are not left without guidance. For every 'situation is structured, ordered, subject to God's law. This creation order is also revealed to the Christian. By faith he can begin to discern this law-order again. The Scriptural directives appeal to this order; they are in harmony with it and they point to the creation ordinances. In fact Christian policemen or soldiers cannot even begin to understand the meaning of Christ's commandments for their office, if they do not at the same time seek to understand what it rightly means to be a policeman or a soldier. The Bible 'only' tells us how to go about serving God and our fellowmen, but that is more than sufficient for knowing how to live as a true partner.

For the rest, just as we concluded after the first lecture, we are referred to and are dependent upon God's revelation that comes to us in creation. Having neglected and discredited this full revelation of God, it is no wonder that many Christians today are lost and unable to decide what is right and wrong before God." (Pages 37 & 38)-(Study Committee's italicizing)

One who holds a high view of Scripture might, with some effort, interpret or perceive the above statements as being acceptable within the historic Reformed posture. But when one sees them in the context of a work holding a low operational view of Scripture; finds no appeal to test the faith discerned law-order revealed in creation against Biblical norms; and is aware that this kind of writing has in fact caused problems (the existence of this Committee bears witness to this), then the perception of such incomplete and imbalanced work is not likely to be one of "understanding". The Committee feels that work of this quality is potentially misleading; not constructive in helping one understand the relationship between the special revelation of Scripture and the natural revelation of creation; and in its broader contest can lead to a misunderstanding about the Church and its relationship to the cultural mandates. Such work is very dangerous.

CONCLUSIONS

1) Confusion has often resulted from positions taken by members of the AACS/ICS.

2) Clarifying statements by the AACS/ICS have not removed the basic problems perceived by this study committee.

3) Much material published over the past decade by the AACS/ICS contains serious error in it.

4) The confusion and error are dangerous to immature, naive, and weak Christians and offers temptation to mature Christians.

The problems outlined above produce a deep concern. Should pastors or officers have an occasion to instruct a congregation or counsel an individual church member concerning the public addresses, conferences, or publications of the AACS/ICS, it is suggested that they incorporate the recommendation of this report, as adopted, in their advice.

(Synod is asked to adopt the following recommendation and is not asked to adopt the entire report of the study committee.)

RECOMMENDATION

Since some of the publications of the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship and its Institute for Christian Studies (AACS/ICS) have taken positions that can lead members of Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod (RPC,ES) into serious error in matters relating to the Word of God, Law, and the Cultural and Missionary Mandates of Scripture, members of the RPC,ES are advised that the teachings alluded to contradict the Westminster Confession.

APPENDIX

Bibliography On The Amsterdam Philosophy

The Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship has publically estimate that there are over two thousand books, articles, essays, and reviews dealing with the Amsterdam Philosophy. The fourteen books and articles listed below are representative of those in the movement and of those critical of the movement.

DeGraff, A., and Seerveld, C., Understanding the Scriptures. Hamilton, Ontario, Guardian Press, 1968.

DeKoster, Lester, "Editorials", The Banner, Vol. 107, Nos. 14, 15,17,18, 19,20 (April 7, 14, 28,; May 5, 12, 19, 1972).

Downs, Harry L., Power-Word and Text-Word in Recent Reformed Thought. Nutley, New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Frame, John M. and Coppes, Leonard J., The Amsterdam Philosophy-A Preliminary Critique. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Harmony Press, 1972.

Frame, John M., "The Word of God in the Cosmonomic Philosophy," Parts I &: II, Presbyterian Guardian, Vol. 41, Nos. 8, 9. October & November, 1972, pp. 123-125, 140-142.

Hart, Hendrik, "Can the Bible be an Idol?" Sola Fide, Vol. 17, No.6 (September 1964) pp. 3-10.

Hart, Hendrik, The Challenge of Our Age. Hamilton, Ontario: Guardian Publishing Co., 1968.

Morey, Robert A., The Dooyeweerdian Concept of the Word of God. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Nash, Ronald H., Dooyeweerd and the Amsterdam Philosophy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.

Olthius, John A., Hart, Hendrik; Seerveld, Calvin; Zylstra, Bernard; and Olthius, James H., Out of Concern for the Church., Toronto: Wedge Olthius, James H., Out of Concern for the Church., Toronto. Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1970.

Olthius, James, J.; Hart, Hendrik; Van Dyk, John; DeGraaf, Arnold; Seerveld, Calvin; Zylstra, Bernard; Olthius, John A., Will All The King's Men., Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1972.

Shepherd, Norman, "God's Word of Power," International Reformed Bulletin, No. 38 (July, 1969), pp. 17-20.

Shepherd, Norman. "The Doctrine of Scripture in the Dooyeweerdian Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea," The Christian Reformed Outlook XXI, 2, 3 (February, March, 1971), 18-21 of XXI, 2: 20-23 of XXI,3.

Schrotenboer, P., "The Bible, Word of Power," "International Reformed Bulletin, XI, 32-33 (January, April, 1968). Discusssion continued in XII, 38 (July, 1969).

Respectfully submitted,

Richard C. Chewning, Chairman

Gordon H. Clark

James B. Hurley

Synesion Lyra, Jr.

C. Howard Oakley

John W. Sanderson