"New ___________ Theology, Perspective, etc.." , Old News

Van Til deals with "The New Reformation Theology" in his work "A Case for Calvinism". I couldn't wait for the juicy parts so I read chapter four first. Sweet. Here's a bite:


"The New Reformation theology is new precisely because it agrees with the natural man in these his demands and yet claims to follow Luther and Calvin. But no theology that seeks to satisfy the false requirements of the natural man can fairly be said to be a reformation theology. So the New Reformation theology is, in effect, a new natural theology which is, if possible, more destructive of the gospel presented by the Reformers than was the older Liberalism. The entire objection against natural theology, so far as this objection springs, for example, from Calvin, is that such a theology starts with man as autonomous. The autonomy of man is far more clearly present in the New Reformation theology than it is in the theology of Rome. DeWolf is quite right from his point of view when he frankly appeals to natural theology as a foundation for a theology of grace even though he, as well as Hordern, is controlled in his thinking by the freedom-nature scheme of post-Kantian thought. But the more inexplicable thing is that Carnell, while claiming to construct his theology in line with the historic Reformed tradition, should yet use a method that presupposes the legitimacy of the new natural theology involved in this modern freedom-nature scheme.

What we are now concerned to establish is that this entire freedom-nature scheme must be challenged in the name of Christianity. It must be shown that unless the method of science, the method of philosophy and the method of theology are taken from the message of the actually present revelation of God’s grace in Jesus Christ they all lead from nowhere into nothing. And only a Calvinist is in a position, by virtue of his truly biblical methodology, to do this. All other forms of Protestant theology have, to some extent, catered to the natural man. They have allowed that this natural man is right, at least to some extent, in asserting his autonomy. If this is true, then the natural man would also be right, to an extent at least, in claiming that he can stand in judgment over the revelation, even the redemptive revelation, of God (my emphasis). Then he is right when he picks and chooses only such “truths” of Scripture as accord with his supposed “freedom.”

Not all Calvinists have been willing to follow the demands of their own principle. Some have clung to the idea of natural theology. Shall we criticize them for this? Let us rather stand on their shoulders because of their constructive work in theology, and see that today more than ever before and as never before Christianity must present itself as the truth in the light of which alone any truth can be found. Any form of synthesis theology is deadly, and this fact is clearly true in our day. To do anything short of presenting Christianity by means of a method that springs from itself is not to offer men a significant choice in the present confused theological situation. The very idea of significant choice already presupposes the truth of Christianity. How can we account for the idea of significant choice? How can we ask an intelligent question, let alone find an intelligent answer? Only if we have a God who through Christ controls whatsoever comes to pass do we have an alternative to placing man in a vacuum. Every form of Protestant theology that will not from the beginning place the very idea of significant choice within the framework of Christian truth has already capitulated its own position and after that must live by the grace of its enemy, the autonomous man (my emphasis). Why is it that Carnell is unable to lead men on to the hope that lies in the message of grace through Christ? It is because he agrees with the natural man to the effect that he needs no grace so far as his dealings with the things of nature are concerned. It is because he agrees with the natural man when the latter claims to know himself and his own predicament in terms of himself to a very large extent."

Did you catch that? To the extent that the natural man is given a right to assert his autonomy, he is also given the right to claim he can stand in judgement over God's revelation. This plays right into the idea of "neutrality". Conversely, when the natural man is given no right to assert his autonomy, he is given no right to claim he can stand in judgement over God's revelation. He may reject it but he has to deal with it.

Food for thought.