Did Catholic Theology Cause Secular Humanism

8/19/2019 Did Catholic Theology Cause Secular Humanism

1/30

Did Catholic theology cause Secular Humanism? and

Frances Schaeffer's "How Then Shall We Live?"

ntroduction

Catholics and Evangelicals agree that the Secular Humanism is one of the greatest threats to Christianity today. It

paved the way for many of the social ills that we see today including abortion, same sex marriage, the sexual

evolution, the banishing of Christianity from our schools, courts, governments, institutions and more.

Unfortunately some Evangelicals want to lay the blame at the feet of the Catholic Church. This article is divided into

ections:

• Part 1 - Intro to Secular Humanism (this page)

• Part 2 - Side by side, Schaeffer's accusations with responses

• Part 3 - Greek Philosophy in the Bible

• Part 4 - Humanism in the Renaissance

• Part 5 - Humanism in Modern day Christianity

• Part 6 - The Pope's famous speech about "evil and inhuman" acts by Mohammed and about the relationshi

between Reason and Faith and the De-Hellenization of Christianity

What is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism... can be defined as a religious world view based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical

elativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in ea

ituation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral cod

Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings "may, and do, make up their own rules... Morality is not discovered;

made."[1]

n the Evangelical world, perhaps the greatest force against human secularism is Francis Schaeffer, an orthodox

Presbyterian who died in 1984. In some ways Schaeffer was right on because he was calling Evangelicals to get

nvolved in politics (Dominionism). He advocated the protest of abortion, and the active promotion of moral

conservative values. In that respect that his ideas were totally awesome! We love him for that.

Unfortunately, this has gone seemingly unnoticed in the Evangelical world, and as a result no man's writings have

done more harm to Catholic relations with Evangelicals since Hislop. We wondered why so many Evangelical

Christians have values that we love, but hate the Catholic Church so much. Schaeffer is one of the greatest source

hat anti-Catholicism. So The book "How Then Shall We Live?" needs a critical analysis to separate the wheat and

chaff. An extensive of the book "How Then Shall We Live" is here.

Criticism of traditional theology

Francis Schaeffer's assertion that Evangelicals need to get active in politics and moral issues such as abortion was

good. He was also right in some of his criticism of the Catholic Church during the Renaissance. Most Catholic write

also criticize that period of Church history. Human beings tend to get Spiritually lazy when things start going well fo

materially. Christianity seems to thrive when it is under persecution (which is why there are so many cool things

happening in China now) and things got a little too comfortable during the Renaissance. However, it is interesting h

he industrial revolution that grew out of the Renaissance put the brakes on Islam's invasion of Europe. So the

materialism was not all bad.


2/30

Schaeffer said Christianity should never have considered pre-Christian Greek writings. He said they were not Chris

and were rotten humanistic roots to our faith. He criticized Thomas Aquinas (1250AD) for reconciling Greek

philosophy with Christianity. Schaeffer criticized what he considered the "evolution" of theology. He was also angry

Lutherans, Presbyterians and many other denominations that approached theology this way. Mr. Schaeffer believe

hat traditional theology causes a subordination of the Jewish modes of thought of the Old Testament and gives

prominence of Greco-Roman forms of thought. He says this has paved the way to Secular Humanism. What Mr.

Schaeffer doesn't say is that the Apostles Paul and John both acknowledge the place of Greek philosophy in the p

of God's Church and they are quick to make use of it in the Bible. You can't throw out Greek philosophy without

hrowing away the New Testament. In this respect Mr. Schaeffer is very mistaken.

t is our division and complacency which has caused our present situation. Divided we fall. We need to roll up our

leeves and work together.

The rest of this series of articles

There are parts of Francis Schaeffer's approach which are unfair, unhistorical, and unbiblical. That needs a critical

exploration. In the next few articles we will try to address those issues.

Thanks to Fr. Terry Donahue, Art Sippo, Fr. Camille Jacques and Mark Bonocore for their generous contribution of

deas for this article.


3/30

Francis A. Schaeffer - How Then Should We Live? The Ris

and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

n the Evangelical world, perhaps the greatest force against human secularism is Francis Schaeffer, an orthodox

Presbyterian who died in 1984. In some ways Schaeffer was fantastic because he was calling Evangelicals to get

nvolved in politics (Dominionism). He advocated the protest of abortion, and the active promotion of moral

conservative values. In that respect that his ideas were totally awesome! We love that. His "reform of the Reform" i

awesome. When we look closely at his writings, he is actually asking for a return to a model very similar to the

Catholic Church. Here are some of the things that come to mind that are more "Catholic" in heritage than the

Presbyterian denomination he lived and worked in:

1. Schaeffer wanted Evangelicals to take back art (which is what Catholicism did during the middle ages)

2. He wanted to reinstate moral absolutes

3. He wanted Evangelicals to take back politics (he called this Dominionism, which is what Catholicism did aft

Constantine)

4. He wanted Evangelicals to understand that the full use of the intellect is completely consistent with a life of

faith and that both the intellect and faith will arrive at the same Truth, because Truth is Truth (this is theCatholic exegesis form of theological analysis). In fact the Pope's recent famous speech where he quoted a

14th century Byzantine Emperor who said Mohammed's deeds were "evil and inhuman" was actually about

relationship of Faith and Reason.

When we read Schaeffer's book, "How Then Should We Live?" we were floored because it seemed like such a

Catholic solution to human secularism, yet the book takes a huge swipe at the Catholic Church when it blames us f

ecular humanism. When we read it, it seemed apparent that he was deeply divided.

Schaeffer wrote the book in 1976. Although Mr. Schaeffer's correctly assessed society's ills such as abortion, ramp

ex, etc., his reasons for human secularism were not very accurate. It is clearthat he eventually saw the shortcomin

of his logic. This is evidenced by his reported movement towards the Catholic Church at the end of his life.

Unfortunately, we don't hear about his movement toward conversion in Evangelical circles. Instead he is held up as

con of anti-Catholicism. As a result, that no book has done greater harm to Catholic relations with Evangelicals sin

Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons." Hislop was the author who first accused the Catholic Church of being the Who

of Babylon. He also said anyone who wears a cross has a pagan symbol of the devil around his neck, which is a pr

plain example of the level of scholarship the book displays. Similarly, Mr. Schaeffer accused the Catholic Church o

paganism because it honoured some Aristotle philosophical concepts. He seems to ignore that the Bible itself uses

Greek philosophy, was written in Greek, and the apostles Paul and John both draw on Greek philosophy, in the Bib

There are similarities between Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" and Schaeffer's "How then Should We Live

They are both full of footnotes, dates, and references to give the impression of meticulous research and scholarshi

Mr. Schaeffer's book has many photos to help make his points. They are both radically anti-Catholic, and have

become classics in the Evangelical World. The thing that is striking about both these books is that they fall into piec

he moment they are put under any serious academic scrutiny.

Schaeffer's accusations wi th responses

Mr. Schaeffer's attacks on the Catholic Church (before he began his walk towards the Catholic Church late in life) f

nto a few categories that he repeated frequently in the book "How then should we live?" The themes are:

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.php


4/30

1. Christians should never have let Greek philosophy into the faith.

2. The Church after Constantine is responsible for the introduction of Greek.

3. Aquinas should never have introduced Aristotle or "reason" into theology

4. The materialism of the renaissance Popes is a result of Aquinas' attention to "reason".

5. Humanism in the Renaissance was also because of that.

6. Modern Secular humanism is because of that.

The book tries to tie history up into a nice neat package with a bow, and lay all the blame at the feet of the Catholic

Church. It is part of the reason so many Evangelicals have problems with the Catholic Church. What is clear in a

careful reading of the book is that he actually advocates that Evangelicals approach the Christian faith much in the

ame way that the Catholic Church approaches the faith. The first half of the book slams the Catholics. The book

completely turns on itself in the second half and advocates that Evangelicals do the very things that the book critici

about the Catholic Church in the first half of the book.

Below is a list of quotes found in the book with my short responses and links to further information:

Criticisms of Catholicism

n Francis Schaeffer's book

How Then Can We Live"

My Responses

That it was the Christians that were

able to resist religious mixtures,

yncretism, and the effects of the

weaknesses of cul ture speaks of the

trength of the Christian world view.

This strength rested on God being

nfinite personal God"

pg. 22)

They [earliest Christians] rejected all

orms of syncretism…they allowed

no mixture: all other Gods were seen

as false Gods

pg. 26)

After Constantine …the majori ty of

he people went on in their old ways.

pg. 26)

Greek was part of Christianity from the beginning. The earliest Christian

were the ones who welcomed the Hellenisation of Christianity. Greek

philosophy is in the Bible. Paul quotes Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus

(300 BC) in Acts 16:28. John opens up his Gospel with Greek philosoph

Logos. (Jn 1:1) Paul often talks to the Jews and Greeks in his midst. (Ro

10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11)

The Dogma of the Trinity was defined after Constantine, which is accept

by every Christian denomination. The Bible New Testament was given t

us after that in 397AD. It is incorrect to say that the quality of faith dropp

after Constantine. See also:

• Greek Philosophy in the Bible

• Constantine

•

Paganism

• Timeline of the Catholic Church

• Timeline of the Bible

• The Pope's speech on the Dehellenization of Christianity

Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, so natu

there were some Roman subjects who were Christian by name only and

were not "in the Spirit." However there is no evidence that Christianity lo

ground after Constantine. In fact, the legalization of Christianity allowed

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/downloads/15_09_06_pope.pdfhttp://catholicbridge.com/downloads/15_09_06_pope.pdfhttp://catholicbridge.com/downloads/15_09_06_pope.pdfhttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible.php


5/30

flourish and mature so that it could be "shouted from the rooftops". Ther

are many saints from that time and Christianity spread faster than ever.

August ine (354-430) strongly

emphasized a true biblical

Christianity …Later in the Church

here was an increasing distort ion

away from the biblical teaching…

ncorporating Greek] (pg. 30)

Although the book criticizes the use of Greek philosophy we see that Mr

Schaeffer had an affinity for Augustine who incorporated Greek philosop

in much of his work. Augustine loved the Greek philosophy of Plato and

Aristotle, and true biblical Christianity uses elements of Greek Philosoph

Paul quotes Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus (300 BC) in Acts 16:28. Jo

opens up his Gospel with Greek philosophy Logos. (Jn 1:1) He also failsmention Martin Luther was a strong supporter of Greek philosophy as a

basis for theology.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "[In Augustine] we seem to have fou

united and combined the powerful and penetrating logic of Plato, the de

scientific conceptions of Aristotle, the knowledge and intellectual

suppleness of Origen, the grace and eloquence of Basil and Christendo

Whether we consider him as philosopher, as theologian, or as

exegetist...he still appears admirable the unquestioned Master of all the

centuries." Philip Schaff (op. cit., p. 97) admires above all "such a rare

union of the speculative talent of the Greek and of the practical spirit of t

Latin Church as he alone possessed."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

ncreasingly, the authority of the

church took precedence over their

eaching of the Bible

pg. 32)

There was no Bible in the early Church. Just a bunch of letters and the

Septuagint Old Testament… the early Church was run on the authority o

the bishops and the patriarchs in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The

Catholic Church was given stewardship and authority over the Scripture

was they who decided on what goes and stays. In 397AD they decided

the New Testament that all Churches and all denominations use today.

History of the Bible

Much of Christianity up until the

ixteenth century was either reaction

against or reaffirmation of these

distortions of the original Christian,

biblical teaching

pg. 32)

Again, original Christians had no New testament back then. So naturally

authority didn’t come from the Bible, it came from the bishops (Patriarch

Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) who were given stewardship over Script

And they came together and decided on the Bible. The Bible uses Gree

philosophy. You can't throw away Greek philosophy without throwing ou

the Bible.

Aquinas has already begun in

dif ference to Ar istotle (384-322BC), to

open the door to placing revelation

and human reason on an equal

ooting

pg. 43)

That is a misrepresentation of Aquinas. It is notable that although "Howthen Should we Live" has a bibliography of over 300 books, there is noth

by Aquinas. Nor is there any book in his bibliography by the Early Churc

fathers, who completely support the concept of Greek philosophical

elements in Christianity.

Aquinas' position was simply that the intellect is part of the discernment

process. Pope Benedict has a great speech about that which has now

become famous because it is where he quoted the 14th century Byzanti

emperor who said Mohammed did "evil and human" things. It is here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htmhttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible_pope.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible_pope.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/francis_schaeffer_catholics_greek_philosophy_in_the_bible_pope.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm


6/30

Aquinas thought that the Fall did not

affect man as a whole but only in

part. In his view the will was fallen or

corrupted but the intellect was not

affected. Thus peopled could rely on

heir own human wisdom, and this

meant that people were free to mix

eaching of the Bible with theeachings of non-Christian

philosophers.

pg. 52)

…to Thomas Aquinas the will was

allen after man had revolted but the

mind was not.

pg. 81)

Aquinas never said that the intellect was "unaffected" by original sin. He

simply said that original sin was primarily an act of will so the will was

subject to a greater compromise in the original fall of man. He said the

intellect is greater than the will (not faith) only when taken by itself. But

when the two are compared to their objects, the will is greater.

All of the Jewish prophets were non-Christian philosophers also. Mr.

Schaeffer talks a lot about non Christians before the time of Christ. As

obvious as this seems, everyone was non-Christian before Christ, includ

the Jews. There were no Christians before Christ. There were only a few

Prophets (Jewish and non-Jewish) who had a rough idea about Christ's

coming.

If the Jews were so turned off by the Greeks, it would seem strange that

Greek became the popular language of the Jews. The Jews translated t

Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, with all the nuances of Greek philosophy

On page 133 he says "God is a reasonable God, as the Bible says he w

This is also what Aquinas was saying, "Don't throw out reason!"

…as a result philosophy was

gradually separated f rom revelation –

rom the Bible – and philosophers

began to act in an increasingly

ndependent autonomous manner.

pg. 52)

Actually, this is the exact opposite of what Aquinas did. He incorporated

philosophy into revelation. Again the book shows a lack of understandin

of Aquinas, an understanding that is recognized by most scholars. Aquin

philosophical positions were integral to his faith.

n 1263 Pope Urban IV had forbidden

he study of Aristo tle in the

universit ies. Aquinas managed to

have Aristotle accepted, so the

ancient non-Christian philosophy

was re enthroned.

pg. 52)

It is interesting that the book would rely on the words of a Pope to defen

its position.

Actually, the Papal Bull went out in 1261 and it was primarily put out

because people were attributing to Aristotle things that Aristotle did not

write. And it was causing doctrinal errors among the youth of the Univer

in Paris. What Mr. Schaeffer doesn't say here is that the Pope temporar

forbid the study of * ALL* Physics and Metaphysics. The prohibition just

applied to Paris and it was temporary until they sorted out the problems

Aquinas sorted out the problems. The genius of Aquinas was his ability

purify the truth found in Aristotle's work. Much like someone looking for g

among stones.

More here: http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/aatcc08.htm

Two things …laid the foundation for

what was to follow: fi rst the gradually

awakened cul tural thought and

awakened piety [he thinks this is

bad] of the Middle Ages; and second,

an increasing distortion of the

eaching of the Bible and the early

church. Humanist elements had

entered. For example, the authority of

There is no doubt that at the end of the Middle ages there were abuses.

Every Catholic scholar knows that. However that is distinct from the boo

accusations about the authority of the Church which Mr. Schaeffer came

respect later in life.

The Church did not "take" precedence over the teaching of the Bible. T

Church always had stewardship and authority. We know that sounds lik

strong statement but it is an observable fact from history. The Bible itsel

says that the Church was given the authority by Jesus in Mat 16:18 thou

http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc08.htmhttp://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc08.htmhttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.phphttp://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/aatcc08.htm


7/30

he church took precedence over the

eaching of the Bible; Fallen man was

considered able to return to God by

meriting the merit of Christ; and

here was a mixture of Christian and

ancient non-Christian thought (as

Aquinas’s emphasis on Ar is totle).

This opened the way for people to

hink of themselves as autonomous

and the center of all things.

then he sets Wycliffe and Huss

against that)

pg. 56)

Peter and his successors.

There were some abuses of indulgences, absolutely, trying to raise

money...much like today's Evangelical pastors who say "Dig deep into

those pockets, it will be a blessing to you." Human greed is always arou

The theology of the Church stayed solid as far as Dogma is concerned.

See also Faith vs. Works

Our current Pope, Benedict XVI gave a famous speech in Germany (wh

he quoted about the "evil and human" things of Islam). In this speech hesaid that "In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages w

find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the

Greek ... and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called

intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus

voluntarism ..."

Pope John Paul II also apologized. More about indulgences here.

On one hand Mr. Schaeffer criticizes the Church for not letting people th

for themselves. Then he accuses the Church of paving the way to peop

thinking for themselves.

Martin Luther said "Just me with a Bible is necessary for all understandi

This is more "autonomous" than the Catholic Church of the Middle ages

Prior to this t ime [Renaissance], Mary

was considered very high and holy.

Earlier she was considered so much

above normal people that she was

painted as a symbol. When in the

Renaissance Mary was painted as a

eal person, …but now not only was

he king’s mistress painted as Mary

with all of the holiness removed, but

he meaning, too was being

destroyed.

pg. 71)

Mr. Schaeffer speaks against his own logic. He says the Church

worshipped Mary in the Renaissance, yet he says, Catholics painted he

a real person. He says we degraded her by making her bourgeois in Art

and says we worshipped by making her too Holy in Art.

Huss returned to the teachings of the

Bible and of the early church and

tressed that the Bible is the only

ource of final authority and that

alvation comes only through Christ

and his work.

pg. 80)

The Book's use of the word "returned" here is not correct. Huss picked u

on Wycliffe's propositions. Wycliffe was the first to propose the final

authority of Scripture. It has given birth to over 33,000 denominations w

don't agree on what Scripture is saying but who all claim it is the only

authority...

It is also incorrect to say the early Christians considered the Bible the on

source of authority. They didn't even have a "Bible" . See also:

• Timeline of the Bible

• Are Catholics into the Bible

The Early Church claimed that the Eucharist was the true Body of our Lo

Wycliffe and Huss taught agaiFnst that. Whether you agree that the

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/faith_vs_works.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/indulgences.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/indulgences.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/indulgences.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/bible_catholics.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/bible_catholics.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/bible_catholics.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_came.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/indulgences.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/faith_vs_works.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/pope.php


8/30


9/30

he church as it originally was, with

he authority being the Bib le only...

pg. 82)

New Testament in the Early Church. The early Church put the Eucharist

the centre of the community. More here.

On pg. 113, the book says that the Reformer Calvin only celebrated the

Lord's supper every 3 months. The early Christians had the Eucharist ea

time they met. They believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucha

unlike Calvin. The Reformers also abandoned praying for the dead whic

began with the first Christians.

Photo: Latin writing in the catacomb of Priscilla that says:

"I implore you, brothers, to pray whenever you come here and invoke th

Father and Son in all your prayers so that they might save Agape (the

person in the tomb) forever"

The Reformers were not returning to the "good old days" of Christianity,they were going in a new direction that had never been tried before. For

early Christians, unity was everything and it was obtained through the

Eucharist and the hierarchy. It is 500 years since the Reform and there

no denomination that looks anything like the reformers vision of the Chu

There are currently 33,000 variations.

hey [Reformers] indeed had many

and serious weaknesses, in to regard

o religious and secular

humanism...they did not mixhumanism w ith their position.

pg. 82)

Here he is completely contradicting himself within one paragraph.

..the Bible gives unity to the

universal and the particulars.

pg. 82 theme on pg. 86)

I totally agree and it is exactly the Greek language influence and Greek

philosophical concepts found in Scripture that unites the universals and

particulars. (i.e., Logos)

The individual person, they

Reformers] taught, could come to

God directly by faith through the

nished work of Christ.

pg. 87)

Individualism is one of the defining traits of humanism which is what he

condemns in the book but he praises it when it applies to reformers. And

yet he condemns the Catholics for allowing people to be individuals. (pg

56).

To men and women of the time, these

were images of worship. The men of

he Reformation saw that the Bible

tressed there is only one mediator

between Toe and man, Christ Jesus.

That is a stretch of the truth. Catholics don't worship statues...they were

teaching tools, because people couldn't read...

Statues in Church

That is like saying Evangelicals worship the music that they use in wors

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/eucharist.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/eucharist.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/eucharist.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/statues_in_church.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/statues_in_church.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/statues_in_church.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/eucharist.php


10/30

pg. 88) services today. which is not true.

This rested on the fact that the Bible

gives unity to the universal and the

particulars, and therefore the

particulars have meaning. ...variety

and diversity wi thout chaos. There is

variety yet resolution...

pg. 92)

I totally agree. And it is exactly the Greek language influence and Greek

Philosophical concepts found in Scripture (i.e., Logos) that unites the

universals and the particulars. It is the Augustine and Aquinas influence

scriptural interpretations that make this great unifying factor.

We must of course, remember

Handel ...Handel followed the Bible's

eaching exactly ...

pg. 92)

The book doesn't mention that Handel used to rewrite his soprano parts

his various mistresses... The book is claiming that Protestant artisans

(composers, artists, etc) were more holy than Catholic ones. No reputab

historian would agree with that. Rembrandt was messed up too. Honest

most artists, Catholic or Protestant are messed up in some way... We ca

say that because I'm a composer . He shouldn't do the "our artists are be

than your artists" thing.

Anyone...who reads Martin Luther's

books, can see how his teaching is

o clear and transparent when he

ets for the holy gospel

pg. 97)

Martin Luther left the books of James and Revelation out of his Bible. W

don't think this is "clear" and "transparent" Biblical teaching. He called th

Book of James the "Epistle of Straw."

Salvation didn't come through the

addition of man's works but through

Christ and his work only...

pg. 97)

What happened to "Christ working through me.. " ?

t is not only Christians who can

paint with beauty, nor for that matter

only Christians who can love or who

have creative sti rrings. Even though

he image is now contorted, people

are made in the image of God. This is

who people are, whether or not they

know or acknowledge it. God is the

great Creator, and part of the unique

mannishness of man, as made i9n

God's image, is creativity. Thus man

as man paints, sows creativi ty in

cience and engineering and so on.

Such activity does not require a

pecial impulse from God, and it

does not mean that people are not

alienated from God .

pg. 97)

This comment confuses us because the book has now completely jump

on the other side of the argument. He says that God's work can shine

though in people who don't know him, because God made everything. T

is what he spent 50 pages condemning in the Catholic Church's approa

to pre-Christian philosophers.

Aristotle and other Greek philosophers stumbled on timeless truths abo

the nature of Truth. Even though they did not know that the source of th

wisdom was God, they nevertheless found some Truth that Paul, John a

other apostles understood and used in the Bible.

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/personal_testimony.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/personal_testimony.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/personal_testimony.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/personal_testimony.php


11/30

n 1609 Galileo began to use the

newly invented telescope ...Aristotle

had been mistaken in his

pronouncements about the makeup

of the universe.

pg. 132)

Here the book bounces over to advocate for Humanism. Galileo was a

supreme Humanist. Yet Schaeffer is advocating for Galileo. The reason

that is because in this case Galileo was mostly right. He found the Truth

about the round spinning Earth. Even though he was a Humanist.

The reason Galileo got an inquisition is because his thesis was against

all Christian understanding about the Immovable world spoken about

Scripture. Both Protestant and Catholic theologians interpreted scriptura

references to the world being "immovable" to reject the idea that the wo

is spinning. (i.e., 1 Chronicles 16:30, Judges 50:31, Ecles 1:5, James

1:11a, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5).

It was the Church's love of Scripture that caused them to try to stop the

Humanist Galileo.

It should also be noted that Galileo actually taught that the sun was at th

center of the universe, not just the solar system; later evidence showed

the sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy; it thus would hav

been bad if the Church had given an unqualified endorsement to Galileo

theory, for his specific form of the theory turned out to be false.

Just as Galileo built on Aristotle and found errors, modern science has

found errors in Galileo.

More about Galileo here

These creative stirrings are rooted in

he fact that people are made in the

mage of God, the great Creator ,

whether or not an individual knows

or acknowledges it

pg. 132)

This is a complete turn of 180 degrees. It is saying that we can create g

things without knowing God, which is exactly what Aristotle did. And it is

why Christianity accepted the aspects of Greek philosophy which were t

Mr. Schaeffer is arguing against himself here.

..it is not only a Christian who can

paint beauty or who ha creative

tirrings in the area of science. These

creative stirrings are rooted in the

act that people are made in the

mage of God, the great Creator ,

whether or not an individual knows

or acknowledges it, and even though

he image of God in people is now

contor ted. This creativeness-whether

n are, science, or engineering - is a

part of the unique mannishness of

man as made in the image of God.

pg. 133)

In the second half of his book, after the reformation, it is like a different g

is writing the book.

Here he is saying you don't have to be a card carry Christian to create

beauty or see Truth. Because the Truth and the search for it are written

the hearts of all men.

Based on Schaeffer's own logic in the second half of the book, there is

nothing wrong with Aristotle finding the Truth about some fundamentalthings before Christ, and for us to recognize that. But in the first half of t

book he says that non-Christians couldn't have any Truth.

Non-Chris tian philosophers from the

me of the Greeks ...assumed that

man...can gather enough particulars

I would say they were trying to discover universals, not make them up..

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/galileo.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/galileo.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/galileo.php


12/30

o make his own universals.

pg. 145)

Existentialism...[tries] to find an

answer in something totally

eparated from reason.

pg. 169)

Here he is criticizing Existentialism for its absence of reason. He

advocating for the use of reason, which is exactly what Aquinas was doi

The book's logic has shifted 180 degrees and the last half of the book

argues in favour of the things that the first half of the book argues again

The book shows a man who was very divided over the issues, and he was working his way through them. "How thehould we live" is not very convincing to those with an understanding of history. His inner struggles that led him tow

he Catholic Church, are already evident.

All through history people have tried to soil the Church. Certainly the Church is not perfect, it never was. Judas was

he first bad Christian and there have been many since that time. There are always various Judas's around and it e

o point at bad Catholics and say "That is the cause for all the ills of the world." But history is showing that the

Reformation has brought on a whole nest of other problems. Frances A. Schaeffer realized this as he was

approaching death. He was making very loud criticisms of the Evangelical Church in his last book "The Great

Evangelical Disaster," as he moved towards a conversion to Catholicism.


13/30

Greek Philosophy in the Bible

There is a strong current in the Evangelical Churches to "dehellenize" Christianity. Which means to strip it of its Gre

nfluence and the "reasoned" approach that was incorporated into the faith. Leading this charge in the last century

Francis A. Schaeffer.

t is a mistake to criticize traditional theology that takes into consideration the Greek context into which Christianity

was born. Both Paul and John specifically quote Greek philosophy in Scripture. The New Testament is interweaved

with Greek philosophical concepts (more about that below). It was written in Greek and 80% of the references Jesu

makes to the Old Testament are from the Greek Septuagint translation. To consider the Bible in a vacuum devoid o

Greek philosophy is impossible.

Let's examine Paul's dialogue with the Greek philosophers.

n Athens ...[Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, ...A group of Epicurean

and Stoic [Greek] philosophers began to dispute with him ... brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus where the

aid to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas

our ears, and we want to know what they mean."(Acts 17:18-20)

Here we see the the Bible talking about "the God-fearing Greeks." God is capitalized to make it clear which God th

Bible passage is talking about. The location where he meets the Greeks is important. It was the hub of GreekPhilosophy and is often mentioned in Greek tragedies. These were great thinkers, and they were open to what Pau

had to say. The Bible said he "reasoned" with them. He didn't do spectacular healings like in other regions, he used

his intellect and helped them use their intellect. Intellect is not a bad thing. Notice how the Bible acknowledges the

open and honest searching questions of the Greek Philosophers. So Paul answered them.

."Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at you

objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as

omething unknown I am going to proclaim to you...From one man he made every nation of men, that they should

nhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God

did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each o

of us. (Acts 17:22-28)

Here Paul is honouring their search for Truth and telling them that their search has been completed and purified in

esus. Paul did not say only Jewish people would seek him, he said that all people would seek him. He didn't say

your search was wrong ." He is saying that the "unknown God" that they have sought in their philosophy is the Go

he Bible who is the Creator of everything. Here we see Paul laying down a framework for what Augustine and

Aquinas did hundreds of years later. He is completing and purifying Greek philosophy, he is not telling them to

abandon their philosophy. Certainly, he is displeased that some Greeks had built idols. Certainly the idols were

nadequate and they knew it, that's why in the midst of them they had built an altar TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.

Paul also sees the brilliance in much of their quest, and he is quick to acknowledge when they talk about "AN

UNKNOWN GOD". The Greek philosophers were honestly seeking before the time of Christ and were not guilty of piritual wrongdoing. This was not rebellion, it was honest seeking. They had never been told about the transcende

God, yet they had come to some amazingly accurate conclusions about the nature of God simply by witnessing the

world around them in which God was reflected.

...'for in him we live and move and have our being.'

As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "

Acts 16:28)

Here Paul quotes the Greek poet Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus (300 BC)

Yes, Greek philosophy is found in the Bible!


14/30

Paul quotes the Greek Philosopher Aratus in Titus 1:12. He says "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy glutton

Many Greek philosophers were counter cultural in the best sense of the word and Paul acknowledges that. Socrate

was put to death for not caving into the moral degradation of the day. Aristotle rejected the multi Gods. Plato went

against the moral degradation of his day and spoke about moral absolutes. Paul often talks to the Jews and Greek

his midst together. (Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11)

n his famous speech where he spoke critically about the Muslims, Pope Benedict's says:

The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him:

Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the

ntrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

Why did Christian theology pay attention to Greek Philosophy? Why not just draw everything from God's

people, the Jews?

We must consider the time in history which Jesus came to earth. The Bible says:

.When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son... (Gal 4:4)

esus chose to come to humanity soon after the the peak of Greek philosophy. In Acts 16: 26 Paul says "[God]

determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." This is the historical context into

which Jesus chose to enter the world. We don’t think that it is an accident. Here are a few of the characteristics of t

fullness of time."

• The history of the Jewish people had come to a head

• The philosophy of the Greeks had matured

• The civilization of the Romans had advanced technically and politically


15/30

n this "fullness of time" there were 3 prominent cities; Jerusalem, Athens (Greece), and Rome. From Jerusalem w

have the story of salvation history. We get the Old Testament, we learn about the family of God. In Greece, human

earned to ask the most penetrating questions about the most important issues such as: What is just? Does might

make right? How do we know what something is? How can we know the truth? From Greece we also are provided

with our Christian vocabulary, i.e., Logos (Jn. 1:1). From Rome we get the social structure through which all of thisows into our own time. It is the basis of secular law and even the organization of our Church from its earliest

beginnings with the apostles.

Likewise, science is purified in this context. From Jerusalem we understand that man is created to have dominion o

all the earth, to know and understand the created order. In Greece we find the beginning of science and the

organization of philosophy into various disciplines. From Rome we find the application of that knowledge in public

works for public law, with limits codified in law. With all of these in combination, faith and reason find there

complimenting balance and we become fit citizens of the new Jerusalem.

n this "fullness of time" everything ties together. If Jesus had come earlier simply to the Jewish people without the

context of Rome and Greece, Christianity may have been a failure. All of these conditions (among others) werenecessary for Christianity to succeed.

The New Testament and the Septuagint (Old Testament) were wri tten in Greek

The New Testament of the Bible was written in Greek, the Greek Septuagint had been translated from the Hebrew

ust before the time of Christ. The Greek Old Testament was Jesus' choice when he referred to the Old Testament

Greek was the language of choice for the new Christians. Any linguist will quickly point out that language and the

philosophy behind that language are inseparably linked. It was preciously the richness of the Greek language whic

was infused with a wealth of deep philosophical overtones that made it the language of choice. The Greeks were li

years ahead of the rest of humanity in these matters and this brilliance was a gift from God.


16/30

We should be quick to see God's plan in all of this. It in no way subordinates the Jews who are the original chosen

people of God. In the New Testament we learn for the first time that God has a plan of salvation for all people, he i

not locked into the closed Jewish system. The New Testament would have been a failure if it did not incorporate

Greek concepts. That's why Paul, John and other writers draw upon Greek philosophy in the Bible. Many things in

emerging Christianity would have to be done differently and thought of differently in the New Testament, and part o

hat includes influences from the rich wealth of Greek philosophic concepts that are not well defined in the Jewish

writings. For instance let us consider one of the most famous Scripture verses.

n the beginning was the word (Logos) and the word (Logos) was with God. (John 1:1)

His use of the word Logos in Greek, introduces an explosion of meaning and depth. Any Greek philosopher of the

would have known about the Logos. The Stoics (Greek Philosophers) saw the Logos as the cause which shapes

orders and directs the entire universe and the lives of those who inhabit it. For them, the Logos is the reason for

everything that exists, the ultimate principle imminent in things. John was not at all worried that the word Logos ha

been associated with Pantheistic concepts. He simply claimed it and overcame their concept of the imminence of

God, and fulfilled it with the transcendence of God. In other words, he said "Although God created the box (this

universe), God is outside the box." In Verse 14 when John says "the Logos became flesh" it was amazing. It was a

completion of the Greek Philosophy, not a rejection of it. This laid another piece in the framework for Augustine an

Aquinas who further took up this approach to theology in later centuries.

The Box model

Below is a view of the Ancient Greek view versus the Christian view of Creation. Francis Schaeffer and also most

Catholic theologians would accept these diagrams.

Francis A. Schaeffer would say that the Greeks couldn't come to any Truth about the nature of Creation or of God

because their world view was confined to the box. On the other hand, for 2000 years theologians have said it is

possible to come to some understanding of Truth from within the box because the box was made by God. By looki

at the box you can understand something about its maker. For instance, even if someone doesn't know me (Hugh)


17/30

personally, they can get some understanding about me by listening to the songs I write. The Reformer Martin Luthe

would agree with this.

Schaeffer would say that because the ancient Greeks did not know Christ they could not understand anything abou

he True God. But in 300-500 BC Jews didn't know Christ either. Scripture says:

From one man he made every nation of men .. so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and f

him (Acts 17:22-28)

There has been a desire to seek God within every human being from the dawn of Creation. This includes the Ancie

Greek philosophers. There are many times before Christ where God showed some aspect of the Truth to non-Jews

i.e. Ruth was a Gentile, Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon)

Then Nebuchadnezzar said, "Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego...for no other god can sa

n this way." (Daniel 3:28)

The word theology comes from the Greek word theologou derived from Greek philosophy. John uses it in the title

he Book of Revelation, apokalupsis ioannou tou theologou, "the revelation of John the theoLogos".

t hardy seems like God has a problem with using Greek philosophy as a context for Christianity. Greek philosophy

n Scripture and is part of God's plan for his Church.

Martin Luther, who said:

Next after theology, I give to music the highest place and the greatest honor."

— Martin Luther, quoted in Martin Marty, Martin Luther , 2004, p. 114.

The father of the Reformation, Martin Luther maintained a deep reverence for Augustine his entire life. Francis A.

Schaeffer's criticism of theology is also a criticism of the founder of the Reform of which he speaks so highly. He is

contradicting himself on this. Theology is "faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum)." - Anselm of

Canterbury.

sn't Jesus all about the Heart - Isn't the Intellect Useless?

often hear from Evangelicals that a personal relationship with Jesus as "all about the heart" and has nothing to do

with the intellect and that the Catholic CHurch should never have paid any attention to the usefulness of the intellec

Let us think about the most influential "born again" Christian in history. The Apostle Paul was authentically "born

again" on the road to Damascus. Jesus could have chosen anybody. He chose a supreme intellect. Even secular

cholars would agree that Paul was one of the greatest intellects in the history of mankind.

Paul did not throw out his intellect after his encounter with Jesus. He used it. He went to Athens to dispute with the

Greeks in Greek. He went to Rome and argued with the Romans in Latin as a Roman citizen. He always spoke wit

groups in the context of their socio/political framework. He used his intellect to win souls. He used his supreme

knowledge of the law. We don't believe it was "all about the heart" for him. He used his powers of reasoning to con

pagans and to lay down the foundation of our Faith, God's Holy Word, the Bible.

t is true that Paul let Jesus speak through him. But Jesus chose one of the greatest intellects of all time through w

o speak. God is not at all afraid of the intellect. The Bible is full of powerful demonstrations of how God uses huma

ntellect to win souls. The Catholic Church places value on human reasoning that was given to us by God. God

nvented the intellect. It plays a role in our surrender to God. There are many circumstances where an intellectual

argument is presented to a non-believer. Their intellectual defenses drop and they surrender to Jesus. Paul used

human intellect to help build the kingdom. Let's not throw theological scholarship away. We don't think Paul would

want us to do that, nor does God. The use of reason is a powerful part of the faith.

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic_music/cd_info.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic_music/cd_info.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic_music/cd_info.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic_music/cd_info.php


18/30

Did early Chris tians practice Syncretism?

Well that depends on how you define syncretism. It is interesting that Schaeffer is using a Greek word (Synkretize

t means "combine" and it comes from the federation of Cretan communities. (Kres. Cretos). It infers that the two o

more philosophies or religions are equal. Schaeffer's accusation is that the Catholic Church (which was the only

Church at that time) practiced syncretism with the pagan religions. Martin Luther turned barroom popular pagan so

about love, sex and humanity, into glorious hymns to God. What he did was take the beauty that belonged to God

he claimed it for God.

August ine and Aquinas's purif ication of Greek philosophy

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas held that whatever there was of Truth in the writings of Greek philosophers should

aken from them, as from "unjust possessors", and adapted to the teaching of the true religion (Summa I:84:5). The

genius was the ability to pick out the Truth found in Aristotle's writings, like sifting for gold, and throw away the

garbage.

Nothing that Augustine and Aquinas gleaned from Aristotle is at odds with Scripture. It illuminated it in the Tradition

he Apostles John and Paul who used Greek philosophy.

n 397AD when the books of the New Testament were being decided upon, Augustine had a voice those decisions

which all Christians accept today. These guys were totally into the Bible. Some Evangelical writers accuse Augusti

of mixing neo-Platonism which was a deviation from ancient Christianity, with his theology. But these criticisms to nurvive a reading of his texts.

The Humanists of the Renaissance rejected Aquinas. We have trouble understanding how Mr. Schaeffer can say

Aquinas created humanism.

As an analogy we might compare the Greek philosophers discovery of universal truths to the discovery of the Gran

Canyon. If the Grand Canyon was discovered by a non-Christian we would not say the Grand Canyon is not of God

would still be a beautiful creation of God even if it was discovered by a non-Christian.

Another analogy would be that a 12 year old Muslim boy discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. We don’t say, “

Dead Sea Scrolls are Islamic writings because a Muslim found them.” That would be ridiculous logic. Likewise theejection of all Greek philosophy because non Christians stumbled on these Truths before the time of Christ would

idiculous. A Truth can only be discovered once and these Truths happened to be discovered by Greeks before the

me of Christ. The only alternative would be to plagiarize the concepts and say they were originally Christian, whic

would be lying. God revealed aspects of himself before the time of Christ. This is not unbiblical. He had done it bef

with Ruth and also Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:28)

Aristotle caught the drift. Good for him. Let’s not throw him out just because he hadn’t met Christ. It was no fault of

hat he didn't know Christ. Jesus had not yet been born. The same could be said about the Jewish people.

Naturally, there are limits of philosophy because it lacks the transcendent characteristics of God and of course it is

nformed by a knowledge of Christ because it predates him. If the Greek philosophers are considered in isolation,

outside of the context of the Church's filtering through the message of Christ’s salvation, then Schaeffer would be r

n his criticism.

Secular Humanists came along centuries later. They picked up Greek writings and mixed the garbage back in with

gems of Truth. Then they went off the deep end into full blown paganism, materialism, and rejection of Jesus. In th

Renaissance humanists disdained Aquinas.

Where Mr. Schaeffer at odds with his own words, is when he says that nothing good could come from Greek

philosophers because they didn’t know Jesus. This is contrary to his own words that Plato discovered the “Truth” th

morals cannot exist without absolutes. Therefore Schaeffer acknowledges that something good did come from

hese philosophers.


19/30

n ancient Greece people got married. They did this before Christ existed. But we wouldn't say let's abolish marriag

because it was practiced by ancient Greece. Of course not. What we do is we claim it. That is what Jesus did.

Marriage is a Truth from God even though it predates Christianity. The same is true about some fundamentals of

Greek philosophy.

found a great article by The Family Research Council in the US, which is a non-denominational conservative think

ank. Here is an excerpt:

One noteworthy difference between the two works (Francis Schaeffer and Russell Kirk) is their divergent assessme

of specific episodes in the history of the West. Their judgments about the Middle Ages and the Reformation differ

ince Schaeffer was Presbyterian and Kirk was a Roman Catholic-leaning defender of religion until the later years

his life, when he entered the Catholic Church. One of the points on which Schaeffer hammered away throughout h

writings was the unfortunate separation of nature and grace in Thomas Aquinas's thought, a point that has caused

ome to question Schaeffer's understanding of Aquinas. A dominant theme in Schaeffer's argument was the rise of

human autonomy in the West and its destructive consequences for philosophy, art, and social order. He believed th

Aquinas' formulation of the difference between nature and grace tended to make particular things autonomous and

ose their reference to God, a relationship that alone could supply those particulars with meaning. Schaeffer believe

hat Renaissance humanism and, later, the Enlightenment, did far more to sever the connections between human

ourishing and divine purpose. Even so, he argued that Aquinas planted the seeds of secular humanism's stress u

man's autonomy, which inevitably led to licentiousness and worse. Conversely, the Reformation recovered a true

perspective on the philosophical problem of the one and the many and placed human autonomy in its proper conteSchaeffer wrote:

As the Reformation returned to biblical teaching, it gained two riches at once: It had no particulars-versus-universa

or meaning) problem, and yet at the same time science and art were set free to operate upon the basis of that whi

God had set forth in Scripture. The Christianity of the Reformation, therefore, stood in rich contrast to the basic

weakness and final poverty of the humanism which existed in that day and the humanism which has existed since.

Kirk's judgment of medieval philosophy and the Reformation differed from Schaeffer's in part because his concerns

were, as the title to his book indicated, with social order in America. Unlike Schaeffer, who was trying to account fo

he breakdown of Christian culture, Kirk was attempting to lay claim to various developments in the West that would

vindicate American political ideals and inspire their maintenance and defense. Even so, Kirk's judgments make for vely contrast to Schaeffer's. For instance, unlike Schaeffer, who saw Aquinas introducing an unhealthy dichotomy

Christian reflection on the meaning of things, Kirk asserted that, for Aquinas, "There was no wall of separation

between theology and philosophy: those studies differed merely in method."[14] Kirk said that Aquinas "perceived t

he universe was ordered by divine wisdom and love," thus supplying the created order with regularity and stability

For Kirk, the real villain of medieval philosophy was William of Occam, who divorced philosophy from theology. Wh

Kirk turned to the Reformation, his interests in social (as opposed to philosophical) questions are apparent. He

highlighted the Protestant character, which encouraged self-reliance and "godly endeavor in the secular realm"[16]

well as the Reformation's tendency toward democracy. These features of Protestantism led Kirk to speculate on its

particular contribution to American political order, asking whether the Protestant spirit in fact "created" American

civilization. He hypothesized that a set of Irish-Catholic colonies might have also produced similar results, though

lower to develop the economy and without the pronounced republican politics of New England's Protestants. Still,

ocial circumstances of the New World, combined with a Christian--as opposed to a Protestant--spirit helped

contribute to America's political and cultural order.

2. Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Old

Tappan, N.J.: F. H. Revell, Co., 1976) 19.

3. Ibid., 86.

4. Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (1974; Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2003) 211.

5. Ibid., 207.


20/30

6. Ibid., 236.

Plato

t should be noted that Catholic theologians would agree with Francis Schaeffer's criticisms of Plato. Catholics wou

agree that dualism (body bad, spirit good) is not a Christian ideal. However, Plato was right about some things and

Frances Schaeffer acknowledges that in DEATH IN THE CITY.

They [The Jews the time of Jeremiah] turned to false gods, but at least they still knew something was there. In aimilar way the Greeks built their culture. Of course their gods were inadequate, so that, for example, Plato never

ound what to do with his absolutes because his gods were not big enough. Plato was entirely right when he hel

hat unless you have absolutes, morals do not exist. Here is the complete answer to Plato's dilemma; he spent

me trying to find a place to root his absolutes, but he was never able to do so because his gods were not big enou

And the Greek writers did not know what to do with the Fates because the gods were not great enough always to

control them. But at least they knew something was there. It is only our foolish generation that lives in a universe

which is purely material, everything being reduced to mass, energy and motion.”)

Plato only saw the partial Truth, but what he saw was valuable because he said that Truth is absolute, which was

different from his pagan peers. Plato said that our life was like being in a cave and seeing a shadow on the wall

Theory of Forms). This world is a shadow of something greater. And naturally, because Christ was not born yet, Pdid not know what the “something greater” was.

However, Plato has little to contribute to Catholicism, and Augustine moved away from Platonic influences in his la

fe. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm) Plato's main contribution was that he spawned Aristotle who d

have quite a bit to contribute, through the discerning spirits of Augustine and Aquinas.

Aris totle

Aristotle's huge contribution to philosophy was induct ive reasoning, observing as many examples as possible and

hen working out the underlying principles. Aristotle was the first major thinker to base his thought and science enti

on the idea that everything that moves or changes is caused to move or change by some other thing. The

mplications of this are huge in the realm of God. Therefore, the big bang theory would not have worked for Aristotl

unless it was caused by something. We Christians know what that cause of creation was -it was God.

Aristotle integrated the spiritual and physical realms much better than Plato. Augustine and Aquinas and looked to

Aristotle rather than Plato for the bulk of their examination of Greek philosophy. Aristotle had an astonishingly acut

concept of God, given that he was

t should also be mentioned that Aristotle rejected all pagan Gods and looked at Truth simply by what he observed

s an unfair association to link Aristotle to modern materialism and Mr. Schaeffer acknowledges that above in this

quote where he says it is only our generation that lives in a universe which is purely material. His philosophy were

based on simply observable facts. Since all of the facts of the world were created by God, it is simply an examinati

of God's handiwork, as manifested in the world and human relations. This is not a bad departure point for Philosop

God created everything, therefore everything in creation is a reflection of him and reveals something abou

his nature. Aristotle observed that.

Here is part of the summary of Lesson 2 of the Truth Project, a Focus on the Family production.

Philosophy, according to Dr. R. C. Sproul, is "a scientific quest to discover ultimate reality." This would seem to

ndicate that philosophical ideas about Truth are closely aligned with the biblical definition given in Lesson 1: Truth

eality. In this connection, it's worth noting that the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary included the following


21/30

affirmation: "true religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle." Significantly, Webster's

original definition of the word also asserted that philosophy aims "to enlarge our understanding of God."

This is right on. Truth cannot be inconsistent with God. Aristotle was not about materialism which is the pursuit of

money, physical pleasure and wealth. He was about looking at the physical world as manifestation of Truth. Mr.

Schaeffer says “only our foolish generation that lives in a universe which is purely material…” We would say this is

evidence that deep down Schaeffer knew that Aristotle’s practical approach to philosophy which approached the

absolute by looking at the material world was not the same as modern day people chasing the material things. On

hand Schaeffer criticized Plato for his disdain of the material world and on the other hand he criticized Aristotle for

observance of the material world.

As for Socrates, he was executed by the state because he would not cave into their moral depravity. Not a bad

example for a non-Christian.

n many respects Francis Schaeffer's "Reform of the Reformation" is a return to a Catholic approach

1. He wanted to reinstate moral absolutes (which he acknowledges to be articulated by Plato)



Constantine)


faith and that both the intellect and faith will arrive at the same Truth, because Truth is Truth. (this is the

Catholic exegesis form of theological analysis)

So naturally we are in favour of these proposed reforms to the Reform. But where we differ from Mr. Schaeffer is th

we don't think the Catholic Church is to blame for the problem of Secular Humanism.

Conclusion

n summary, we say to Evangelicals, by all means listen to Schaeffer's call to action, and join us in our assertion th

morals are absolute values that are defined by God and articulated in the Holy Bible. Join us and let’s get involved politics together. Evangelicals and faithful Catholics alike voted against John Kerry who wanted to gut marriage and

egalize human cloning experimentation. Join us in our fight against abortion and euthanasia.

Let’s fight together against secular humanism and stop pointing fingers at each other as to its roots. I say "join us in

aking back art into the Christian realm." And we also say let us embrace together the roots of Christian theology

which are found in the apostle John's writings in the book of Revelation, which was embraced by the earliest

Christians and which was embraced by the Protestant and reformers and Catholics alike, who unanimously revere

Augustine and Aquinas as the greatest pillars in Christian thought. If anything has laid a foundation for the current

of Human Secularism, it is the lack of unity and resolve found among Christians of all denominations to work togeth

n the name of Christ. So let's come together and fight this thing.


22/30

The Middle Ages and the Renaissance

From an artistic and cultural position the Renaissance was a triumph. However, from a spiritual and moral perspec

which is really the only thing that matters in the eyes of God, it was a total disaster. Francis Schaeffer was right tha

he Renaissance was a mess and that there were tons of problems with Christianity during that time. Catholics adm

t. It fueled the Reformation. There were some bad Popes. Thankfully, no doctrinal changes were made by bad Pop

God kept them quiet on doctrine.

Francis A. Schaeffer was wrong when he said that humanism is a result of the Church's acceptance of Aquinas. Th

Renaissance movement disdained Aquinas. Aquinas's theology didn't facilitate the Renaissance. Leaders of the

Renaissance ignored Aquinas' purification of Aristotle. They went back to the Greek philosophy and took off in a

completely different direction. A non-Christian direction.

Pope Benedict said:

n all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this

ynthesis between the Greek ... and ... Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine an

Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can

only know God's voluntas ordinata.

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1905 says this about the Renaissance:

But the Renaissance had indulged its "pride of state, of knowledge, and of system" with disastrous consequences t

our Christian inheritance. It trampled on the Middle Ages and failed to understand that in them which was truly orig

The Latin of Cicero which urban VIII cultivated, the metres of Horace, did grievous wrong to the prose and verse of

church offices, so far as they were altered. The showy architecture now designed, though sometimes magnificent,

not inspired by religion; before long it sank to the rococo and the grotesque; and it filled the churches with pagan

monuments to disedifying celebrities. In painting we descend from the heaven of Fra Angelico to the "corregiosity"

Corregio, may, lower still, for Venus too often masquerades as the Madonna. Christian art became a thing of the p

when the Gothic cathedral was looked upon as barbarous even by such champions of the Faith as Bossuet and

Fenelon. Never did a poet inspired by Renaissance models...rise to the sublimity of the "Dies Irae" .... the

Renaissance... was not large or liberal enough to absorb the Middle Ages. Hence its failure at the beginning as aphilosophic movement, its lack of the deepest human motives, its superficiality and its pedantries; hence, afterward

ts fall into the commonplace, and the extinction of art in vulgarity, of literature in empty rhetoric. Hence, finally, the

need of a French Revolution to teach it that life was something more serious than a "Carneval de Venise", and of

Romanticism to discover, among the ruined choirs and in the neglected shrines which men had scornfully passed b

okens of that mighty medieval genius,... misunderstanding of which was the folly, and the spoiling of its achieveme

he crime, that we must charge upon the Renaissance in the day of its power. "It remained for a later age", says on

who glorified it, "to conceive the true method of effecting a scientific reconciliation of Christian sentiment with the

magery, the legends, the theories about the world, of pagan poetry and philosophy" (Pater, "Renaissance", 49). No

ess did it become the task of Goethe, Scott, Chateaubriand, Ruskin, of Friedrich Schlegel and the best German

critics, to show that European culture, divorced from the Middle Ages, would have been a pale reflection of deadantiquity.

But there were some bright lights. Wikipedia says:

The scholarship of Erasmus, given to the world in a lively Latin, was universal and often profound. It was also hone

Christian; to make Holy Scripture known and understood was the supreme purpose he kept in view. And thus the

prince of humanists" could remain Catholic, while looking for a moral restoration, during the whirlwind of Luther's

evolt. In him the Renaissance had cast away its paganism ...

St. Ignatius, who began his order in Paris, who walked the same streets with Erasmus, Calvin, and Rabelais, did th

most astonishing feat recorded in modern history. He reformed the Church ... when the papacy sunk to its lowest e


23/30

Another consideration is that Islam was coming in strong against Christian Europe. The Turks were taking over

everything in sight. Most secular historians would say that the largest factor in the arrest of Islam's encroachment o

Europe was Europe's rapid development of culture, industrialization, and materialism. Which coincidentally, was th

esult of decadent humanism. Of course the Renaissance was an affront to Christianity, but it was a greater affront

he Turks, which it stopped dead in its tracks. God was able to use evil of the Renaissance to arrest a greater evil.

The Jesuits were also a bright light during that time. But they could not stave off the punishments that would inevita

all upon the Renaissance movement which had taken our Lord and Saviour for granted. In Italy, the Renaissance

ended in 1527 with the sack of Rome by the Germans. Cardinal Cajetan said "it was a just judgment on the Roman

The pagan Renaissance fell, stricken to death. In France, the Renaissance ended with the French Revolution, andGermany it ended with the Reformation.

There was a long period of strife, peasant wars and hardship which followed for both Catholics and Reformers.

Erasmus was a key humanist who had a great influence on Martin Luther. They were in close contact for many yea

until Erasmus refused to join the Reform. In some respects Erasmus was the father of the reform even though he

emained a Catholic. He saw the need for reform. In fact all holy people of the period saw a need for reform.

Unfortunately, we had a string of lousy Popes and they dropped the ball.

Bad Popes

Historians would say there have been about 12 morally corrupt Popes out of 266 Popes that start from the time of

Christ. Probably the worst Pope was Alexander VI (1492-1503). He had several illegitimate children before and du

his reign as Pope. He was into bribery, deceit, debauchery and anything else you could imagine. This is right when

Martin Luther was on the scene. Pope Innocent VII (1484-1492) and Pope Leo X (1513-1521) were from the Borgia

and Medici families which were kind of like the Sopranos of the middle ages. These three Popes contributed

ignificantly to the unrest that led to the Reformation. Nicholas V didn't help with his lavishness. Paul II and Sixtus

were also not great.

Erasmus, the best known humanist in his tory, was a key influence on Luther's Reform

t’s a bummer that Pope Alexander VI was being a jerk right when he should have been listening to Erasmus and

eforming the Church. This lack of attention to Erasmus contributed hugely to the Protestant Reformation. Also the

Black Plague had wiped out most of the good priests and the quality of priests dropped. There was the schism whe

he Pope moved to Avignon France for most of the 1300's. There was the anti Pope and a few other things made t

me ripe for an explosion. However, during that time there were some fantastic Catholic Saints like Catherine of

Sienna who told the Pope to leave France and return to Rome...and he did!

Some will point to the bad Popes as proof that God did not institute the Papacy with Peter. The Catholic Church cla

hat its teaching is infallible, but it does not claim that its people are not indefectible. Even Jesus chose a bad

disciple, Judas. We don't say "Hey Jesus can't be the Saviour, he had a bad disciple." Ten of the disciples desertedhim. What is really amazing regarding the bad Popes is that they stayed silent of issues of faith and morals. They

could have defined all kinds of crazy doctrines in the name of their teaching authority, but they didn't. Catholics thin

his is a testimony in favor of the Papacy. These bad Popes did not define any doctrines. Catholics think this is part

God's infallibility promise. Not only will God direct Popes in their teaching, but He'll also shut them up about dumb

heretical) teaching too. Catholics believe God protected his Church during those periods when there were bad Pop

We believe He meant what He said:

.you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I wil

give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whateve

you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mat 16:18)


24/30

t should be noted that 78 Popes are Canonized Saints and 10 more are beatified, which means they were awesom

Popes. Certainly, Catholicism had its share of humanists who went too far. But this is true of any denomination.

Protestant countries after the Reformation had just as many humanists who went too far.

The Catholic Church has cleaned up its act tremendously between the Reformation and now. We still have a long w

o go. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict said "the Church of the future may very well be quite a lot smaller, a

more faithful." I'm OK with that.

Music of the Middle Ages

An Evangelical friend of mine said that Catholic music of the Renaissance was about nature and Humanism. He ci

he Catholic Vivaldi's Four Seasons. He said it was not at all as holy as Bach who was Lutheran. Catholics do not

count Vivaldi as a religious composer. His "Four Seasons" was a secular work, and so to pit Vivaldi against Bach is

not really fair. The Catholic Church always produced great liturgical music (on par with Bach) which communicated

Truths of the Apostolic Faith. The medieval rites of the Catholic Church show this. Compare Bach to Schubert and

other Catholic composers of his time. All drew from the same Baroque tradition and, if anything, Bach (though a

Lutheran) mirrored Catholic forms ...which is why several of his patrons who were Calvinists refused to use Bach fo

church services, claiming that his music was "too Catholic."

Not all of the Humanism of the Middle Ages was bad

There were many demonstrations of holiness and greatness in Art during the middle ages. (Michelangelo's Pieta, D

Vinci's Last Supper, Mozart's Requiem etc.) It is true that these people were often times not into the life of Faith bu

s pretty hard to deny the God given inspiration found in these classic and Godly works. All artists are a bit messed

Catholic, Protestants and even me.

Petrarch (1300's AD) and others are a demonstration that music, art and poetry that glorifies God can also revere h

creation. As long as it worships the Creator and not the Creator.

Secular Humanism worships creation, not the Creator

The Devil always mocks holiness.

The devil always mocks purity. Secular humanism distorts a true reverence for nature. It is kind of the same way th

ame sex marriage mocks and distorts the beauty of a marriage between man and woman. But we should not abo

God's institution of marriage just because the devil is mocking it. If we did we would be empowering the devil. Neith

hould we abolish the truths from God that were revealed to ancient Greece before the time of Jesus. The cliché is

don't throw the baby out with the bath water" and This is what Francis Schaeffer did when he proposed an historic

witch hunt for Christians who love nature.

Schaeffer criticizes the post Reform world and non-Catholic Christians just as much as he criticizes early Catholics

obviously the Reform did not solve the problem. Perhaps, because it was not addressing the right problem.

The Reform's contribution to humanism

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al were in many ways children of medieval humanism. They liberalized divorce and

emarriage, which had been very strict in Catholicism. They shunned the Catholic Church which also meant the

ejection of learning and so philosophy was eclipsed for 200 years before they realized that they were losing groun

he secularist pagans of the Renaissance. Then they developed Protestant scholasticism to revive the intellectual l

t can be said that Protestant desire to read original texts in the original languages (because all the Catholic

accumulated intervening learning of the past was considered to be corruption) actually laid the foundation of the

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/burning_times_inquisition_witches.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/burning_times_inquisition_witches.phphttp://catholicbridge.com/catholic/burning_times_inquisition_witches.php


25/30

evival of paganism in the Renaissance. Some Catholic theologians have said that Luther hatched the egg that

Erasmus laid and the basilisk Voltaire crawled out. The Reformers created a climate in which all religion was perso

and only the state represented the community. The King or Prince became the supreme authority in whatever "chu

tructure survived, but even that became oppressive so in many places, Protestants became independent of the "s

eligion." Secular values replaced religious ones in the public life and God was banished from public square which

o the "separation of Church and State" which both Catholics and Protestants understand to be a disaster. To comb

hese problems Francis Schaeffer is calling for "a reform of the Reform."

The Reformation did not escape many of the same kinds of corruptions that it was accusing Catholic courts of

practicing. Martin Luther was disgusted with the conduct of many of fellow Protestants who had authority. Churchhistorian John Laux writes:

.in his own Wittenberg, where Protestant Princes confiscated the wealthiest bishopbrics and monasteries for their

own use…while the preachers often suffered the direst want. Irreligiousness, immortality and vices of all sorts

ourished...

n a 1545 letter to his wife Martin Luther writes about the Reform...

Let us get out of this Sodom. I prefer to wander about homeless and to beg my bread from door to door than to poi

my poor last days by the spectacle of all these disorders. We experience it daily that the people are seven times w

oday than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intempera

more dishonest... [John Laux, CHURCH HISTORY, p.431]

found a great article by The Family Research Council in the US, which is a non-denominational conservative think

ank. Here is an excerpt:

Russel Kirk]... highlighted the Protestant character, which encouraged self-reliance and "godly endeavor in the

ecular realm"[16] as well as the Reformation's tendency toward democracy. These features of Protestantism led K

o speculate on its particular contribution to American political order, asking whether the Protestant spirit in fact

created" American [secular] civilization.

6. Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (1974; Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2003) 236.

n many respects Francis Schaeffer's " Reform of the Reformation" is a return to a Catholic approach

1. He wanted to reinstate moral absolutes (which he acknowledges to be articulated by Greek Philosophy)



Constantine)


faith and that both the intellect and faith will arrive at the same Truth, because Truth is Truth. (this is the

Catholic exege

Documents

Did Catholic Theology Cause Secular Humanism