Understanding vicarius filii dei (5) Using Peter Kreeft's comparison of traditionalism and progressivism

 

Koot van Wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint Lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

24 June 2011

 

In a very insightful chapter by Peter Kreeft, "Progressivism: The Snobbery of Chronology" (September 10, 2010), he outlined the problems between traditionalism and progressivism. Both are prejudices and both have their problems. Exposing the errors of the one will not necessarily set up the justification of the other. In the Seventh-day Adventist church, the issue of vicarius filii dei is sometimes on a small scale irresponsibly dealt with, without looking properly at the total facts. What is needed in the Adventist church is a similar conference like Glazier View on Des Ford, to clear up this matter. Neither the previous General Conference President and as of date, the present new one, made any move to set before the people the data as brought forth by the team who worked together with Edwin de Kock (2010) on this matter. And as they are keeping quiet in higher administrative circles and remaining inactive, destructive forces under the umbrella of calling the old view of vicarius filii dei = 666 as that of the "traditionalists" automatically classify themselves thus as the progressives. Peter Kreeft displays the fallacy of such an endeavor very ably. He is a catholic who was converted from Calvinism, and for a greater part of his theories it is difficult to find resonance. In this chapter of his, we are thinking in the same pattern.

 

Summarizing Peter Kreeft comparing Traditionalism with Progressivism

 

prejudice of                                                                      prejudice of

traditionalism                                                                    progressivism

truth by argument                                                              truth by the clock

new = false                                                                       old = insult

true = old                                                                          new = fascinating

old = affection                                                                   old = insult

new = suspicion                                                                new = elitism

growing is not happier, holier or wiser                                growing is smarter

modern knowledge is not modern wisdom                           progress in knowledge

more suicides

happy with status quo

Adam and Eve                                                                   Devil

other Angels                                                                     Lucifer

pretend we heard all points of view, then do exactly as we wish

evolution necessary

progress is regress in wisdom, happiness and virtue          progress is hope

focus on wisdom and happiness                                        focus on cleverness and

 efficiency

"chronological snobbery"

revelation affirmed                                                           revelation corrected,     

                                                                                      edited

 

Principles of discernment by Peter Kreeft (2010)

1. intellectual errors come in pairs

2. addict lives in denial

3. partly true premise leads to a deceptive idea

4. exposure of neither is not justification of the other

5. substitution of calendars for arguments proceed from irrationality and fosters irrationality (Kreeft 2010)

 

Solution:

1. Return to the canonical biblical norm instead of relativism.

2. In humility acknowledge God and His revelation as ultimate authority, surrender self and own opinions to be aligned by the Holy Spirit through faith to the text instead of rewriting and re-editing the text to fit presentism.

3. Do not let the eagerness of the craving for change make one throw out valuable data supporting the inner core of ideas of the biblical doctrines or the biblical text.

4. Scholars, evangelists, preachers, teachers should not let a crave for popularity make them announce change and throw out traditional concepts on partly true premises, which is irrational to do, and then when they are shown to have partly true premises, refuse to correct themselves even if it means moving back to the traditional concept.

5. Froom and Bacchiocchi made a conclusion on the basis of a partly true premise of Andreas Helwig in 1600 and 1612 but they did not see the clarity of Helwig statement in 1630 and especially Bacchiocchi refused to be corrected until his death of this partly true premise, a situation that is indeed irrational. There are even modern SDA teachers and scholars who choose to follow Bacchiocchi on the vicarius filii dei comments, despite De Kock's 2010 exposure of Froom and Bacchiocchi, and this can be seen as irrational in an age of progressivism. "Pretending to have heard all the points of view, they still do exactly as they wish".

 

Source:

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Progressivism-The-Snobbery-of-Chronology.html

 

traditionalism versus progressivism by peter kreeft 2010.jpg