I don’t know if I’d heard of him before. I may have seen his name but didn’t follow it up. Had I, I would have saved myself years of frustration. R. C. Sproul‘s presentation is absolutely riveting in the truest sense of that word. His message seared on my mind, drilling through years of academic gobbledygook. His ability to trace the lineage of thought from 18th century thought to modern liberalism in a speech like this is stunning. Here is what he said with regard to skepticism starting with Kant running all the way up to today’s morally bankrupt Cultural Marxism and postmodernism.
17:55-24:35. “If God does not exist, then anything is permissible” Fyodor Dostoevsky once said. Kant’s like that evolutionary tree turned upside down. After Kant a whole host of moral philosophies were spawned: including Marxism, including humanism (1400-1650), including logical positivism (1936 with A. J. Ayer’s book, Language, Truth, and Logic), including existentialism (19th century), including relativism (1962, Thomas Kuhn), including pluralism, including secularism. These have their distinct characteristic that differentiates one from the rest. But they all had one thing in common: skepticism with respect to the supernatural . . . and to God. All of them shared a common premise of phenomenology that it was manifest ultimately in materialistic naturalism.
If you take God out of the equation, there is no way to come to ultimate reality. You must be satisfied with the here and now. You can still speak of having truths but no truth. Purposes but no purpose. Existences but no essence. Humans but no humanity. What emerged was a form of relativism, which in every period of skepticism in the history of theoretical thought in the west, skepticism has led to relativism and its twin sister, pluralism. Because if there’s no absolute truth and all truth is relative, then all truths are equally valid or invalid. And so pluralism is that philosophy that says there is no singular truth as we’ve heard, but plural truth. And no one has the right to claim exclusive truth. To claim exclusivity in truth is to be guilty of the worst politically incorrect sin—that of narrow mindedness. Rather the supreme virtue of relativism and pluralism is broad mindedness. Now that idea has not only captured the university and the scientific community, it has also in many regards captured the church. People describe themselves as broadly evangelical. What does that mean? Two possible definitions for the concept of a broad evangelical. One is an evangelical is over weight. The other definition for broadly evangelical, is an oxymoron for describing a pretend Christian. For you if you are a Christian, think and believe as a Christian you are a narrow thinking person. By today’s culture, that is a vice. But by the measurement of the incarnation of truth and the perfect son of God is a virtue.
Recounts the life and work of a coal miner’s son who became a corporate executive and an advocate of positive labor-management relations by developing Christian trust and responsiveness among workers and executives.
Gary North adds that
What impressed me about this story is the fact that Alderson designed and then implemented a program of applied Christianity in the workplace. It was not a form of evangelism to join a specific church. It was unquestionably a practical application of fundamental principles of morality that are taught by Christianity. This is why R. C. Sproul was the ideal theologian to write the book.
Here is a preview to the full-length documentary on
Here are R. C. Sproul’s video presenations at Youtube that you may want to share.
I appreciated a few remarks at Dr. North’s forum, one of which reads
R.C. Sproul was the man the Holy Spirit used to get me out of the ranks of hand-waver rapture freaks into actual Christianity backed up by impeccable scholarship.
It’s the “impeccable scholarship” that struck me, for at least in his presentation above I have never heard such clear scholarship putting Christianity in context of secular humanism. It was absolutely brilliant. The same commentator adds
For me, R.C. Sproul, the Christian philosopher, was also the path to Greg Bahnsen who was the path to discovering Christian Reconstructionism aka Theonomy in Bahnsen’s terminology which was the path to Rushdoony, North, Gentry, et al., and inadvertently to the significance of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Albert Nock, et al.
I never would have made that connection. So . . . I am grateful for his comments.