Pros and Cons of Richard Mouw?
- Thread starter Stope
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Personally, he is a gracious man. He illustrates the tensions in Kuyper. He has weakened the antithesis and sees more room for common grace in the civil realm. That proposal can't work in today's America, given the lack of an accepted discourse. Each side believes the other is incapable of truth. Antifa, for example, wants all of us dead. I, for example, believe they are a terror front.
Anglicanorthodoxy
Puritan Board Freshman
I actually listened to a debate a while back between Dr. Mouw and Rev. David Engelsma on Common Grace. Didn't Mouw recently say that Mormons were only heterodox on a few things?
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy
Pretty concerning
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy
Pretty concerning
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Yes. That's a huge read flag. I hate to criticize Mouw publicly because he is such a gracious gentleman, but he represents the "common grace" side of Kuyper, which downgrade you can see at Calvin College.
I went to the debate between Prof. Mouw and Prof. Engelsma. I was impressed by how gracious Dr. Mouw was in that debate. Dr. Mouw seemed to understand historically that Hoeksema and Danhof were not heterodox; and were wrongly deposed after the CRC Synod of 1924.
As Jacob indicated, Dr. Mouw has a radical understanding of common grace, particularly in the civic arena.
As Jacob indicated, Dr. Mouw has a radical understanding of common grace, particularly in the civic arena.
Stope
Puritan Board Sophomore
Indeed he did say that, and indeed he hos correct. Mouw (he is the one actually somehow, by a miracle, got Ravi Z to speak at their assemblies!) is one of the few who actually has an audience with LDS community and is written off (whereas the rest just see us coming at them with pitchforks). He is gracious and he actually KNOWS what they believe. Mouw is trying to re-frame the Christian Mormon dialogue, and I for one appreciate it. In fact, this very article listed actually opened doors for me to engage with at least 3 hardcore Mormons. He isnt watering anything down, hes not seeker sensitive in the sense that he changes the Gospel, but in a way that he changes the way we engage.
Stope
Puritan Board Sophomore
What is this?
Common Grace is sometimes appealed to, especially at Calvin College, as a cover for worldliness, liberalism, and departure from reformed orthodoxy.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I meant there is a STRONG liberalizing streak at Calvin College. James KA Smith, while a scholar of some repute, is the poster boy for NPR's apologetics program (sort of). During last year's fiasco when Richard Swinburne upheld biblical morality, several Calvin College profs made vile (think p0rnographic) remarks denigrating him.
Stope
Puritan Board Sophomore
That is a bummer. I fully believe you, but do you have any examples so I can kind of see how this is playing out?
Sorry, you are very plugged in and I pretty much never understand your references so thanks for your patience:
From what I have read James AK Smith shares some brilliant insight and commends die to self. Are you saying that he is fast and loose with a pious life?
And what do you mean "NPRs apologetics program" and what is the connection with Smith?
Lastly, when you Richard Swinburne was upholding biblical morality and several Calvin profs were hating on Him, what was he saying specifically that caused the rage? Also, did not Smith defend him?
Finally, Is not John Bolt a sound brother (I think he is at Calvin)?
Mormons are off totally on all major areas of doctrine.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Presumably Smith is a pious guy. I have no reason to believe otherwise. But if he is chillin with some brothers on faculty at Calvin, then he is hanging out with bad influences.
Very professionally done but devoid of real life substance. It was a tongue-in-cheek joke.
At a Christian philosophers conference, Swinburne, in a very passive and British manner, suggested homosexuality was wrong. Did Smith defend him? I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. You can read about it here.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/10/christina-van-dyke-owes-richard.html
Edward Feser is a solid old guard Roman Catholic philosopher who sometimes strongly disagrees with Professor Swinburne. I have always found Feser to be fair and forthright.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Getting back to the OP, one must keep in mind that Mouw (rhymes with "cow," by the way) was president of Fuller Seminary for many years, a school which threw over the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture 40 years ago. As far as I know, he did nothing to change that. Caveat emptor.
Stope
Puritan Board Sophomore
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
From its founding in 1947, Fuller tried to straddle fundamentalism and liberalism. In time, of course, it fell - on the wrong side. A new generation of scholars emerged after World War II (Carl F. H. Henry, Edward Carnell, et al) who were conservative but abhorred fundamentalism, and didn't like liberalism, either. They wanted to show that Christian conservatives could engage in rigorous scholarship (such as F. F. Bruce, whose still-admired technical commentary on the Book of Acts was published in 1951) while remaining committed to the gospel. The school succeeded for awhile, but then fell victim to O'Sullivan's Law ("an institution or organization not explicitly established to be conservative will, in time, become liberal"). That's what happened to Fuller (in a nutshell).
Also, the school is so committed to online learning that it's selling off most, if not all, of it's on-campus student housing. We'll see how that works out for them in the long run.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Jason:
John Bolt is at the Seminary not the College. One must be careful to distinguish between the two.
Peace,
Alan
John Bolt is at the Seminary not the College. One must be careful to distinguish between the two.
Peace,
Alan
I believe that Fuller was the topic of the Battle for the Bible by Dr Lindsell from 1970's, where he knocked them big time for caving into the pressure of now viewing the scriptures as having only limited inerrancy.
- Status
Similar threads
