John Frame Is Not a “Theistic Mutualist”

/ Philosophy, Theology / 21 Comments

All That Is In GodIn his influential book, All That Is in God (Reformation Heritage Books, 2017), James Dolezal draws a sharp distinction between “classical Christian theism” and what he calls “theistic mutualism.” Dr. Dolezal criticizes a number of evangelical theologians, including some who identify with the Reformed tradition, for embracing theistic mutualism. One of his targets is John Frame. But is Dolezal right to categorize Frame as a theistic mutualist? I will argue here that this is a mistake. Dr. Frame, it turns out, is neither a “classical Christian theist” nor a “theistic mutualist” as Dolezal defines those terms.1

What is Theistic Mutualism?

In chapter 1 of his book, Dolezal defines and distinguishes two “distinctly different models” of Christian theism. The older of these two models is “classical Christian theism”:

It is marked by a strong commitment to the doctrines of divine aseity, immutability, impassibility, simplicity, eternity, and the substantial unity of the divine persons. The underlying and inviolable conviction is that God does not derive any aspect of His being from outside Himself and is not in any way caused to be. (p. 1)

Note the implication of the second sentence: presumably the other model will be such that God does derive some “aspect of His being from outside Himself” and is subject to external causation. In other words, the other model will be characterized by a denial of divine aseity.

The second model is “the newer approach of theistic mutualism” (p. 1). In a footnote, Dolezal clarifies what he means by ‘mutualism’:

“Mutualism,” as I am using the term, denotes a symbiotic relationship in which both parties derive something from each other. In such a relation, it is requisite that each party be capable of being ontologically moved or acted upon and thus determined by the other. This does not necessarily require parity between the parties involved. Accordingly, a mutualistic relation could obtain even if only one of the parties involved were the architect and ultimate regulator of the relation. (p. 1, fn. 1)

Dolezal further explains that according to theistic mutualists, “God is involved in a genuine give-and-take relationship with His creatures” (p. 2). Although some theistic mutualists identify with the Calvinist tradition, “many of them share with open and process theists the theistic mutualist belief that God’s being is such that He is capable of being moved by His creatures” (p. 3). This second model holds to “the newer ideal of a mutually interactive, give-and-take relationship with God” (p. 5). Theistic mutualists undermine divine perfection, Dolezal contends, because “God has been reconceived as deriving some aspects of His being in correlation with the world” (p. 6). While the “modern Calvinist theologians” who have embraced theistic mutualism explicitly reject open theism and process theism, they have arguably “already embraced a rudimentary form of process theism to the extent that they allow some measure of ontological becoming and dependency in God” (p. 7).

What’s very clear is that theistic mutualism, as Dolezal describes it, is characterized by a denial of God’s absolute independence. For the theistic mutualist, God is dependent on his creation, specifically in the sense that God is ‘moved’ by his creatures; that is to say, the creatures cause God to change.

…

John Frame Is Not a “Theistic Mutualist”Read More »

  1. For Frame’s own response to Dolezal, see here. ↩

John Frame Is Not a “Theistic Mutualist” Read More »

Michael Preciado on Richard Muller’s Compatibilism

/ Philosophy, Theology / 10 Comments

Richard Muller is a brilliant historical theologian, although I’ve had cause to take issue with some of his claims about traditional Reformed views of human free will; specifically, that his remarks about ‘determinism’ and ‘compatibilism’ are based on idiosyncratic understandings of those terms, rather than the standard definitions in the contemporary philosophical literature on free will, all of which leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion. I learned recently (HT: Ron DiGiacomo) that my concerns are echoed, but developed in much more detail, in this 2024 article by Michael Preciado in the Journal of Reformed Theology.

From the article abstract:

The present essay addresses Richard Muller’s most recent comments regarding the Reformed Orthodox in comparison with contemporary compatibilism. Muller’s work is undeniably excellent. However, it suffers from a considerable weakness. That weakness is his lack of interaction with contemporary compatibilism. This causes him to misunderstand its nature and falsely claim that the Reformed Orthodox cannot be labeled as compatibilists. I argue that a more serious analysis of contemporary compatibilism shows that the Reformed Orthodox are correctly labeled as compatibilists. I do so by examining Muller’s main claims as to why the Reformed Orthodox were not compatibilists. In this examination, I argue that he has misunderstood the thesis of compatibilism and confused it with other metaphysical doctrines.

From the conclusion:

In my view, Muller’s project can be divided into two parts. The first part is his exegetical conclusions concerning the Reformed Orthodox. The second part is his philosophical interpretation of those exegetical conclusions. This essay has argued that he has failed in the second part of his project. Muller has claimed that standard usage of key terms such as ‘compatibilism’ and ‘determinism’ do not accurately describe the Reformed Orthodox. I have demonstrated that Muller’s usage of these terms is not standard. It also argued that there are widely used senses of these terms that do accurately describe the Reformed Orthodox. I think this means that the second part of Muller’s project needs to be abandoned.

The article is open-access (for now!) and I highly recommend it. In my humble estimation, it’s a slam-dunk.

Michael Preciado on Richard Muller’s Compatibilism Read More »

Why Does the God of the Old Testament Seem So Violent and Hateful?

/ Apologetics, Plugs

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Not my words, of course, but those of the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins in his 2006 bestseller The God Delusion. I gather that when Dawkins went on tour to promote the book, the above was his favorite passage to read out to his audiences, and it never failed to win a round of applause from his fellow skeptics. (Some two decades later, it’s noteworthy that he didn’t accuse God of being transphobic — just as well for Dawkins, given that he has been charged with that very sin.)

Christopher Hitchens offered the same argument at length in his 2007 book God Is Not Great. Indeed, it was a common theme among the New Atheists: Christianity is not merely false, but positively immoral, and that second failing is underscored by the immoral actions of the God of the Bible himself. It’s not only Christians who behave badly; their God behaves badly too!

Why Does the God of the Old Testament Seem So Violent and Hateful?It’s a serious charge that deserves a serious response. In the eighth book in The Big Ten series, my colleague Richard Belcher brings his expertise in the Old Testament to bear on the questions raised by skeptics and sincere inquirers. Doesn’t the God of the Israelites command genocide and endorse slavery? Isn’t he cruel, racist, and misogynist? Doesn’t he act like an egotistical narcissist, demanding that people worship him on pain of death? Why does the God of the Old Testament seem so violent and hateful?

Belcher tackles head-on the various “problem texts” of the Old Testament, arguing not only that that they have often been misinterpreted and misrepresented, but also that they need to be understood in light of what the Bible teaches about God’s goodness, justice, power, and grace. Unless one grasps the bigger picture of the biblical worldview, one will never understand why Christians throughout history have found no conflict between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament — which is just to say, the God revealed in Jesus Christ. The concluding chapter of the book turns the tables with a thought-provoking question. Which should we consider more problematic in the end: the God of the Bible, or the absence of the God of the Bible?

Although the New Atheism has now fizzled out, many of its arguments have spread widely into the culture—not least the idea that the God of the Old Testament is mean, vicious and hateful. In this thorough, well researched book, Richard Belcher explores why this argument fails. It will be a helpful addition to any pastor’s library! — Andy Bannister, Director, Solas Centre for Public Christianity, UK

Despite its small size, this book provides deep and rich reflection on tough texts in the Old Testament. Tackling all the hottest topics head on, Belcher shows that it is atheists, not Christians, who have the toughest case to answer.  —  Peter J. Williams, Principal, Tyndale House, Cambridge, UK; author of Can We Trust the Gospels?

Here’s the table of contents:

  • Introduction: The Focus of this Book
  • 1 The Goodness of God: A God Who Provides the Best
  • 2 The Power and Grace of God: A God Able and Willing to Save
  • 3 The Justice of God: Necessary for Salvation
  • 4 Is God a God of Genocide? Examining ‘Texts of Violence’
  • 5 Is God a Cruel God? Examining ‘Texts of Oppression’
  • 6 Is God a Megalomaniac? Examining Texts that Make Exclusive Claims
  • 7 Implications of Living Life Without God
  • Suggested Further Reading

Like the other entries in The Big Ten series, the book is substantive and scholarly in its content, while also engaging, readable, and gospel-focused. Consider giving a copy to any skeptical friends or colleagues who dismiss the God of the Old Testament as a ‘moral monster’. It might just help them see the God of the Bible in a very different light.

Why Does the God of the Old Testament Seem So Violent and Hateful? Read More »

Symposium on Jc Beall’s Divine Contradiction

/ Philosophy, Theology

Divine ContradictionReligious Studies 60:4 (December 2024) features a symposium on Jc Beall’s 2023 book Divine Contradiction, which defends the provocative thesis that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a true contradiction (i.e., contradictory but nonetheless true). Some readers will recall my previous interactions with Dr. Beall regarding his earlier book The Contradictory Christ. The symposium opens with Beall’s synopsis of Divine Contradiction, includes a contribution by your humble blogger, and closes with Beall’s replies to his critics. It appears that all the articles are open-access for now.

Symposium on Jc Beall’s Divine Contradiction Read More »

Evaluating the Thought of Cornelius Van Til

/ Apologetics, Philosophy, Theology

A cordial conversation with Keith Mathison and Kevin DeYoung about the theology and apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, prompted by the publication of Keith’s book Toward a Reformed Apologetics:

 

Even with an hour and 20 minutes, we barely scratched the surface of the issues raised in Keith’s book, but I think it was a helpful exchange nonetheless, and I hope it can serve as a model for ongoing discussions between Van Til’s advocates and his critics. Kevin did a fine job as both moderator and mediator!

Go here for the podcast version.

Evaluating the Thought of Cornelius Van Til Read More »

If Christianity Is So Good, Why Are Christians So Bad?

/ Apologetics, Plugs / 3 Comments

Back in the 90s, there was a British TV show called Men Behaving Badly. (For the record, I never watched it, so don’t quiz me on the details!) I sometimes wonder how long it will be before someone creates a TV show called Christians Behaving Badly. There would be no shortage of material, I’m sure, and it could run indefinitely. That’s not a happy thought, if you’re a Christian. It’s an even less happy thought that you (or me) might be featured in one of its episodes.

Christian apologetics has often focused on philosophical, historical, and scientific objections to the faith. How can the existence of God be reconciled with the existence of evil? Why think that the Gospels are reliable sources for the life of Jesus? Doesn’t the theory of evolution render incredible the biblical account of human origins? And so on. But in my observation, the most common objections to Christianity are increasingly moral ones. Sometimes they take the form of moral objections to the teachings of the Bible or the teachings of Christ. Frequently, however, they take aim at the immoral behavior of Christians. The Crusaders. Christian slaveholders. Philandering televangelists. Homophobic fundamentalist preachers. The driver who cut in front of you the other day and nearly caused a pileup (yeah, that guy’s fish sticker won’t be leading anyone into the arms of Jesus).

Arguably it’s not merely a moral problem for Christianity; it’s an evidential problem. If Christianity were true, wouldn’t we expect Christians to be better behaved that non-Christians? But they aren’t. So isn’t that evidence against the truth of Christianity? As one of Nietzsche’s lines has been paraphrased: “I might believe in the Redeemer if his followers looked more redeemed.”

If Christianity Is So Good...In the seventh book in The Big Ten series, pastor-scholar Mark Coppenger wrestles honestly with the problem of “bad Christians.” Coppenger begins by scrutinizing the title question (“If Christianity is so good, why are Christians so bad?”) and suggests we need to think carefully about how the question itself is framed and what assumptions lie behind it. The remaining chapters explore what the Bible and the history of the church actually teach us about the behavior of professing Christians, about the nature of Christian conversion, about the effects that the gospel has had on individuals and societies, and how Christianity fares when compared with its religious and non-religious competitors. The verdict? Yes, there have been (and will continue to be) many “bad Christians,” but when the balance of evidence is taken into account, the scandal of Christian hypocrisy gives us no good reason to reject the claims of Christ himself about his identity and his mission. Indeed, the sin of hypocrisy is just one of the myriad human failings for which Jesus came to make atonement. (As someone once quipped, “If you think the church is full of hypocrites, don’t worry — there’s always room for one more!”) In addition, Coppenger argues, Christians have been given various ‘antibodies’ with which to fight the ‘infection’ of sin in their own lives and in the church as an institution. He also makes the insightful point that our modern principles of religious liberty and freedom of speech, which allow non-believers to criticize Christians and hold them publicly accountable, have historically Christian roots. Christianity has thus supplied the instruments for its own correction.

Here are some of the endorsements for If Christianity Is So Good, Why Are Christians So Bad?:

This book models concise expression, shrewd logic, clear organization, subtle wit, brutal honesty, graphic illustration, cultural savvy, and charitable characterization of opponents. It answers the title’s question as much by showing how to think about the matter as by seeking out best answers. — Robert W. Yarbrough, Professor of New Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri

Over the last 25 years whilst running Christianity Explored courses at my local church – All Souls, Langham Place – I have had to say on every course that the poet Swinburne said, ‘I would love Christ, where it not for his leprous bride, the church.’ I then plead with people to not allow their experience of so–called Christians in the church to stop them looking at Jesus. This book will be a very helpful tool for us at All Souls with some people who come to investigate but have had their hearts broken by the behaviour of Christians they’ve known. I’m so grateful for it and have already made a mental list of those whom I need to send it to. — Rico Tice, Evangelist; Co–founder of Christianity Explored Ministries

This book doesn’t whitewash the bad behaviour of many Christians, but it also offers some helpful insights, theological context, and practical wisdom for how Christians can respond to this important challenge. — Sean McDowell , Professor of Christian Apologetics, Biola University, La Mirada, California

And the table of contents (with some intriguing chapter titles):

  • Introduction
  • A Few Questions About the Question
  • I Suppose We Asked For It
  • Some You Might Have Missed
  • The Bible Tells Me So
  • Are You Sure About That? The Problem of False Professors
  • Are You Sure About That? Doubtful Narratives
  • Who’s Counting?
  • Antibodies: Devotional and Congregational
  • Antibodies: Beyond Home and Congregation
  • Environmental Protection
  • The Rest of the Story

If you know someone who has been soured toward Christianity by the bad behavior of Christians, this book won’t solve the problem itself (what book could do that?) but it will help to bring some fresh thinking and a more balanced perspective to the issue.

If Christianity Is So Good, Why Are Christians So Bad? Read More »

Has Science Made God Unnecessary?

/ Apologetics, Plugs / 1 Comment

One of the most frequently encountered objections to Christianity is that modern science has rendered belief in God intellectually untenable, along with many other central tenets of the Christian faith. This is closely related to what has been dubbed the “conflict thesis”: the idea that there is a deep and ultimately irresolvable conflict between science and religion. The objection arises in various forms. Sometimes it’s the claim that we no longer need to believe in God, because science has adequately explained in naturalistic terms what was previously ascribed to divine agency; the “God of the gaps” has been squeezed out as the ‘gaps’ have been filled. Sometimes it’s the criticism that Christianity depends on miracle claims (spoiler: it does) but such claims are at odds with a scientific view of the world, since miraculous events would violate the laws of nature. Sometimes it’s the charge that Christian doctrines irreconcilably conflict with well-established scientific theories, such as the Darwinian evolutionary account of human origins.

Has Science Made God Unnecessary?In the sixth book in The Big Ten series, Ransom Poythress tackles head-on these objections and others in the same vein. But he goes further still, pulling back “the curtain of science” to reveal the philosophical assumptions behind the methods of science, and arguing that Christian theism provides a far better justification for those assumptions than atheistic materialism. On closer inspection, it’s not so much that science vindicates Christianity as that Christianity vindicates science. Poythress also debunks a number of popular myths (such as the conflict thesis) along the way. If you have skeptical friends, colleagues, or family members who cite “modern science” as a reason to reject Christianity, consider giving them a copy of this book. It may not convert them, but at least it will move the conversation in a more informed and productive direction.

Here are two of the endorsements for Has Science Made God Unnecessary?:

Through the use of simple yet powerful analogies, an easygoing pace, and excellent references for those who want to dig deeper, Poythress reaches any interested reader with an answer that affirms Christianity while respecting and encouraging the proper roles of science. This is a great book for any youth group, college class, or seeker to think through. — John A. Bloom, Professor of Physics & Director of the MA, Science and Religion program, Biola University, La Mirada, California and author of The Natural Sciences: A Student’s Guide

Ransom Poythress is both an accomplished biologist and a knowledgeable biblical scholar. His commitment is to both the craft of science and the awareness of the reasons people throw up objections to its compatibility with Christian faith. He writes in a sympathetic, non-combative manner which ought to disarm all but the most obdurate sceptic. A must read by anyone concerned with the so-called science-vs-religion controversy. — William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Here’s the table of contents:

  • Acknowledgements
  • Introduction: Understanding the Question
  • 1 The Conflict Thesis
  • 2 God of the Gaps Arguments
  • 3 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part I: Objectivity and Truth
  • 4 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part II: Materialist Assumptions
  • 5 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part III: Materialist Limitations
  • 6 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part IV: What’s Actually Necessary for Science
  • 7 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part V: Scientific Laws
  • 8 Behind the Curtain of Science, Part VI: Supernatural Assumptions and a Christian Philosophical Foundation for Science
  • 9 Miracles
  • 10 Evidence: What Does it Look Like?
  • 11 Big Bang and Fine-Tuning
  • 12 Origin of Life
  • 13 Evolution: the Big Picture
  • 14 Evolution: Darwin’s Defenders
  • Conclusion
  • Appendix: Additional Resources

As you can see, the chapter count is higher than for the other books in The Big Ten series. However, the page count is roughly the same — around 200 pages — which means that the book has shorter, more digestible chapters, and that’s a virtue for a book that delves into some semi-technical philosophical and scientific issues.

Incidentally, Dr. Poythress is the author of Richard Dawkins in P&R’s Great Thinkers series. Also recommended!

Has Science Made God Unnecessary? Read More »

Plantinga on Christian Boldness and Confidence

/ Ethics, Philosophy

Alvin Plantinga, “A Christian Life Partly Lived,” in Philosophers Who Believe, ed. Kelly James Clark (InterVarsity Press, 1993):

Our first responsibility [as Christian philosophers] is to the Lord and to the Christian community, not first of all to the philosophical community at large — although of course that is also a very serious responsibility, and a serious responsibility in part because of its connection with the first responsibility. In some cases this orientation may require a certain courage, or Christian boldness or confidence.21

21 Of course, I don’t mean to hold up myself as a model here: quite the contrary. A few years back I several times found myself thinking about a certain person, and feeling obliged to call him and speak with him about Christianity; this was a person for whom I had a lot of respect but who, I thought, had nothing but disdain for Christianity. I felt obliged to call this person, but always did my best to put the thought out of my mind, being impeded by fear and embarrassment: what would I say? “Hello, have you found Jesus?” And wouldn’t this person think I was completely out of my mind, not to mention really weird? Then later I heard that during this very time the person in question was in the process of becoming a Christian. I had been invited to take part in something of real importance and refused the invitation out of cowardice and stupidity.

(HT: Greg Welty)

Plantinga on Christian Boldness and Confidence Read More »

Why Should I Trust the Bible?

/ Apologetics, Plugs, Theology

According to the 2022 Ligonier State of Theology survey, 33% of American adults “strongly agree” and 18% “somewhat agree” with this statement: “The Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.”

Given the advanced secularization of most Western societies, that’s quite surprising and even encouraging. But how many of those surveyed could explain to a skeptical unbeliever why the Bible should be considered trustworthy, not merely as a source of wisdom or moral instruction, but in its claim to be the Word of God? Only a small minority, I suspect. Certainly not as many as one might hope.

Why Should I Trust the Bible?In the fifth book in The Big Ten series, Timothy Paul Jones admits that the Bible is “a difficult book to believe” in our modern skeptical world, but argues that it is nevertheless reasonable to believe that the Bible is indeed what it purports to be: a library of divinely-inspired writings that communicate to us God’s plan of salvation for sinners. Jones is a gifted pastor, scholar, and apologist who manages to combine intellectual rigor with an engaging conversational style. With decades of experience in engaging skeptical questions, he takes the challenges seriously while showing that there are solid grounds for affirming the trustworthiness of the Bible (and the historical reliability of the Gospels in particular) and its accurate transmission through the centuries.

Here are two of the endorsements for the book:

Why Should I Trust the Bible? steps inside our most challenging doubts about the Bible and shows us a way out to faith in its truthfulness. Written in an disarmingly honest and straightforward way, Timothy Paul Jones’s down-to-earth stories and up-to-date scholarship create a space in our skeptical world for authentic belief in the Bible. Highly recommended! — Mark D. Allen, Executive Director, Center for Apologetics and Cultural Engagement at Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia & coauthor of Apologetics at the Cross

This is Timothy Paul Jones at his best. Witty. Transparent. Always wrestling with the hardest of questions while holding out the faith once for all delivered to the saints. This is an essential resource for contemplating and critiquing contemporary attacks on the trustworthiness of the Bible. — Dan DeWitt, Author of Life in the Wild & Associate Professor of Applied Theology and Apologetics, Cedarville University, Ohio

Here’s the table of contents:

  • 1 A Difficult Book to Believe?
  • 2 Were the Gospels Written to Tell What Happened in History?
  • 3 Are the Gospels Historically Plausible?
  • 4 Which Books Belong in the Bible?
  • 5 How Much of the Bible Must I Trust?
  • Appendix: How Accurately Was the Bible Copies?

A helpful study guide is also available for free download from the publisher’s website.

As a co-editor of the series, I can testify that this particular volume was one of the most enjoyable to review and edit because of Jones’ exceptional ability to communicate scholarly arguments in a way that a layperson can easily understand and appreciate. Why Should I Trust the Bible? is hardly the last word on the subject, but you’ll find it to be an excellent introductory answer to the question posed in its title. It’s the ideal resource to put in the hands of an under-equipped believer or an inquiring unbeliever.

Why Should I Trust the Bible? Read More »