Theology

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 »

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 »

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 »

How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?

/ Apologetics, Plugs, Theology / 1 Comment

If the problem of evil and suffering is the greatest challenge to the Christian faith, as many people think, then arguably the problem of hell is the most acute form of it. It’s one thing to believe that God permits suffering for a greater good purpose, and that the people of God will be decisively delivered from all suffering in the end (Rev. 21:3-4). It’s another thing to believe that those who are not reconciled to God will suffer eternal punishment for their sins (Rev. 14:9-11; 20:13-15). This is not a happy doctrine, to say the least, but it’s one that historically most Christians have taken to be the clear teaching of Christ and his apostles.

How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?How could a loving God send anyone to hell? How do we reconcile the goodness and mercy of God with the doctrine of eternal punishment? How could Jesus Christ, the paragon of compassion and virtue, countenance such a seemingly dark doctrine? These are fair questions. Indeed, they are hard but unavoidable questions for thoughtful Christians, not to mention for critics and skeptics.

There are no easy, simple, or comfortable answers. But there are answers, and we don’t have to engage in wild speculation to find them, because the key elements of those answers are provided in the same Bible from which the ‘problematic’ doctrine comes. In the fourth book in The Big Ten series, pastor and scholar Benjamin Skaug lays out those answers with candor and compassion, explaining and defending the doctrine of hell in the broader context of the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the Bible as a whole. In short, the doctrine of hell only makes moral and theological sense within the wider framework of the biblical storyline and worldview. No Christian doctrine stands alone; each theological ‘part’ must be interpreted in light of the whole. Ultimately, the darkness of hell only accentuates the brightness of the gospel: the good news of salvation by God’s free grace through Jesus Christ.

Here are two of the endorsements for the book:

You can tell a lot about a church based upon what is preached from the pulpit—and what isn’t. Thus, to survey the landscape of contemporary evangelicalism, it would be easy to conclude that few, if any, churches believe in a literal hell. Of course, the Scriptures as a whole, and our Lord Jesus Christ in particular, present an altogether different picture. Thankfully, Ben Skaug presents a compelling and biblical case for a literal hell and how it is rooted in the character of God. As believers in Christ, we don’t fear an eternity in hell, but the reality of it should motivate us to greater evangelistic witness. How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell? provides just such motivation for the reader. — Jason K. Allen, President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Hell is often misunderstood or rejected outright today. Ben Skaug helps us see that the doctrine of hell fits with what the Bible teaches about who God is, with the teaching of Jesus, and with the nature of human beings. Indeed, the message of the gospel doesn’t make sense without the doctrine of hell. Here is a book on hell that needs to be read, digested, believed, and acted upon. — Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Associate Dean, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

Here’s the table of contents:

  • Introduction
  • 1 Who Can Judge the World?
  • 2 How Can a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?
  • 3 What Does the Loving Jesus Teach about Hell?
  • 4 What Did the Loving Apostles Teach About Hell?
  • 5 How Can Hell Be Avoided?
  • 6 Is Hell Eternal?
  • 7 Is Hell Emptied?
  • 8 Conclusion
  • Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions

The appendix addresses the following questions:

  • “Is hell real?”
  • “Does Satan rule hell?”
  • “Are the images of hell found in the Bible literal or figurative?”
  • “Why is hell eternal when it seems that human sins are finite and limited?”
  • “If hell is so awful, and God wants to save people, then why does God not allow people to repent in hell?”
  • “If hell is so awful, and God does not want people to end up there, then why does He not provide more warning about it?”
  • “How can the saved be eternally happy knowing that some of their loved ones are in hell?”

If you know someone who is wrestling with questions about the Bible’s teaching about hell, or if you’re grappling with such questions yourself, I think you’ll find this book to be helpful and hopeful resource.

How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell? Read More »

A Four-Case Defense of the Authorial Model of Divine Providence

/ Philosophy, Theology

I’m pleased to report that my paper “A Four-Case Defense of the Authorial Model of Divine Providence” has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Analytic Theology.

Abstract: Some advocates of the doctrine of meticulous (“risk-free”) divine providence, in response to the charge that such a strong view of divine providence makes God the “author of evil,” have appealed to an authorial model according to which the relationship of God to his creation is analogous to that of a human author and his or her literary creation. This response appears vulnerable to the objection that there is a critical disanalogy between the two kinds of authorship: in the case of divine authorship, unlike that of human authorship, the story is intentionally actualized, and thus the divine author is morally culpable for the evils written into that story. Call this the “actuality objection.” In this paper, I develop a four-case defense of the authorial model that aims to neutralize the actuality objection. I also respond to five objections to the authorial model and my defense of it.

A preprint version is available here.

Update (10/25/24): The published version is now available here.

A Four-Case Defense of the Authorial Model of Divine Providence Read More »

John Murray on the Christian State

/ Culture, Ethics, Theology / 3 Comments

Some readers will be aware that I have criticized the Two Kingdoms (2K) view of Christianity and culture in a few places. In 2019, I gave a lecture in which I argued that three distinctive tenets of a Reformed worldview (a biblical revelational epistemology, the absoluteness of God, and the lordship of Christ) point us away from a “Two Kingdoms” paradigm and toward a “One Kingdom with Different Administrations” paradigm — basically a Kuyperian “sphere sovereignty” paradigm but expressed in terms of Christ’s kingship.

John MurrayBrandon Smith, archival editor at Westminster Magazine, recently brought to my attention a 1943 article by John Murray entitled “The Christian World Order” (originally published in The Presbyterian Guardian).1 Murray is best known for his deeply exegetical approach to systematic theology, with a particular focus on Christology and soteriology, and not often as someone who pronounced on matters of political theory and contemporary cultural engagement. But in this remarkably forthright and lucid article, Murray sets forth an indisputably Kuyperian vision of the three societal institutions of family, church, and state. The entire article is worth your time, but I was particularly struck by the section on the state, which makes essentially the same argument I made in my 2019 lecture, albeit with Murray’s characteristic elegance and economy of words. I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing that section here (but read the whole thing).

Everything below the line is from Murray’s article, although I’ve emboldened parts of the text for emphasis.2

…

John Murray on the Christian StateRead More »

  1. The article can also be found in Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 1: The Claims of Truth (Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), pp. 356-66. ↩
  2. Note that Murray’s position should not be confused with “Christian nationalism” as the term is commonly used today (whether by its defenders or its detractors). There is nothing ‘nationalist’ about Murray’s view of the state. ↩

John Murray on the Christian State Read More »

A Brief Statement on Muslim Apologists

/ Apologetics, Theology

Paradox in Christian TheologyIt has been brought to my attention that some Muslim apologists have been citing my writings on theological paradox to support their arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity, especially in debate with Christian apologists. Since that’s directly contrary to my own views and arguments, I thought I should issue a statement to clear up any confusions.

In Part I of my book Paradox in Christian Theology, I argue that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is paradoxical in the sense that it presents us with an apparent contradiction. However, I reject the conclusion that the Trinity is really contradictory. In Part II of the book, I develop and defend an epistemological account according to which (1) the doctrine of the Trinity is a merely apparent contradiction and (2) Christians can be rational in believing the doctrine, on the basis of divine revelation, despite its paradoxical nature.

It is true that I claim (in PCT and elsewhere) that there is currently no satisfactory solution to the so-called logical problem of the Trinity. (That’s why we find it paradoxical!) But it doesn’t follow that there cannot be a solution to the logical problem, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, incoherent, or nonsensical. In fact, since I deny that there are any true contradictions, I think there must be a solution to the logical problem, even if it turns out that that God alone can comprehend it. I don’t argue that we will never understand how the doctrine of the Trinity is logically consistent. Perhaps we will gain that understanding in the eschaton; I can’t rule that out. All I argue in my book is that there are good rational grounds for believing the doctrine of the Trinity even in the absence of a satisfactory solution to the logical problem. In other words, it’s rational for Christians to believe that there is a solution, even if we can’t specify that solution. (Compare: it’s rational for physicists to believe that there is a solution to the apparent conflict between relativity theory and quantum mechanics, even though no one has figured out that solution.)

All this to say, my book taken as a whole is a defense of rational belief in the Trinity. If you encounter Muslim apologists citing it against the doctrine of the Trinity, you should know that they are not representing my views and arguments responsibly. They’re citing my work selectively and not giving the full story and context. That’s rather like the critic who quotes some New Testament scholar saying “There have been tens of thousands of changes to the text!” without also mentioning that most of those changes are trivial and make no difference to the meaning of the text.

A Brief Statement on Muslim Apologists Read More »