A question for epiphenomenalists: If there is no mind-to-body causation, why is it that yesterday’s mosquito bites don’t itch until I think about them?
A question for eliminative materialists: If there is no mind, why do they itch at all?
Of Minds and Mozzies Read More »
Some years ago I wrote a short article defending some of Van Til’s remarks on the Trinity and offering some criticisms of Gordon Clark’s view of the Trinity. In that article I noted a point of disagreement with Steve Hays. Whereas Steve had argued that Clark’s view reduces to modalism, I argued that his position is clearly a form of social trinitarianism (which I’ve contended elsewhere is not a form of monotheism and is thus unacceptable as an interpretation of orthodox trinitarian doctrine).
Well, after re-reading some of Clark’s writings on this issue, I’ve changed my mind. I’m happy to report that I no longer disagree with Steve. But that’s not to say I’ve abandoned my earlier conclusion. Rather, I now think we were both right (which is a much more agreeable position to take).
…
Gordon Clark’s Paradoxical View of the Trinity Read More »
The December 2009 issue of The Trinity Review featured a review of my book. The review, which is highly critical, was written by Gary Crampton. I’ve posted a response on my website. It’s lengthy and forthright; but given the serious deficiencies of the review, it had to be.
I have copied below the section on Gordon Clark’s treatments of the Trinity and the Incarnation, because it may be of wider interest.
…
Response to Gary Crampton Read More »
P&R Publishing have kindly granted me permission to make available on my website the essay I contributed to the festschrift in honor of John Frame: “Presuppositionalism and Frame’s Epistemology,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame, ed. John J. Hughes (P&R, 2009), 431-459.
The essay didn’t turn out quite the way I’d hoped — you know how ideas always seem better in your head before they make it onto paper — but after looking over it again I’ve concluded it’s not as bad as I thought when I submitted it! It’s basically a defense of Frame’s epistemology and presuppositionalism, with some concrete apologetic application.
Anyway, the festschrift is packed full of insightful and stimulating material, both from Dr. Frame and from the other 36 (count ’em) contributors. If you don’t have a copy, get one. P&R Publishing have generously offered a 50% discount (yes, really) on the price of the book for any readers of this blog who order before March 31, either via their website or by telephone (1-800-631-0094), and use the discount code ANATH. (If you post this info elsewhere, please link back to here.)
Presuppositionalism and Frame’s Epistemology Read More »
The Maverick Philosopher, Bill Vallicella, has turned his attention to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation in recent weeks. In one post he makes a preliminary critique of “Negative and Positive Trinitarian Mysterianism”, drawing on Dale Tuggy’s excellent “Trinity” article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Since Dale’s article discusses my defense of theological paradox under the heading of “Positive Mysterianism” I decided that any self-respecting Mysterian ought to speak up in his own defense — and I did so, here and here. The whole comment thread is worth a read.
Update 1: The conversation continues here, on the question of whether materialists can also move in mysterian ways.
Update 2: Further discussion can be found here, on the question of whether inconceivability entails impossibility.
Update 3: Still further discussion here, as atheist philosopher Peter Lupu tries to show that my position leads to theological skepticism, and I demur in the combox.
Update 4: Peter Lupu takes another shot, this time focusing on whether divine revelation could warrant the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity is a MACRUE.
Update 5: Peter Lupu strikes again! Does my proposal face the specter of “semantic defeat”? He thinks so; I say no.
This is the Voice of the Mysterians… Read More »
For thus says the One who is high and lifted up,
who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy:
“I dwell in the high and holy place,
and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit,
to revive the spirit of the lowly,
and to revive the heart of the contrite.” (Isaiah 57:15)
Is there any other single verse in Scripture that so beautifully expresses and balances the transcendence of God and the immanence of God?
The High One Who Dwells With the Lowly Read More »
Ministry & Leadership (formerly Reformed Quarterly) is the very nicely produced quarterly magazine of Reformed Theological Seminary. Some readers of this blog — perhaps even both of you — may be interested to know I contributed a short article entitled “Three Christmas Mysteries” to the Winter 2009 issue.
Ministry & Leadership gives a great overview of the mission and ministry of RTS. If you can see the value of the seminary’s work in training and equipping people for Bible-based gospel ministry, please consider making an online gift to support that work.
Three Christmas Mysteries Read More »
I’m pretty sure that by now I’ve heard all the major objections to Calvinism. Some of them deserve to be taken seriously, although none are weighty enough to overturn the balance (or rather imbalance) of biblical evidence. Others objections, however, I find hard to credit at all. An example of the latter is the claim that the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election undermines assurance of salvation. Only this week a student was telling me about a professor at a nearby liberal arts college who had wielded this objection in his theology class. The objection is rarely articulated with precision, but as best I can make out the idea is that a Calvinist can’t enjoy assurance of salvation because he’ll always be fretting about whether or not he’s really elect. What if he’s a reprobate after all? He longs to peer into the secret will of God, but all in vain — for as Deuteronomy 29:29 declares, the “secret things” belong to the Lord God alone.
…
Calvinism, Assurance, and Inerrancy Read More »
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)
One of my colleagues, John Currid, preached a convicting message from this parable at RTS-Charlotte on Tuesday. (I hope the audio will eventually become available at RTS on iTunes U.) Quoting from Spurgeon and McCheyne, among others, he reminded us that pride, fueled by human accolades, is often a besetting sin for ministers of the gospel.
It brought to mind (by way of contrast) a few times I’ve heard this parable expounded in such a way as to undermine its very point. In those renderings, the Pharisee stands for “them” (those self-righteous religious folk, trusting in their own good works) and the tax collector stands for “us” (good evangelical Protestants who trust in Christ alone for justification). By the end of the message one could barely resist praying, “God, I thank you that I am not like that Pharisee!”
It’s quite possible to preach the the doctrine of justification by faith alone in such a way as to practically contradict it. Ironically, Reformed churches may be most vulnerable to this error, simply because they (rightly) place such emphasis on that doctrine “by which the church stands or falls” (as Luther famously put it). We fall into the trap of taking pride in our celebration of a doctrine that repudiates all pride!
But one implication of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which perhaps needs to be emphasized in Reformed settings, is that we aren’t justified by the doctrine itself. We aren’t justified by faith in the doctrine of justification by faith alone! We’re justified by faith in Christ alone. That is the precious, glorious truth of the doctrine. We don’t put our trust in any good works, including our good doctrinal works. Recognizing our utter spiritual bankruptcy, we look wholly outside ourselves to the perfect sufficient atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Is this theological nit-picking? No, I think it makes all the difference in the world. It’s the difference between anti-Phariseeism and inverted Phariseeism.
Happy Reformation Day!
Inverted Phariseeism Read More »
A commenter (Keith) on my earlier post on the historicity of Adam poses a good question:
Can you comment on the broader theological/hermeneutical/epistemological issues here?
Let’s assume the following for the sake of discussion: (a) there are strong textual (referring to the whole Bible) reasons in favor of a historical Adam; (b) the textual evidence isn’t a “slam dunk” so it is possible that the text doesn’t necessitate a historical Adam; (c) there is a strong scientific consesus that the scientific evidence for evolution is a slam dunk; and (d) somehow evolution strongly undermines belief in a historical Adam. I leave (d) fuzzy because there are probably a number of ways one might think a belief in evolution would undermine belief in a historical Adam. (I can think of at least a couple quickly, but spelling it out isn’t necessary for the question I am asking.)
What should one do in this epistemic situation? The textual evidence is much stronger for a historical Adam (assuming the above assumptions) but it isn’t a slam dunk. Yet the scientific evidence for evolution, which per the illustration undermines belief in a historical Adam, is a slam dunk. Does one count all evidence of the epistemic situation equally or does one first resolve the interpretive issue based on textual reasons and then hold to a historical Adam over against the undermining scientific slam dunk?
I am asking, because I suspect that which side one takes often correlates with how one would resolve the epistemic situation in my illustration.
…
Scripture or Science? Read More »