Refuting Open Theism

[heartoflesh]

A while back I posted about a book study at my church, going through Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline. Different guys are taking turns leading the chapter discussions and this week it's my turn with the chapter on prayer. In reading this chapter last night I discovered that Foster endorses Open Theism. Not only that, but a few pages later he berates those who feel they must pray "if it be Thy will".

Anyway, it's been my experience at church whenever I have brought up Open Theism to see eyeballs roll. Either that or they have no idea what I'm talking about. What are some primary Biblical texts I can use in refuting this nonsense? Some I found last night that are applicable are:

Romans 8:28
Isaiah 46:9-10
Hebrews 6:17
Ephesians 1:11

 

[heartoflesh]

Awesome! Thanks, Joshua

 

[heartoflesh]

If you could only quote a couple of texts on the subject, which would you choose? I think that Isaiah 46 passage speaks the loudest in my opinion.

 

[Casey]

Here is an additional resource that might be helpful:

http://www.carm.org/open.htm

 

[srhoades]

Originally posted by joshua
Man, the whole book of Isaiah screams God's sovereignty.

Agreed.

"This is the plan devised against the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out against all the nations. "For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?" (Isaiah 14:26-27).

Read the Soverignty of God by A.W. Pink. Talk about slam dunk.

 

[RamistThomist]

God as Creator by definition is not contingent. To be so would cease to be God and would then become creature. Open Theism precludes the possibility of a creator God.

Ephesians 1:11 has God working all things after the counsel of his will. This includes the future and the free actions of human beings.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I highly recommend The Doctrine of God by John Frame. It's a thick book but his arguments against Open Theism is devastating. Even if you don't have the time to read the entire book right away it is a great resource.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I heard that the book by Frame mentioned above is good. I have yet to actually read anything on the subject (I'm getting there). Has anybody read God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware?

 

[kevin.carroll]

The entire book of Daniel is about the sovereignty of God as well. I feel at liberty to say what the ETS didn't have the cahoonas to say: open theists are heretics plain and simple. They rob God of his attributes of sovereignty and omniscience and deny altogether the teaching of salvation by grace. I got so angry reading Pinnock's Most Moved Mover, I nearly blew a blood vessel in my forehead.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
Has anybody read God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware?

Yes. I wholeheartedly recommend it. Ware's volume was the first book-length response to Open Theism. It is much more accessible than Frame's book. It is a great book: in addition to providing counter-prooftexts, Ware actually examines the prooftexts offered by proponents of Open Theism... the result is a great refutation of their system using their own favorite passages.

 

[Don]

Actually, Frame's book 'No Other God' specifically addresses open theism moreso than The Doctrine of God. He examines their views of libertarian freedom, timelessness, etc and discusses Scripture references.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

W. Gary Crampton makes use of Frame's work on the subject in his "An Analysis of Open Theism," in the current issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal. http://www.cpjournal.com

No Other Gods

Originally posted by Don
Actually, Frame's book 'No Other God' specifically addresses open theism moreso than The Doctrine of God. He examines their views of libertarian freedom, timelessness, etc and discusses Scripture references.

 

[beej6]

There is a decent summary/refutation of open theism in Jay Adams' _Journal of Modern Ministry_, Spring 2005 issue. www.jofmm.com

 

[Don Kistler]

The best book I've found refuting open theism is Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will." Amazing how the heresies just keep getting recycled.

Don Kistler

 

[jaybird0827]

Also, consider God's sovereignty in light of the book of Job.

Jay

 

[JM]

Open Theism is everywhere! It's driving me crazy.

 

[Ravens]

I've had a fair bit of experience with open theists on a layman's level. I attended a Nazarene school (didn't turn to the Dark Side until I was in there a couple of years), and four of the eight or so faculty in the religion department adhered to open theism. So I had to hear it for two years, both from them and from some fellow students.

Obviously the Scriptures are the primary "weapon of assault", regardless of how the Spirit chooses to use them (i.e., either leaving the open theist in error, or changing his mind). But I usually take a different approach from the outset, just to kind of jar the head a little. Mostly because whichever classical text you utilize to prove the eternality, omniscience, or immutability of God is, for the most part, going to fall on deaf ears. The open theist isn't unfamiliar with the texts, as pretty much every book by Boyd, Sanders, Pinnock, Rice, et al. deals with them.

So they're already going to have a grid to fit that Scripture into, based on the hermeneutic they've accepted from their teachers.

I usually try to key in on the artificial distinction made by the open theists between anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. Open theists attack classical theism for not taking the Bible literally and at "face value" when anthropopathisms are used (passions in God, God's repenting, learning, questioning, changing, etc.). So they adopt a univocal lens with the anthropopathisms and take them hyper-literally, but still use an analogical filter with the anthropomorphisms.

So when God is spoke of as repenting, questioning, learning, changing, etc., this is all to be taken at face value, 100%, and to suggest otherwise is to manifest a Greek, Hellenistic mindset, as opposed to a Scriptural one.

Yet when God is spoken of as having hands, a mouth, a heart, wings, and as travelling from place to place, these are to be taken figuratively, metaphorically, and analogically.

And absolutely no work that I've read by Pinnock or Boyd has ever given a "rationale" for taking one set hyper-literally, and the other metaphorically. Open theists accuse classical theism of glossing over and ignorning the import of the anthropopathisms, yet they do the same thing with the anthropomorphisms.

I usually start out by pointing out that their hermeneutic, even if left unchallenged, even hypothetically granting the distinction they make between mind-statements and body-statements relative to God, still leads to absolute absurdity. Here's a page or two from a paper I wrote in college regarding the above:

"Pinnock enjoys citing Jeremiah to illustrate divine 'openness.' In Jeremiah 32:35 Yahweh states, 'They built their high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to molech, though I did not command them, **nor did it enter into my mind**, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.' Why take this passage just literal enough to allow an 'open' view of the future, but not literal enough to say that not only is the future unsettled, but certain things have not even *occurred* to God? Is this feasible? Child sacrifice had already occurred among the covenant people at this point in history. It was nothing new. Did God *really* mean that the possibility of renewed child sacrifice had never crossed his mind as a remote *possibility*? Unless one is operating out of a dignum Deo filter, then of course one will affirm that Yahweh did indeed mean precisely just that.
I speak as a fool (perhaps the reader will find me to be operating in my natural environment). All of these examples are absurd. Everyone *knows* that these things are not true of God. However, endless articles have stirred up a tumultuous sound and fury over the repentance passages in Scripture. Yet a principled argument that sets aside one class of statements as anthropomorphic or anthropopathic, and another as 'literal' cannot be made. Serious intellectuals in this country are using the 'repentance' passages, one metaphor among a myriad of metaphors which, when taken literally, tend to make chaos out of the doctrine of God, to deny that God knows the future.
Can it be more obvious that the only metaphors in Scripture which are taken literally are precisely those metaphors which uphold the open theists' agenda of discrediting the notion of exhaustive foreknowledge? This is not mean to be perjorative. Based on the Scriptures (the statement to Adam, the tower of Babel, Sodom, Yahweh's test of Abraham, etc.) as interpreted by open theisms' hermeneutic, why should God's exhaustive knowledge of the *present* continue to be accepted by Biblical Christians? Yet no open theist has challenged God's exhaustive knowledge of the present? Why? Because it does not threaten the shibboleth of libertarian free-will, which, in their opinion, exhaustive foreknowledge destroys."

As an aside, Clark Pinnock started to take the plunge into absurdity in his book "Most Moved Mover". On page 138 of that book he tentatively puts forward that God indeed *IS* embodied.

You can point out their hermeneutical flaws.

Also, regardless of the "proof texts" for omniscience and eternality in and of themselves, you can easily prove that election and predestination a: refers to individuals, b: is from eternity, and c: is soteriological... and when those three are established, I think the logical implications thereof more than prove exhaustive foreknowledge.

And lastly, you can point out the Rabbinical views on foreknowledge, the views of the Essenes on foreknowledge, and the common consensus of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant theologians on this doctrine.

That should be enough to convince anyone of the absurdity of open theism, but apart from God's breath on their hearts, they'll still be hardened as a mule.

P.S., I probably should have changed "metahpor" to "analogy" and "metaphorical" to "analogical", but that was a couple of years ago, so... whatever.

:bigsmile:

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Rich,

Be a little careful about this volume.

I know the reviews have been glowing and there are virtues. Those have been noted so I won't dwell on them but I acknowledge that there are virtues. His work on open theism (in the DoG and in the separate critique) was useful and helpful.

There are two significant problems, however:

His views on the Trinity are quite hard to reconcile with the catholic creeds and his claim that we can know God "in himself" (in se) is to be rejected as incompatible with Scripture (Deut 29:29) and Reformed theology.

We don't know God in himself. We cannot. The finite is not capable of the infinite.

God cannot be said to be "one person." He isn't one person, hasn't ever been one person and will never be one person.

We don't confess a monopersonal God. We confess one God who is three persons. Full stop. That's it. We're not allowed to say anything else. It's CATHOLIC dogma. It's not some narrow dogma that I or any theologian developed. The dogma of the Trinity is no one's playground.

John's approach to theology (i.e., tri-perspectivalism) is idiosyncratic at least and quite hard to reconcile with historic Reformed theology.

So John's vol on the DoG should be treated as experimental and experiments are and must be subject to criticism.

rsc

Originally posted by SemperFideles
I highly recommend The Doctrine of God by John Frame. It's a thick book but his arguments against Open Theism is devastating. Even if you don't have the time to read the entire book right away it is a great resource.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Dear Paul,

Students are frequently confused! That's why few of them get A's. You can continue to quote students to me or you can trust that I'm reporting my own views accurately. It's up to you.

Sure, all uninspired books should be read with that understanding, but books that make such serious errors should be read with special caution. If you can show me where I've made such serious errors in print, unlike John, I'm quite willing to correct them. Not having the second blessing of tri-perspectivalism I can still correct my views.

Yes, John uses orthodox language and then uses unorthodox language. This is one of the problems with his theology. What he gives with one hand he takes away with the other. He has defended his use of the view that we can know God "in se." He thinks that it's not a big thing. Well, I agree with Kalistos Ware, who is Greek Orthodox, who says that it's impossible to know God "in se" and anyone who says that we can know God thus has committed us to knowing him as he knows himself. At this point Kalistos is more Reformed than John.

Yes, the fact that God IS in se (or that he has a knowledge of himself and things that we do not and cannot have) is revealed but nothing of God in se is revealed to us. To say that we can know God in himself concedes the whole argument to the Clarkians.

It was to deny that we can know God in se that the Reformed distinguished between archetypal (God in se) and ectypal (God as he reveals himself) theology. It's the Creator/creature distinction.

Yes, CVT said it "one person." He's just as wrong as Frame. He didn't, as I recall, defend it as John has. Let's just use catholic language.

No, I'm not equivocating on person, at least not intentionally. I claim that those who advocate monopersonalism are doing that by equating personal with monopersonal. I argue that personal always and only means tripersonal. God is three persons. He isn't one person or monopersonal. The monopersonalists conflate person with essence. I'm trying to distinguish the two categories.

Ultimately they are predicating "one person" of "God."

Tripersonality is not impersonality. We don't have to make the choice you pose. Read the Athanasian Creed.

And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.

Why can't we just admit that CVT erred on this point?

There's nothing wrong with looking at three perspectives. There is something wrong with saying that they are equally ultimate -- something John has been saying for years now. There's something wrong with defining theology as application, even for God. See the van Asselt essay in the WTJ from a few years ago (references on my site) for a brief account of traditional/historic Reformed theological method. To paraphrase a line from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre that was never actually used, "Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein, we don't need no stinking Wittgenstein."

Philosophical theologians are the only ones who should teach the D of G? I'll phone Polanus and tell him immediately. I thought the great virtue of John's theology is that it's more biblical than others. This was his claim contra Well and Muller.

rsc

[Edited on 9-7-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[tewilder]

As I have been able to recover the argument, through reading what Frame says about Van Til, it goes like this:

It seeks to show that there is a problem with the formula that God is three persons of one substance, and establish the alternative that God is three persons in one person.

1) Van Til had a metaphysical intuition that a brute fact is impossible. (Frame thinks that by "brute fact" Van Til meant "uninterpreted being", but we can't be sure.)

2) Therefore a brute fact is impossible.

3) Impersonal being would be a brute fact.

4) Being must be either personal or impersonal.

5) By 1-3 all being is personal. But this would be a proof of idealism, so here we point out that either the Vantillians should accept idealism or introduce an analysis of created vs. uncreated being and go on to show why steps 1-3 apply to the one and not the other. We don't have this discussion, so we note that the demonstration is incomplete at this point.

Instead we make the stipulation that we assume that we could get the result that all uncreated being is personal.

6) If being is personal then it is a person.

7) Therefore the substance that is the union of the three persons is also a person.

So far the argument.

Now it seems to me that (6) is a howler of the most blatent sort. That, at least, is my personal opinion. But I said "personal opinion". If the opinion is personal, it must be a person! All my opinions are personal opinions, and thus are persons!

You see, given the myriad ways that an adjective can modify a noun, we cannot reason from adjective to noun as step (6) does without a complete analysis of what it is for something to be "personal" and how the usage is consistent all through the argument. The Vantillians have never attempted this.

A definition of "person" is difficult to attempt, and an analysis of "personal" is far worse. We are nowhere near to having an valid argument here.

Another possibility is to attempt a counter argument. That is, to make an anaylsis of "personal" to show that in the sense in which "personal" is used it does not follow that the personal is a person. This is something I have not tried, because I don't know how to do it without venturing into unsupportable speculations about the being of God.

But I also have an objection to saying that God is three persons in a tripersonal substance. This, it seem to me (in my personal opinion), reduces the Trinitarian formula to God is three persons existing as three persons. It simply gives up the attempt to state the unity of God, which is the point of the <i>three</i> persons in <i>one</i> substance formula.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I've learned to be very careful you philosophical types.

Did the divines mean to say that God is "one person?" I don't think so.

If you'll read a mere theologian such as Warfield or Hodge you'll see that when they discuss the "personality" of God, they do not "abstract" it, but neither do the redefine it as "monopersonal." They argue that the divine personality is gradually revealed. God is first revealed as personal, then multi-personal and then tri-personal.

Progressive revelation is revelation of the truth. The truth is that God is one in three persons. God is tripersonal. The God who revealed himself in Gen 1 was/is/shall be tri-personal. He left traces of that tri-personality in the creation account and in many other places. In my doctrine of God course (which they continue to allow me to teach despite the fact that I'm a mere theologian!) we trace that revelation with some care.

In catholic/creedal (and Reformed theology) When we distinguish "person" from "substance" or "essence" we are distinguishing categories or ways of speaking about God.

To make that distinction is not to commit one's self to an "impersonal" notion of substance. It's a way of affirming the teaching of both Deut 6:4 AND Matt 28:18-20. God IS one and he IS three persons. The divine essence does not exist distinctly from the three persons, but I cannot grant the premise, however, that "person" and "substance" are the same thing.

Why is it that we have not, before 1961 or so, ever said in Reformed (or medieval -- with a couple of exceptions who were made to recant and recite the Athanasian Creed) used the formula "one person."

It matters not to me that one says "three persons" then says "one person."

Mere historian (which was I really am) and barely a theologian, I know that it's contrary to Scripture and the Reformed confession and the catholic faith to say predicate unipersonality of God.

God is one, but he IS so in three persons.

I concede that CVT and JMF both use orthodox language, but my point is that they both use unorthodox language too. That's the rub. "One person" as predicated of God is unorthodox as judged by the creeds. To argue that the creeds do not speak against the view is inadequate and doesn't reckon with the Spirit of the Athanasian. Can anyone imagine the Athanasian adding the phrase, however intended, "one person"? No!

Can you show me one patristic, medieval, or Reformed theologian prior to CVT who had the nerve to say "one person" of God who was not denounced as a heretic? I think you'll be a while looking up that fellow!

Well, (1) you have yet to show the "serious errors." Also, (2) are you saying that John Frame is aware of these "errors" and yet unwilling to correct them!?

I take it that the form "one person" is a serious error prima facie. Yes, I've tried to point out difficulties in John's theology as have others, but to no avail.

Re: John's motives or my attitude toward John, you're putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my attitude. That's not nice in either philosophy or theology.

It's only unorthodox if he's referring to the same thing as the orthodox language is referring to. But, I've already shown that Frame is using "person" in a different sense than the creeds are using person.

How is "one person" ever true of God? In any way? How can one use the term "person" in reference to the Trinity and say, "but I don't mean what we've always meant by it"? Who gave anyone such license? How is it possible to speak about the Trinity in any other way than the way the creeds speak of it? The Trinity is not a plaything. It doesn't "belong" to me or you or any creative theologian. Anyone who proposes to work on it or revise it has to account for the creedal language. One is not entitled to posit a new definition of person and then say "but I affirm the creedal notion of person too." They incompatible. The creeds do not equate person with substance. One cannot equate them as one pleases and distinguish them as one pleases.

Frame also agrees that we can only "know God as he is in himself insofar as he has revealed that in Scripture" (DG, 204).

There you go. You've done my work for me. What's orthodox about this sentence? It's flatly false and contrary to Scripture and Reformed theology.

We know THAT God exists in se but we don't know God in se. There's a huge difference. If we can know God in se, in Scripture, why did we have the Clark/Van Til controversy?

Can you appreciate this distinction?

There is a difference between speaking about God's essence and claiming to know what it is or to know God as he is in himself. I don't have to know God "as he is in himself" to be able to say that God has an essence or that his essence is utterly transcendent. Calvin is pretty thorough here in Book 1 as are all our theologians on this topic.

But we saw that Frame denies that we can know God in se. God has told us that He is Who He is, do you know that? if so, that's some knowledge of God's essence.

I'm not a philosopher, but how is this not a non sequitur? He denies it on the one hand and affirms it on the other. He says, "know God as he is in himself insofar as he has revealed that in Scripture." John believes that God has revealed himself as he is, in Scripture. This is a category mistake.

We know that God is who/what he is/will be, but we don't know God AS he is.

This is a fundamental Biblical and Protestant distinction. Scripture is accommodated. All of it. We never have contact with God as he is in himself. God, in se, is wholly other. John doesn't distinguish between Luther's theologia gloriae and Barth's doctrine of transcendence. Maybe if he was a better historian....?

Paul, please read van Asselt. See also my essay in the Strimple Festschrift. See also Muller Post-Ref Ref'd Dogmatics.

John's idea that we can know God "in se" in Scripture (but apparently only occasionally) is what, I believe, fuels John's incorrigibility in theology. I have ONLY ectypal theology derived from biblical exegesis as informed by the confessions and the tradition. I think Paul Helm also holds this view. We discussed it in Colo Springs in the late 90's. See Horton, Covenant and Eschatology for a more traditionally Reformed view.

can't really interact with you here. At best it seems that you're not understanding what is meant. I also don't have a problem with "theology as application" based on what Frame means by that.

I took my MDiv with John 1984-7 and was his colleague for a number of years and have read his work extensively and intensively. I heard him give what became DKG before it existed in printed form.

Further, I agreed with him for years until I began to read 16th and 17th century Reformed theology in the sources. Then I found out that much of what I was taught by John isn't really Reformed. I wasn't always a critic. I've become a critic by virtue of my historical work.

I've got to stop here. I must get back to the work I've agreed to do.

best,

rsc

 

[Magma2]

Yes, the fact that God IS in se (or that he has a knowledge of himself and things that we do not and cannot have) is revealed but nothing of God in se is revealed to us. To say that we can know God in himself concedes the whole argument to the Clarkians.

And, further down:

Frame also agrees that we can only "know God as he is in himself insofar as he has revealed that in Scripture" (DG, 204).

There you go. You've done my work for me. What's orthodox about this sentence? It's flatly false and contrary to Scripture and Reformed theology.

We know THAT God exists in se but we don't know God in se. There's a huge difference. If we can know God in se, in Scripture, why did we have the Clark/Van Til controversy?

Can you appreciate this distinction?

There is a difference between speaking about God's essence and claiming to know what it is or to know God as he is in himself. I don't have to know God "as he is in himself" to be able to say that God has an essence or that his essence is utterly transcendent.

While I enjoy watching Van Tilianism (or would that be Van Til-lichism) self destruct whether it's over Van Til´s heterodox doctrine of the Trinity (which, given his equal ultimacy can be construed as monopersonal or multipersonal consisting of three, four or any number of persons since if the three persons make one person then wouldn't God be a Quadanity, and, if so, does the First and the Second make another person, and the Second and the Third another still, and on and on) or his destitute and self-refuting epistemology, if the Frame quote above is heterodox, then what do you make of 1 Cor 2:16b; "œBut we have the mind of Christ." Or, John 8:32; "œand you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." One would think in order to know any truth we must know some things God knows for God is Truth.

Remember the controversy between Clark and VT had to do with not exhausting God, but rather the question of whether or not there is a univocal point of contact between God's thought and man's thoughts. VT and his followers deny to this day say no, but it seems Paul is making some steps in the right direction in spite of his Van Til-lichism.

For my own , I think the problem you two are having "“ at least on this point -- hinges more on how you define essence, that is, if you define it at all. But, don´t mind me, please continue to de-construct as your Van Tilianism self-destructs.

Give your exchange so far, in my opinion you're both heading in the right direction.


[Edited on 9-8-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 9-8-2006 by Magma2]

 

[BobVigneault]

I just had to jump in here for a moment. You guys are way over my head but this titanic clash is reminding me of something you, Paul, said over on our sister board... well it's not really our sister board is it? More of a red-headed stepchild board. Anyway, you said -

"I don't have the time to, well, preface all my posts by blowing sunshine up someone's skirt (if I can use that example!)."

Love the rich imagery Paul, you've certainly taught me to wear pants at all times. Love ya!

 

[Magma2]

Anyway, let's all remember that even *if* Van Tillianism is self-destructing. Gordon Clark has already evaporated into nothing.

Wishful thinking. Actually, its boarding on delusional. I can only think given the wildness of your reply, you´ve already downed a few waiting for Dr. Clark to arrive at your pre-arranged watering hole for that drink

Also, you´ll notice I was kind enough to snip you´re opening onslaught of the ususal abusive ad hominem attacks and general seething vitriol. For what it's worth, it´s about what I expected. Cursing the iceberg for failing to get out of the way of the ship.

[i. Sean, how do you KNOW any of what you just wrote up there? Write the deductive syllogism made up of scriptural (or those inferred by scripture) propositions.

What a sad and tired argument Paul. I thought you, being such a "œphilosophical type," might be able to muster up something better? Since when did putting Roman Numerals in front of a question make it either relevant or pointed?

But if you´d like to play this game, at least to distract you from the pain of witnessing the collapse of Van Til´s anti-system, define how you are using the word to know above so we can proceed?



<snip more abusive ad hominem in the guise of more sophomoric attempts at humor>

You'll soon find out that 99% of what Clarkians believe is just their own *opinion* on the matter.

Scripturalists at least have the epistemological sophistication to tell the difference between knowledge and opinion and, unlike you, are familiar with the fallacy of begging the question and try to avoid making it.

 

[caddy]

^^

My head's hurting again

and strangely enough...I'm laughing

 

[caddy]

As does Jobs' !

Originally posted by joshua
Man, the whole book of Isaiah screams God's sovereignty.

 

[Civbert]

For the edification (and education) of many who object to Scripturalism, let me direct you to a fine post by Zac Hensley on his blog Desideratum.

Scripturalism for Dummies - Part 1

I hope Paul and a few others will give it some careful consideration. Be sure to read part two also. I think you will see that the knowledge vs. opinion question is pointless unless those who object to Scripturalism can give a viable alternative. The issue is the criterion of knowledge - not the semantics of knowledge vs opinion. If one does not apply the same epistemological criteria, then comparing opinion and knowledge is futile. One philosophy's knowledge is another's opinion - but the practical effect of the proposition in question is the same. The advantage of Scripturalism for the Christian is it's separation of Scriptural knowledge from empirical or rational - God's revelation trumps human experience.

Back to the subject (or at least closer to it):
Dr. Clark. Would you explain what is meant by to "know God in himself"? Can we know anything in itself? I'm not sure what the phrase means.

BTW: I agree with the formulation that God is three persons (full stop). I think when Christian philosophers start pondering on the "unity" and "oneness" of God and then start trying to defend saying things like "God is both one person and three persons" - they are inevitable forced to either equivocation or contradiction. But I wonder what good there is in using terms if we don't clearly define them or use them univocally. Is a human person the same "person" as Christ the person or the person of the Father?

 

[Magma2]

Sean, how do you KNOW that you know the difference between knowledge and opinion? If you do, then write the deductive syllogism made up of premises taken directly, or inferred, from Scripture. If not, then I guess it's another one of your *opinions* that Scripturalists can tell the difference between knowledge and opinion.

Look, if you´d rather just thump your chest and grandstand like a big buffoon to the accolades of sycophants who seem to just eat up this kind of thing, knock yourself out. However, if you´d like to demonstrate that you even understand the first principles entailed in any theory of knowledge, start with a defining the word knowledge. Van Til defined knowledge as did Bahnsen. For what it's worth I agree and accept their definition, to bad their theory is at odds with their definition.

Me again: But Sean, I would but how would you KNOW that I gave you the defintion for knowledge and not the recipe for moonshine? Your rebuttal of my argument would be, again, just your opinion.

I don´t see how that matters? This all could be a dream and you´re just an ill tempered bald hob gobblin, but at least Clark provided a criterion and a theory by which knowledge, rightly defined, might be obtained. You, OTOH, are like so many Charismatics where any barking coming from their lips is to be received as God´s infallible word.

So let me ask you, is the Bible alone the Word of God? And, if not (since no good VT believes it is), how else might His word be known? Philosophy? Science? VT and Bahnsen seem to think so, at least they routinely asserted as much.

 

[Magma2]

John Frame writes:

4. As for triperspectivalism: Scott fails to make an elementary distinction. The Normative Perspective is not the Bible, and the Bible is not the Normative Perspective. The Normative Perspective includes everything, for everything is somehow revelatory of God (general revelation, special revelation, man in God´s image). The Bible is part of the normative perspective, and the decisive part (here plug in Kline on the covenant document, infallibility, inerrancy, etc.) The Bible is also part, the decisive part, of the situational and existential perspectives. So: when I say that the normative perspective is correlative to the others, you may not infer that for me the Bible is correlative to anything. It is not. It is the inspired, infallible Word of God, which must govern all human thinking. And nobody can claim that I have ever said anything contrary to this.

One of Scott´s problems, I think, is that he is unwilling to see any ambiguity in language, particularly language hallowed by historical theological usage. In all five of the points above, Scott simply appeals to some historical precedent and demands that we use the language as the historical creeds/confessions/theologians did, and he insists that no other language will suffice, even though it is equivalent to the historical language.

I guess we can all thank the Lord that John Frame isn´t in the business of interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Of course, he is in the business of interpreting the bible, or at least purports to be, and in recent years has been offering his interpretations of FV. You tell me, what´s worse?

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by Magma2]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Three things:

1. this thread has degenerated into the Clark/Van Til fight. I helped derail the thread by my post warning about my concerns over JMF's doctrine of God.

2. Ironic and confusing as it may be, since I am a "Clark," I don't have any sympathy for the (Gordon) "Clarkian" position in the Clark-Van Til debate. I don't want my criticisms of JMF to leave that impression.

3. As to John's dyspeptic response to my criticisms, though he appears to invite serious dialogue he's made it plain that he considers me too incompetent (his word; remember that he said in the preface to a FV book, Backbone... that those who criticize Norman Shepherd's doctrine of justification as "another gospel" are "stupid" - yes he apologized for it but that's beside the point since he's said it again in a circulated email discussion) and bound by tradition (and confession?) to interact meaningfully with him.

I have no problem with Paul's posting of John's response (of which he sent me a copy) since I criticized his theology here, but readers should know that Paul did not post the letter in its entirety.

As it appears here, it seems that John is inviting a serious discussion. At the end of the letter, however, in the portion omitted, John makes a series of remarkably nasty, personal, and unsubstantiated comments that, if true, should be grounds for ecclesiastical and professional discipline at least and perhaps my deposition from the ministry and and termination from my employment. Of course, they are not true and it would be unedifying to post them.

In view of John's giving with the one hand and taking away with the other I have no interest in attempting to conduct a discussion with him. In this I take perverse pleasure in joining the ranks of those wonderfully disreputable fellows Muller, Horton, and Wells!

Ever one of Machen's Warrior Children,

rsc

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

[Edited on 9-9-2006 by R. Scott Clark]