Parables Point to our Sin Problem

There has been much ink spilled on how to interpret the parables of Jesus – some good and some bad.  One important area of understanding and interpreting parables is the reason as to why Jesus spoke in them.  Mark 4:11-12:

And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

“they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

Jesus used the parables to confound the minds of the “outsiders” in order to display the hardness of their hearts in sin.  As the Puritans would put it, sin has rendered our minds incapable from grasping holy things – such as the kingdom and Gospel of God.  Sin is the great barrier between man and God that keeps him from seeing and perceiving.  It has caused our minds to miscarriage any understanding of the invisible God.

Repentence and forgiveness is the remedy given.  What a beautiful picture of the Gospel!  Repentence and faith which leads to the forgiveness of sins causes our hearts to not only see and perceive the mystery of the kingdom and Gospel of God, but delight in it.

 

1,800 Free Seminary Courses!

From the Gospel Coalition:

1,800 Free Seminary Courses:

Reformed Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary

Browse 1,800 free seminary courses from Reformed Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary. iTunes may be required.

My Favorites:

• History of the Doctrine of the Church
  Edmund Clowney
• Van Tilian Apologetics
  Greg Bahnsen
• History and Theology of the Puritans
  J.I. Packer
• The Calvin I Never Knew
  Frank James
• Preaching the Word: Reflections at Sixty
  Sinclair Ferguson
• Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World
  Tim Keller (Edmund Clowney)
• The New Perspective on Paul
  D.A. Carson

 

A Poem on Law and Gospel

I just received the Reformation Heritage Books catalogue today in the mail.  On the very front is a poem entitled “A Poem on Law and Gospel” by Ralph Erskine.  We need to be careful not to attribute to Erskine a hatred of the Law, but rather he is pointing out the incompleteness and insufficiency of it for Life.  It exalts the Gospel.  I loved it:

Ralph Erskine, The Beauties of Erskine, 1745

A Poem On Law & Gospel: 

The law supposing I have all,

Does ever for perfection call;

The gospel suits my total want,

And all the law can seek does grant.

 

The law could promise life to me,

If my obedience perfect be;

But grace does promise life upon

My Lord’s obedience alone.

 

The law says, Do, and life you’ll win;

But grace says, Live, for all is done;

The former cannot ease my grief,

The latter yields me full relief.

 

The law will not abate a mite,

The gospel all the sum will quit;

There God in thret’nings is array’d

But here in promises display’d.

 

The law excludes not boasting vain,

But rather feeds it to my bane;

But gospel grace allows no boasts,

Save in the King, the Lord of Hosts.

 

The law brings terror to molest,

The gospel gives the weary rest;

The one does flags of death display,

The other shows the living way.

 

The law’s a house of bondage sore,

The gospel opens prison doors;

The first me hamer’d in its net,

The last at freedom kindly set.

 

An angry God the law reveal’d

The gospel shows him reconciled;

By that I know he was displeased,

By this I see his wrath appeased.

 

The law still shows a fiery face,

The gospel shows a throne of grace;

There justice rides alone in state,

But here she takes the mercy-seat.

 

Lo! in the law Jehovah dwells,

But Jesus is conceal’d;

Whereas the gospel’s nothing else

But Jesus Christ reveal’d.

I loved the last stanza.  

 

 

Millard Erickson and the Trinity (2)

Millard Erickson, in Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, begins to describe the “gradational” – need to come up with a better term – side of the debate.  He explains the views of Charles Hodge, Augustus Strong, Louis Berkhof, George Knight, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, and Robert Letham.  Interestingly, Erickson only goes back to the turn of the century.  Much of the arguments “gradationists” use comes from the Church Fathers and the Reformation.  Yet, Erickson decides to start with Hodges.  However, he does start with the turn of the century with the Equivalent view as well in the next chapter, so he doesn’t grant either side the authority of tradition – yet.  Erickson is remarkably fair.  He seems to take pains to use as much of their language as he can.  He doesn’t lump all of the theologians into one group, but emphasizes their nuances and distinctions.

There is one disappointment.  Erickson stresses the development of this view in that later theologians stress the obedience of the Son to the Father, while earlier ones stress the “begetting” of the Son or eternal generation from the Father.  It would take much more room than a blog can provide to expand this point, but I think this is a mistake.  It is certainly true that later theologians do not stress the begetting or eternal generation of the Son, but it is certainly not true that earlier theologians do not express the obedience of the Son to the Father.  If anyone takes a hard look at the sermons at the turn of the centure (and even today), there is much talk of the obedience of the Son being part of the Gospel presentation.  Theologians of the Dutch Reformed tradition pressed this obedience when addressing the Trinity and the Person of Christ.

It is difficult to do a broad, sweeping over-view of every personality within this view.  It is disappointing when Robert Letham’s arguments, who in my view is the most thoughtful, are generalized.  But, it is understandable.

Overall, Erickson’s chapter on the “gradational” view is helpful.

 

Millard Erickson and the Trinity – Gradational? (1)

Millard Erickson has recently published Who’s Tampering with the Trinity through Kregel (interesting to me that Kregel published this).  Erickson has written this book to “assess the subordination (of the Son) debate”.  He is one who holds that there is no relationship of submission and authority between the Father and Son. 

In his introduction, he outlines the contents of his book and puts forward and defines his terms.  Erickson rightly observes that is no good label for each side of the debate.  He does not agree that one side should be called complementarian and one side egalitarian.  In one sense, I understand his dislike for these terms when concerning this debate.  He does not want to mix gender concerns with Godhead concerns.  I am sympathetic to this.  However, it is no coincidence that most complementarians who hold this view think it does certainly inform how we should think about the relationship of men and women in the home and in the Church.  Yet, that view is not at the center of the debate, so I can grant Erickson this objection to the use of those terms.

However, I’m not as comfortable with his suggestions as to what terms to call each side.  His own side, he labels Equivalent Authority View (contra authority submission) and the opposing side the Gradational Authority View (pro authority/submission).  The problem is that gradational has historically been a label for heretics who believe Jesus was a grade lower in divinity – he may be God, but not the same level as the Father-God.  Origen was labeled a gradationist, and others.  Those who hold to the view of authority/submission in authority within the Godhead myself and others – (Ware, Grudem, Carson, etc), hold that each Person is equally God – equal in nature and essence.  When it comes to matters of the Trinity, I don’t know of anyone who has been labeled gradational  has not held to a sub-Christian doctrine of the Person of Christ.  I am certainly open to being corrected on this subject.

I do not believe this is a helpful term to use and I think those who enter into this debate should reject it as a viable option.  It seems to me these terms have a mischievous intention.

 

Wells and the Person of Christ – A Subordinating Son (3)

David Wells, rightly (in my mind), understands the nature of the relationship of the Son to the Father as an Submission/Authority relationship, in the chapter on the Identity of Jesus in The Person of Christ.  He writes that the relational authority of the Father “will remain unchanged, presumably, even after the Son has resumed his glory (1 Cor. 24-28).”  He later asks, “How far, then do the exigences of this submission, the conditions of this subordination, affect the nature of the divine Jesus? (emphasis mine)”  Wells makes the distinction between functional and metaphysical subordination.  Even in Philippians 2, the term “emptied” himself is not a metaphysical claim, but “As the divine light passes through the darkened glass of his humanity, it is obscured but not refracted.  In Jesus, God became incognito, but he did not disappear, he is hidden, but not lost.”

 

Why God Became Man

Meditated on these rich quotes this week in my reading:

In short, since neither as God alone could he feel death, nor as man alone could he overcome it, he coupled human nature with divine that to atone for sin he might submit the weakness of the one to death; and that, wrestling with death by the power of the other nature, he might win victory for us (John Calvin, Institutes, 2.7.466).

Humility was assumed by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity; and to pay the debt that we had incurred, an inviolable nature was united to a nature that can suffer.  And so, to fulfill the conditions necessary for our healing, the man Jesus Christ, ‘one and same mediator between God and man,’ was able to die in respect of the one, unable to die in respect of the other (Leo the Great, A Doctrinal Letter to Flavian, 31-33).

In reading some heavy work on the Person of Christ, it is wonderful to read some words that exult in the glorious plan of God in Christ for sinners.  Amen and amen.

 

The Apocalyptic Turn-off

I have been listening through some of the Simeon Trust lectures at College Church, Wheaton, IL on preaching through apocalyptic literature.  D. A. Carson’s opening lecture included a good introduction to the topic.  In one of his opening comments, Carson mentioned that if he was teaching through a course on the book of Revelation, he would first assign 500 pages of apocalyptic literature of the Book of Noah, 2 Enoch or 4 Ezra, so that after your eyes glaze over you would get to the Apocalypse of John and it would be “easy-reading”.  

Note to self – If the opportunity ever arises to take a course on the book of Revelation from D. A. Carson, don’t take it.

 

Wells on the Functional Subordination of the Son

In continuing to read through David Well’s The Person of Christ, I stumbled across this quote, which deals with something that I normally comment on this blog site and others.  Wells is developing the identity of the Son in the Gospel of John, and he writes:

There is a note of subordination in some of Jesus’ utterances.  On the one hand the idea that he “descended” and came from “above” suggest something close to Paul’s teaching on the humiliation and self-emptying of the Son (Phil. 2:5-11).  This aspect of his subordination would therefore be of limited duration and would cease when he resumed his former glory.  On the other hand, it is implied that there is an eternal priority of the Father to the Son in which the Father appears to initiate action.  This realtional priority will reamin unchanged, presumably, even after the Son has resumed his glory (1 Cor. 15:24-28).  A functional subordination does not, however, require an ontological subordination, for in the fellowship of love, unity of being and subordination of role are entirely conpatible (pg. 50).

Even though this quote is from 1984, it certainly speaks to the present issue at hand today that the Son, though equal in essance, nature, and worth, is “functionally” subordinate to the Father.

 

David Wells and the Person of Christ: A Kingdom Paradigm (2)

Finally, getting into chapter 1 of The Person of Christ: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of the Incarnation by David Wells, he argues that the New Testament provides the “already/not yet” Kingdom of God as a framework for understanding and interpreting the figure of Christ.  He puts much emphasis on the timetable of the kingdom.  He uses phrases like “partly realized and yet still to be consummated”, “being realized slowly,” and “first the invisible then the manifestation.”  The already/not yet time table – in which our languages are stretched to describe – radically re-orders the kingdom timetable of early Judaism and the Protestant liberalism of today.

Wells mainly looks at the Synoptics and Paul’s corpus for his understanding of the kingdom.  He recognizes the differing themes within the Synoptics on the kingdom/Messianic claims are subdued in Mark while emphasized in Matthew.  Also, Luke’s understanding of the kingdom is traced particularly in the realm of salvation.  Yet, as Wells rightly argues, “these distinctive elements  are not in competition with one another so much as being the components of a larger whole.”

The kingdom framework that Wells presents is certainly helpful, but what about the biblical theological/historical redemptive framework?  It seems to me that a significant amount of the NT finds its interpretive framework for the figure of Jesus in the history of the OT.  I wonder if this is assumed by Wells (?).

 

Soft Complimentarianism or No Complimentarianism? A Better Option – Part 4

So, I concluded that Steve Tracy discussion of (soft) complimentarianism is not a good option – nor is it complementarian. Here is a better option by Stephen Um:

more about "Soft Complimentarianism or No Complim…", posted with vodpod

 

David Wells and the Person of Christ: Why is this Book Out of Print? (1)

My question is this:  Why is The Person of Christ: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of the Incarnation by David Wells out of print?  It was difficult to find it, but I did.  And now that I have been going through it, I am astonished that no one has attempted to put out a second edition!  Anyways…

In his introduction, Wells makes some preliminary observations about the landscape of contemporary Christology.  Pretty bleak.  He remarks that the most challenging opposition to Chalcedonian Christology is the “restlessness over the proposition that the human and divine are separate entities.  This is particularly unappealing to the modern mind, for it seems to presuppose a Divine which is antecedent to the human” (p. 8).  It presupposes a God who is not identical to the “content of human perception and who transcends the horizon of human conception.”  This is the basic problem for the “Quests” for the historical Jesus.  Since the texts were written in the context of faith, they are discredited, and therefore are to be discounted.  There must be some historical truth “behind” the text, rather than “within” the text.  In other words, the modern theologian wants a “reasonable” Jesus, rather than a “revealed” Jesus.  

Wells makes a further interesting observation that Simon Gathercole makes twenty years later.  He argues that since the Pauline corpus was written before the Synoptics, an argument could be made that their christologies were Pauline more than anything else – though he does not fully articulate this argument.  However, Simon Gathercole, in his book The Pre-existent Son (pg. 23-42) does develop this into a very convincing argument.

 

Soft Complimentarianism or No Complimentarianism? Part 3

Tracy continues on writing on headship in marriage.  He contends that the foundation of the male’s headship is the Father’s headship over the Son.  While he does not explicitly express this, it seems that Tracy think that the authority/submission relationship of the Father and Son is only during the incarnation.   He argues that the Trinity provides a model for marital headship.  He writes, “We believe this is best done in an incarnational model.  By incarnational we mean that nature of the Father’s relationship with the Son during the earthly life.”  So then, it seems Tracy would argue that the submission of the Son to the Father is only during the incarnation.  Headship in the Trinity, for Tracy is not a “power intensive, top-down hierarchical authority that is assumed and asserted by many Christian writers” (p. 65) –  I think we are to assume that he includes Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware at this point.  

How then are we to understand this model of headship in the Trinity?  Tracy writes, “The Fathers share with the Son and their is amazingly mutual and interconnected” (p. 65).  The Father gives the Son all authority in heaven and earth.  What the Father has (authority) is given to the Son.  After the Son’s obedience to the Father at the cross, the Father exalts him above every name.  So then, after the Father exalts the Son, there is a mutuality of authority.

This is a troubling understanding of the Trinity.  While complementarians affirm that the relationship of the Father and Son is a model of headship for the male, we would affirm that this relationship is eternal and never changes.  Though the Son puts on flesh and becomes man, orthodox Christianity would historically affirm that his Person and divine nature never changes.  Rather, he puts on flesh.  His Person and divine nature remain unchanged.   Also, his authority never changes.  It is not as if the Son relinquishes his authority as God over creation and then regains it after his obedience to the cross.  This smacks of Adoptionism.  Tracy would have to adhere to some sort of divine kenosis or deny the eternality of the Person of the Son (pure Adoptionism).  Complementarians never affirm that the Son has different authority over creation as God the Father.  The Son has all the authority of God over all things created.  Yet, within the Godhead, the Son submits to the authority of the Father (functionally), though they remain equal in essence.  Tracy seems to argue that the Son does not have the same authority over creation as the Father until the Father empowers him.  This in troubling and does not seem to be faithful to Chalcedonian christology.

The idea of faithful Chalcedonian christology does not seems to be a concern for most who deny the submission/authority relationship of the Son.  Most theologians would at least assume a submission of the Son during the incarnation.  Yet, what about eternity?  Those who deny this relationship throughout eternity must hold to a change in substance/essence of the relationship of the Father and Son.  Here are the options you would have to assume:

• During the incarnation, the Person has mutual authority with the Father, but the human nature submits – a schytzophrenic Christ.
• During the Incarnation, the Son assumes a divine kenosis during the incarnation, then being re-glorified at his resurrection or ascension.  Or,
• Pure Adoptionism.  

None of these option remain faithful to Chalcedonian christology.  I don’t know of any theologian who can account for this change of authority at the incarnation while remaining Chalcedonian.  Certainly not Tracy.

These three posts are only looking specifically at Tracy’s idea of headship in his new upcoming book Marriage at the Crossroads, not his entire understanding of Complementarianism.  Yet, looking specifically at his understanding of male headship, I would say he is no Complementarian.

 

Soft Complimentarianism or No Complimentarianism? Part 2

Part 1 discussed Steve Tracy’s misuse of Wayne Grudem’s arguments on headship and authority in marriage in the upcoming book Marriage at the Crossroads.  Tracy  seems to have misrepresented and manipulated Grudem’s words to fit his agenda.

It would be helpful to develop how Tracy explains “headship” as a soft complimentarian.  He sees the authority of Christ over the Church in Colossians 2:19; Ephesians 4:15 and Ephesians 5:23 and the relationship of the Father and Son in the Gospel of John as particularly helpful in understanding a husband’s headship over his wife.  Interestingly, Tracy does not see an emphasis in any passage on Christ’s authority over the church, rather Christ is “the head over all things for the church” (Eph. 1:22).  According to Tracy, the context of these passages highlight “not so much Christ’s authority over the church but over other powers that might threaten the church” (p.63).  He is not dismissing authority all together, but “it is greatly de-emphasized” (p. 64).  Instead, we should see the headship of Christ as a “source of salvation and/or spiritual nourishment”.  Tracy suggests that this way of thinking of headship still denotes some sort of authority.  How does this relate to husbands?  Tracy writes:

They have a measure of authority, but based on the texts we’ve looked at, this authority would be used more toward other individuals or forces that might threaten, than it would be used over wives (64).

An Evaluation  

Tracy’s argument that Christ’s headship emphasizes “source” rather than authority is not a new argument.  It is an tired egalitarian argument that has been answered by authorities so I do not need to add much to them.  Here are two definitive articles on the subject:

(1) The True Meaning of Headship, by David Kotter

Part 1

Part 2 

Part 3 

Part 4

Alternative View Part 1

Alternative View Part 2 

 

(2) The Meaning of Kephale (“Head”): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged, by Wayne Grudem.

Let me parallel two passages that emphasizes Christ’s headship as an authority over all things and the Church:

1. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church (Ephesians 1:22) 
2. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 5:23)

The same headship that Christ has over other authorities and powers that might threaten the Church, he has over the Church.  This headship is an authoritative lordship.  The authority is certainly different over the Church than it is over the reset of the world, but it certainly does not de-emphasize authority.  In fact, the Church is part of the kingdom of Christ the King.  Kingship cannot get anymore authoritative than that (other than God, which he is well).  It is difficult to differentiate Tracy’s soft complementarianism from evangelical egalitarianism.  Tracy also has some troubling remarks about the relationship of the Father and the Son in relationship to the headship of the husband, which I will pick up on in Part 3.

 

 

 

Soft Complementarianism or No Complementarianism? Part 1

I am reading through the soon to be released title by IVP Marriage at the Crossroads: Couples in Conversation About Discipleship, Gender Roles, Decision Making and Intimacy  by William and Aida Spencer and Steve and Celestia Tracy (Set to be released June of 2009).  What interested me was that the Tracy’s defined themselves as “soft” complementarians.  My initial question was What is “soft” complementariansim opposed to?  Hard complementarianism?  It became very clear that the Tracy’s are opposed to the complementarianism set forward by CBMW, specifically Wayne Grudem.  

Steve Tracy, in the chapter on “Headship” quotes Grudem saying, “every single decision large or small… whether we have reached agreement or not the responsibility [authority/power] to make the decision still rests with me [as the man].  Thus male headship makes a difference in every decision that a couple makes every day of their marital life” (This quote is taken from Wayne Grudem, “Key Issues in the Manhood-Womanhood Controversy, and the Way Forward,” in Biblical Foundations for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. Wayne Grudem, p. 38).  Tracy argues that this sort of complementarianism leads to many evangelical leaders espousing a husbands headship to mean

A wife must never try to change her husband’s and should passively accept his sin, must obey him even if it violate her conscience and sense of God’s leading, is to follow his mission and dreams (not her own), should be quiet or just say “sure” when she disagrees with him, and should submit even to his sinful behavior that might lead to her or her children to be sexually abuse (p. 60).

Therefore, since a view of headship like above can lead to very sinful conclusions, it cannot be biblical.

There are two very disappointing things about the section of Steve Tracy’s chapter on “Headship”.  First, Tracy takes Grudem completely out of context of his argument.  Grudem is talking about headship; he is talking about decision making; he is talking about the man’s responsibility.  Yet, Tracy takes no effort in displaying Grudem’s great pains in explaining that it is the man’s responsibility to make the final decision before God.  So then, it is not as if men get their way whether the wife agrees or not, as Grudem explains, but that the husband must make his decision before God at the end of the day, even though there may be disagreement.  Grudem also goes to great lengths to show the dangers in erring in husbands being too passive or too domineering.  The effect of Tracy quoting not even two complete sentences of Grudem is that Grudem’s intentions are distorted, only fitted for Tracy’s argument.  You can read the entire chapter here to read Grudem’s argument in its entirety.  

Second, Tracy only footnotes that Grudem would not agree to some of these conclusions that many have taken from his words.  Not only is it only footnoted, but at the end of a very long footnote in which Tracy first references another work of his and mentions Grudem’s association with CBMW.  Tracy never remarks as to who these “evangelical leaders” are that are making these wild conclusions from Grudem’s words, nor does he make any good effort to ensure his readers that Grudem would never affirm any of these conclusions (not just “some” as Tracy alleges).  

Tracy makes no substantive argument against Grudem’s actual words, but only to those who make sinful and delirious conclusions from them.  This is sloppy argumentation and slander.  Grudem’s words were carefully manipulated to support the agenda of Tracy’s chapter.  A poor way to discuss your point.  

While this is only a small portion of the book, I couldn’t help but address Tracy’s poor use of Grudem’s words.  Not a great way to begin.

 

Experiencing the Providence of God – A Reflection of Acts 27

I recently taught through Acts 27 in our small group (we have been going through Acts).  The glaring question that stuck out in my mind in reflecting on the entire chapter is why so much detail Luke gives in describing the Shipwreck event for Paul.  Luke includes names, measurements, dates, plans, cities, and all other details – kinds that he normally does not include in his narrative.  Why?

Interestingly, Luke narrates the event as one who was included in it – “It was decided the we should sail for Italy…” (Acts 27:1).  Luke experienced this shipwreck unlike many of the other events in his narrative.  He did not experience the Damascus road, Pentecost, or the stoning of Stephen (we assume).  But he did experience this shipwreck and he saw God’s providence at working to the end of furthering the reach of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Now, as to why so much detail, I conclude that Luke sees the providence of God guiding every single thought, plan, event, and person that he had difficulty narrowing down all the important events to include.  Luke sees all of life (including his) as part of the providential hand of God furthering the influence of the Gospel among the ends of the world.

 

Philosophy in the Service of Theology 4

Continuing on with Scott Oliphint in his Reasons for Faith…    

Oliphint begins much of his discussions on the knowledge of God and all of reality with the distinction of our knowledge (creation) and the knowledge of God (as Creator) – the Creator/creature distinction (see part 2 and 3).  Yet, in discussing the difference between our essence and God’s essence he develops the Creator/creature distinction towards an “I am/image” distinction (Eimi/eikon).  He footnotes about this distinction “I am avoiding the language of Creator and creature here simply because being Creator is not of the essence of who God is and thus could serve to confuse our discussion of God’s essence.”  Oliphint, however, does not dismiss the Creator/creature distinction, but develops in discussing God’s essence. 

This distinction, of course, goes to further his discussion on God’s simplicity and aseity, for which Plantinga dismisses.  God’s self-disclosure as “I am” is the clearest biblical picture of his aseity.

 

 

 

 

 

Ministering to the New Mobility

I just recently listened to Stephen Um’s talk “On Ministry and Revolving Doors: Practical Challenges and Ideas for Ministry in a Mobile Society“.  It was a great talk on ministering to urban communities that tend to be largely mobile and transitory.  I highly recommend it for any pastors serving in (or planning to serve in) urban areas.

 

Philosophy in the Service of Theology 3

Interacting with Reasons for Faith by Scott Oliphint

Can we really know God in any real or significant way since he is the “Thing” that could never be experienced (according to Aquinas)?  Can we say anything meaningful?  Anything more than metaphorical?  If we say that “Tim is good” secondarily, and “God is good” primarily, are we saying anything with substance?  How do we delineate the difference between God and us?  Aquinas’ formula of analogy fails to answer these questions.  

Oliphint suggests that the Creator/creature relationship (see part2) should be the fundamental interpretive grid when saying anything meaningful about God.  So when we speak of “being” (Aquinas’ unity of Being), we must ask, which being?  Creator? or creature?  This is supported by the first 2 chapters of Romans which expresses our knowledge of God as creaturely.  If God is Creator and we are creature – two kinds of beings – then the knowledge we as creatures have of God comes solely by revelation.  Therefore, Aquinas’ suggestion that knowledge of God comes by observing the world around us is true, yet with some qualifications.  It must be clear that our knowledge is primarily not through reason, or even reasoned observation, but by revelation (Oliphint would suggest immediate knowledge by revelation, Calvin’s sensus divinitus).

So then, Oliphint’s suggestion, contra Aquinas, is that revelation over being is the primary object of rational intellect.  God can be known, but only at a creaturely level.  This Creator/creature framework allows us to say something meaningful about God.  While what we say can only be creaturely and nothing exhaustively, it can certainly true and meaningful.  

 

Philosophy in the Service of Theology 2

Part 2 “Epistemology”

Within Reformed theology, Oliphint (Reasons for Faith) looks to work out the implications of that theology for a Christian-theistic epistemology.  The starting, if we are going to say anything about the nature of things, should be creation – according to Oliphint.  

There is something we can know about everything; we can know that everything is created, except of course, God.

There is a duality of existence – Creator/creature.  Such a basic truth for Christians, yet very few start with this presupposition when thinking about how we know God.

 (See Van Til’s Two Circles diagram below)

Further, the Christian approach begins to look at (1) the character of God and (2) the possibility of know him.  Oliphint argues that the place to begin is the discussion on the doctrine of the simplicity of God.

Simplicity - Denial of any composition of parts in God.  Whatever attributes, qualities, or properties inhere essentially in God, they are identical with his essence.

Oliphint suggests that the clearest and most articulate objections to the simplicity of God comes from Alvin Plantinga, whose objections mainly come from Thomas Aquinas’ discussion of simplicity.  Plantinga’s argument goes like this – If God is identical with his properties, then God himself is a property; and if God is a property, he cannot be personal.  For God not to be simple, then he, according to Plantinga, is neither sovereign nor a se.  For Oliphint (and me) these are troubling conclusions.