Divine Simplicity Debate Review: Gavin Ortlund vs. Ryan Mullins

 I did a reaction video on the recent debate. It was a pity they didn’t get to the crux of the issue. 

Book Review: The Revealed God by Dr. Jeffrey D Johnson

I provided a book review of Dr. Jeffrey D. Johnson’s book related to Classical theism and ongoing debates in theology proper. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W0Mwj_GS6Gt8jIPh3Vwqw06VdyzmQIsm/view?usp=drivesdk

The Intermediate State and Heaven

 Heaven is God’s presence which is manifested to incorporeal creatures. The beatific vision is required. 

I find it odd that there is very little scholarly work written on the nature of the intermediate state. Yet non-scholarly work like Randy Alcorn’s Heaven is quite popular. Alcorn provides an ad hoc speculation that the intermediate state is a physical location in which God bestows disembodied souls temporary (loaner) physical bodies. I can provide an alternative proposal with equivalent or greater explanation power and scope. Suppose at death our disembodied souls are consigned by God to the intermediate state. The intermediate state is a created spiritual/mental realm with temporal location but not spacial location or extension. The obvious objection to my alternative is Christ dwells with His people in the intermediate state with a physical glorified body. But if we stipulate glorified bodies may voluntarily take on the property of incorporeality. Much like angels who are pure spirits can voluntarily materialize. Souls can communicate the property of immateriality to their glorified bodies. The objection is overcome. Yet it must be kept in mind this power of souls is divinely mediated. In the intermediate state, Christians dwell with Christ in comfort. Non-Christians suffer mental anguish and misery. Both await for the final bodily resurrection and judgment. 

Aquinas thinks the intermediate state is a place. A place in which disembodied souls are able to reside. It has both spacial and temporal location (E.g. souls and bodies). It has spacial extension by Christ’s glorified body alone. The disembodied souls of the saved are in union with Christ.  

William Lane Craig’s speculation:

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxskWq8O95830kSU-I1gSNX9j3a5kBe3o2

Theology Proper and Hermeneutics

In Philosophy of Religion and Analytic Theology much ink is spilt on arguing for the coherence of theism. But of course there are different rival models of God. Some are within orthodoxy and some are not. But the important point is they are models. Theories built from Biblical data (and/or theological, philosophical and scientific reflection) to provide a coherent and consistent story of God’s nature and character. Oliver Crisp defines a model roughly as, “a simplified conceptual framework or description by means of which complex data sets, systems, and processes may be organized and understood.”[1] Why construct models? An obvious reason is to demonstrate Christian doctrines are not logically impossible. But how does Biblical interpretation interplay with constructing models of God? I want to focus on three hermeneutical approaches. Perhaps more approaches can be discussed but would go beyond the scope of my intentions here. Now it should be said that all three approaches are nuanced enough to deal with literal and figurative language in Scripture. So I will simply speak broadly. The first approach takes language about God analogically in Scripture. Scripture is viewed as God’s self-disclosure and condescension to us with anthropomorphic, anthropopathic and zoomorphic language. Hence, it must be stressed that such language should not be taken as wooden literalism. Classical theism consistently argues from this first approach. The second approach interprets language about God univocally in Scripture. Scripture is viewed as God’s self-disclosure to us with literal (i.e. non-anthropomorphic or non-anthropopathic) language. Therefore, it is stressed that such language must be taken as literal. Thus when Scripture says God changes His mind this approach takes such language to be really the case. Open theism consistently advocates this approach. The third approach interprets language about God univocally or analogically in Scripture. Scripture is viewed as God’s self-disclosure to us with literal and figurative language. Consequently, it is stressed that such language must be determined in each relevant case. Thus when Scripture states God is angry or God changes His mind such statements cannot simply be interpreted as literal (i.e. non-anthropomorphic or non-anthropopathic) without overriding reasons. Overriding reasons may be reasons or evidences that render such an interpretation implausible or unreasonable. For example, Scriptures explicit teaching that God knows all things, including past, present and future events. Or that Saul of Tarsus was storing up God’s wrath as an enemy of God; but, by God’s sovereign mercy and grace Saul became Paul a friend and minister of God.  Indeed, this third approach does not have a straightforward, across the board, interpretation in all cases. The presumption of the analogia fidei principle is to be foundational. The literary genre and authorial intent is to be considered. Church history, creeds and confessions, if relevant, may be consulted. Moreover, undesirable intractable theo-philosophical problems that arise from any given interpretation may also be weighed. 

[1] Oliver Crisp. Analyzing Doctrine: Toward a Systematic Theology (Baylor UP, 2019), p86.