Is the Trinity a Brute Fact?

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/01/is-trinity-brute-fact.html?m=1

The DNA of Church

The DNA of Church

Churches have an organic make up that come in different shapes and sizes. They are communities of Christians that gather for preaching, worship, and fellowship. Some are conservatively small congregations while others are magnificently large. Church members can vary in age, ethnicity and socio-economic status. But each church is to have the same basic DNA as a Biblical church. Exegetical/expository preaching that makes the main point of a sermon the main point of the biblical text. It is verse-by-verse teaching with careful concern for the original languages words, tenses and cases. 

 There is to be accountability among pastors, deacons and members. Protecting and preserving one another in the faith. Bearing each other's burdens. This is all possible in a church with membership, discipleship and discipline. In order to develop biblical theology, godly affections and virtues, to the glory of God. 

Dangers of Churches 

(1) Theologically shallow. 

(2) Frequent low proficiency in exegesis, expository preaching and biblical theology. 

(3) Insecurity in Biblical theology thus susceptible to false teachings.  

(4) Biblical Trinitarian monotheism practically denied with subordination of the Father and Son to the Holy Spirit.

(5) Idolization of Spiritual Gifts. 

(6) Topical preaching with homiletics driven by a topic or idea outside of scriptures that is read back into the Bible for support via proof-texting. 

(7) Simple sermons to the congregation instead of gradually lifting up the congregation to greater and deeper insights of the Bible's complexity, beauty and elegance.

(8) Good works are absent. 

(9) Love is replaced with pride or fear. 

(10) There is concentration of either Biblical theology, worship or service over integration. 

Healthy Churches

Our local Christian newspaper has kindly agreed to publish this:

Contemporary churches often specialize in either expository preaching, heartfelt worship or community service.  This tends to attract specific people to churches that pique their interests. Churches are treated much like college universities where people can select their major field of study to the neglect of other fields. The results are stark. The churches operate under an imbalanced ministry. Only the mind, heart or hand is developed. Hence an emphasis is placed on knowledge, experience or morality. Polarization ensues toward intellectualism, emotionalism or moralism. 

The potential bitter fruits of such imbalances are rationalism, irrationalism or legalism. The beauty of the gospel is overlooked. Imbalances diminish the gospel but with God's sovereign grace in the gospel, stability can be attained. Jesus came to rescues us from our sins of pride, fear, and insecurity. He died on the cross, resurrected on third day, to pay the penalty for sins. So in him is our knowledge, motivation and efforts. In him we find all that we need to balance our affections, goals and works. The priority to love God first reverses the adverse effects of such imbalances. Exegetical preaching, worship and service are understood as interdependent. Each reinforces the other. The proper order should be biblical theology births doxology and evidences good works. 

Please take the time to pray for the local pastors and churches in our area to thrive with balanced ministries to reach the world with the gospel. 

New Covenant Apologetics

Theonomy Debate

Dr. Joel McDurmon and Pastor Jordan Hall squared off in a formal debate on the issue of Theonomy. The debate was made available compliments of American Vision and Marcus Pitman of Crown Rights Productions. 

I wish to simply comment on the debate. Dr. McDurmon argues for Theonomy, presupposing biblical authority, on the grounds that the OT laws, specific to civil and criminal laws, are continually binding for all people, unless explicitly or implicitly  those laws are clearly abrogated by God in Scripture. 

Prima facie Dr. McDurmon's argument would logically follow. I see, however, at least three problems. First, God established a covenant and theocratic government exclusively with Israel. He chose them over all the nations to enter in a covenant. This covenant and theocratic government was binding to only Israel and those within the nation of Israel. Thus, for example, if one was in the land of Israel, he or she was obligated to comply with the rules of the land. If, however, one was not an Israelite or was simply outside the land of Israel he or she was outside the covenant or jurisdiction of the theocratic government. So there is a clear distinction that must be kept. The OT laws were obligatory: to a particular covenant people, namely Israel, and in a particular land---the land of Israel. Second, there is no distinction in the OT explicitly or implicitly between the laws of God (e.g. moral, civil and ceremonial). All OT laws were given by God's spoken imperative--thus moral in nature. Third, the NT clearly indicates the old covenant, with its laws, has passed away and the new covenant, with its laws, has been established.  

Uniqueness of Christianity

Some of the reasons Christianity is not just better than alternative worldviews but necessary: 

1. The unity (one) and diversity (many) we encounter in human thought and experience is explained by the Trinity. God created both to reflect his nature. 

2. The eternal love of God is possible since God is eternally three persons yet one essence that share in eternal love (the good of another person) between each person. 

3. The justice of God is preserved yet satisfied in the love and justice of God satisfied in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. This shows we are truly loved by God and leaves no room for fear or insecurity: we boldly can come to God through the cross, no room for boasting or self-righteousness, we are so sinful God himself had to absorb the wrath our sin deserves. 

4. Salvation by grace alone.

5. The Bible is primarily the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God; secondarily it is historically reliable with one theme of redemption that surpasses all criticism. (SNAP: Sufficient, Necessary, Authority, and Perspicuity ) It gives us us the only worldview that is coherent, consistent, with rich explanatory power and scope. Transforms our experiences and consciences,  gives us authentic hope, and fulfillment that is livable. 

7. The Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (e.g. His death, burial, empty tomb, resurrection appearances to various people, changed lives by the resurrected Christ in the face of religious/political opposition, martyrdom of his disciples for their faith).

8. Objective moral values/duties, human dignity and beauty that are universally binding upon all people independent of their personal beliefs; all of these are given either as commandments or essential to nature from God that reflect His love, and goodness. 

Innocent Idols?

Some of the greatest revelations from God, about Himself, are often forgotten. I think there are a lot of things that can be pointed to as reasons for forgetting what God has revealed. Insecurity and laziness are some specific reasons. These can become idols that enslave. For example, we feel insecure about studying doctrines that are deep and difficult. So we excuse ourselves from this task by reserving this task strictly to our Pastors' (after all, they have degrees in theology). Insecurities help us become lazy by relying too much on our Pastors' sermons instead of studying for ourselves. These idols of insecurity and laziness begin to shape how we view God. They control us, even to the point that they motivate us to keep control over our lives from God. They can lead to God being ignored from the Bible. Such that, we become more susceptible to throwing out Biblical exegesis and systematic theology. In turn, our idols "tell us" God has become untrustworthy and/or distant.

The solution is to: (1) identify any given idol of our hearts, and (2) regard it for what it is in light of God's revelation, namely an idol; finally, (3) turn from any given idol to the only true God, whom paid the penalty for sins at Calvary, so that in Him and through Him God can conform us to His image. By the eyes of faith , we can repent, believe, and rejoice in what Christ has done on our behalf. He died in our place to rescue us from sin--from idolatry-- that in Him we would become the children of God. The rags to riches story come true. So we are to no longer live ruled by idols for meaning, purpose or value. Idols cannot give any of these things. All they can do is enslave us on an endless search for meaning, purpose and value where it cannot be found. Meaning, purpose and value can only be found in Christ. Only in Him do we see God's goodness, love and grace poured out for us on the cross. He who is beautiful become ugly for us that we might be beautiful in God's sight. He who was invulnerable become vulnerable that we might find safety and security in Him.  Despair and defeat is conquered, by hope and victory in, and through, Christ's death, burial and resurrection.    

When Calvinism Goes Bad (Part 2) - Tim Conway

Clark and Van Til

There are two very different traditions of presuppositionalism. The first comes from Dr. Gordon H. Clark. Dr. Clark understood Christianity as a system of thought. He treated it much like Euclidian Geometry. The Christian system is comprised of propositions (or theorems) that are deduced from the axiom of scripture. The axiom (first principle, or presupposition) for the Christian is the Bible alone is the Word of God. This axiom is selected among other possible axioms because of God’s illumination (by Christ and the Holy Spirit) and the axiom’s consistency and richness, i.e. its ability to provide knowledge. In other words, unlike other possible axioms, God reveals the Christian axiom to be true and it can solve problems in Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics. 

Dr. Clark’s presuppositionalism follows the tradition of Augustine's rationalism with its denial of sense perception. But contra traditional Rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, Dr. Clark argued the laws of logic (i.e. the laws: of identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction, rational inference) have no content to them; hence, the laws as our sole axiom furnish us with very few theorems, if any.  Thus the laws of logic alone are not broad enough as an axiom. We must start from the sure foundation of Scripture. As the Holy Spirit has revealed it's truth to our minds. By this standard Dr. Clark repudiates all forms of Empiricism and uses this as an advantage in apologetics. This approach can be properly distinguished from traditional Rationalism as Dogmatism or Scripturalism. As Dr. Clark argued forcefully that knowledge is exclusively what is deduced explicitly or implicitly by the axiom of Scripture. This axiom, as a presupposition, is shown to be true by the Holy Spirit; and by the axiom's ability to solve simple and complex problems in thought. 

Dr. Clark was a Philosopher par excellence. So Clark’s main arsenal in apologetics is logical analysis of worldviews. He quite often, and brilliantly if I might add, uses reductio ad absurdum type arguments in refuting detractors.

    

The second tradition in the presuppositional school comes from Dr. Cornelius Van Til. Dr. Van Til thought of everything in terms of worldviews with presuppositions (e.g. Kuyper). But also acknowledged, as the Old Princeton School per Thomas Reid, all men as image bearers of God know Him innately, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The noetic effects of sin preclude man from coming to a saving knowledge of God. Moreover, man as a rebel against God views himself as autonomous (i.e. the final standard for meaning and truth). However, the noetic effects of sin does not render apologetics useless. Van Til, unlike Abraham Kuyper, believed Christians have an ultimate proof of Christianity at its disposal—the transcendental argument for God’s existence. The first step to this approach is to deny religious neutrality and human autonomy. There is no middle ground between worldviews. A person is either committed to Christ or Satan. One either affirms Christianity or a token of the Non-Christian type. Furthermore only God, as described in Scripture, is the ultimate standard of meaning and truth. Here is where Dr. Van Till’s brilliance shined. Dr. Van Til argued that if the non-Christian is epistemically self-conscious (of his spurious human autonomy), he would be confronted with the necessity of the Christian presupposition, namely, only God, as described in Scripture, is the ultimate authority and source of meaning and truth.

The Christian should not argue for Christianity merely by empiricism, rationalism or existentialism; rather the Christian argues for the truth of Christianity transcendentally. He argues that the Christian worldview is the transcendental precondition for human thought and experience. Thus the Christian worldview is necessary to bring unity and completeness to the divided perspectives of empiricism (situational), rationalism (normative) or existentialism (subjective). 

In modern vernacular, unless the Christian worldview is true one cannot prove anything. The argument is formulated loosely by confronting non-Christians to make sense of knowledge, rationality, induction, freedom and morals all the while assuming human autonomy. Dr. Van Til called this arguing from the impossibility of the contrary (much like in Geometry the argument from contradiction). Once the presupposition of human autonomy is logically demonstrated as impossible then the Christian presupposition is offered as the only alternative to make sense of knowledge, rationality, induction, freedom and morals.

Dr. Van Til emphasized that all men have presuppositions (i.e. beliefs used to interpret evidence). Thus no one is religiously neutral to be able to follow the evidence whereever it leads. A person is either committed to Christ or Satan. In the context of truth and meaning, one is either committed to autonomy (self-law) or theonomy (God’s-law). The Christian proves his presupposition transcendentally.   He argues from the impossibility of the contrary (i.e. unless the Christian worldview is true one cannot prove anything).

Van Til was not opposed to reason. He viewed reason as a tool of God. Van Till understood reason as derivative from God. God, who is essentially and originally rational, created man rational after His image. God gave truth and meaning to the actual world. He was the ultimate standard for meaning and truth, which included proper interpretation of the actual state of affairs. However, after the fall, man exchanged the creator for the creature and became vain in his reasoning. Man placed himself on the throne of God; he claimed the right to be essentially and originally rational.  Man asserted his reasoning as the measure/judge of all things (including God and the Bible). In effect, fallen man asserted his reasoning alone was the ontic and epistemic foundation for knowledge, rationality, induction, freedom and morals. Fallen man sees these things as human constructs with man at its source. Van Til turned this kind of reasoning on its head by arguing for a Copernican revolution in apologetics we now call covenantal or presuppositional apologetics.   

Van Til was concerned to rightly put human reason in its proper place under God’s rationality, authority, control, presence and power. Such a task is accomplished when we argue transcendentally.

Dr. John Frame rightly shatters the criticism that presuppositionalism merely argues in a circle. First, Frame points out the logical order of a Biblical epistemology can be conceived as linear (e.g. God’s rationality ->; human faith -->; human reasoning). In God’s rational providence, He produces human faith that governs human reasoning. All three of these components are inseparable. One cannot reason without faith (in reason); and one cannot justify either faith or reason without God.

Synthesis

Scholars (e.g. Carnell, Reymond, Nash, Frame) have examined their apologetical contributions and  identify weaknesses and strengths to provide a synthesis of the best their systems offered.  






















          

God and Time

Before I post my critique of William Lane Craig's proposed model between God and time, I wanted to recommend a few articles I found interesting on the subject.

Space, time, and God. Steve Hays here.

Common Misunderstandings of the Tenseless Theory of Time. Jeremy Pierce here.

Did God Change at the Incarnation. James N. Anderson here

Analytic Theology and Calvinism

Here is a link to an article on Calvinism I just wanted to bring to the attention of my blog readers. It is Paul Manata using the helpful tools and insights of analytical philosophy and applying them to theology.  

Calvinism, Objections, Questions and Answers

Calvinism, Objections, Questions and Answers

1. A person cannot rightly claim that Christ died for him, unless he knows he's elect.

This objection is answered when we understand that a person can know he/she is elect by repenting and trusting in Christ for salvation. It is true that Calvinism teaches that Christ did not died for every single individual. However, Calvinism asserts that Christ died for all those that repent and trust in Him. Thus people can know they’re elect by obeying God—repenting and trusting in Jesus Christ.

2. Doesn’t God have to “force” a person to believe the gospel?

It depends on what is meant by ‘force.’ If one means that God does everything, including believe for a person, then no. That would be hyper-Calvinism. If by it one means that God makes a person believe, like a person is forced to give money to a gunman, then no.  But if force is understood as changing a person’s heart, and desires to willingly want salvation, then yes.

3. If God makes a person trust in Christ, then a person does not have to do anything.

This objection is confusing Biblical Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that God changes a person’s heart giving him/her the ability to trust in Christ (Eph 2:1-5). Thus a person does something, namely believes in Christ, but behind this action is God’s enablement. In modern terms, a person commits him/herself to the person of Christ. But this commitment is only possible by God’s grace. Everyone is obligated to commit one’s self to Christ. Have you attempted to do so? If not why? 

4. If Calvinism is true people do not need to preach the gospel.

This objection is a repackage of the previous Hyper-Calvinist idea that God does not need or require means to accomplish his will. Again, this is against what scripture teaches. God does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115). It is true that God does not need anything, but if God requires means to accomplish His will then we cannot object to it. God has commanded Christians to preach the gospel as a means to draw people to Himself.

Furthermore, if God commands something, it is sufficient to obligate us to obey. So if God says preach, we should preach. If God says believe, we should believe. If He says repent, we should repent.

5. It doesn’t matter what your motive is for believing in Christ.

This is not true. The very reason why there is a distinction between pure and impure motives testifies to the fact. A pure desire for salvation is one that is Scriptural. For example, in Luke 13 Christ commanded people to repent or perish, indicating that fear of hell is a proper motivation to obey God. A more broad definition could be that pure motives are ones that consider God as the primary one offended by our sins. Thus we should seek to please and make right, the wrong done by our sins the way God has commanded through his Son. The offended party should be our primary concern, which is God. In summary, pure desires/motives are Scriptural and Theo-centric (God-centered). Motives, although maybe noble, cannot be based on a desire to please man but God. For example, a person should not desire salvation merely to be a part of a Christian community. Nor should a person trust in Christ in order to please their Christian friends or family. A person should want to please God and have a right relationship with Him, regardless of anything else. Thus a person, individually, trusts Christ for salvation because of awareness of sin and the only remedy Christ.