Review: Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept by Stephen J. Wellum

I did a book review of the newly published Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1 by Dr.  Stephen J. Wellum. Thanks to B&H Academic for allowing me an advance copy of the book. 

LDS, Heavenly Father and Aseity

 

A Latter-day Saint (LDS) missionary posed some interesting comments and questions (provided in quotes). Let me share my responses with the intent of bringing light.

“I just watched your most recent video about Theology”

For clarity I am interacting with LDS Philosopher Blake Ostler’s views and traditional LDS theology proper. 

“as far as the topic of becoming like God have you considered the following analogy? There's a father and a son. The son grows up and gets married and has a daughter.  So that makes the original son's identity change to father. Does that make him equal with his father? Some would argue yes but we would now also attribute the title grandfather to the son's father. In so doing the son has glorified the father. “

Given the offered human analogy it is not merely an identity or status change. It is an ontological change—or more precisely a relational change. There is, in fact, an intrinsic and extrinsic change that obtains. An intrinsic change causes an extrinsic change. The human father intrinsically produces the human son. The human son depends upon the human father for the son’s existence and personal identity. Whereas the the human father depends upon the son for his personal identity but not existence. A human father and human son both gain a new relation and personal identity.  But this is quite a separate point. In my video, I make the point that on traditional LDS theology Heavenly Father must create to actualize his full potential as Heavenly Father. Often this is expressed as the doctrine of eternal increase. Heavenly Father depends in some way upon his children to reach his full potential, namely having as many children as possible which worship him directly or indirectly and contributes (in some way, shape or form) to Heavenly Father’s actualized potential in knowledge, relations and personal identity. Relations in LDS theology would not merely be a dependence or causal relation but rather procreation. 

As to the point of equality. Humans are all derived (ie. owes/borrows their existence from other humans)—except Adam and Jesus. So the analogy breaks down at a crucial point. But I can agree that all humans are equal. Ostler’s kingship monotheism seems to apply this to the LDS Godhead. 

In the video I argue that if Heavenly Father alone becomes the organizer of eternal pre-existing matter to form the Son, Jesus, who is the one that organizes the eternal pre-existing matter to form the actual world. The Father alone is eternally organized while the Son is unorganized but then organized by the Father (on some accounts through procreating with his organized wife). 

Ostler sees the problem of an infinite regress in traditional LDS theology thus he denies Heavenly Father is created or formed by an infinite chain of prior gods. 

Peter Kreeft illustrates,

"Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, God."

Ostler denies traditional LDS theology of heavenly mother since it implies an infinite regress. Or at least an odd relationship in which Heavenly Father must create Heavenly Mother in order to be Heavenly Father and procreate. Ostler seems to say Heavenly Father is an eternal uncreated being with many others that initiate the law of eternal progression.

I actually think by definition God is that being which no greater can be conceived. So I take God to be fundamental—uncaused, uncreated, underived and does not depend upon anyone or anything external to God’s nature. So asking if humans can become like God is like asking can squares be circles. By definition they are qualitatively different in the relevant ways. Humans are created they cannot become uncreated. In the case of Christ, Christians historically affirmed by Holy Writ Christ has two natures divine and human—conjoined and possessed by the one person. 

“Is God a uniform status? Are all God's equal?” 

I take God as fundamental. God is uncreated and the sole source of all reality.  I deny there are many Gods. I affirm a form of traditional biblical, and historical Trinitarian monotheism. But I do admit to Dr. Michael Heiser scholarship and acknowledge a divine counsel. The heavenly hosts, namely, angels, make up God’s counsel. But angels are not properly speaking gods since they are created—thus creatures—and depend upon God. 

But I argue in my video, Ostler’s view entails Heavenly Father is superior to all other gods, including the Son. 

 “I can't say I honestly know but I know the father's glory in the analogy is increased by the son.” 

If what you say were true then Heavenly Father grows or increases in glory. But if Heavenly Father grows or increases in glory then Heavenly Father needs his Son to reach his full potential as God. This can be avoided if aseity is affirmed. But traditional LDS theology lacks the resources to affirm divine aseity.

Homiletics

Do not say everything you are thinking off the cuff. It may come across as ill prepared and scatter minded.

Speak with carefully selected words to effectively communicate with confidence, competence and conviction. Do not use unnecessary words; better to use fewer words to promote clarity.  

Prevent filler words (e.g. like, umm, know what I mean etc.) or frequently repeated words. Use variety of transitions of thought, if possible. 

Prevent distracting mannerisms. 

Remember your audience sees hand movements as mirrored (e.g. your right hand is seen as left).  

Voice projection must be natural or organic not forced or constrained. 

May be intense but not insulting to the ears as yelling. 

Be relaxed. Speak from your diaphragm not throat. Do not come across as yelling but rather elevated inflection and tone must communicate clearly confidence, concern and seriousness. 

Consider preaching or teaching as a conversation that requires at times vocal projection to include multiple people— without coming across as yelling. Do not compete with the microphone rather use it. 

Enthusiasm and excitement must be natural and organic. 

 

Philosophy from a Christian Worldview

Some introductory lectures on Metaphysics and Epistemology 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeyAlQUS0aJZHjL8vY-nh7K7y5Q5n1cR2

Sovereignty and Scripturalism

What I've been thinking about lately:

I read a post of an Arminian that argued sovereignty is a contingent attribute of God. I couldn't  help but think this in and of itself doesn't go far; one must distinguish between eternal or temporal contingency. Still, this doesn't help the Arminian's case since sovereignty seems to be essentially grounded in all of God's attributes (i.e. authority, knowledge, power, goodness, freedom and control). Perhaps, one could say God is sovereign independent of creation in virtue of God qua God exists in all possible worlds with the power to actualize any possible world He eternally decrees by divine wisdom. In a sense God is sovereign over those things which are possible (things He chooses not to actualize) and those things which are actual (things He has created).  


Steve Hays posted a critique of Scripturalism; I've enjoyed his interaction with Ryan a Clarkian in the comments section. Paul Manata made a comment that I think is worth considering. Can epistemic infallablism be shown to be true? If it is possible then must it be actual? Cannot axiom S5 help to demonstrate this?  If so, is this wildly counterintuitive?      

Presuppositionalism Made Simple

Too often there is more dispute on how Presuppositional apologetics should be performed and less practical instruction on how to put it to use. 

There are many great men who have made successful efforts to fill in these gaps in presuppositional apologetics application. John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, James Anderson, Jason Lisle and Sye Ten Bruggencate all come to mind. 

Where Do We Start?

We show existence, truth, goodness, justice, and beauty, can only be made sense of by the truth of Christianity alone. This can take effect in various ways. But it always involves comparing worldviews. We show Christianity to be true by demonstrating its logical opposite is false. Two principles must be followed in this process, (1) no one can be religiously neutral in their beliefs, and (2) no one, except God, can claim the rights of power and authority over all things, especially in intellectual or moral judgements. 

Some one-liner objections I recently encounter on the college campus. 

1. That's your interpretation. 

2. God is prideful

3. God is unloving if babies go to hell

4. The Bible is not God's word.

5. The Bible has been corrupted

6. Genocide is not justice. 
7. The heathen goes to hell without any hope. 

How can all these objections be answered properly without getting away from the gospel? All these questions can successfully be addressed by attacking the underlying presuppositions. Make God in all reasoning the ultimate standard. Man cannot be elevated to the position of God to judge Him. Man must be brought down intellectually to face his position before God--a mere limited creature dependent upon God for everything.   Let's try to do this. How would you answer these above one-liners?    

1. That's your interpretation. Often this objection is given to a particular passage or doctrinal teaching of scripture. You can always quote the disputed passage of Scripture. Ask the objector, "why do you say I am not interpreting this passage correctly?" And then proceed to tell the person its a quotation.  Notice the objector has made a fatal move in his objection. By pressing hard against the scripture's plain meaning, the objector substitutes its content with his desired meaning. He thinks the text has more than one valid interpretation. One interpretation is no better than another. The problem is the objector cannot possibly claim to know the text has multiple valid interpretations unless the objector also claims to interpret the text better than you. Thus the objector refutes himself. The objector claims, "nobody's interpretation is any better;" but in the same breath utters, "except my interpretation that nobody's interpretation is any better." To keep God first in handling this objection one can always simply say, "since you are limited in knowledge how can you know?  You are not God, yet you elevate yourself in the place of God to judge God. By who's authority, power, and right do you sit in judgement of God? If you arbitrarily appoint yourself as judge over God, you are no less than irrational, and no better than insane."                

2. God is prideful. This objection takes pride to be immoral. One could challenge the objector to make sense of morals without God. Or one can say the objector is a hypocrite, since he judges God as prideful, yet the objector makes the objection out of pride. He says in his heart, " at least I am not like that." The objector can rightly be corrected by biblical theology. God is the most perfect being and thus there is no pride that resides in Him. He ought to be praised, honored and glorified, not merely because he commands it, but, since he deserves it. He commands, deserves, and is worthy of, worship.    

3. God is unloving if babies go to hell. This is a sensitive issue which should be answered with precision and caution. I'd say Christ died for all those that will, or physically cannot (i.e. mentally disabled or infants), believe. Other plausible positions can be argued for as well. Let us assume though God sends babies to hell. How would this be unloving or unjust? Where can love or justice exist without God? God is the source of love and justice. Does not God have the right to do what He wants with His creation? Who are we, as limited humans, to question God? Is it not possible that God would still love them even in hell? The Scriptures teach us no one is innocent of sin. All humans are guilty of sin. Thus God would be perfectly just to send all mankind to hell. Yet God chose in His mercy to redeem and transform people from their sins in Jesus Christ. And I believe God, in His providence and compassion, saves those He has not given the time or physical ability to exercise faith in Christ to magnify His justice, mercy, love and grace.       

4. The Bible is not God's Word. Such an objection assumes the objecter knows the Bible is not God's Word. But how can a creature with limited knowledge know this? How does the objector know there is no evidence proving the Bible is God's Word?  Often this objection is made with a cluster of beliefs that drive it. So probe the objector with questions to get to the root of the problem. Underlying all these objections is the commitment that the objector is the standard of truth. This commitment must be challenged by the Bible itself. First, do this by showing the objector's prejudice against the Bible. Second, demonstrate the necessity of starting first with God to even approach the question of whether or not the Bible is or isn't God's Word. Third, reveal the glaring gaps in the objector's knowledge by explaining the historical reliability of the Scriptures, fulfilled prophecies, and archaeological  discoveries. Show the Bible alone provides us with explanation, consistency, coherence, conscience, hope, fulfillment and livability. It takes us from a limited perspective to an incorporation of the normative, existential and situational perspectives that finds completeness, an objective perspective, in Christ. That is to say, it brings us from the limited to the complete in Christ alone.         

5. The Bible has been corrupted. This objection can be taken as a shot in the dark. Simply ask, " can you prove this?" The objection is at its heart autobiographical information of the objector. It is merely the objector's opinion.   

6. Genocide is not justice. Why is genocide wrong to the objector since he rejects God? How can justice make sense if God is not taken as King in our beliefs? Once again, though, the objector is ignorant of Biblical theology. First, God has the right to dispose of His creation however He sees fit. Second, God is the locus of moral perfection, therefore, He alone is the standard of goodness. Third, all humans are guilty, so God can never be charged with Genocide.  God can only be seen as enforcing justice. 

7. The heathen goes to hell without any hope. There are multiple views on how to rightly answer this objection. I will simply say, that given general and/or special revelation, no one can claim to be without hope of knowing God since He has given us all sufficient knowledge of Himself. The heathen that goes to hell goes willfully rejecting God. He had enough revelation from God, to exercise faith in God, but He chose to fashion an idol in His place. 

Presuppositionalism and Sikhism

Sikhism

Metaphysics:

 Dualism: there is a distinction between God and the world. But this distinction breaks down in the end to monism. The world, specifically humans, were created from God's nature.  Therefore, the Sikh's ultimate goal in life is to be reunited with Sat Nam through reincarnation.

Epistemology:

Prophet/Gurus – Nanak, like Muhammad and Joseph Smith, claimed to receive revelation from God that all religions are false except the religion he should establish. If this was not the case, then Sikhism lead by Nanak would not have opposed Hinduism and Islam so forcefully. This implies religious pluralism was not and cannot be thought of as a tenant of Sikhism.       

Revelation - The 10^th Guru compiled the teachings of the Sikh Gurus’ into a book. This book is now honored as the last Guru.

Values

Sikhs are to abstain from the Five Evils: lust, attachment, pride, anger, and greed. By abstaining from these evils one may eliminate his/her ego countering the cycle of reincarnation bringing one in union with Sat Nam.      

Internal Critique

Metaphysics

Where do the distinctions between Sat Nam and creation come from? Is all things derivative from Sat Nam? Or did Sat Nam create ex nihilo?  If humans after reincarnation unite with Sat Nam does that mean we are part of Sat Nam?  If so, and time is an illusion, how can I know I am not in union with Sat Nam already? For all I know, reincarnation has ceased for me and I am now one with Sat Nam. 

If Sat Nam is timeless, is creation timeless as well? If not, did Sat Nam externally change while creating?

Epistemology

Nanak claimed to be a Guru of Sat Nam. But his claim was utterly arbitrary. Nanak did not justify his claim to being a Guru of God.

If we are all part of Sat Nam, and time is an illusion, how can one know he/she is not in union with Sat Nam already? For all one can know, reincarnation has ceased for him/her and is now one with Sat Nam. 

Value

Where did the Five Evils come from? Man? Did Sat Nam command man to abstain from these evils? Why? Given Sikhism, why did Sat Nam allow parts of Sat Nam, man, to commit such evils? Does this mean the five evils is part of Sat Nam? Or part of Sat Nam through man commits the five evils? Or is the five evils merely “maya,” an illusion?  

From the Christian standpoint, there is a distinction between the Creator and His creation. God is infinite and we are finite. He is absolute personality the one in the many, Tri-personal: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is absolute in lordship, authority, presence, knowledge, power and goodness. Thus God is perfect and lacks nothing. Mankind was created in His image to reflect His character and nature. This was to be done in obedience to His revelation. His revelation was to be our standard for thought, and deed. Man rebelled against God and exchanged and repressed the truth of God for a lie; man willfully replaced God with creation. He served and worshiped the creation rather than the Creator. Man is the origin of fallenness and evil we see in the world. This can only be overcome by God's grace in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Man does not need to be ontologically united with God (such an idea is contrary to God's self-sufficiency), he needs to be reconciled with God. He needs to be at peace with God who presently in his sin is an enemy of God. God's wrath is targeted at all sinful men and will be poured out on the day of judgement. But God offers all mankind salvation in Jesus Christ. We deserve God's wrath but Christ absorbed it for all those that will repent and trust in His death on their behalf.

Critique of Reincarnation HERE

More to be added soon.

Learn more about Sikhism HERE