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?      

Questions and Reflections on Craig's Model

Questions and Reflections

If, it is as Bill Craig argues, God is timeless prior to creation and temporal with creation, how precisely is it that God can be temporal? Did He already possess the properties necessary to be temporal prior to creation? What are those properties? How are we to understand God being temporal and yet immutable (without falling into a minimalist position)? Did God in His essential nature change with creation? Why not postulate a model similar to the incarnation with Christ’s hypostatic union? Is it logically possible that God has two eternal natures: one essential the other contingent? If such a view is even logically possible, then wouldn’t this model affirm both God is timeless (in one nature) and temporal (in another)? What would such a view even look like? God would have two natures, like the incarnation, in which God would exist with all the properties of both natures attributed to the three persons without confusing the two natures. But what would these natures and properties be?  The first nature, that is uncontroversial, would be the traditional understanding of God’s essence with all the properties that should properly be attributed to God (which would include timelessness). The second nature, somewhat controversial, would be, in some sense, spatial and therefore temporal. The nature need not be thought of as physical. It could be similar to that of angelic beings who are some how incorporeal, spatial, and temporal.               

The Bible wrong?

Steve Hays has written another great post. Check it out:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-bible-be-proven-wrong.html?m=1

Fristianity Refuted?

An interesting article defending the sufficiency and necessity of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence.

Check it out HERE

\

Also check out Choosing Hats discussion on the subject HERE  

Not Merely Natural Theology

What happens when you get a presuppositionalist, Nate Shannon, criticizing two other presuppositionalists, James Anderson and Greg Welty, for not being purely presuppositional in their academic work? You get Steve Hays doing a Framian take down on Shannon. Hays forceful argues against Shannon's criticisms of Anderson and Welty. Check it out Here!

John Frame and Presuppositional Apologetics

Dr. James Anderson has written a wonderful exposition of John Frame's thought; but more importantly, he gives us a practical example of how to apply presuppositional apologetics. Here  Start at page 451 to see presuppositionalism applied to naturalism.

Meta-apologetics and Apologetics

I must say Steve Hays has done it again! He has written a post that is true and most thought provoking about debate within presuppositional apologetics Here. Many presuppositional apologists focus too much arguing for the presuppositional method and little time explaining its application. The serious problem is that those presuppositionalists that actually apply the method often get criticized by those that want to focus strictly on the purity of the method. Hays makes it clear this is how apologetics becomes fruitless. Check out his post!