logos redux

It seems that some of what began at the Conversation on Denominational Renewal conference that occured here in St. Louis about a year ago is continuing and being expanded over here. Good stuff.

Ros Clarke, David Field and Matthew Mason are contributing editors to a new Reformed journal, Ecclesia Reformanda. Check here for abstracts of the essays in the first issue. Looks like the cost will be £15 per year which is roughly $21 assuming there’s no up-charge for sending it across the pond.

(HT: Alastair)

My friend just let me know that I had shown him a way to upload documents to your blog. I didn’t even know I had done that. I had no idea that the Cato document I posted below used a tool that can be used for any document. This is great. So, to test it out I’ll post the actual Baptism into Christ that I expended so much effort publishing over the last few days.

Baptism Into Christ and Its Implications

This is a great book that takes an honest look at the beauty and difficulties of marriage. It was recommended to me by one of my pastors and I pass the recommendation along. While I’m at it below are a few other good books I’ve read or scanned or been recommended with regard to marriage/dating lately.

The fourth definition, then. This asks that you think in a new way. Up till now we have assumed that there are only two beings in a marriage, the husband and the wife. In fact, there are three complete beings in a marriage-you, your spouse, and the relationship between you, which both of you serve, which benefits each of you, but which is not exactly like either one of you. This relationship is itself very much like a living being-like a baby born from you both. It has its own character. It enters existence infantile, when you speak vows to one another. It comes cuddly and lovely, but very weak and in need of care and nourishment. As time goes on, as this baby-relationship grows up, it becomes stronger and stronger until it serves and protects you in return. This “being,” this living thing, this relationship which needs you both (the whole of each of you), but which is not you (it is not the two of you added together, because it is distinct from either one of you)-that is your “oneness.” Serving it, you both enact a harmony. You are co-laborers committed to the care of a single (third!) life between you. You are each a whole, unique, free creature of God. Yet you are one.

Now, then: when you look upon your marriage, you are not just looking upon one another (possibly feeling at odds with one another), but upon this third being which requires the complete attention, all of the wisdom and skills, and the holy prayers and faith of you both.

From As for Me and & My House by Walter Wangerin, Jr.

Each for the Other, Bryan and Kathy Chapell - A practical book on the nature, purpose and self-sacrificial reality of marriage. This is a great introduction for engaged couples and a great reminder for married folk.

Sheet Music, Dr. Kevin Leman - A wonderful book about the joy of sexuality as a gift from God written from a Christian perspective and embracing Biblical teaching while at the same time being blunt, forthright and even humorous about sex within marriage. Both a practical guide and an encouragement to Biblical attitudes about sex.

Holding Hands, Holding Hearts, Richard and Sharon Phillips - I’ve only started this one (although it is required reading for my Marriage and Family Counseling class), but it seems to be a really great contribution to the dialogue about dating, courtship and what difference it makes.

Mars and Venus in the Bedroom, John Gray - Okay, this is only a tentative recommedation. It is by the author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, who I don’t believe is a Christian. However, I picked it up the other day and it appears to be a helpful guide to couples wanting to understand their own, and one another’s sexuality better and frankly, be better lovers. So, take this one with a grain of salt. I’ve literally only flipped through it.

A couple other that I haven’t read but that come highly recomended:

For a Glory and a Covering, Doug Wilson - I haven’t read this one but I take it to be an update on Reforming Marriage, which was quite good. I’ve heard many good things about it and intend to get to it ASAP.
Sacred Marriage, Gary L. Thomas - Another one that is required reading for Marriage and Family Counseling - this one comes highly recommended from folks who have taken the class as well as several newlywed friends.

and I thought it was pretty poignant. I didn’t/don’t know anything about Robertson, other than that he was an Anglican clergyman, but I downloaded a few of his sermons on Baptism from this sight and they look pretty good, although I’ve just scanned them.

Beneath the burning skies and the clear starry nights of Palestine there grows up between the shepherd and his flock an union of attachment and tenderness. It is the country where at any moment sheep are liable to be swept away by some mountain-torrent, or carried off by hill-robbers, or torn by wolves. At any moment their protector may have to save them by personal hazard. The shepherd-king tells us how, in defense of his father’s flock, he slew a lion and a bear: and Jacob reminds Laban how, when he watched Laban’s sheep in the day, the drought consumed. Every hour of’ the shepherd’s life is risk. Sometimes for the sake of an armful of grass in the parched summer days, he must climb precipices almost perpendicular, and stand on a narrow ledge of rock where the wild goat will scarcely venture. Pitiless showers, driving snows, long hours of thirst—all this he must endure, if the flock is to be kept at all.

And thus there grows up between the man and the dumb creatures be protects, a kind of friendship. For this is, after all, the true school in which love is taught—dangers mutually shared and hardships borne together; these are the things which make generous friendship—risk cheerfully encountered for another’s sake. You love those for whom you risk, and they love you; therefore it is that, not as here where the flock is driven, the shepherd goes before and the sheep follow him. They follow in perfect trust, even though he should be leading them away from a green pasture, by a rocky road, to another pasture which they can not yet see. He knows them all—their separate histories, their ailments, their characters.

Now let it be observed how much in all this connection there is of heart—of real, personal attachment, almost inconceivable to us. It is strange bow deep the sympathy may become between the higher and the lower being: nay, even between the being that has life and what is lifeless. Alone almost in the desert, the Arab and his horse are one family. Alone in those vast solitudes, with no human being near, the shepherd and the sheep feel a life in common. Differences disappear, the vast interval between the man and the brute: the single point of union is felt strongly. One is the love of the protector: the other the love of the grateful life: and so between lives so distant there is woven by night and day, by summer suns and winter frosts, a living network of sympathy. The greater and the less mingle their being together: they feel each other. “The shepherd knows his sheep, and is known of them.”

From a Sermon entitled The Good Shepherd by F.W. Robertson

If you haven’t read Pope Benedict’s first Encyclical “Deus Caritas Est” it is really worth your time. Below is a sample of one of the more profound passages.

13. Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. Jn 6:31-33). The ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. The sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God’s condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lifts us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish. 14. Here we need to consider yet another aspect: this sacramental “mysticism” is social in character, for in sacramental communion I become one with the Lord, like all the other communicants. As Saint Paul says, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:17). Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or who will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. We become “one body”, completely joined in a single existence. Love of God and love of neighbour are now truly united: God incarnate draws us all to himself. We can thus understand how agape also became a term for the Eucharist: there God’s own agape comes to us bodily, in order to continue his work in us and through us. Only by keeping in mind this Christological and sacramental basis can we correctly understand Jesus’ teaching on love. The transition which he makes from the Law and the Prophets to the twofold commandment of love of God and of neighbour, and his grounding the whole life of faith on this central precept, is not simply a matter of morality—something that could exist apart from and alongside faith in Christ and its sacramental re-actualization. Faith, worship and ethos are interwoven as a single reality which takes shape in our encounter with God’s agape. Here the usual contraposition between worship and ethics simply falls apart. “Worship” itself, Eucharistic communion, includes the reality both of being loved and of loving others in turn. A Eucharist which does not pass over into the concrete practice of love is intrinsically fragmented. Conversely, as we shall have to consider in greater detail below, the “commandment” of love is only possible because it is more than a requirement. Love can be “commanded” because it has first been given.

From:

ENCYCLICAL LETTER

DEUS CARITAS EST

OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

BENEDICT XVI

I am ashamed to say that I am just now posting links to the lectures given at the recent Conversation on Denominational Renewal recently given here in St. Louis at Memorial Presbyterian Church. I have to say, nothing has made me more optimistic about the future of the PCA than these lectures in years. They are wonderful. Download them. Listen to them. Be invigorated by them. The charitable spirit, ecumenical hope, and future goals are a true inspiration.

Click here and then click “who’s speaking” to access downloads of all the lectures. Unfortunately it seems that the link to the Introduction is broken. I will try to provide a corrected one soon.

This is a review of the books Why I am Not a Calvinist by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell and Why I am Not an Arminian by Michael Williams and Robert Peterson.

Why I am Not a Calvinist Strengths

1. Challenges inconsistencies in Calvinist presentations

2. Takes careful stock of the implications of various positions

3. Exceptionally clear and lucid presentation

4. Well structured writing that was easy to follow

5. Helpful presentation of the options available

6. Some good exegesis

Why I am Not a Calvinist Weaknesses

1. Formal logic seems to be the grid through which everything is run, including the Bible rather than vice versa

2. Presuppositions that are not directly informed by the Bible, but rather proceed from moral intuitions, philosophical commitments, etc.

3. Apparent assumption that God operates in a time bounded reality

4. Very poor treatment of the concept of federal headship

5. Exegesis, while at times quite good does not disprove a Calvinistic understanding but merely supplements it

6. Tendency to be uncharitable and caricature views as well as use poor or unfair examples

1. Strong Biblical focus

2. Clear recognition of Arminian presuppositions, especially with regard to free will

3. Use of Biblical categories and terminology where possible

4. Biblically based definition of freedom

5. Acceptance of mystery as an important category

6. Winsome Tone

1. Seems to shy away from admitting to acceptance of determinism

2. Talks about God’s passing over or permission without treating thoroughly the philosophical problems with speaking this way while affirming sovereignty

3. Often cites human freedom in that humans do what they want without addressing that “what they want” is determined too

4. Seems unclear on whether Adam had libertarian free will

5. Doesn’t address formally some of the logical problems that Arminians often bring up

6. At times seems to slip into construing Arminian positions according to perceived logical conclusions

Why I am Not a Calvinist Strengths. One of the greatest strengths of Why I am Not a Calvinist, beyond the fact that it is well written and presents complex ideas in a cogent, straightforward manner, is the fact that Walls and Dongell do an excellent job of challenging what appear to be inconsistencies in many popular level, and at times academic, Calvinist presentations. For instance they take to task the idea that God simply “permits” men and women to be damned while he actually causes others to be saved. They point out that on a determinist scheme in which God foreknows all things because he has determined them it makes little sense to speak of God being passive in the eternal fate of any person. Further they point out that the Westminster Confession says that God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass,” and that it seems very strange in certain circumstances to discuss God’s foreordination as mere permission or allowance.

Tying into this Walls and Dongell are very thorough in tracing out the implications of various theological and philosophical commitments; some might even say too thorough. That is, they do an excellent job of demonstrating through syllogism and logical inference what it would seem must follow from positions such as determinism, Molinism and compatibilism. They do not accuse all those holding these positions of holding there logical conclusions (for the most part) but they do confront the reader with what they believe to be the inconsistency of not doing so. This is both a strength and a weakness because at times it seems that the authors are so uncomfortable with concepts like paradox, mystery and antinomy that they simply insist on going where there interlocutors have refused to go.

Weaknesses. I feel that there are three primary weaknesses to the approach taken in Why I am Not a Calvinist, none of which is necessarily primary, but all of which work together to prevent the authors from doing justice to the subjects discussed. First Walls and Dongell seem to take formal logic as the starting point for all thought about anything. This leads them to a truncated epistemology that can only accept as true that which can be proven through formal proofs (or at least to reject anything which seems susceptible to disproof through the same means). To some degree we all do this, and I do appreciate their comments to the effect that it is only through commitment to certain logical premises (i.e. the law of non-contradiction) that we are able to discern truth at all. However, I think this only tells part of the story. We are able to discern truth because we are made in God’s image, and the Holy Spirit and the operations of common grace are at work in this world and in us and that is more fundamental than any commitment to logical certainty or formal syllogistic comprehensiveness. Therefore, when discussing something as cosmic in scope as the nature of God’s acting in the lives of man, we should appeal first to His word and be willing to subject our understanding of logic to it.

The second weakness is really just a footnote to the first; namely Walls and Dongell bring a number of presuppositions to the table that do not even meet their logical criterion critiqued above. They handle some of these under the heading of “moral intuitions,” including the idea that it is “as obviously true that responsibility requires libertarian freedom as it is wrong to torture infants when they cry ,“ (106). It is striking that this is the one place in which they seem willing to accept that which cannot be proven logically, especially given how much of their further thought rests on these presuppositions. Further, if they were to take the Bible as their epistemic starting point they would be able to “prove” a number of things that they view as unprovable and then proceed from there to think about issues of freedom and responsibility.

Finally, it must be noted that in this writer’s opinion much of the confusion surrounding Walls and Dongell’s positions stems from an apparent conception of God as bound by time in the same way that we are. While space precludes a full analysis of this tendency suffice it to say that it colors much of their approach to foreknowledge and foreordination. While I concede that the Biblical language does often speak of God in time-laden terms, it is hard to imagine how this could be consistently avoided, and the Bible does at time take pains to make clear that God is transcendent in such a way that time constraints do not apply to Him and he does not relate to time in the same way that we do.

Why I am Not an Arminian Strengths. The most helpful thing about Why I am Not an Arminian is its unrelenting Biblical focus. Throughout the book the authors refuse to get caught up in the tedium of the typical philosophical categories and logical conundrums associated with these debates without returning to the Biblical witness and relating the concepts discussed at an abstract level to what the Bible actually says. This commitment also leads the authors to be more honest than is common with regard to such hotly debated theological issues. The authors are forthright about the silence of the Biblical witness on many issues, resisting the temptation to innovate or speculate with regard to the secret things that belong to the Lord. Related to this strength is the authors’ diligent use of Biblical categories and terminology where such is possible. This is much more satisfying in a discussion of the behavior of God than the abstract and impersonal language often adopted from metaphysics for such discussions.

Another primary strength of Why I am Not an Arminian is Williams’ and Peterson’s recognition of Arminian presuppositions with regard to freedom. The authors succeed in making quite clear that the crux of the matter is the insistence of Arminians on putting human freedom (conceived as the ability to the contrary) at the center of all thought about God’s relation to man as an inviolable given. To be sure, Williams and Peterson are charitable, recognizing that most Arminians do this because they believe that God has given it such status; however, I believe that Williams and Peterson demonstrate convincingly that the Biblical witness simply does not support such a position.

Weaknesses. One of the chief weaknesses of Williams’ and Peterson’s book in my opinion is what seems to be a tendency to avoid using the term determinism to describe their position. Now, on the one hand this is a strength, based on my appreciation of their use of Biblical terms and categories, however, in a discussion of Calvinism and Arminianism it seems impossible to escape taking a clear position on the concept of determinism. While I think determinism is inherent in their acceptance of a compatibilist conception of human freedom, their appropriate critique of impersonal determinist language (143) left me somewhat confused as to whether they would accept a properly personalized, qualified determinism as an adequate description of their position.

Related to this is the fact that Williams and Peterson seem to refer frequently to God’s relation to the evil done by persons as passive, adopting the language of allowance and permissiveness. However, it does not seem to me that they answer the challenge (cited by Walls and Dongell) of why it is appropriate to do so. Further they often talk about humans doing what they want to do as a defense of the concept of freedom. While I agree with this compatibilist view I felt the authors did not adequately deal with the reality that what humans want to do, their wills and desires, are determined as well. It seems important to me that in these types of discussions we avoid language that sounds as if we are trying to soften what we are saying. When this is done it often feels as if Calvinists are giving with one hand what they are quietly taking with the other.

Evaluation. While I can see strengths and weaknesses in both books it seems clear to me that Why I am Not an Arminian makes the stronger case. I believe that in some ways Why I am Not a Calvinist presents a tighter, neater argument, and more emotionally and philosophically disconcerting arguments, the former preserves a much greater fidelity to the full witness of Scripture. Scripture simply must be taken as the epistemological given in any discussion of the nature of God and the way He acts. I do think that it would be helpful if the authors of both books would publish a counter-point volume or essay to each others’ books in which they could clarify where they spoke past one another.

Predestination. Finally, it would be foolish to end this review without reflecting a bit on how these two books have impacted my own understanding of the doctrine of predestination. While I remain as I began, convinced of a Calvinistic conception of the predestination of a certain number of elect to be the beneficiaries of God’s lavish grace and goodness, I did appreciate the interaction that Joseph Dongell supplied with the idea of corporate election in his exegetical work. I found myself agreeing with much of his exegesis but simply failing to see how it excluded a Calvinistic understanding rather than merely supplementing it. I have also been forced to wrestle with the infralapsarian/supralapsarian debate, and must admit that I feel the force of Walls’ contention that supralapsarianism seems to follow from a consistent Calvinist position. This seems especially true when I consider that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. If this is true then it seems that the only conclusions one could draw are that a) Christ would have become incarnate whether man had sinned or not, or b) “In Him” does not necessitate incarnation, or c) God foreknew the fall and since foreknowledge implies foreordination it would seem that God must have planned the fall as the means for us to be “in Him”. I have not fully worked this out for myself yet but it was one of the primary questions that was raised for me by the books.

A friend put me on to Schoolhouse 2 the other day and I just got around to downloading it. This is free software for mac users that helps you keep track of all your school work over the course of the day, week, month, term, and even academic career. It allows you to manage assignments and projects, take notes that are stored in one place, attach links and files to assignments, and even keep track of your weighted grades. If it works as well as it looks like it will it’ll will be a huge timesaver.