Anti-2K meltdown

The teaching of Two-Kingdoms theory (2K), often derogatorily termed "R2K" or "Radical Two-Kingdoms," is one view of the relationship between Christ and Culture that is controversial in American Presbyterian and Reformed circles. In light of that, I have posted excerpts from "Mr. Two-Kingdoms" aka Dr. David VanDrunen, on what Two-Kingdoms theory actually teaches on the main points of contention between it and some version of either Neo-Kuyperianism or Christian Reconstructionism.

Sadly, some people are close-minded. They think they know what 2K teaches even better than those who actually believe it. They know a priori that 2K means errors X, Y, Z, and so on, and therefore whatever counter-evidence must fit their narrative of how errant 2K is. Here are some choice responses:

So let me translate what the comment in the first snapshot said: " [puts fingers in ears] I don't care what those who teach 2K actually says they teach. I know it's definitely wrong, and if you claim otherwise, you must be the one who's deceived." As for the second snapshot, this is essentially the content of the responses: "You're an idiot. You must be breaking the 9th commandment, because we know 2K is wrong and therefore anyone who says otherwise is violating the 9th commandment." Don't you just feel the "love"?

I'm really sorry, but if anyone thinks that lies and misrepresentations will convince anyone, you're working for the wrong kingdom, unless of course you are the children of the Devil.

Follow up to Joshua Lim

Here is my follow up to Joshua Lim:

---

Dear Joshua,

I would prefer to interact directly with you. A setting such as the “Called to Communion” site is not as conducive for the type of discussion I prefer to have. Nevertheless, I will interact with what is written in the com box as it pertains to what I have written.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

You claimed that they are very similar, but ultimately it was the “Petrine office that did it for [you].” The problem is you have only Rome’s word that Peter was even in Rome, Rome’s word that apostolic succession even exists, and Rome’s word that the Holy Spirit intended successors to the apostles to be infallible when they proclaim doctrine ex cathedra. You also have only Rome’s word that the Petrine office is limited to one location. In other words, you presuppose Rome to choose Rome. That is hardly a good argument for why one would choose Roman Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy.

Submission to authority

You claim that Roman Catholics submit to an external authority as established by Christ. But how do you know that such an external authority has been established by Christ? Again, you presuppose Rome to choose Rome. Eastern Orthodoxy will dispute that Roman Catholicism is established by Christ because they have fallen away from the patriarchs.

Next, you misrepresent the Reformed and Protestant notion of authority. We do not submit to “his/her own interpretation of Scripture.” I am surprised and sad that you did not even get the Protestant view of authority correct. How can you claim to be competent in rejecting Protestantism when you cannot even represent it correctly?The Holy Spirit is the one who brings people into the one true interpretation of Scripture. Your view denies the Holy Spirit and prefers a material authority over a spiritual authority. You cannot claim that such is totally subjective since Roman Catholicism claims to believe in the person and work of the Holy Spirit also. Similarly, you cannot use empirical evidence to attack Protestantism since the same empirical evidence of diversity works against the myriad views within Roman Catholicism.

The question is: Did the Holy Spirit promise to guide believers into the truth? Indeed, He has (Jn. 16:13). Therefore, your preference for Rome has absolutely no biblical authority at all, but rather you presuppose Rome to choose Rome.

You claim that “the moment a [Roman] Catholic disagrees with the Church, he goes against Christ’s own authority.” It sounds nice, but the problem is that you have yet to define who “the Church” is. Is the Church referring only to the present occupant of the Vatican? Or is the Church referring to the Vatican at the time of the Council of Florence? What happens when popes contradict each other, which is what we see with Pope Honorious who was anathemized by later popes? Or as I have mentioned: the contradiction between the inclusivism of Vatican II with the ecclesiastical exclusivism of Florence? Who is right? Vatican II disagrees with Florence, so regardless of what position is taken, all Roman Catholics disagrees with “the Church.” You either disagree with Florence, or disagree with Vatican II. Or will you settle for chronological snobbery in saying that the Vatican at the present time is right by definition?

The Nature of the Church

You claimed:

I joined the Catholic Church because I became convinced that if Christianity is true, then there must be a way to know and submit to its truth in a more than intellectual manner. In other words, there must be a historical and visible Church that is in substantial continuity with the Church from her inception at Pentecost, through the Early Church Fathers, through the Medieval and Reformation era, until today. Christ, after all, promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

The problem is upon what basis is this true? Why must there be a “historical and visible Church” &c if Christianity is true? You have further stated that Jesus has prayed for a visible unity, but why must a visible unity be an institutional one? I am united with my Baptist friends, even Charismatic friends in the Gospel, and such a unity can be seen in my fellowship with them. Why must I be in the same church to show forth unity?

Concluding remarks

You have consistently presuppose Rome to choose Rome. That is totally illegitimate argumentation. You have no real reason to prefer Rome over Constantinople. You don’t even have any real reason for not following Mel Gibson in his sedevacantism. Your whole argument is viciously circular, and the circle begins and ends in Rome, which has NOT remained the same throughout the ages.

Once again, I call upon you to repent of your apostasy from Rome. The Holy Spirit is available to all believers, and He is the only one who reveals the objective truth of Scripture to those who are His. You are sadly rejecting the Holy Spirit and rejecting Christ in choosing a material faith rather than one grounded in the Holy Spirit. For the sake of your soul, I implore you to turn from your present path towards perdition. It is not too late to repent now.

---

Ultimate, this is a spiritual issue, not a intellectual issue. Do pray for Josh Lim (and Jason Stellman) that the Holy Spirit will turn their hearts back to Him.

An Open Letter to recent WSC grad Joshua Lim

When I entered WSC, I came to know that one of the TAs (Teaching Assistants) for Greek was a more senior student by the name of Joshua Lim. It happens that I did not require extra help with my Greek and so I did not attend any of the extra sessions conducted by the TAs, and thus I did not really speak with Joshua Lim. Fast forward to today, and Josh Lim has apostatized from the Christian faith, publicly defecting from the Gospel at the "Called to Communion Confusion" website.

Here then is my open letter to Josh Lim:

---

Dear Joshua,

I have read your recent “conversion” testimony on the Called to Communion blog. As a current MDiv student at WSC, I am saddened by your public denunciation of the Faith and your entry to Rome. While I do not much know you while you were in seminary, I hope you will reconsider this action of yours and turn to Christ alone for your salvation.

Epistemology and Authority

The main issue that you have raised up has been epistemology and authority. You have found Reformed confessionalism highly dissatisfying, and think that you have found epistemic certainty and authority in Rome. According to you, Reformed churches stand as a “via media” and you find that the idea that the confessions having “’ministerial’ authority does not solve anything at all.” In your search for certitude, you have struggled through reading the writings of Protestant scholastics and Roman authors and even Karl Barth, and have finally decided on Rome.

I want to challenge you on the very idea of certitude that you are seeking in the first place, which you think you have found in Rome. Humans are not God. The Scripture has made it very clear that faith is the assurance of things hope for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). Absolute certainty cannot be found this side of heaven. One can have certainty, but only a certainty that is grounded on faith in the Word of God and the person of Christ.

You have searched long for certainty, yet you have searched in all the wrong places. Ultimately, Christianity is a religion dependent upon the Holy Spirit and His illumination of the truths of God’s Word (2 Peter 1:19), the Word which is the final revelation to us (Heb. 1:1-2). Christianity in this sense is a pneumatic religion. The Reformed Confessions are NOT the basis for the Christian faith, but rather they are what we think are the teachings of Scriptures codified in a format addressing various loci of theology. When we say that the Confessions have a ministerial authority, we mean that they have authority which is derived from the absolute authority of Scripture. Inasmuch as what they teach is biblical, and we certainly do believe that what they teach is biblical, their teaching is true and authoritative.

Hermeneutics

You mentioned that one cannot have a “pure theology” and you are right. But if you have taken the Modern Mind class, you should have known that. All humans are situated. We are all time-bound and place-bound and culturally-bound. The question however is not whether we have a “pure theology” but whether our philosophies are derived from the Scriptures or they are not. Interpreting Scripture is like a spiral, wherein one’s philosophy informs one interpretation of Scripture, which then corrects one’s philosophy. That is why Scripture commands us to be transformed by the renewal of our minds (Rom. 12:2) which is effected by the reading and meditating on Scripture (Ps. 19:7-9; 119, 2 Tim. 3:15-17). Note that we are told to meditate on Scripture. Scripture is its own interpreter. Scripture is not an encyclopedia which one reads for mere information. Scripture is not a philosophy textbook either. To read Scripture is to immerse oneself not only in the words of Scripture, but the cultures mentioned in Scripture. The context of Scripture is not transcendental philosophical categories of thought, they are rather historical cultures — time-situated and particular. By filling our minds with Scripture through meditating on it, the Holy Spirit transforms our minds so that we know God’s truth, the truth of God which in seeming weakness is wiser than the philosophies of Man (1 Cor. 1: 18-24).

You have misconstrued the attacks against Biblicism if you think they are against the possibility of interpreting Scripture apart from the Reformed Confessions. The problem with Biblicism is NOT that they are trying to interpret the Scriptures. The problem is that everyone has a worldview which he brings to the task of reading and interpreting the Scriptures. The problem with Biblicism is that biblicists think they are merely interpreting the Bible when they are interpreting the Bible uncritically in accordance with their unspoken and unreflective presuppositions. Paraphrasing Dr. James White, the problem with biblicists is that those who think they have no traditions often have the most traditions, and their traditions color their interpretations. I myself have seen many people like that who claim to be only “interpreting the Bible.” The critique against Biblicism does not mean that the Scriptures are unclear if not interpreted apart from the Reformed Confessions. In fact, if one can find a truly unbiased, objective and sinless person and he goes off into the woods and read the Scriptures by himself, I would venture to say that person could derive the true truths of Scripture on his own. The problem is that there are no such persons around. That is why we read Scripture, and read Scripture in interaction with other theologians and the confessions, because the problem is not with Scripture, but the problem is with us the readers. Others help us to see our blind spots in our interpretations of Scripture, but they do not interpret Scripture for us.

You mentioned that you were given the impression that “what the Anabaptists allegedly lacked was the tradition that Calvin and Luther as well as many other Protestant scholastics had never intended to let go.” I’m sorry if this is the only thing you have gotten out of classes. The problem with the Anabaptists is that as biblicists, they were interpreting Scripture with their own colored lenses and thus not truly interpreting Scripture as Scripture ought to be interpreted. By abandoning interaction with the other theologians throughout church history, they ended up interpreting Scripture according to their own preconceived ideas which is certainly not what Scripture teaches. The radical impulse has always created such errant interpretations of Scripture, not because they were wrong as they did not have tradition, but because in rejecting interaction with tradition, they ended up distorting Scripture by unreflectively utilizing the most [contemporary] traditions in their interpretation.

In your process of conversion, you claim that you “tried to understand how other traditions understood Scripture,” and that you “often found these competing interpretations to be, in their own right, very compelling.” While certainly understanding the other points of views are necessary to understand them, yet you have failed to question if the questions and answers that these other traditions bring to the text are themselves derived from the text of Scripture. As it was said, Scripture determines the context for our questions, and our questions and our answers. Scripture is not a philosopher’s handbook or an encyclopedia. Scripture answers the questions Scripture asks. It is absolutely irrelevant whether one can find an answer from Scripture for a question one has which is not asked by Scripture itself in any fashion. Likewise, you should NOT have read the Bible in such a manner, as if Scripture is an answer book for philosophical and theological questions.

I find it disturbing that your change in the way you read Scripture comes about by reading Karl Barth. To put it bluntly, Karl Barth is a heretic and certainly not Reformed, regardless of what he calls himself. First of all, our primary allegiance should not be to the “Reformed tradition” but rather to Scripture. Even if a Reformed minister or church should preach another gospel other than the one proclaimed by Paul (and Jesus), let him/ it be anathema (Gal. 1:8-9)! You should not be buying any argument by any Tom, Dick or Harry that calls himself Reformed in the first place. Regardless of whether Barth is Reformed, and certainly there is more than enough evidence to show that he is not, Barth’s writings should be first examined on the basis of whether his teachings conform to Scripture, and they don’t.^[1]

Historical issues

You have accused the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone as being something that proceeds from nominalism. First of all, you have to prove that nominalism is necessarily bad. Secondly, you have to prove that a “nominalist” interpretation of Paul’s writing on Romans and Galatians is false exegetically, not merely philosophically. You have also claimed that Protestantism is untenable as to its authority claims, as the “Here I stand” mantra could be repeated over and over again, leading to the multitudes of denominations.

Here I would challenge you as to your settling on Rome. You claim that Sola Scriptura leads to a plurality of denominations. How is that any different from the mess in Rome? Is institutional unity despite wide divergence in doctrine preferable from an honest acknowledgment of differences and a parting of ways? I’m sure you have heard of the Old Catholics and the Sedevacantists, who respectively rejected Vatican I and Vatican II. Within the Roman communion, you yourself acknowledge the wide divergence present within it. Why then do you have one standard for Protestantism and another for Rome? Why do you give Rome a pass on the multitudes of beliefs within her while you critiqued Protestantism about her multitudes of Protestant denominations, many of which are not even Protestant?

I will continue along this line. Why Rome and not the Eastern Orthodox churches? Rome is only one see. Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally has 4 sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria). Eastern Orthodoxy boasts “apostolic continuity” and even use the New Testament in Greek, unlike Rome which uses the translated Vulgate. Why did you “come home” to Rome, which split from the Eastern Orthodox churches in the Great Schism?

You claimed comfort in Rome as the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” But how can Rome even claim any of these adjectives? Rome is not one, unless you redefine “one” as being institutional, and even then you have to argue from Rome as the true church in discounting the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Sedevacantists. In other words, you are arguing in a circle. How is your choice of Rome not arbitrary? Rome is not holy, with all the scandals involving pedophile priests and now financial scandal in the Vatican itself. I don’t think I need to speak of the pornocracy around the 9th to 10th century, of popes having children out of wedlock. How is Rome “catholic” unless you begin with the definition that Rome is the true church? Why are those who separate from Rome considered schismatic and not the other way around? Eastern Orthodox considers Rome schismatic, and if we want to count real estate and bishoprics, certainly Eastern Orthodox wins hands down. Eastern Orthodox even has the holy city Jerusalem, while Rome has the pagan city of Rome. How can Rome be considered “catholic” when it defines itself by fidelity to a particular see and not the universal Christ? At least Eastern Orthodox has a better case for catholicity than Rome, so upon what basis do you choose Rome?

Church and Gospel

The Church is defined by the Gospel, not the other way around (Mt. 16:18). Churches which compromise the Gospel message will have Christ warring against them (Rev. 2:14-15, 19-23). Visible churches do apostatize from the faith, with Rome asserting that of the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants. Therefore, there is no true “objectivity of the Church” apart from the presence of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is where the Gospel is present. In your testimony, you claimed that Luther felt that it was necessary to separate from the Catholic Church, Zwingli from Luther, the Anabaptists from the Magisterial Reformed, the Calvinists from Arminians, and on and on–all on the conviction that I have the correct interpretation of Scripture.

But is the mere act of separation shows a church to be subjective? The Roman Church separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Great Schism. How does that not disqualify the Roman church as being subjective? Does a mere assertion of objectivity or continuity qualifies a certain church as being objective? Rome is not even consistent with herself. Read for yourself the differences between the strict ecclesiastical exclusivism taught in the Council of Florence with the inclusivism promoted in Vatican II. How does such an inconsistency help buttress the romantic view of having one church that has always remained the same (semper eadem) throughout the ages?

Given that individual churches can apostatize, why is Rome exempt from the possibility of apostasy? Unless one argues a priori from the infallibility of Rome, petitio principii, there is no way one can show that Rome is objectively the Church.

Your quest for certainty sought the wrong thing. Christ has never promised that any particular church will not fall away. Christ only promised that the Church as a whole will not fall altogether (Mt. 16:18), and this Church is defined by the Gospel. Your quest for certainty should be to seek the true Gospel of Christ, not the external forms of religious unanimity. Where the Gospel is rightly believed and preached, there is the true Church where Christ is. The Gospel is transcendentally true, not based upon one’s own interpretations. Paul was not speaking of a subjective Gospel when he pronounced anathemas against the Judaizers and all who would pervert the Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), for a subjective Gospel that has as many interpretations as there are people can never be perverted!

And here we come to the crux of the issue: your eternal state. The fact of the matter is that Rome’s gospel is a false gospel, and whoever knowingly submits to Rome partakes in her evil beliefs and deeds. Rome denies the Gospel in the sixth session of the Council of Trent, pronouncing her anathemas against biblical Christianity, as it was pronounced:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema (Canon IX, 6th Session of Council of Trent)

Or another one:

If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema (Canon XII, 6th Session of Council of Trent)

It matters little whether you think that there is any “signal of that pride stemming from work-righteousness.” What matters is what the Scriptures say about the matter. Paul is very explicit in his epistle:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith (Gal. 3:1-5)

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Gal. 5:3-4)

Regardless of the psychology of practicing Roman Catholics, the Scriptures are very clear that adding works to Christ’s work is an abomination to God and a repudiation of the Gospel, and earns one an eternity in hell, cut off from God and from salvation, devoted to destruction (which is what the term ἀνάθεμα, from the Septuagint usage of the Hebrew חרם means). It matters little whether Roman Catholics feel pride (or not feel pride) in their working towards their justification. Scripture is clear that Rome’s curse upon the Gospel means that Rome is accursed by God as preaching another gospel.

Ultimately, your quest for certainty is a failure. As many critiques you have of Protestantism is just as applicable or even more applicable to Rome. By not starting out with Scripture and to renew your mind according to Scripture, you are basing your knowledge and ultimately your salvation upon the philosophies of Man.

Josh, I hereby call upon you to return to Scripture for your knowledge, and to return to the Gospel for your salvation. It is not too late to return to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). As it is written,

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. …

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

(Heb. 4:1-2, 6-7)

Repent, Josh, and turn to Christ alone for your salvation. Repent of your illegitimate quest for absolute certainty, and for institutional oneness, and turn to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Respectfully,

Daniel H. Chew, M.Div student at WSC

---

References:

[1] On Barth, see for example Gordon H. Clark, Karl Barth’s Theological Method (Unicoi, TN: 1963, 1997) and Cornelius Van Till, Christianity and Barthianism (Phillisburg, NJ: P&R, 2004). Barth denies Sola Scriptura and redefines many Reformed doctrines like election, reprobation etc, so it is astonishing that Barth could be even considered as being Reformed

The reality of the offence of the Gospel

In a previous thread, I have been having a interesting exchange with the author of the article I was critiquing, Steve Jones, an exchange which is very much worth reading. I would like to draw attention to (at the writing of this post, recent) comment he made:

OK, you've mitigated the guilt of religious killers. You've deemed all humans, even the most decent and loving, evil as Hitler. You've presented a theology in which people are responsible for doing what they're incapable of doing -- then punished horribly for not doing it. You've set forth an end-time scenario in which God burns people with fire, strips them down to the most depraved level possible, then hurls them into a place of endless toruture [sic].

Tell me, is that faith beautiful and appealing to you?

The question goes right to the crux of the issue. Can one see Christianity beautiful and appealing to us? Are we ashamed of sin, of hell, of the damnation of those who did not receive (not merely reject) Jesus Christ, and final judgment?

The offence of the Gospel shines through here. As it is written:

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? (2 Cor. 2:14-16)

The Gospel message is death to the ears of those who are perishing. It is foolishness to them, morally repugnant and revulsive to their senses. Their very persons feel ill at the understanding of the Gospel message. It is a fragrance of death unto death for them.

Yet the Gospel message is life to those who believe. We see ourselves as creatures under a Creator. We see our wickedness. We see how wretched and blind we are. We know that God does not owe us anything, not even our lives. We grasp unto Christ, the Wisdom of God, for He is our only hope.

All Christians should be able to say yes, such a faith is beautiful and appealing to us. Not because we are sadists who love to see people in hell, but we see here the mercy of God towards us who justly deserve the same punishment. That all men are originally destined for hell due to sin is a reality, and that God is still just and loving if He wants to send everyone there. There is no injustice in God. Yet God has mercy on those whom he saves, freely of grace.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved (Eph. 2:1-5)

Amen.

Back and forth on Meek's "Personal Knowledge"

Some time back, I have had a short exchange with another guy over my Amazon.com review of Esther Meek's [Polanyian] epistemology as seen in her book Longing to Know. You can read the entire exchange here. Here is an excerpt from one of the last comments:

The denigration of certainty is inconsistent with the Christian faith because it posits a false dichotomy between certainty and confidence. We are to have both - certainty because of the surety of God's autopistos revelation. and confidence because of our relationship with Jesus Christ. As I have said, the problem with Meek is not that trust and confidence is wrong, but that she denigrates certainty, and she deals with the fiducia part of faith instead of the cognitio and assentia which is what epistemology is supposed to deal with.

A response to Van Tillian Warren Cruz: Logic, Rationality, and the Fall

Over on his blog, Van Tillian Warren Cruz has posted a recent post attempting to defend the Van Tillian notion of the ontological defect of the reason of Man caused by the Fall. Judging by its temporal proximity to my post critiquing Van Til on this topic, the post seems to be a response to mine. I guess that would most definitely merit a response from me.

As I have read Van Til, the major problem with Van Til is that he is not systematic. It can be clearly seen that Van Til is influenced by the Reformed scholars of his day like Bavinck and Kuyper. This however means only that he uses the terms they use and to some extent embrace what they teach. What is required however for apologetics and interaction with detractors is a sharp mind good at systematizing truths and making the proper distinctions, as well as humility to seek to understand the terms and position of your detractors. That is what makes Reformed Scholasticism the highest peak of Reformed theology so far. Sadly, all of these qualities are lacking in Van Til, and it shows here in this post by Cruz.

The main thrust of the argument by Cruz is that Turretin believes in the same position as Van Til. Van Til, per his hagiographical image, was a solid Reformed scholar merely restating the truths of Reformed theology and applying them to the realm of apologetics. Cruz first states the issue at hand and his belief that the Reformed view is that the effects of sin on reason is more than ethical. Cruz then quotes Turretin with the belief that Turretin's work confirms his Van Tillian position on the effects of sin.

The problem with Cruz's post though is that I as a Clarkian agree 100% with what Turretin wrote, yet I disagree with Cruz's and Van Til's distortion of Turretin's views. That is why I have said earlier that proper definitions of terms and humility to seek to understand the positions of detractors is necessary. It is no use like Van Til to merely state the Reformed view without further systematizing, clarifying and reformulating how the truths held by the Reformed tradition are to be applied to the present day and time. [Of course, Van Til did "build on" the Reformed tradition, if building a straw roof on top of a concrete building while rearranging the concrete pillars is considered "building upon it."]

It is possible to say that "reason" is not affected by the Fall as per Clark, and also hold that "reason" is affected by the Fall as per Turretin. The issue here as always has been definitions, definitions and definitions. What do we mean by the use of our terms? What does Turretin mean by the use of his term? Van Tillians it seems ignore this entire issue, and merely parrot the same objection again and again. Of course, it may well be the case that they have never heard a refutation of this canard, but I seriously doubt that to be the case.

What does Clark mean by "reason"? Does he mean by that the reasoning processes of Man? No. Clark is abundantly clear that the Image of God in Man is the mind and logic. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that is irrelevant for this topic. The main point here is that Clark defines "reason" in this area as the rules of reason, or logic.

We will digress here to a short course in basic logic. Let us start with the simple logical argument: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is moral." What does logic assert as to this statement? Logic merely shows us whether this argument is valid or invalid (whether the consequence necessarily flows from the premises). It does not supply the premises for the argument, neither does it tell us whether the premises are true or false. Logic furthermore does not even tell us what arguments to evaluate. It is a mere tool. If one inputs true premises into the arguments, logic can tell us whether it is valid, and if it is valid, then the argument is sound. However, if one inputs false premises into the arguments, logic cannot disprove the argument if the structure of the argument is valid. Which is to say, "Rubbish in, rubbish out."

For example, let us look at this argument: "All unicorns are cats. I have seen a unicorn. Therefore I have seen a cat." Logic can only tell us that this argument is valid, but we all know that this argument is nonsensical because unicorns do not exist, unicorns are not cats, and we and everyone else have not seen a unicorn. In other words, the premises of this argument are false and the argument unsound despite the fact that it is valid in form.

Therefore, when Clark states that "reason" is unaffected by the fall ontologically but affected only ethically, it means that unregenerate men after the Fall still use the same logical apparatus as Adam and Eve did, and as regenerate believers still do. Adam and Eve believed in for example the principle of modus tollens as much as Aristotle the pagan did, as much as the Medieval theologian Aquinas did, as much as John Calvin did, and as we do so today. The problem with the unregenerate mind is not their logical apparatus is different, but the way in which they use it. The unregenerate mind is incapable of providing the proper premises for the right argument towards knowing God, and incapable of judging whether the premises of any such arguments to be truth or false correctly.

This brings us to Turretin's quote. When Turretin uses the word "reason," he means the entire reasoning process including the choosing of premises and the assessment of their truth value. Using this definition, Turretin rightly attacks blind reason and the Rationalism of the philosophers, and deny that "sound reason is its [the faith's] principle." In other words, if we talk about the reasoning process as a whole, then of course "reason" defined in this way is very much affected by the Fall. As Cruz kindly reminded us, the bifurcation between reason [understood as the reasoning process] and will is "undue and coerced."

As it can be seen, Clarkians stand in the Reformed tradition with Turretin. It is however Van Til who distorts the Reformed teaching by adding to it the ontological effects of reason in the Fall, something none of the Reformers and Reformed scholastics ever did. In fact, the Reformed scholastics embraced Aristotelianism to a very large extent in its form and vocabulary (though not so much content), so it would be indeed strange, even impossible if their minds which were shaped by Aristotelian categories would reject one of those categories.

As a last word, Van Tillians really need to stop reading Van Til into the writings of the Reformers and their successors. It is manifestly unscholarly and anachronistic, and those of us who DO read the works of the Reformed tradition are not impressed with the mangling of the primary sources in the service of an ideology based upon the veneration of one sinful man.

Answer to Paul Manata on COVETS

[continued from here, here and here]

Paul M, whom I have just realized is Paul Manata, has replied to my critique of Van Til's one person view of the Trinity, which he has dubbed COrnelius Van til’s Enigmatic Trinitarian Statement, or COVETS. They can be seen here, here and here.

I would like to make a couple of points here, then close up (hopefully) the discussion. First of all, I very much appreciate the interaction with Paul. We can disagree strongly even, but to take each other's arguments seriously and interact with them is a virtue that few people have. As I may have said somewhere, I respect people who hold to their beliefs and are willing to stand for them and defend them. Those who retreat into the darkness and snipe are cowards who are unwilling to stand for their beliefs.

With that, let us look into the response proper.

Manata is clearly more well-read than me on this topic, and I concede that fact. That does not mean that he is right, but it certainly mean that I need to read up more on the subject. And if one thinks that such an attitude is wrong, one needs to learn what are the implications of the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.

Van Til's contradiction

Manata consistently insists that the burden of proof is on me to prove that Van Til's formula is a contradiction. My reply has been that it is impossible to prove something is a contradiction if the statement makes no sense. I have in mind Van Til's statement that God is both three persons and one person. If Van Til and Paul and any Van Tillians out there cannot explicate the senses, the statement of it that being true due to each proposition predicated according to different senses is meaningless. And if the predication according to different senses is meaningless, then by default the one person three persons view is a formal contradiction.

Now, there are attributes of God that are almost impossible to explain, which is why we use the negation to tell others what God is not. So God is incomprehensible, God is infinite etc. Similarly, in order to explicate the different senses, language may fail to describe the senses. Even then, through the use of negation such may be done. So it is not the case that language cannot explain what are the different senses. Contra Manata, no one is asking for "what the terms meant in sufficient detail," and thus we can comprehend God fully. We are not asking Van Tillians to "fully solve and explicate the mysterious doctrine of the trinity [sic]." We are merely asking for enough explication to differentiate the different senses instead of mere ipse dixit and appeal to paradox.

Manata attempts an analogy to show why formal contradictions are fine. He wrote:

For example, suppose a wise father tells his young daughter that he say a young female patient today who had x-y chromosome pair. The daughter, relying on the wise testimony of her father holds both propositions on the testimony of her father, recognizing she is not as wise as him but if he says so it must be so. Now, in fact the propositions do not contradict if the father, say, means the first one genotypically and the second one phenotypically.

This analogy however fails. Note that the contradiction posited by Manata states is between the proposition "female" and "ha[ving] x-y chromosome pair." It is not a formal contradiction in and by itself. The contradiction occurs only with the addition of another premise, namely: "Those having XY chromosome pair are males." But this premise is wrong! Not all XY chromosome pair possessing individuals are males, a fact that geneticists know. For example, just a simple mutation that make all cells non-responsive to testosterone would render XY individuals females. Sox9 repressed XY individuals are similarly phenotypically females, while SOX9 over expression in XX individuals causes female-to-male sex reversal.

Using this analogy, a formal contradiction analogous to Van Til's error would be saying something like "female" and "male" as predicated of the same subject. Assuming a world without hermaphrodites, this would be a formal contradiction of the first degree. If such were to be said, explanation would be necessary. Manata's analogy thus fails to establish his point.

An Analogy

Manata pointed out that my counter-analogy of saying that "Jesus is always the uncreated Son of God form [sic] eternity and is also at the same time a created being" is actually possible. Upon reading again, it is indeed so. So I propose another analogy along the same lines: "Jesus has two natures and one nature at the same time". We'll see if this will pass as orthodox if we insist that they are spoken of in two different senses, which we will not tell of course.

The relation of the orthodox formula and the one person view

Manata maintains that the one person view for Van Til is a logical implication from the orthodox view. That is a matter of interpretation. One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. I will just leave it as that and ask the reader to decide whether it is proper to assume Van Til's orthodoxy and rationality on this point of the doctrine of the Trinity in interpreting the evidence, or vice versa.

The issue of "paradox"

As Manata has said which I agreed, paradox are apparent contradictions. Therefore, they must be shownto be apparent and not real contradictions. Through the use of negations which I have discussed above, it is possible to prove that real paraoxes are real paradoxes not antinomies. For example, that Christ is fully God and fully Man is not an antinomy because we deny that God and Man are necessarily exclusive categories. True, God is not Man and Man is not God, but we have an example of one who is both God and Man so the Chalcedonian formula is not a contradiction.

The issue of "person"

Manata claimed that there is no Confessional definition of the word "person". While technically true, the same could be said that there is no Confessional definition of the word "created" or "begotten" too. [Gordon] Clark made the same critique and my reply would be the same: What did the word personna (in Latin) and προσωπον (in Greek) meant in their historical context of the first five centuries of the Church? I am sure that would be an excellent topic to look into. Nevertheless, the point I was making is that the word means something historically, and that definition is what is used in the Creeds and Confessions.

The issue of numerical identity

Manata posts some quotes claiming that they support the idea of numerical identity. However, the texts by themselves merely state a numerical identity of essence/substance. If that is all Manata has to go by, one wonders how Manata can transit from numerical identity of essence to numerical oneness of person in the Trinity. To say that God the Father is God in one essence says nothing about persons.

Singular predicates of God

Manata states that the proposition "God is one, period" doesn't necessitate the usage of singular predicates. He insists that such would require putting such predicates in "scare quotes". In his own words,

Second, my car is “one.” But my calling it “her” is an anthropomorphism and should be qualified with scare quotes. God refers to Moses as “I.”

Is Manata denying that God uses anthropomorphisms in describing Himself? Does God have male genitalia? Does God have wings, hands, or feathers? If God's revelation of Himself to us is done through anthropomorphisms, shouldn't we, according to Manata, bracket all qualifiers of God with scare quotes. So God is not He, He is "He" or maybe "It(?)". The "eyes" of the Lord, not the eyes of the Lord etc.

If the Bible does not see fit to circumscribe the obvious anthropomorphisms of God in scare quotes, why should we do so just because Manata claims that anthropomorphisms require them?

God as "He" or "They"

Is God a "He" or "They"? The orthodox answer is both. God is a "He" with regards to his one essence and "They" with regards to His three persons. I will repeat it again: God is a "He" with respects to His one essence and "They" with regards to His three persons. I do not see what is so hard to understand about this. Using "they" with regards to God does not mean an embrace of tritheism, because we are talking about personS then.

Personal versus person

In this, Manata errs again. Having a virtually single consciousness does not make one a person. Personal is not person. As a counter-example, can we call a person with split personality two persons? If not, why?

Van Til a heretic?

Apparently, Manata thinks that I call Van Til a heretic, even though I did not use the word to describe him. The question before us is this: Does irrationality condemns one to hell? No! Many Christians are not logically consistent in their beliefs, and even I cannot say that I have always been consistent within my own beliefs. John Wesley was one of the most irrational prominent Christians in history, with his belief in conditional security and justification by faith alone contradicting each other.

The fact of the matter is: I regard Van Til as an irrationalist at certain points. Irrationalism does not condemn one to hell, as if we are Gnostics who believe that knowledge is the way of salvation.

Next, with regards to the nature of error. Do all errors condemn one to hell? Most assuredly not. Does an error regarding the millennium for example condemn one to hell? No. The Gospel is the content for salvation and that alone.

Now, Van Til propagates an error regarding an important topic: the Trinity. However, there are error and then there are ERRORS. Van Til did not deny orthodoxy; what he did was to undermine it by coming up with a novel doctrine. Just because the implications of an error lead to heresy does not mean that that error itself per se condemns the proponent to hell. Again, the Gospel determines the content required for salvation. It is believing in errors regarding the Gospel that condemns, not believing in errors that have logical implications that deny the Gospel message that condemns.

Similarly, "not in line with the historic Christian faith" does not necessarily mean heresy. Evangelical Arminianism is not in line with the historic Christian faith, but that does not make John Wesley a heretic! There is a category called "heterodoxy", which Manata did not take into account.

Manata therefore errs in thinking that saying Van Til is in error means he is a heretic. Van Til is many things, but heretic he is not.

Response to Paul M. on Van Til's doctrine of the Trinity (part 2)

[continued from here]

In response to a brief comment I left on his blog, Paul responded to it somewhat. My brief comment was brief and only focused on the confessional aspect, while Paul's was all over the place.

Paul starts off accusing Gordon Clark as being Nestorian. This however is disputed. Firstly, I have briefly read through Clark's last book on the incarnation and it was his editor John Robbins who finished the book. Clark himself was in the process of thinking and working through the issues and it is not so sure that he will embrace a two person view of Christ although he tends towards that.

Secondly, Clark's definition of "person" is unique. For some strange reason, he refuses to use the historic definition of "person" and invented his own definition of person. If Clark was Nestorian because of that, Van Til is likewise a Monarchian for apparently inventing his own definition of the one person of God.

So while I do not follow [Gordon] Clark in his Christological adventures, and I think he is wrong, to say that Clark is a Nestorian is not true.

Is Paul here furthermore trying to stereotype those who disagree with Van Til as necessarily Clarkians who necessarily believe everything Clark taught? Just because I identify myself more with Clark does not make me a parrot of everything produced by the Trinity Foundation! It is extremely irritating being stereotyped as if those who identify themselves more with Clark do not have a brain of their own.

As for apparent contradictions and paradoxes, again there is a world of difference between contradictions and paradoxes. I have not yet read Anderson's book so I will withhold comment on it, and while I know of W. Gary Crampton's review of it, I have no opinion on Anderson's book.

Paul mentioned the words used by G. Vos and probably others such as Warfield. The issue here is that of precision. From the words used, can we say that just because Vos said "God is a person" thus Vos intends to teach Van Til's teaching of one person? I suggest not. Vos intends, at least from the short passage given, to emphasize that God is personal. Instead of saying "Because God is a person, we say 'God is a Spirit,'" we can substitute as saying "Because God is personal, we say 'God is a Spirit.'" Just because non-precise language was used does not mean that we can see the first inkling of Van Til's strange doctrine of the one person of God.

In conclusion, it is hoped that this 2-part response would be sufficient to prove that Van Til is wrong in his one person of the Trinity. We should reject it as errant and not in line with the historic Christian faith. Amen.

Response to Paul M. on Van Til's doctrine of the Trinity (Part 1)

Paul M. has posted his thoughts defending Van Til's novel definition of the Trinity as one person on his blog Aporectic Christianity. I would thus like to respond more fully here and then to his reply to me in the meta of his post.

Paul mentioned that I have only given one sentence from Van Til. To rectify this, I have typed out the entire relevant section from Chapter 17 of Van Til's An Introduction to Systematic Theology and interacted with it here. It is not the case that the sentence is isolated out of context, as anyone can read for themselves.

Paul asked the question: "What’s the problem? Which heresy is Van Til guilty of?" The problem here is that no one in the history of the church has ever been so irrational, so how can we find a name for something that is so ridiculously wrong? What is the name of the heresy that believes that Jesus is always the uncreated Son of God form eternity and is also at the same time a created being, and that the word "created" have different senses for each proposition? Or is that an heresy at all? If Paul can answer this question, then I would answer his.

Of course Van Til condemned heretical notions of the Trinity. Of course he claimed to believe in the Chalcedon Definition. This is all documented in Chapter 17 in his Intro. But Van Til did not just say that God is one essence in three persons but that God is one person too! It is an addition that Van Til says is equally true. Van Til teaches not only that the orthodox formula is right and the Christological and Theological heresies of the 2nd-4th centuries are wrong, but we must also affirm that God is one person. One wonders if the error of Monarchianism in Van Til's opinion is not that they believe that God is one person, but that they refuse to at the same time acknowledge that God is three persons in one essence. I guess if only they embrace that God is three persons in one essence, they can continue to believe that God is one person too.

Paul continues by stating that "a mere announcement of contradiction isn't sufficient for condemning Van Til to the flames". I agree, which is why we prove it. It is a contradiction to say that God is one person and three persons in the same sense. If one was to say that the word "person" is used in different senses, then 1) that is a non-confessional use of the word "person", 2) the onus is on the person making the proposition (ie. Van Til and those Van Tillians who follow him here) to state what these different senses mean. To refuse to explicate those senses is to make a mockery out of language and is mere playing of word games. Waving a magic wand and calling something "analogy" or "paradox" does not ex opere operato make something an "analogy" or a "paradox". The words "analogy" and the word "paradox" mean something specific, not something vague. After all, using such an approach, what would anyone say if I were to say that (using my former analogy), "Jesus is both uncreated and created in different senses" and then I absolutely refuse to tell anyone what these senses are? Would anyone be impressed if I just say that this sentence is a paradox which we are to just believe in because it is an analogy of God's truth not ours?

It must be remembered that the onus is on the proponent of such theories to explain his theories in the first place. Paul's suggestion that "we need to see the derivation [of why Van Til's doctrine of one person of God is wrong] done and justified, step-by-step, according to rules of logic" is wrong. As an analogy, what would you think if I mention the sentence "Jesus is both uncreated and created in different senses" and demand that the onus is on you to show me step-by-step why I am wrong when I refuse to explicate what those different senses are? Using another analogy, what would you think if I just say "Moses X David Z" and then demand that the onus is on you to show me why my sentence is wrong and then refuse to explain my sentence?

Following from this, Paul wrote:

Ultimately, Van Til is writing in the tradition of Augustian Trinitarianism, where each divine person of the trinity is numerically identical with the one divine being. If A is numerically identical to G, then if A is a person, G is a person. The basic view here is that God is a self

To say that each person of the Godhead is fully God (orthodox) is NOT to say that each divine person of the trinity is numerically identical with the one divine being (unorthodox). Van Til did not use such inappropriate language, although he came close (cf CVT,p. 230). Coterminosity is not identity. This is the problem with those who make the Trinity into a quantitative doctrine, instead of a qualitative one. Of course, if one follows in this rationalistic path, it is not surprising that one ends up with God being one person.

From this Paul states that "None of this is good enough for those who like neither Van Til or John Frame". As a matter of fact, while I am critical of both, I do not think they have nothing to offer us. Such is poisoning the well and assumes that those who disagree with Van Til or Frame hate them, which is plainly ridiculous. Dr. R. Scott Clark disagrees with Van Til's idea of the one person of the Trinity. Will Paul say that he does not *like* Van Til? Furthermore, what does liking or not liking a person has anything to do with whether a person is right or wrong? This smack of postmodernism and subjectivity.

It seems that Paul thinks that using a singular predicate noun and verb for God implies that God is "uni-personal". Such an argument only makes sense if the previous argument for "numerical identity" holds true. However, it does not. God is predicated by singular nouns and verbs because he is one, period. The persons of the Godhead are not each numerical identical with the one divine being, but interpenetrate each other (perichoresis). That singular nouns and verbs for God are used at the most only imply that each person is fully God, which is not the same as being "numerically identical" with the divine being.

The language of the confession is next brought up, which says that God is "three persons, of one substance". Of course substance does not mean "working together"; I never claimed it meant that. I was trying to explain in simpler terms how this concept of one substance is worked out. Obviously, it failed.

The question is then asked why this is monotheism. The answer is simple enough: There is only one God which is triune, and it is impossible to separate the persons of the Trinity and subtract any of them. Either you have the Triune God, or you have no God. One or Zero.

As to the Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism model, the issue that I have with it is that it moves (atemporally) from a ontological tritheism to a monotheism of being and will. The Scriptures however start from monotheism and remain monotheistic. God has always been three persons in perichoresis and cannot be separated. We (and God) do not start off wth three persons who then are combined in being and will.

Finally, we reach what may be the experiential core of Paul's objections. He states:

Fourthly, a logical implication of his view is that God is not a center of consciousness. So God is not a self. God is not a person. So, technically, phrases like “God loves us” or “God plans” or “God hates” or “God believes” are, strictly speaking, false. The ultimate unity of the world is non-conscious, hence non-rational, hence non-moral.

But such a "logical implication" is invalid. It must be remembered that this depends on a "numerical identity" model of how the persons of God relate to the "divine being." If however God is not a [1 (=God) +1 (=God) +1(=God) =3 persons] model, but a [1person (fully God) +1person (fully God)+ 1person (fully God)= 3 persons in 1essence] model, then the whole argument here collapses. Each person has His own center of consciousness, but because of perichoresis, God has a "center" of consciousness. Paul's arguments thus collapse. It is of no use to say that "Surely we don’t have any single unified consciousness since the persons have different properties (or predicates), and contradictory first-person indexical beliefs". That does not take into account the doctrine of perichoresis at all.

Lastly, there is a big difference between "mystery" and "paradox" and outright contradictions. The fact that the early church chose to use two different words to describe the "three-ness" and "one-ness" of God show that while they are fine with mysteries and paradoxes, they are not fine with outright contradictions.

[to be continued]

Colin Smith's response, and my reponse

Colin Smith has kindly responded to my brief post addressing the idea of Van Til's idea of the one person in the Trinity. It may indeed be true that for many people "occupying pews in evangelicalism", the idea that the one essence of the Godhead is personal is a novelty to them. Such would indeed be sad if true. My experience so far has not been that evangelicals think that the Godhead is impersonal, but that they don't even understand the Trinity at all. In other words, they cannot even tell you what the Trinity means except the most elementary basics that 1) God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three persons, 2) there is only one God. One would probably be greeted by blank stares just mentioning the word "essence".

Van Til's motives on this issue, if true, is indeed commendable. However, I fail to see how creating a novel definition of "person" will help the argument regarding the Trinity. If the Chalcedonian formula works for the church for the last 1500 years without it generating confusion in the church, how exactly is a novel definition, which is a seeming antinomy, clarify our understanding of the issue further? Instead, after Van Til propose the formula, people like Gordon Clark have denounced it as heretical. Assuming that Van Til was orthodox, which we have no reason to doubt, of what benefit therefore is his confusing formulation of the Trinity? One could hardly think of a quicker way for a Reformed theologian to destroy his reputation than to do what Van Til did in creating his own idiosyncratic definition of the word "Person". Left to a lesser pastor or theologian, the guy who make such a proposal would probably be charged for heresy and excommunicated by the Church. After all, they excommunicated Nestorius who may not have actually believed what we come to know as Nestorianism!

Regardless, we can certainly agree with Smith that God is His essence is a personal being. Indeed, if all Van Till said was that God in His essence is personal, I sincerely doubt anyone will have a big problem with that. Why Van Til did not see fit to use that phrase is something we probably will not know this side of eternity.

Since that is so, it would certainly be interesting to follow Smith in his explication of the implications of the personal nature of God in the area of apologetics. Readers can also peruse his paper in advance. Just substitute the word "person" with "personal", and I think all would be fine.

Refuting David Ponter's Bunyan shuffle

[continued from here]

David Ponter has decided to attempt a response on the interpretation of John Bunyan on his blog here. Besides numerous ad-hominem and non-sequiturs which I will address later, Ponter's response to my interpretation can be summed in as follows: "The key text to interpret Bunyan's entire article is the quote in the middle of the section which we have previously quoted". This gives rise to Ponter's (and presumably Byrne's) hermeneutical matrix as follows:

Ponter's interpretation of Bunyan's middle section => Interpretation of Bunyan's article Reprobation asserted

I think what has been said has been said, so I will let the readers decide: What does it actually mean to "read in context"? Is reading in context equals

1) Coming up with a certain interpretation of the middle section of Bunyan's article, then categorically state that this particular interpretation of the passage in the middle of the article is the key to understanding the entire article by Bunyan?

or

2) Start at the beginning of Bunyan's article, understanding Bunyan's manner and terminologies, and then follow the flow of Bunyan's thoughts from beginning to end?

I think the answer is self-evident.

In order to reveal fully the numerous logical fallacies that Ponter actively engages in, it would be instrumental to look at his entire post just for once and point out specifically the logical errors Ponter makes. Ponter's words will be in dark red, and mine in black.

---

At first glace Mr Chew makes something which is really quite simple, that a child could follow, into something complex and obscure

Logical fallacy: Petitio Principii and false appeal to experience. I can easily say (and mean) the same thing; in that I find Ponter and Byrne's interpretation "mak[ing] something which is really quite simple, that a child could follow, into something complex and obscure". What does it prove? Nothing.

[Responding to the first part of the interpretation regarding Bunyan's two-fold aspect of Visible and Invisible Reprobation]

Of course, however, from God’s side, he knows who are the reprobate by eternal decree, and still says Bunyan, Christ’s desires their salvation, insofar as they are his creatures (see below). Mr Chew’s quip, therefore, really is off point.

Logical fallacy: Petitio principii! Did Bunyan say that Christ desire the salvation of actual reprobates, or reprobates in Bunyan's "temporal, visible sense" or both? This is a matter of interpretation which must be argued, not simply asserted. Ponter as usual refuses to let Bunyan speak for himself. After conceding that Bunyan does indeed teach a two-fold reprobation, Ponter ignores that and asserts that Bunyan does in fact have the "invisible reprobation in view", without any proof whatsoever.

[Referring to the difference between the collective and the individual]

4) Mr Chew thinks all this this is “probably” what Bunyan had in mind.

Logical fallacy: Red herring. Nevertheless, Mr. Ponter "probably" thinks that this is not what Bunyan has in mind? Given the growing emphasis on Covenant Theology in that era, which assumption has a higher probability of being correct?

[Referring to my discussion of the difference between actions towards the collective and the individual]

Of course there is some truth to this, for example, as some statements to a group can imply a condition, or the condition can be explicit, which means that of any who fail to meet the condition may not be the direct objects of the original predicating statement

Logical fallacy: Ignoratio elenchi! This is NOT what the logical fallacy is discussing. An example of the fallacy of composition is as follows:

Sodium is a dangerous chemical which can explode. Chlorine is a highly toxic chemical. So therefore, Sodium Chloride is a dangerous and toxic chemical which can explode?

Or with regards to humans and society:

No man without tools possess the ability to build the Great Wall of China. Therefore, China with her men could not build the Great Wall of China?

Here is an example of the fallacy of division:

Ancient Greek society with its promotion of pederasty is utterly decadent. Therefore, if you were living at that time, any Greek you meet would be utterly decadent and promoting pederasty.

I find it truly illuminating that these self-proclaimed theologians do not even have an idea what these logical fallacies are.

I) Where now did Mr Chew follow his own strictures in coming to this conclusion? He didn’t. He has totally discarded them.

Logical fallacy: Ipse dixit and Petitio Principii. Of course just what "strictures" Ponter thinks I have come up with is beyond me.

III) What evidence is there from Bunyan’s text that Bunyan operated by this idea? There is nothing. Mr Chew adduces not a single shred of evidence that this is so from Bunyan directly.

This is willful blindness. Having acknowledged that Bunyan taught a two-fold reprobation, Ponter conveniently forgets that fact this very instance. Of course, I am not proving that Bunyan taught my position (that would be anachronistic and commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent); what I am saying is that my interpretation makes the most sense of Bunyan's concept of two-fold reprobation and God's dealing with them, unlike Byrne's and Ponter's total neglect of Bunyan's concept.

I will say this as forcefully as I can, only a dishonest man would deny or still try to claim that by the phrase “sinners as sinners” Bunyan means to exclude the reprobate (as normally defined), or, that he meant only to speak of a collective but not to all the individuals within that collective.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur and ipse dixit. Just because Ponter does not see it does not mean it is not there. Unless Ponter wants to claim ex cathedra authority that is. I certainly have no problem seeing that concept taught in the passage Ponter quotes!

The phrase meant to cover all sinners. His point is easy to comprehend: as any man stands in the capacity of being a sinner, he is to be offered and tendered the gospel. Even those who turn out to be finally reprobate, are tendered the gospel.

Agreed, but....

As any man stands in the capacity of being a sinner, God is willing to save him.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur. The truths of the previous sentences do not logically imply this lone assertion. This by the way commits the fallacy of inferring intentions from imperatives which I have shown to be both illogical and unbiblical in my PDF repudiation of Byrne's arguments here.

Further, this section from Bunyan is followed almost immediately by the disputed section (see below), showing that it is “in context.”

Yes, this section from Bunyan is followed almost immediately by the disputed section. However, why is the direction of interpretation backwards from the disputed section to the section preceding it, instead of forward exegesis? Furthermore, since that section is disputed, shouldn't it be the case that other sections be used to interpret it instead of the other way around?

Mr Chew quite anachronistically pulls this idea [of federal representation] out of the brain of Herman Hoeksema, who, though borrowing it from Bavinck, distorted it.

I did not learn my theology from Hoeksema and the PRCA, and I am not too enamored of the PRC's doctrinal stances either, so Ponter is grasping at straws here. I learn most of my doctrinal foundations from Dr. James White and Dr. Robert Reymond, both godly ministers who have been slandered by Tony Byrne as "hyper-Calvinists". As for the issue of anachronism, what does Ponter think the Reformed and Presbyterian churches based their view of infant baptism upon? How do they argue their case for baptizing infants who may grow up to be reprobate? I rest my case.

Then the question comes to this, how can Christ be said to be the federal head of the man who finally perishes in hell?

In the same way as those reprobates who are baptized as infants in Reformed and Presbyterian churches are considered saints and members of Christ's church even though they finally perish in hell. Seriously, does Ponter even understand what he is critiquing? Christ is not the federal head of the man in hell; God offers to all Man, based on the federal representation of Man in Adam as sinners, the Gospel; Christ is the federal head only of the elect who respond to the Gospel. Logical fallacy: Ignoratio elenchi and Strawman.

This certainly reads as if Bunyan is rehearsing a scenario of a man over whom Christ weeps but ends his days in hell.

Logical fallacy: Non sequitur and Ipse dixit! Bunyan did not talk to the man who goes to hell, but who is in danger of going to hell. Big difference!

[In discussing my interpretation of Bunyan's two-fold reprobation]

The upshot is, Bunyan is only speaking of our view of Gods desire to save those who seem to us to be reprobate. My, my, how far we left behind the “sinners qua sinners” step.

Logical fallacy: False dichotomy! It is not either/or but both/and. The way Ponter replies, it is as if Bunyan was writing a modern technical treatise on this subject on a few pages instead of the tens of pages in which he develop his ideas and arguments.

Bunyan is not referring to an amorphous collective, or to men who appear to us to be reprobate, but to men who finally perish, to the reprobate who finally perish, to all who finally perish, even to man qua man (as the creature of God).

Logical fallacy: Ipse dixit!

The reprobate who finally perish [sic] is not the ‘temporarily appearing reprobate,’ which is not Bunyan’s meaning here at all, but the reprobate as normally defined.

Logical fallacy: Ipse dixit. It seems in Ponter's view Bunyan should have just skipped the preceding sections and start writing in the middle! One wonders why Bunyan would even bother to write near the beginning of the article his definition two-fold definition of reprobation.

In conclusion, it can be seen that Ponter commits many logical fallacy just in this piece of his. Ponter therefore is in error and his case is lost.

P = I = Irrelevant?

David Ponter has decided to respond to my article refuting Byrne's arguments concerning the quoting of John Bunyan to prop up his Neo-Amyraldism. It has been an interesting read, but unfortunately this can be mostly filed under irrelevant and irrational.

Before interacting with the post proper, I must thank David for pointing out the issue of Preston being a hypothetical universalist. I will admit that I did not read Preston except for that one paragraph quoted by Byrne, as I was focusing mainly on John Bunyan. Yet, if that is the only legitimate complaint that David has against the article, then he is truly grasping at straws. After all, Preston is utterly irrelevant for proving my case. [The paper has been ammended accordingly to take this into account]

In dealing with my article, Ponter's first part dismisses the first section of my article en toto, stating that "[Dr. Bob] Gonzales has already dealt with all this in exegetical detail". This is utterly hilarious if it was not so sad. The fact of the matter, though I did not want to trumpet it, is that in the course of preparing my reply to Byrne I have seen the necessity of addressing Gonzales' inaccurate interpretation of Scripture, his faulty philosophical argumentation and numerous logical fallacies. The entire first section thus is a refutation of Gonzales' posts on this issue, proving from Scripture the biblical teaching on the topic and how Gonzales has utilizes logical fallacies such as non sequiturs and false dichotomies to advance his unbiblical philosophical positions. For example, in addressing Gonzales' denial of God's impassivity, I wrote in a footnote, Footnote 10, that

It is a far cry from denying that God has mutable emotions to stating that He has no [real] emotions. Yet Dr. Robert Gonzales in “There Is No Pain, You Are Misreading”: Is God “Comfortably Numb”? (http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/02/there-is-no-pain-you-are-misreading-is-god-comfortably-numb/), (accessed: June 26th 2009) commits this non sequitur logical fallacy. Furthermore, the direction of reasoning should be from what Scripture teaches, THEN to have it transform our philosophical framework, not choosing an interpretation of Scripture that conforms to a particular a priori philosophical framework.

Immediately after this, Ponter makes the astonishing claim that "commands presuppose desire for compliance to those commands", a definition which is based on Ponter's petitio principii reasoning based upon his interpretation of what "wish" and "desire" as used by ancient theologians mean. Circular reasoning cannot get any worse than this. How does one know that the Reformers and Puritans believe that "commands presuppose desire for compliance to those commands"? Ponter answers that we know this because this is what they say, as according to his interpretation of their sayings. But how do we know that Ponter's interpretation is correct? Well, because they are, at least to Ponter!

Next up is Ponter's denigration of logic. I guess when one cannot deal with Scripture passages such as Jn. 1:1 and 2 Peter 2:12, name-calling (i.e. rationalism) is all one can come up with.

In my second section, it is very revealing when Ponter has no argument showing why my alternative interpretation of Bunyan's writing is wrong. Simply derisively dismissing it with the phrase "nothing new" does not an argument make.

In the third section when dealing with the issue of historical quote-mining, Ponter it seems prove his irrationality and basic empiricism, as well as lose the gist of the argument. No one is arguing that nobody can produce interpretations of historical quotes, and through careful reading and research offer the best interpretation they can discern. What we are saying is that (1) such proofs are never conclusive, (2) such proofs cannot prove biblical truth. Biblical truth is to be proved by the Scriptures, not by the sayings of theologians no matter how godly they are. Ponter in defending his methodology proves his basic empiricism, and in fact it is very likely that his empiricism has blinded him to the irrationality he is engaged in.

In a previous post, it seems that from the comments so far that for these Neo-Amyraldians, they can harshly denounce and label others "hyper-calvinist", but for them that label functions like an academic badge! The label "hyper-Calvinism" should rightly denote the heresy of denying the need to preach the Gospel to all and offer Christ to all, and that all men are not duty bound to believe in the Gospel. Yet, for these "scholars", all of these labeling seems to be an exercise in academic discourse. I am utterly shocked at the cavalier attitude such people have towards matters of such gravity. Theology, although an academic discipline, is a spiritual matter. Believing in wrong theology can potentially damn a person, yet these Neo-Amyraldians treat the applying of a label which is understood as denoting serious heresy as nothing more than a stroll in the park?! Utterly disgusting! It is no wonder that these people are not interested in truly reaching others like Roman Catholics with the Gospel, since for them everything is just an exercise in academia?! I can just imagine the scenario from a spiritual bird's eye point of view:

Ponter: This guy X teaches hyper-Calvinism. Apply the tag.

Byrne: Hey, another guy Y there believes the same thing. Tag him.

[Meanwhile on the ground]

The left flank of the battlefield is soaked with blood. The 3rd Division is fighting a losing battle against the enemy, when suddenly X and Y arrived with much needed reinforcements in the 40th Brigade.

3rd Div Soldier: Hey, who goes there?

X: It's us X and Y. We have heard of the need here, and have brought some reinforcements to aid you in this battle.

3rd Div Soldier: You may pass. Glad that you can join us here sir.

3rd Div General: Hold it right there! You are X and Y?

X and Y: Yes, sir.

3rd Div General: I have just received a radio report from command that you are now labeled the enemy. Soldiers, shoot them!

X and Y: Wait, you have it wrong. We are not...

[Sound of gunshots erupted; X and Y lay dead on the floor. Chaos and battle erupts as the 40th Bde return fire]

Enemy General: Soldier, what is the sound I hear?

Enemy Scout: It seems that there is a battle going on in the enemy camp, sir.

Enemy General: Excellent. Prepare our troops to move in and crush all opposition.

[Hours later, the 3rd Div is eliminated and the enemy is victorious]

May God save us from such flippancy with regards to spiritual things.

The full response to Tony Byrne, and sufficient refutation of Neo-Amyraldism [AMMENDED]

I have finally finished the response to the Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne, which can be found here. Here are the subtopics in the paper itself.

I. Biblical teachings and logical errors
I.1.1 On God’s desire

I.1.2 Non-decretive desires?

I.1.3 Deducing intentions from imperatives?

I.1.4 Illogicity runs amok

I.2.1 Distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church

I.2.2 What applies to the collective may not be applicable to the individual; the logical fallacy of division

I.2.4 Understanding Covenant Theology and its idea of the universal offer

II. Interpretation of historical sources
II.1.1 Context of John Bunyan and his writings

II.1.2 The context and proper interpretation of his work

II.1.3 Rebuttal of Byrne’s interpretive fallacies

III. Conclusive rebuttal and practical concerns
III.1 The logical fallacy of quote-mining

III.2 Conclusive rebuttal of Byrne’s fanciful theories

IV. Conclusion

Section one of the response was previously posted on the blog here, and the PDF contains the remainder of my response to Tony Byrne, both in refuting his Neo-Amyraldism according to the Scriptures, his quote-mining methodology, and his misquotation of historical sources.

Here is the abstract, if you like, of the paper.

The Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne has quoted John Bunyan in one of his blog posts in asserting that Bunyan believes in the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I have refuted Byrne’s eisegesis of Bunyan and came up with an alternative interpretation. In reply, Byrne attempted a proper response to prove that his interpretation is correct, or at least highly probable. In this paper, I would address the issue of God’s desires, interpret Bunyan’s quote in context, and refute Byrne’s interpretation of Bunyan as being acontextual and thus reading of foreign concepts into the text.

Add (30th June 2009): I have made some minor changes to the article (typo and the section regarding John Preston) to touch it up.

Liberal leftists and psycho-assertionism

I was contacted quite some time ago by a Singapore radical leftist liberal with the pseudonym Beast FCD. It seem that an impersonator had left a message on his guestbook, probably to get me into trouble. Anyway, he decided to browse through my blog, and soon decided to pick a fight with me over my biblical stance on homosexuality with this post. In this post of mine, I would not be addressing his post directly but show forth the bankruptcy of his entire epistemology, and prove that his position is merely a form of irrational psycho-assertionism.

In this post of his, Beast FCD (hereafter called BFCD) decided to attack me and Christians as being "gay-bashers", and have appointed himself to defend the homosexual cause against what he derogatorily calls "a religiously-manufactured manure". In what follows, we will deconstruct his article and expose it for what it is: a piece of irrational psycho-assertionism.

1. Logical fallacy of petitio principii

Besides the massive amount of ad-hominem argumentation in his argumentation, plus tactics of poisoning the well (which always shows that the argumentation is aiming for emotional impact rather than objective disputation), what is striking is the large number of the petitio principii logical fallacies committed in one short piece. BFCD merely asserts and asserts all manner of "facts" as if they are truisms. Here are some examples:

"... to support this dinosaur [S377a] from the colonial age."

Where in the article did BFCD proved that is it a dinosaur? He didn't, just asserted it was without any argumentation to show why this was the case.

"law based on discrimination and bigotry"

As usual, mere assertion without any proof why the law is based on discrimination and bigotry.

"Of course, the more enlightened folks amongst us will realize that general psychiatry no longer regards homosexuality with mental illness."

Who determines who or what is enlightened? As with regards to the American Psychological Association, first of all, why are they correct? Secondly, the facts of the case for why this is so speak for themselves:

On December 15, 1973 the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of the radicals. The homosexuals had begun to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals” (ibid.:88), with obvious implications. Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, they declared that homosexuality was no longer an illness.

The resulting referendum, demanded by outraged members of the association, was conducted by mail and was partially controlled by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Rueda:1982). The homosexualists won the vote and the new official definition of homosexuality as a disorder was changed to include only those who were “unhappy with their sexual orientation” (Adam:88). Historian Enrique Rueda writes,

This vote was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research. Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data. The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself contradicts the essence of science (Rueda:106).

[Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika (Sacramento, CA, USA: Veritas Aeterna Press, 2002), p. 313]

Multiple other examples can be raised as examples of how BFCD merely asserts all manner of "facts" without proof. The fact of the matter is: BFCD is begging the question and making all kinds of claims of things to be true, of which he has not even bothered to show why this is so. As a point of fact, I deny all of his assertions, so he has to attempt to prove them first before they can even be considered to have any merit.

2. Fallacy of False analogy

During the course of his rant, BFCD compares homosexuality to slavery. Unfortunately, this is a false analogy since homosexuality is a choice while there is no choice in slavery. BFCD is on record as saying:

Like the anti-slavery campaigners that has [sic] preceded gay campaigners, gay advocates are not looking at enforcing a gay lifestyle on the general community. All they are asking for is to be treated equally, not to be treated like some slum-ghetto jerk or a lower caste of human beings destined to be trampled upon when it comes to living a normal, citizen's life. Homosexuals ask for the right to be treated fairly, the right to civil practices such as marriages, and the end of bigotry and intolerance towards gays. How is that for shoving "gayness" down the throats of every other boy, girl or child???

Now if we substitute homosexuality and its cognate words with beastiality and its cognate words, this is what we will get.

Like the anti-slavery campaigners that have preceded beastiality campaigners, beastiality advocates are not looking at enforcing a lifestyle of beastiality on the general community. All they are asking for is to be treated equally, not to be treated like some slum-ghetto jerk or a lower caste of human beings destined to be trampled upon when it comes to living a normal, citizen's life. Beastialists ask for the right to be treated fairly, the right to civil practices such as marriages, and the end of bigotry and intolerance towards beastialists. How is that for shoving "beastiality" down the throats of every other boy, girl or child???

One could always do the same for incest and pedophilia. Why limit oneself to homosexuality? If one objects to one and not the other (homosexuality), upon what basis can you say so?

Note also that all homosexuals have the right to marry; nobody is stopping them from marrying a person of the opposite gender. Homosexuals are similarly treated equally; homosexuals who take part in sodomy are treated the same as heterosexuals who take part in sodomy, so there is no discrimination at all! The fact of the matter is that homosexuals and their homosexualist allies want our approval for their sinful actions, and will not tolerate any dissent at all. That is why they invent such words as the misnomer of homophobia which is part of what I call WMEB (Weapons of Mass Emotional Blackmail). The double-standard of these homobigots are evident in that they demand that we must accept them, while they continually do not accept and attack us. If one wants to play the "phobia" game, why can't they be called "homophobe-phobes"? And those who oppose murderers are called "murderer-phobes", while those who support the killing of the unborn can be called "paedophobes" or "embryo-phobes"?

That the comparison between homosexuality and slavery is a false analogy can therefore be seen through this reductio ad absurdum. Just because something is opposed and criminalized does not make it bigotry, in the same way as the criminalization of murder does not make one a "murderer-phobe"! The reason why slavery was wrong was because it was proven objectively to be morally wrong. Homosexualist advocates however generally refuse to touch on the morality argument at all. Instead, they employ tactical WMEBs to hopefully smear their opponents into subjection, all the while asserting their cause to be right without any proof whatsoever.

3. Philosophical fallacy

Philosophically, BFCD's article can be said to suffer from the most basic of philosophical problems due to his failure to even attempt to discuss this from the ethical viewpoint: David Hume's is-ought fallacy. Even if BFCD's interpretations of the facts are correct (IS), that does not support his homosexualist position (OUGHT)! Of course, an ethical argument may not circumvent the is-ought fallacy, but failure to touch the ethical issues involved shows BFCD's article to be philosophical nonsense.

In point of fact, Hume's is-ought fallacy proves BFCD's article to be one big piece of psycho-assertionism, which we shall look at later.

4. Government legislation

BFCD incidentally mentions how government has "no legal basis for enforcing a religiously-slanted ruling ". However, he has no problems with government passing laws to promote homosexuality, which IS a anti-religiously-slanted ruling. This shows that BFCD and all homosexualists are actually not against government legislature that enforce [anti-]religiously-slanted ruling, but against government legislature that is against homosexuality. The hypocrisy in this is astonishing, seeing how the homosexualists desire to pass so-called "hate crimes" laws which are anti-religiously-slanted rulings used to persecute Christians. As it has been said before, only one [deviant] group allows itself to have all the rights to do what it wants including indoctrinating children in their lifestyles, while the civil and religious rights of all others must acquiesce to them! If that is not discrimination and bigotry, what is?

5. The issue of epistemology: Psycho-assertionism

In this last section deconstructing BFCD's article, we will go back to the issue of epistemology and metaethics. What is the epistemological foundation for all of BFCD's claims of facts? Why should anyone believe any of his propositions at all? Merely repeating it over and over again does not an argument make, and this is the fallacy of psycho-assertionism. BFCD has not shown why any of his axioms should be authoritative facts, instead using false appeals to authority, ad-hominem, and petitio principii fallacies to prop up his non-case. Even an argument from ethics was not attempted to try to avoid the is-ought fallacy, nevermind epistemology! What BFCD's argument boils down to therefore is "I say it, therefore it is right" type of argumentation.

Unlike the ipse dixit argumentation techniques of the liberal leftists in particular and secular humanists in general, Christians have an objective authoritative standard by which he can make a stand — in the Bible. The fact of the matter is that secular humanism has no standard upon which to pass judgment on any one issue. What it can do is assert all manners of stuff, but why should others follow them? The whole secular humanist pack of cards is reduced merely to subjective ipse dixit argumentation, and ultimately to a might-makes-right scenario.

In Christianity, Christians start off with the Word of God and its truths, which include God's Law as imperative commands (OUGHT). Therefore, Christians can rationally posit ethical rights and wrongs. BFCD being an atheist may very well choose to reject our starting axiom, but his epistemological foundations have no roots at all! Such being the case, how can he legitimately make all sorts of judgments on whether homosexuality or any issue is right or wrong since he has no epistemological and metaethical basis for doing so? Being impaled on Hume's is-ought fallacy, upon what basis can he even posit what state things "ought" to be?

In conclusion, BFCD's argumentation has been shown to a house of straw without any substance whatsoever, and this has not even address his outrageous statement that there are no persecutions of Christians in all but Muslim countries! (Even by his own faulty reasoning, is North Korea a Muslim country then?). BFCD's argumentation is totally irrational without any basis in fact, which is after all what all secular humanist arguments all show up to be, just that some are more sophisticated than others. BFCD and all atheists are exhorted to repent of their hatred of God and their irrationality, and turn to God for forgiveness of their sins.

Why will you die ... ? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live. (Eze. 18:32)