James White, November 30, 2021November 30, 2021, Christian Worldview, Exegesis, Godly Disciplines, Homosexuality, Molinism, Pastoral Theology, Post-Evangelicalism, Reformed Apologetics, The Dividing Line, Theology Matters Two topics on the program today. Started off with a discussion of Kristin Kobes du Mez, a professor of history (yay!) and gender studies (seriously?) at Calvin University, that once bastion of Reformed thought that has moved from Reformed to Deformed in just a matter of decades. She wrote the Jesus and John Wayne book, if you are wondering. Then we moved back to the Molinism topic because, well, we have to! Just did the debate and I can guarantee you, all our Molinist friends will be in a frenzy for a while, so I want to make sure the conversations stay centered on what really matters. So get a deep seat and make sure you are ready for all the chatter that will be appearing, especially this coming Friday when the Unbelievable episode airs featuring my discussion with William Lane Craig.
[embedded content]
Tags: 00:00 Calvin College

Did a quick (45 minute) episode today to do a post discussion/debate review of my encounter with William Lane Craig on Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable program that we recorded just today (in fact, the DL aired less than 30 minutes after we concluded). I explained why I had not publicly discussed the upcoming encounter, went over some of the key issues to listen for when it airs (I think on Friday), etc. We plan on being back again tomorrow for a regular episode!
[embedded content]
Tags: 00:00 Unbelievable with WLC

Surviving the Censors, Trip Cancellation, the Roman Papacy

UPDATE! Well, the censors at YouTube finally caught up with us and deleted this program. A few months ago we mirrored all our content to odysee.com, and you can find the link below for that mirrored episode. Now, assuming YouTube does not care about a discussion of “the truth value of subjunctive conditionals that constitute the essence of Middle Knowledge,” it was the far-reaching discussion of vaccine mandates, the Rittenhouse verdict, etc., that finally caused the bots, or some 20-something kid who couldn’t defend his actions if his life depended on it, to bounce the program. Of course, we were “warned” that should we violate their standards again (i.e., continue to speak the truth), we will no longer be able to stream. We have expected this for quite some time, of course, but it is satisfying to know that once they moved against us it was because they well know they cannot refute what was being said. Make sure to download the A&O app, and the Sermon Audio app, so you can keep up once they drop the final hammer and get rid of us.First half hour was on how lies, when they are repeated, take on a life of their own, and destroy everything that is good. Then we listened to William Lane Craig debating Paul Helm and keyed in on the central issue of Molinism, the fact that subjunctive conditionals exist and they do so outside of God’s control. And today we got into more of a theological aspect of seeing how Molinism engages other elements of theology (such as sin, regeneration, etc.).While we try to figure out why Chrome hates the new embed that we are using here is the new link to the video version of the show.
Tags: 00:00 Covid Madness20:00 Rittenhouse Trial 37:00 WLC & Molinism

When I wrote The Forgotten Trinity in the late 1990s I sought primarily to prepare believers to love the doctrine Biblically, and to be able to communicate it to those outside the faith. I was blissfully unaware of coming controversies that would impose new standards of language and terminology, and thankfully so.  I fear trying to fit into all the parameters being bandied about today would have resulted in a significantly less communicative and helpful work.Today we have folks telling us that we must adopt their particular emphasis upon issues that are four or five steps removed from the farthest reach of the light of Scriptural revelation, far out into the darkness of speculation. Rather than the wisdom of “where Scripture makes an end of speaking, so should we,” many feel it necessary to create a framework of “if this, then this” statements that are then extended far into the dark and silent realm of God’s very inmost being. One would think that if we were meant to have dogmatic beliefs about the inward life of the Trinity that we would be provided with sufficient light to do so with consistency and confidence. One can surely argue that there are certain statements that could be made about extra-biblical conclusions that, being only one step removed from biblical revelation, would follow and should be believed in light of their possible negation and the result that could have upon positive truths. But what happens when we take a set of such statements and build out even farther from the light of revelation into a new realm of statements?  And then when we repeat the process? Are we not putting ourselves in a position of adding to what God, by His Spirit, wisely chose to reveal to us of Himself and His glorious existence? Is this not the foundational error of every ecclesiastical system that denies sola scriptura and claims some kind of voice of inspiration and special insight? We all know where that leads. Back in 2016 or so a dispute arose amongst conservative and Reformed theologians and writers regarding such issues as the nature of “eternal generation” and its meaning, concepts of “eternal submission” and whether this means subordination, and other topics related to the identity of Father, Son and Spirit prior to creation itself and the light that we receive from observing their personal relationships with one another in the drama of redemption. It took about two rounds of blog posts before the anathemas were flying thick and heavy, sadly, with numerous tribes setting up their camps and catapults and preparing to “cancel” anyone who did not join their camp, and quickly. Of course, the Lord always brings good out of even our foolish tribalism, and many were brought to consider more deeply the great truths of Scripture as a result, for which we can be thankful. I commented on the dispute, but I refused to join the “anathematize those who disagree with you” movement, preferring the “If you have sound argumentation and biblically sound reasoning, why not express it and leave the rest to God” approach. Besides, the issues were far beyond the knowledge of the vast majority of Christians, and hence to all of a sudden weaponize them so that you are sending men you spoke with at conferences five years ago to hell for eternity seemed just a bit extreme.And while that particular eruption of controversy has died down (though some are stoking the fires yet again just over the past few weeks), now we get to join with it the new fascination with Thomistic theology, so called “natural theology,” and an impressive emphasis upon a particular extended definition of simplicity, one where not only does it become problematic to even express exactly how Father, Son and Spirit interact or love, but now we have to affirm that God’s wrath and God’s love and God’s omniscience and God’s omnipotence are all “one” in some never to be clearly defined fashion. And how any of this is forced upon us by the clear light of inspired Writ, well, no one really knows.I note in passing that as churches are being closed around the world, hatred of those who would dare stand against the growing darkness of totalitarianism is rising to a fever pitch, Christians are investing their time in arguing over terminological issues once again.  I know, I know, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is only one letter. But that is not where we are right now, and these issues do not rise to that of Nicea. So back in the late 90s, when I wrote my book, I regularly emphasized the fact that the Triune God is free to act and create and engage in providential oversight of His creation as He sees fit. There are no external forces that constrain His actions. Father, Son and Spirit together act in perfect harmony so as to bring about the ultimate goal, that of self-glorification through the great drama of creation and redemption, focusing upon the Incarnation and the Cross, and the creation of a graciously elected people to God Himself through their intimate union with the God-man, Jesus Christ. God acts in perfect harmony with His nature, of course, but that is not a constraint, but a necessity. Further, in what has been called the Covenant of Redemption, the Father, Son and Spirit in eternity past covenanted together to take the roles they did in working out that intended self-glorification.  Does Scripture explicitly state this reality? No, but it is the result of observing the harmony of Father, Son and Spirit in the accomplishment of that redemption, and the reality that their roles were fixed prior to creation itself (and hence in eternity).  Now, the roles taken by Father, Son and Spirit were not, surely, forced upon them by external powers. I expressed this idea in The Forgotten Trinity by saying, “in eternity past the Father, Son and Spirit voluntarily and freely chose the roles they would take in bringing about the redemption of God’s people.” My point, of course, is that the Father did not force the Son, nor the Son force the Spirit, etc. The perfect harmony of the Trinity would be destroyed if this was not, in fact, a free act, one flowing from love rather than force, or, I might add, nature, as we will see below. So later I wrote, “Just as the Son voluntarily chose to take the role of Suffering Servant so as to redeem God’s people, so, too, the Spirit has chosen to take the role as Sanctifier and Advocate of the people of God.” It seems uncontroversial that the Godhead acts in harmony and freely, but, alas, many things were more simple in the 90s than today!Some would seemingly suggest that each of the divine persons were constrained, in some fashion, by the nature of their previous relationship to one another, so that the roles they take in redemption are not freely chosen. Hence, it is argued, the Father had to take the role He took, and could not do otherwise; the Son likewise, and the Spirit likewise.  Now, the Spirit is a bit problematic at this point, since most of the conversation is focused upon Father/Son motifs and what is “fitting” in light of the assumptions made about the concept of “generation.” There is precious little Scriptural witness upon which to operate when considering the Spirit’s specific “role” in eternity past.  But it is argued that it had to be the Son who was sent, for it could not be otherwise. We enter here upon dangerous waters, I believe.  We know what God has done. We know that what He has done is to His glory, and that He has brought about His glory in the exact way Father, Son and Spirit chose to do so. But we have no basis upon which to theorize about what might have been, and, on that basis, say, “It had to be this way.” So, I have often heard it argued, “Well, obviously, the Father could not have given Himself, only the Son could do that.” I have always found this statement odd. Given how God has chosen to create it seems natural to us to see it this way, but we have very limited knowledge. Are we completely comfortable saying one could never envision a situation where a father gave himself in place of his son?  Every objection we raise against some speculative alternate scenario is based upon realities that are a part of this creation, the only one we know, and hence the only one that can seem “possible” to us. But this only demonstrates the danger of such speculation in the first place. Is it not much better to assert the freedom of each of the divine Persons to act in perfect harmony and unity rather than to assert that their roles were pre-determined by a theory we have of their interpersonal relationships prior to our first possible knowledge?Which brings us to one of the key problems in the current controversies: the idea that we can, in essence, “backwards engineer” eternity based upon what we see in creation.  That is, “If truth X flows from what Scripture tells us about what Father and Son have done, and how they have related to one another in time, this must mean we can then extrapolate backwards into eternity and establish truth Y on that basis.” This is a tempting argument, to be sure. It can be forcefully argued by saying, for example, “If we do not follow this line, that means we would have one Father in the past, and a different Father now, or one Son in the past, and another Son now.” But, of course, that’s exactly what we have, at least in some senses. The Incarnation took place in time, and is not an eternal act. The Son has not eternally had a human nature, correct? So do we have a “different Son” now than in the past when He was the object of the worship of the heavenly host? Is the Son who is chased out of town by an angry mob the same Son who was worshipped in eternity past? The answer is yes, of course, but you see the contextual difference. And has the Spirit eternally directed glory away from Himself to the Son? How would we even know this?There really seems to be no end to where backwards-engineering based upon temporal creation could take us when it comes to speculation about that which the Scriptures leave in silence. “But early church writers we really benefit from speculated about these things!” Yes, yes they did. But anyone who reads those men filters out a large amount of unprofitable speculation already in many areas, and it might be good to do so in this one, too.If we moved back to a consistent theological paradigm for these discussions (sola scriptura, tota scriptura) they could be quite beneficial.  If we would all adopt the agreed upon restriction to make dogmatic that which the Spirit did in Scripture, and engage in the rest with respect and a combined dedication to building up the body, glorifying God, and loving one another, we could very well lead many of our church members into a deeper consideration of the things of God.  But if we are all standing on the parapets of our little theological castles with our green-goo anathema guns primed and ready to go, we should not be surprised if most common-sense Christians do not rush to join in the conversation.

Spent the first twenty minutes responding to the excitement on Twitter yesterday when James Lindsay made reference to John 1:1. Then we took calls on baptism, whether it is James or Jacob in the New Testament, the vaccine mandates and the military, and church membership when you are Reformed and your church isn’t.
[embedded content]

James White’s Sermon Series on Baptism

Quite a range today! Lots of stuff about leaky vaccines, mandates, and the New Austrian Gestapo strolling through the streets of Austria saying, “Your papers, please!” It’s like no one reads books anymore. Then we looked at the contrast between the Chinese changing history and Isaiah telling us history is meaningful because God is its author. Then we dove into the Hebrew text for a while today, looking at Psalm 12 and what the “words of Yahweh” refer to in that Psalm, and then looking at the history of Psalm 110 in reference to Jewish apologists and unitarians as well. An hour and 15 minutes, but I’m sure the Dividing Line Highlights guys will chop her up for those with less time!
[embedded content]

In my last post, I directed our attention to Book VIII of City of God. It was there that Augustine took up a discussion regarding the Platonic philosophers. After his overview of this philosophical lineage, Augustine continued his discussion of the philosophers of the Ionic school.In this post, I would like to first direct you to a few generalities that Augustine wrote about the Platonists and then look at a specific claim regarding Plato. Augustine believed that there was a good reason the Ionic philosophers were known as Platonists – even after Aristotle’s succession of Plato. One of his reasons had to do with the fact that Plato did arrive at certain thoughts concerning God which were closest to the Christian beliefs. He stated the following:For those who are praised as having most closely followed Plato, who is justly preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles, and who are said to have manifested the greatest acuteness in understanding him, do perhaps entertain such an idea of God as to admit that in Him are to be found the cause of existence, the ultimate reason for the understanding, and the end in reference to which the whole life is to be regulated. Of which three things, the first is understood to pertain to the natural, the second to the rational, and the third to the moral part of philosophy. Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 4Whatever philosophers, therefore, thought concerning the supreme God, that He is both the maker of all created things, the light by which things are known, and the good in reference to which things are to be done; that we have in Him the first principle of nature, the truth of doctrine, and the happiness of life…we prefer these [Platonists] to all other philosophers, and confess that they approach nearest to us.Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 9This, therefore, is the cause why we prefer these to all the others, because, while other philosophers have worn out their minds and powers in seeking the causes of things, and endeavoring to discover the right mode of learning and of living, these, by knowing God, have found where resides the cause by which the universe has been constituted, and the light by which truth is to be discovered, and the fountain at which felicity is to be drunk. All philosophers, then, who have had these thoughts concerning God, whether Platonists or others, agree with us. Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 10Certainly they did “approach nearest” to Christians. But, let’s be honest here – up until Socrates’ thinking there was a single divine will behind everything, their Natural Theology was groping in the dark. The teacher of Socrates, still alive when Plato was working, thought there was a divine mind who energized homogeneous particles. We are fooling ourselves if we give Archelaus praise for his Natural Theology. Perhaps I shouldn’t even refer to this Philosophy as Natural “Theology”, but this is exactly what Augustine called it.And though the Christian man, being ignorant of their writings, does not use in disputation words which he has not learned — not calling that part of philosophy natural (which is the Latin term), or physical (which is the Greek one), which treats of the investigation of nature; or that part rational, or logical, which deals with the question how truth may be discovered; or that part moral, or ethical, which concerns morals, and shows how good is to be sought, and evil to be shunned — he is not, therefore, ignorant that it is from the one true and supremely good God that we have that nature in which we are made in the image of God, and that doctrine by which we know Him and ourselves, and that grace through which, by cleaving to Him, we are blessed.Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 10 Prior to the above statements in Chapter 10, Augustine did discuss at some length about the believers’ relationship to philosophers. The Christian understands some Biblical safeguards and warnings about philosophy. Don’t be deceived by it, but also God has made some things known to mankind (not just philosophers, but everyone – John Owen makes this same point when he said regarding Romans 1:19 “That which may be known of God is manifest in them, that is within each and every one fo them by an inborn awareness of God, not among them, or to some few of them only, as perhaps to the learned or the philosophers.”). But even with Romans 1, Augustine points out that the Apostle Paul says they did not rightly worship God. He would say that “the apostle would have us understand him as meaning the Romans, and Greeks, and Egyptians, who gloried in the name of wisdom”.I would also like to direct our focus to something vital that Augustine stated in Chapter 11. Augustine brings up those who thought that Plato had actually heard the prophet Jeremiah. Augustine dispels this notion due to the timing of events. However, Augustine firmly believed that in his work Timaeus we find that Plato was likely aware of the Genesis account of creation because Plato stated that God united earth and fire (fire being located in heaven) and this relates to God “making heaven and earth”. Further, “Plato next speaks of those two intermediary elements, water and air, by which the other two extremes, namely, earth and fire, were mutually united; from which circumstance he is thought to have so understood the words, ‘The Spirit of God moved over the waters.’ For, not paying sufficient attention to the designations given by those scriptures to the Spirit of God, he may have thought that the four elements are spoken of in that place, because the air also is called spirit.” In other words, Augustine saw that Plato may have been reading the four elements into a creation account of which he may have been aware.Before getting back to Augustine’s discussion, let us look at a couple of other statements from Plato in Timaeus. Some may be related to what we find in Genesis, but his philosophy which led to his Natural Theology of who the Creator was and what He created was far from our one true God! Plato’s statements are the main bullet points and my comments are in parentheses.This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad (Which “wise men” have a testimony of creation that God created things that were good – perhaps Moses and those teaching the Hebrew Scriptures?)Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he brought order (This sounds like an earth that was without form and void.)When the father creator saw the creature which he had made (speaking here of the earth itself and not of man) moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods (Plato believed there was one “father creator” but also other “eternal gods”. Also, he asserts that man was not created imago dei but rather that earth was created imago deos. This differs significantly from God’s creation!)To know or tell the origin of the other divinities is beyond us, and we must accept the traditions of the men of old time who affirm themselves to be the offspring of the gods-that is what they say-and they must surely have known their own ancestors. How can we doubt the word of the children of the gods? (And to be certain that he was not referring to a nebulous concept of unknown divinities, he brings up Oceanus, Tethys, Zeus, Heres, etc…)Of the men who came into the world, those who were cowards or led unrighteous lives may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation. (That’s correct. Plato thought that cowardly men were turned into women in the next generation – would this be some type of reincarnation?)We may now say that our discourse about the nature of the universe has an end. The world has received animals, mortal and immortal, and is fulfilled with them, and has become a visible animal containing the visible, the sensible God who is the image of the intellectual, the greatest, best, fairest, most perfect, the one only begotten heaven. (This was the final summary sentence.)I will return to Augustine’s belief now that Plato was familiar with the writings of Moses. Although he did think there was a familiarity with the writings of Moses from allusions in Timaeus, Augustine says that what follows is “the most striking thing in this connection”. When Moses asked God what his name was, God told him “I am who I am”. This is a great truth and shows that God is unchangeable – that “those things which have been created mutable are not”. The immutability of God was “a truth which Plato zealously held and most diligently commended.” Augustine is unaware that this truth was found anywhere else in the writings of those prior to Plato except in Exodus. Here is Augustine’s statement regarding this:But the most striking thing in this connection, and that which most of all inclines me almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorant of those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words of God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was the name of that God who was commanding him to go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me unto you;” as though compared with Him that truly is, because He is unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable are not,-a truth which Plato zealously held, and most diligently commended. And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that book where it is said, “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, who is sent me unto you.”Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 11 Augustine, perhaps one of the most learned Christians in the works of the Philosophers, held late in his life in what may be considered his Magnum Opus, City of God, that Plato likely came to his understanding of immutability not primarily through natural human reasoning but from some familiarity with the written revelation from the Israelite religion.Augustine would also make the following statement in the next chapter. This is why I have been discussing the Platonists’ belief in polytheism (some, such as Charles Hodge, assert it is a form of pantheism). It is key to a discussion of Natural Theology, and it is a core concern of what Natural Theology attempts to answer according to Augustine. Natural Theology seeks to answer whether worship should be given “to one God, or to many.” The evidence from Plato and Aristotle (see my previous post) is clear that they were not led to the belief that worship should be given to a single God.Even knowing and reasoning themselves to an understanding that there was a single, ultimate Creator Father, they suppressed this truth about God and instead worshiped the other gods in whom they believed.From whatever source he may have derived this knowledge, then, I think I have made it sufficiently plain that I have not chosen the Platonic philosophers undeservedly as the parties with whom to discuss; because the question we have just taken up concerns the natural theology; the question, namely, whether sacred rites are to be performed to one God, or to many, for the sake of the happiness which is to be after death…. All these, however, and the rest who were of the same school, and also Plato himself, thought that sacred rites ought to be performed in honor of many gods. Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, Chapter 12 According to Augustine (who knew more of the writings of the Philosophers than perhaps any other Christian), Plato most likely was familiar with the part of the Exodus account where God said “I am who I am”. Augustine believed that this is special revelation in which God Himself stated that He is immutable. And believers today can also understand immutability and many other attributes of God from this understanding of God’s revelation of his name to Moses and His People. Augustine knew of nobody prior to Plato who held to an immutable God who was the cause of all things. Does this have any bearing on whether immutability can be “only known through natural theology”? At least one group today believes that! If Plato arrived here, in part, due to familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures, the we must say that he was “[aided] by any divinely inspired written revelation from any religion” (a definition of Natural Theology by The Davenant Institute is that one is “unaided” by any written revelation), then is it fair to say that the great philosophers from the Ionic School (who engaged in thinking about who God was and after nearly 2 centuries arrived at a single God who was immutable and was perhaps a cause of the other gods they worshiped) came to such a conclusion “only through natural theology”?

Started off with a few minutes about the facts regarding the Kamala Cookies (forced vaccine mandates) and the reality that billions of dollars will buy you tons of lies. Then we moved back into reading and interacting with Dr. William Lane Craig’s presentation of middle knowledge and Molinism in his book, The Only Wise God.
[embedded content]