J.P. Moreland Briefly Describes the Kingdom Triangle

This is a succumbing to the age of experience rather than the revelation of God. Belief is supplanted with a personal, sentimental, emotional, quietistic, pietistic life rather than a simple belief in the objective revelation of God and man in the scriptures. The laying aside of objective truth for a religion that ‘works’ is not a revolution but a degradation of God’s eternal purposes that the Father might be glorified in the son. It seems that between the lines is “The American Dream” as a possible standard by which we judge happiness instead of the biblical standard. The transformation this man seeks of both culture and person is not a biblical transformation for that comes by the renewing of our minds and our minds alone but is a conforming to the image of this world. His succumbing to ‘therapy’ and counseling is an abject rejection of truth, the propositions of God as found in the 66 books of the Bible. This is a very low view of the bible and of truth and a highly elevated view of experience and the needs of man that according to him must be met. Schleiermacher lives and Barth is on the throne.

The apparent “inactivity” of God depressed him. He then discovered what he identified as the supernatural components of the kingdom. He said that it became evident after some reflection, that the supernatural nature of the kingdom has nothing to do with the gifts of the Spirit. I don’t believe that historical-grammatical exegesis of Scripture played a major role, if any.

I was shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First, at what he did NOT say.
1. God is not part of his Kingdom Triangle.
2. The atoning work of Christ is not part of his triangle.
3. Scripture is not part of his triangle.
Instead, Man is all three parts of his triangle!
1. man’s mind- rationalism.
2. man’s feelings- mysticism.
3. man’s miracles- empiricism.
In the judgment of charity, I can only assume that his psychological depression was probably due to some chemical imbalance in his brain and he is now on medication. Thus his “triangle” is a drug-induced illusion. A New Ager could agree with everything he said! It is pure humanism.

Disgusted!!!!!

To quote Larry Elder, “What the hell did he just say?”

He said a lot of NOTHING.

Where would I begin?

Come on everyone! Let’s be Jesus’ apprentices! Hopefully he won’t fire us. The Scripture expressly identifies followers of Jesus as DISCIPLES!

Mr. Moreland: The Lord never calls us to be apprentices! The word is Disciples!!!! And really, I don’t think Barbara Streisand wants any part of this “Kingdom.” There is definitely a confusion about knowledge. The difference is between knowledge originating in Christ, the Eternal Word and your humanistic view! Christ left us His manifesto in Scripture!!!!!!!!!!!
You “want to win this struggle” by removing Scripture? It angers me that you call yourself a Christian and yet are ashamed to herald the truth of Scripture.

A Great Man once said, “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when he comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38

I can say, that my wife and I once stood on the lawns of Biola talking of your great teaching, only to now realize the humanistic core of your worldview that deceptively leads the naive away from Christ, as a riptide sweeps the unaware to their death. May God grant you true humility and cause you to repent and consider the example of Dr. Francis Schaeffer in his manifesto! Quote: ” It is this way with the lives and value systems of individuals and cultures, if they have nothing stronger to build upon than their own finiteness, their own limitedness, they can stand if the pressures are not too great, but as the pressures mount, if they do not have a sufficient base, they crash.” Dr. Francis Schaeffer

Dr. J.P. Moreland, the pressures are mounting and since you don’t quote Scripture, what is your base?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KtfeKJLBZM

Sam, you declared, “sense-experience on the whole, is reliable.”

If, on a sunny day, you are in a rowboat, and your oar in the water appears to be bent and mangled, then according to the reliability of the senses, the oar is in fact bent and mangled and not just an optical illusion. Would this be correct?

Sam, why should we assume he (J.P. Moreland) is a Christian? More and more he is revealing his trust in his own understanding/Reason. Not once does he make known his position in Christ. He compares Jesus with “an invitation,” puts himself on the same plane with Barbara Streisand in terms of belief. Are we to assume that Francis Beckwith is Christian also? Moreland states the triangle is a “tested” method, he puts forth his own methods. Sheer arrogance when Christ has put out the ultimate instructions for what to believe and how to live.

Sam,
If you put together:
(1.) what Moreland said in the video with
(2.) his ETS lecture against sola scriptura,
(3.) what he has written and said elsewhere,
(4) that he and Craig wrote in To Everyone and Answer they were “rationalists,”
(5.) their followers are converting to popery or Orthodoxy,
it is obvious there is a serious problem going on here.
I do not assume that Moreland or the rest of the rationalists are regenerated. I have to judge that on the basis of what they teach, not what they may claim. Beckwith claimed to be a “born again evangelical Christian” for years. Yet, he threw it all out and renounced the gospel when he jumped into bed with the Whore of Babylon.
The Bible acknowledges in 1 John that people will say they know Christ – when they actually don’t. “He that says, “I know him…but…”
Moreland joined the Vineyard and now teaches their view of miracles.
If you don’t see these things for what they are, I am worried about YOU.

“Sam, you declared, ’sense-experience on the whole, is reliable.’

If, on a sunny day, you are in a rowboat, and your oar in the water appears to be bent and mangled, then according to the reliability of the senses, the oar is in fact bent and mangled and not just an optical illusion. Would this be correct?”

I take it that the implication of the above response to Sam Garcia is that sense experience is not reliable. It is interesting that you are appealing to one of the ancient skeptical arguments to deny knowledge by the senses (especially since it comes from a ministry that constrantly ridicules other Christians for borrowing from the Greeks). In any event, sense experience is on the whole correct. The locution “on the whole” indicates that it is not always correct. So it trivially follows that there are cases in which sense experience is not correct. But anyone that is not a half witted about how sense experience works realizes that the brute senses require the role of reason to disciminate cases like the one you offered (c.f. Galileo’s Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World System for a good education on this topic). If you deny that sense experience on the whole is correct, then I would like to hear how you have any reasonable grounds in responding to the text that appears on your screen. After all, the Bible did not tell you that this would appear on a web page, and you surely do not have knowledge of this a priori.

James Gibson

Sam, It seems that you are ardently defending the indefensible with Moreland. He is caught red-handed. His Philosophy is out in the open.

The Catholics love J.P. and are waiting for him to abandon Protestantism because, as the Catholics say, it is a useless system. Beckwith went that way, and it very well may be J.P. is on his way to the other side. I hope that is not the case, by grace, may God cause him to repent and turn back to Scripture. When he is interviewed, he does not proclaim Scripture or Doctrine. There is not even one mention of Christ and His glory. He talks about Christianity as if it had failed? “He” wants to win this fight, by using the Kingdom Triangle???? This is what is baffling about Moreland. In this interview Moreland makes no mention that he is a servant of God or an instrument of God. He speaks as if he were the center of his coming into Christianity, “It became evident to me,” is his favorite passage.

The Lord Jesus Christ said, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt 16:18

This should be J.P.’s battle cry! But, it is NOT. Instead he wants to implement “his” methods which are completely humanistic.
Paul warns us of these things in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2.

“And I brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”

If he knows he is speaking to Christians, he should declare Scripture, but he does not. There is no need for a “triangle” and no need to “recover” secularism. Christ is Lord over all. The Scriptures warn us that the “world” hates Christians. This is what he should be warning Christians about. That they must stand against the tide of evil; which he calls “crazy.” His philosophical jargon does not help the unconverted in the mega churches it only makes it easier for them to cross over into the apostasy of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, as many have already done.

The problem here is that we are supposed to be making disciples of all nations. One of the great problems of today’s church is that the mega churches are filled with unconverted people. So, we cannot just preach on the street corner, what needs to be recovered is the teaching of biblical doctrine in the church today! Were biblical doctrine being taught, the mega church “pastors” would be out of business, and there’d be a great reformation!

“Mario, are you telling me that Christ only died for Calvinists with your nuanced view of natural theology?”

Sam, its seems your issue is with the doctrines of grace? I don’t see how I told you Christ only died for Calvinists with my view of Natural Theology? If by that you mean bible believing regenerated Christians who trust Scripture for what to believe and how to live, I would say so.

And as to my “nuanced” view of Natural Theology, I have to agree with you that it is very nuanced by Scripture.

Sam, I had the same passion you do for defending J.P. Moreland. I could not believe it when I first heard these things. But it is what it is. I will not put my trust in what a man says unless it is backed by Scripture alone. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

Sam, I do wonder why I don’t see you at church any longer. Hopefully we’ll see you back there soon!

Thanks for the reminder Steve! Very Merry Christmas to everyone!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

I’m glad you you decided to drop the arguments against sense-experience for the moment, though I do agree with Gibson and cannot agree with them. By the way James, did you go to Biola? I may remember having read many of your posts on the phil folder on bubbs? Nice to have you here.

Now, I’d like to get back to the main point we were discussing. Mario, I’m really sorry to hear everything you just said. I would be lying if I said that it is not frustrating to read what you wrote because it feels like there’s no way to get through to you. Maybe if we discuss very specific points we can see that we have more common ground than you may suppose.

Can we drop the frequent Beckwith references? He himself mentioned how tiring this is and I want to propose that since we do not know the heart of Moreland, and since he himself stated that he will never become a Catholic, we should be charitable and drop these accusations. Even if you don’t agree with this, I don’t see how it is furthering our discussion.

I have not quoted Scripture in this post Mario, does this disqualify what I am saying? It sounds like this is the standard that you are holding JP to. I don’t see the logic of your statement concerning this. Also, JP’s “system” is one that he formulated through depression, observation, and the Spirit’s response to his crying out in that time. You say he does not speak of the power of God, what else would “recapturing the Spirit’s power” mean to you? Does that mean the “humanistic spirit”? I believe you are reacting far too strongly.

I find offense to whoever said that Moreland should have read the Psalms because, presumably, depression is never correct. I myself went through a depression so deep about two years ago that I almost gave up my faith. Had whoever said that spoken said that spoken to me then, I would look back now and see them as a vehicle of Satan’s schemes to utterly destroy my faith.

Btw, I am not churchless.

-Sam

Sam,

That’s me. I graduated from Biola in 2004 and finished one year of graduate work at Talbot Seminary before leaving to attend WMU. Being paid to do philosophy is a much more appealing move than building a large debt.

Cheers.

“Being paid to do philosophy is a much more appealing move than building a large debt.”

HA! I hear you, my debt for Biola by this point is like a mortgage. BTW, I’m looking at NIU and WMU for graduate work in phil. Mind if I contact you on bubbs about that?

I think it would help if we all define what a humanist is instead of talking past each other. My hunch is that Stephen will define it something to the effect of “starting from himself” disregarding Scripture. Am I right Stephen? Even if this is the case, please tell me how you would differentiate between a secular “humanist” and a Christian “humanist” since they are obviously not the same even in your view. Clearing this up would probably allow us to further this discussion.

-Sam

Sam: I was accepted to both NIU and WMU. Feel free to contact me at Bubbs about this if you like.

Stephen: There’s quite a bit of lingo here that’s either vague or metaphorical. So you are going to have to help me out before I can even evaluate claims such as those.

First, what edoes it mean to say that a humanist begins with man and abstracts an aspect of man? Is that like picking out a quality of a substance? I’m not sure what you are referring to.

What would it mean to absolutize an aspect of man? Does it mean you give being to that aspect of man in a way that is not degreed (something neo-platonic, perhaps)? Does it mean that you treat that aspect as an epistemic criterion that acts as an infallible guide for epistemizing? I doubt you would be saying that about Moreland because, since I take it that you’ve actually read him, you would know that he is not an infallibilist about knowleddge. So I haven’t the slightest clue what to make of this.

What does it mean to idealize an aspect of man? Or romanticize an aspect of man? Both of these are unclear to me. For the former, are you saying that Moreland is picking out a hypothical property of man and treating it as something like a useful fiction? That’s one important way in which aspects/characteristics/qualities, etc. are idealized. I’m further lost about the romanticized characterization. Moreland is no poetical rhetorician, as far as I can tell.

I also find it vastly implausible that Moreland makes any aspect of man the “origin of truth,” since Moreland thinks God is the first-cause. So he must surely think God is the origin of truth (at least all contingent truths). And while I am not sure how he reconciles a sort of platonism about abstract objects with Christianity, it certainly wouldn’t be the case on that view that any aspect of man is the origin of truth. And the same is true for the rest of the other abstract terms you noted.

Maybe you mean that Moreland is treating his own beliefs as part of the criteria for truth. But that would simply be false. Hardly anyone (and probably no one worth talking to) takes it that their own beliefs are epistemic criteria. That view is extremely silly; it implies that the epistemic probability for that person that any given belief that person holds has a probability of 1. Only God could hold that degree of certainty for any given belief.

Perhaps you mean that Moreland has to use his beliefs in order to find out which of his beliefs are true. But I doubt that would be your criticism since it is difficult to see what alternative could be recommended, simply for the reason that no other option is possible.

So, I’m not sure what your explanation of Moreland as a humanist amounts to. I’m also not sure how you are using rationalism. Theologians and philosophers use the term in a variety of ways. You can define it as you like. Some forms of rationalism can be problematic; other forms are defined in such a way that they are trivially true.

Anyway, you are going to have to make your explanation a little bit more clear. I hope you understand, I am not being recalcitrant about this. I simply don’t know what to say in response to you; I suspect Moreland would also be a little baffled.

“His preaching Paul describes by saying it was ‘not with the wisdom of words,’ So far as the signification of these words is concerned, the meaning may be, 1. Not with skillful discourse, that is eloquence. 2. Or, not with philosophical discourse, that is, not in an abstract or speculative manner, so that truth taught should be presented in a philosophical form. According to this view the doctrine taught would still be the gospel, but the thing rejected and condemned would be merely the philosophical mode of exhibiting it. 3. The meaning may be not with a discourse characterized by wisdom; that is the contents of which was human wisdom, instead of truths revealed by God. The context is in favor of the interpretation last mentioned. In this whole connection the apostle contrasts two kinds of wisdom. The one he describes as the wisdom of the world, the wisdom of men, or the rulers of this world. By this he means human wisdom, that which has a human origin. This he pronounces to be folly, and declares it to be entirely inefficacious in the salvation of men. The other kind of wisdom he calls the wisdom of God, i.e. derived from God; the hidden wisdom consisting in truths which human reason never could discover. The former he repudiates. He says he did not come to preach the teachings of human reason, but the testimony of God. He was among them in the character, not of a philosopher, but of a witness. As in what follows the apostle argues to prove that human wisdom is folly and cannot save men, and gives that as the reason why he came preaching the doctrine of the cross, it seems plain that this is the meaning of the passage before us. ‘Christ sent me to preach, not with wise discourse, that is, not with human wisdom-not as a philosopher, but as a witness.’ His preaching therefore was the simple exhibition of the truth which God had revealed.”

“Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect, i.e. rendered powerless and inoperative. If Paul in preaching had either substituted human wisdom for the doctrine of the cross, or had so presented that doctrine as to turn it into a philosophy, his preaching would have been powerless. It would lose its divine element and become nothing more than human wisdom. Whatever obscures the cross deprives the gospel of its power.” Charles Hodge: An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

It is clear that J.P. Moreland functions in the character of a philosopher and obscures the gospel of Christ. Nothing more is needed but the revealed Word of God to be taught from Scripture alone. The problem is that for many Scripture is not enough, man must take charge and assist God.

Sam, I have to be blunt with you, what I see in you is arrogance. You are not teachable and are enamored with philosophy. You talk so highly of it. You must be careful in your philosophic studies. If you had a deep depression two years ago and almost gave up your faith, you should examine your foundation in Christ. If you’re glad “you” didn’t give it up, you may encounter serious problems in the future that could lead you into apostasy.

If you have not already looked at A.W. Pink’s book on the Sovereignty of God, you should consider reading that. It is not philosophical, but very Scriptural. I would hope you don’t have a problem with what is written in it.

Sam remember to remain teachable. I am seriously concerned about you, however, the Lord is sovereign. Even your statements are cause for concern.

“Being paid to do philosophy is a much more appealing move than building a large debt.”

What sort of philosophy is appealing for pay?

I thought it was also appropriate to point out that Dr. Morey’s post, “A Simple Fallacy” includes the following:

‘The French Natural Philosophers had abstracted, idealized, romanticized, and then absolutized human reason into an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent, infallible, “Reason”.’

Above, Stephen, you put the abstract terms in the same exact order: “…abstracting an aspect of man, absolutizing it, idealizing it, and romanticizing it,”

So. This is probably not parroting. It is probably something with meat to it. Morey probably means something important by it, enough for you to follow suit and repeat the ordering. I can’t see that I’m at fault for not recognizing what any of it means, much less its appearance in the same order.

Saint and Sinner,

OK. So what exactly does that consist of, such that J.P. Moreland could be accused to being a rationalist in *that* sense?

I myself don’t pretend to be a specialist about the Enlightenment, since most of my work in epistemology is from the twentieth century. But it is doubtful that there was a single view of rationalism from the Enlightenment. So which view would that be? Perhaps the following might address the concern. Since the rise of cultural studies, postmodernism and the rest, people have become much more attentive of the fact that how we reason is influenced by upbringing and society. So if by rationalism, it is meant simply being able to grasp truths irrespective of influences and biases, then I doubt that anyone worth his salt believes this today. And it is certain that Moreland does not hold this view. But if something else is meant by Englightenment Rationalism, I’m all ears.

James,

I was simply clarifying what Stephen wrote. I was not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with him.

I believe that most of the posters here would disagree with Moreland’s *epistemology*.

Moreland has God as the conclusion to his arguments rather than the starting presupposition. Thus, he starts with man’s reasoning, data-gathering/theory-forming abilities, and experiences in order to determine truth.

This makes man ultimate in terms of predication. While I would *disagree* with the statement that Moreland is a humanist, I would say that his epistemology is humanistic. Though Moreland would say that he is constrained by Scripture, I believe that it is the other way around.

That last sentence should say, “I thought you said that you used to by a presuppositionalist?”

Steve said, “I find these particular statements to be representative of one who has never heard of my position before – ever. Seeing that you and I have had this discussion face-to-face sitting on the same couch till about 4AM, I question the honesty in them.”

However we did not spend the whole night disscussing this issue Steve. James Gibson is my friend and I don’t think that anyone should question his honesty. We should give a fellow brother in the Lord the benefit of the doubt.

“P.S. You are close, we did talk a little about eschatology. I was examining postmillenialism at the time and you were an “idealist” at the time.”

James is still an Amillenial Idealist.

“But the OT discussion was with JN and I. We were studying for our JW debates and attepting to chronicle the neo-Babylonian period and the 20-26th Egyptian Dynasties, to refute the vaunted claims by the “society” that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.”

And we spent a few minutes filling James in on the disscussion. When James reffered to the OT-NT disscussion he was reffering to our disscussion about CT and NCT while you were promoting NCT material. We also spent a great deal of time disscussing proper christian music. Not to mention that James arrived late that night after the JW and our mutual aquaintance had left. I just want to clarify how our disscussion went with Steve, James, and myself that night on my living room couch.
Sincerely,
Johnny Navarro

S&S,

It is clear that the topic is epistemology. But you said that one should “presuppose Biblical metaphysics.” So I asked some important, and by no means unusual, metaphysical questions that the Bible does not clearly answer, or answer at all. So the point is that a Biblical metaphysics is not going to be very robust. And the senses in which it matters to epistemology are going to be dialectically useless because of a circularity problem.

I don’t know what OEC stands for. I am guessing some sort of young earth view because of what follows. If that’s right, I think the answer is no. Why does this matter anyway?

I understand what the response to circularity is. The response is: “the circularity is not vicious.” Well, in the description I provided above of a circular argument, it most surely is vicious. The typical way out of vicious circularity, at least as van Tillians go, is to appeal to the transcendental argument. But there is no single argument; and the arguments that Bahnsen gives, anyway, do not justify Christian theism.

I’m also not clear of what your weaker TA is supposed to do. So, theism or Christianity is not proven. You then say, “While it doesn’t show that other religions cannot be true, it shows that if one does not believe in Christian theism, then they cannot *logically* believe in anything else.” But that seems confused. How does it follow that one cannot believe anything else, logically, if they do not believe Christian theism? I missed something here. In fact, on the face of it, this is wildly implausible on the surface. How is belief in Christianity relevant to, say, forming the belief that there is text on the screen? What’s the *argument* for that?

I think at this point, I’m bowing out of the discussion. If a person with hardly any education in philosophy can show Plantinga wrong, then a foritiori, I’m a fool to think I could do any different. Who wud’uh thunk someone with not even a minor could educate a person with 50 years in the profession.

Steven,

Is James Gibson really self-centered and arrogant? Well, I don’t know him like you do, but judging from his posts, he seems humble and reasonable in addressing you as he did.

The fact of the matter is that for a while now, you have been listing off a variety of accusations against J.P. Moreland taking little care to define your terms. You do this repeatedly as does Robert Morey when I’ve seen him write on natural theology. I honestly have no idea what you mean by your arguments. How are they supposed to be forceful? And I’m similarly puzzled by the regularity with which you use ‘humanist’ and ‘rationalist’ and ‘relies on man’s wisdom’ as dialectical trump cards. This strikes me as so much hand-waving.

Between you and Mr Gibson, he is prima facie the expert in the area of philosophy and particularly, epistemology, so it’s not too unreasonable to think someone like he might be able to sniff out problems in your arguments. (I’m speaking of those from your post on Dec 26 10:55pm). Try to be receptive to such criticism. I appreciate that this is not particularly easy to take (we all take our lumps as we learn to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ) but his proper appeal to his own intellectual authority on this matter should be no more offensive than saying Kobe could teach me how to play better basketball–he does it for a living. Mr Gibson’s familiarity with his own discipline doesn’t *necessarily* make him right, but it does mean that his puzzlement is a generally reliable indicator of a lack of clarity on your part, conspiracy theories about his honesty notwithstanding. Whether he was dishonest or not (I’m highly inclined to think “not”), the rest of us still think he raised intelligible questions–questions to which, for example, your discourse on man and references to a one-on-one with Plantinga struck me more as empty posturing than as either perceptive or substantive.

In the future, before defend your views, please start by clarifying them at least enough to please a well-informed questioner, such as James. You don’t necessarily need his sort of professional technical erudition, but it would be helpful to listen when someone like him raises an eyebrow of skepticism toward your arguments. And until you’re prepared to meet this minimal requirement (i.e. being clear) for constructive discourse, I advise refraining from doing things like addressing Moreland in “secret” at the end of a publicly visible post as if you had some dirt on him, or speaking in visibly parental tones telling him he’s “stepped into the path of a mighty Reformation,” or telling us how you “explained to Alvin Plantinga that [x]“, or that “Plantinga saw the tension [generated by your argument].” Such statements come off as arrogant, and frankly, as having a disrespectful adolescent bravado.

It just occurred to me…my warehouse job was in a place called Commerce City.

I’m charged with being self-centered by people that do not know me. Fascinating. There is an objective test for whether I am self-centered(given the only basis for calling me self-centered is what I posted in the above comments). Here’s the test: how many times above did I put forth information about myself when I was not asked for that information? Seems to me like I was careful to stick to the following rule (quoting myself above): “It might be more beneficial for you [Stephen] to just answer the questions to reduce my bafflement than to begin asking about me personally since that is clearly irrelevant to the evaluation of the content of your claims.” Of course, of all the Bible passages quoted, the one about judging fairly is ignored.

For the record, I don’t consider myself an expert simpliciter in any field in epistemology (although I do specialize in various areas). In another 10 years, maybe I will be an expert in one or two fields, if I’m lucky. But I’d say that for any given person in any given field, if that person is teaching at an accredited research university, has been in the field for over five years with numerous awards provided by scholars in the field, then, *relative to someone with no experience at all*, that person surely qualifies as an expert in the dialogical context. So for such a person to misunderstand the argument of a person with no experience at all, that raises questions about the soundness of the inexperienced person’s argument, or at least the clarity of it. The inexperienced person cannot respond that the experienced person is just being a liar. Silly.

This is just one of those instances: the less they know, the less they know it.

Stephen,

Regarding warehouse jobs: The Commerce City I was referring to is in Denver, CO, so unless you worked there, I doubt we know each other that way. It was an enjoyable job, though.

On to the issue at hand: I have tried to come to James’s defense and think I have done so successfully and fairly, so I will move on and consider other issues.

A word on experts. I understand that James doesn’t consider himself an expert, though I agree with him that there is a relative sense by which we can apply the label ‘expert’ to someone. You say however that by Gibson’s “grid”, your wife’s arguments against abortion could be invalidated simply in virtue of a veteran MD objecting to them. But you misunderstand. If I may speak for James, the claim isn’t that he’s an expert and that therefore in virtue of an expert’s objection your arguments are wrong. The claim is rather that because he’s — at least relatively speaking — an expert (and moreover, an expert in a field where the trade currency is the laws of logic) his objection makes it more plausible than not — at the very least, prima facie — that your arguments are flawed, and thus, that you should not be quite so confident that he, rather than you, is the one who’s in error.

With regard to your idiosyncratic view of ’self-centered’. I read up epistemology a little and have never run across this term. I have not read Van Til so can’t comment on him with any familiarity. I have read Schaeffer (and have no small amount of respect for him). I’ve also read up a little on presuppositionalism in the Master’s Seminary Journal, but was rather unimpressed by what I found, as the author evinced certain misunderstandings of very basic issues in philosophy. (If you decide to look it up, notice the footnote telling the story about defining the length of meter rods, and how the author considers it an example of circular reasoning!) I will say that if your quote is representative of Van Til’s thinking, then the use of the term ’self-centered’ strikes me as a red-herring.

I’ll have to think about this more, but on the face of it, what reasons does Van Til offer for thinking his account of theistic vs. non-theistic induction and deduction are correct?

Inductive reasoning, I always thought, was the notion that the premises of the argument rendered the conclusion likely, whereas in deductive arguments, the premises made the conclusion follow of necessity.

Even if one accepts the label ’self-centered’, one still wishes to know, “What’s the problem?”

So I just skimmed most of this and saw lots of unfounded assertions about James’ character. I think the following is a fair summary of everything I’ve been saying up to this point: “Love God and love others.” James pointed out being charitable and I would have to agree with this. I just cannot understand how Christians cannot get along with each other, especially when they are not discussing essentials (!). The apostle John said that the world would know us Christians by our love; sadly, this is a virtue grossly absent in our speech.

I don’t really have much to respond to since so much has gone on, so I’ll follow up something Mario said about 1 Corinthians 1 and 2. Mario, would you really have me believe that Paul is speaking about “humanistic Christians” (whatever that means)? It is very plain that Paul is reacting to the Greco-Roman philosophical history, esp. that of Plato and Aristotle. These philosophers truly did start “with man.” The only other people Paul may have had in mind may have been the thoroughly superstitious common people of that time. They had gods for everything in that time, as is still the case today.

So my point is just if you’re going to quote biblical text for this context, at least have it be relevant. Or at least explain how you believe it is relevant. Quoting these chapters in the context of Moreland’s kingdom triangle seem to me to be yet another straw man. Is Moreland preaching “another gospel”? Is he juxtaposing the power of the cross with “words of wisdom” from humanistic philosophy? Is Moreland denying the cross? How can you possibly relate 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 to this context?

-Sam

If you read this Dr. Bob it would be great to get some feedback from you on Vincents comments above.

“Stephen Macasil Says:
December 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Johnny, do you think that much of what you say has purposeful meaning? In other words, when you interject with your attempts to clarify, are you of the conviction that you have served some greater good?”

Yes, I defended the integrity of a friend who was charged with dishonesty, arrogance, self-centeredness (epystemological or not), and snootiness. But is this really a serious question? You insult my friend, I defended him, and you ask me if there is meaning to that? Don’t you think David would have done the same for Johnathan? Or vise-versa? Does this mean that you would not defend a fellow friend and brother in the Lord who was falsely accused of the 4 things above?

“Perhaps you can add even more light to this discussion by offering a synopsis of your personal observation of me.”

I don’t think it’s necessary, I allready have. I wasn’t even critical of you in what I added of that night.

“Did I hold to a rock-solid commitment to sola scriptura?”

Yes, and we still do.

“Was I very concerned about the tension between theology and philosophy?”

Yes, and we still do.

“Did I present a forceful position in the proper Christian music discussion?”

Well, you conceded that you could have been wrong. Remember, you had only been a christian for 7 months at that time. Surely you concede that you have matured since then.

“Did I shape my theological positions by Scripture alone?”

This statement can be made by thousands of christians in the world. In and of itself, it has no meaning. This claim can be made by JW’s, “Oneness” Pentecostals, and other religious groups. The dissagreement is on how to consistently apply the authority of scripture through a proper hermeneutic. Gibson would not agree that he has violated this principle. This is where the disscussion should have been centered. The biblical hermeneutic of epystemology.

“Did we have more than one run-in with Gibson other than that night? Did we (you & I) ever discuss other issues with Gibson on other days? Did we conference-call him while he was at work to discuss issues that I had with the WCF?”

Are you seriously trying to say that the brief phone conversations we had with James while he was in between customers at work would suffice for him to understand all of your concerns?

“Were the WCF covenant of grace issues answered satisfactorily for both of us (you & I again) within the boundaries of sola scriptura,”

No, I still have questions regarding that issue. But the day that we called him on your question on the WCF only lasted a few minutes. And that is including the time he was helping customers.

“or were we both concerned with the role of philosophic influence in lieu of Scripture?”

We all still are.

“Did I question Gibson about the compatibility of theology and philosophy before he attended Talbot? Did I express concern about J.P. Moreland (and W.L. Craig) back then, that night? Did I express my concern to Gibson about the reliability of the Talbot philosopher(s), in light of their inability to exegete the Bible properly as seen in their essential Freewill doctrine? Did Gibson tell both of us that first he was a Reformed Christian, second a philosopher, and that his goal going in was to work out a refutation of Freewill while building a philosophic structure that is compatible with the faith?”

Yes, all of this last paragraph took place in a casual conversation about a variety of issues late in the evening on my couch. This doesn’t change the truth about what I’ve allready said. James is none of the things that you called him.

“Johnny, nearly a couple of years ago, you told me that it was your goal to be like James White. You told me that your goal was to be the authority when it came to text and cannon issues.”

This is more of a dream, I don’t know that God has gifted me to do that.

“You then asked me what my ministry goal was; what I felt called to do. Will you please reveal what my answer was to you while discussing this in my room?”

I’m sorry, but I don’t remember. I’m not questioning your motives Steve, I’m questioning your judgement about my friend. This is the only reason that I decided to interject in the first place.
God bless,
Johnny

So it seems that the discussion has officially died.

Let me resurrect one very specific topic: Stephen, would you agree with me in saying that general revelation can lead us to question our interpretations of Scripture and thus, help us correct our doctrines? I REALLY want to narrow this down so please don’t extend the conversation to other areas for the moment. Basically, can GR correct SR at any time?

-Sam

I believe in inerrancy.

So experience can never help us question our doctrines? Yes or no and a full explanation please.

Pleae pray fo rmy recovery, I was taken back to ER and went through surgery and am now home. Thanks.

Okay, let’s define GR then? Schaeffer defines it as the world around us and “the mannishness of man.” So let’s sa the world around us and the image of God.

We muist also further define revelation as God’s self-disclosure so that peop;e may understand. And call it natural theology or not, our understanding is intertwined with that that revelation.

Thanks for praying for me, it’s kind of awkward to talk about cuz the infection I had before affected other things in my extremities. Thanks again for praying, I can’t wait to be pain-free and able to walk well.

So when a non-Christian does something “good”, like pushes a kid out of the way of an oncoming bus, where does that come from? Let’s try and stay focused ehre. I would argue that it is a remnant of the image of God despite the enrance of sin, would you agree?

I’m not defining natural theology in the way you are right now. We are just talking generally about experience, we’re not even using it in the philosophical senes. Just very brodaly.

and ha, you’re right i didn’t realize i just left it plain sr. i meant our interpretations. GR and SR will never contradict. Thanks for correcting something that sounded so heretical hahah.

Well wait a minute, would you have me believe that Rom. 3 is really saying that unbelievers can never do good? I do not believe that is on Paul’s mind there, though “works of the law” that merit salvation certainly is.

Ok, so you believe the image of God was completely unaffeced by the fall, and most theologians would posit that rationality itself is grounded in the image of God. What ould you say ab out this?

Well I was asking about your interpretation of Rom. 3 but let’s drop it anyway, it was a side issue.

Ok, so what’s your point with saying that the noetic effects of the fall are qualitative? i thought you said the image of god was unaffected by sin? Now I would say that rationality is based on the image of god and it seems that you would agree. So why are our intuitions wrong if it’s been unaffected? if i understand you correctly then how can you make a distinction between general revelaition and natural theology when men and women understand it fully and (prsumably) keep it in the image of God (which as we already have seen is general revelation)?

sorry for the typos, i type in bed in a realy awkward position.

My family and my girlfriend (but she went home…boo!) are caring for me. Thanks, I’m feeling better and hoping I can recover much faster than they said I would.

Okay, this was my roundabout way to getting to define GR. I think I referred to Schaeffer and most theologians would agree that GR includes the image of God in humans. Now you are saying that it has been affected because sin cut us off from God and I agree. My point is this: if at any point, you agree that sin has not utterly destroyed the image of God in men and women, then sometimes you must lend credence to “experience” such as intuitions, feelings, or situations in life. Many times they will be affected by sin we would both agree, but many other times they will be reliable enough. Would you agree with me on this?

I never said they were the final authority.

So now intuitions, etc. are sometimes reliable enough and may cause us to go back and question our interpretation of Scripture, not necessarily horribly important interpretations. Sometimes our culture and sin influence our interpretations of scripture. Do you agree with the last two statements?

Okay, so now let’s put into the equation rationality. You admitted that the image of God requires a certain amount of rationality on our part. Now is it the case that our rationality, like our intuitions and experience, should be reliable because of the image of God even after factoring in sin? And if so, is this not natural theology?

And also, if we both agree that the image of God is a form of God’s general revelation, then you must agree with me that natural theology and general revelation coincide to a certain degree.

Your first sentence was all I was looking for and that is probably as much as I’ve figured out so far. I would mostly agree with what you say after that but my whole issue here was just how strongly (if I remmeber correctly) you had denied that GR and natural theology (to an extent we would agree) could lead us to correct our interpretations of SR.

I do believe we would disagree that people have natural knowledge of God (?). How can this be? Do you wholly deny this, I don’t understand your position here.

And you say they are servants; this i understand, but are they not servants in the same manner as they are in helping us understand SR? Again my whole point was the overall tone about discounting anything extrabiblical prima facie. But now that we have conclded that they are reliable sometimes even before looking at Scripture, then we cannot easily ignore them, would you agree?

P.S. cool, he and his bro came over to visit my semi-bedridden self today and dropped off gamecube games and movies for me. haha.

I agree with everything except “there’s not natural knowledge of God.”Here we do disagree majorly.

you say it’s exegetical but I reallly can’t see how you get this. Rom. 1, Acts 17? They don’t help at all for your position which, by the way, most theologians will not use to support your thesis. In Romans 1, the problem is that men and women constantly suppress their knowledge of God that can be rightly gained in some sort of general sense from GR alone. The wrath of God is continuously poured out because rejection is constant.

So no, you cannot say that man does not see the light nor hear th music; the exact reason they are condemned is because they do both. Let’s say you were at a concert with a huge floodlight aimed at your face: if you close your eyes do you still see the light? If you plug your ears do you still hear the music? The problem with the unregenerate is that they rightly understand GR but suppress it in sin.

God’s condemnation presupposes a natural knowledge of God.

AMEN

Christians pat themselves on the back for rejecting philosophy and other “wisdom of men”. Why do they do this? Because long ago, an ancient con-man came up with the idea of rewarding the gullible with thoughts of being special and being blessed for buying his story and giving up their critical thinking. Ask yourself: why God would need you to suspend your critical thinking? God made a logical and ordered universe, gave you a reasoning mind, but then turns around and asks you not to use it? Just keep this in mind when you go patting yourself on the back for giving up your critical thinking.