Building Bridges

Aside from participating in the occasional combox here and there for the next month, I'm taking the holidays off. That said, before I go I'd like to offer a few parting words on the Building Bridges Conference.

1. First, I love the name, but then I'm kinda biased.

2. From all reports, this was a profitable time. the Founders blog, Timmy Brister's blog, Tim Rogers, Les Puryear's, and others are discussing it. A list can be found @ Founders.

3. I was unable to attend due to some prior commitments. I was asked to sit with my 88 year old Grandma, and, honestly, I don't see her enough and, well, let's be honest, we all know there is less time ahead than what is behind, so I chose family over theology. That and, frankly, I've spend thousands of dollars this year on some unforeseen necessities (like a car motor), so I'm a wee bit strapped for cash. Every little bit helps. I really hated not being able to attend. I'd love to see Brother Tom again, meet Greg Welty, John Mark, and many others.

4. Just a word about the presentations.

Sam Waldron has said:

One of the interesting things that was exposed at this conference was the misconception that the non-Calvinists had that Calvinists were not “exegetical.” We were forced to listen several times to warnings based on the old line that Calvinists deduce everything from election and God’s decrees. Any objective listener, however, would have been forced to recognize, I think, that in their actual presentations it was the Calvinists who were exegetical and the non-Calvinists that were theoretical.

This was most clear from the contrast between the four presentations on particular redemption and unconditional election. This was obvious if one contrasted Dr. Keathley’s presentation of Molinism with Dr. Welty’s defense of unconditional election. Dr. Keathley mentioned, but did not turn to, only two passages of Scripture. In contrast Dr. Welty gave an extended examination of several passages of Scriptures.

I have to agree. I'd like to single out two for the readers here. The one by Dr. Yarnell and the other by Dr. Keathley.

I've registered my critique of Dr. Keathley's presentation @ Tim Rogers blog and registered my dismay at the adversarial sound of Dr. Yarnell's over at Timmy Brister's blog. I'll not reproduce either one here for sake of brevity. Perhaps Steve or (as I've contacted him too) Turretinfan in particular would like to critique Dr. Keathley on Molinism, particularly since there is simply very little about it (one way or the other) on the web, so it can't hurt to register one more critique. For those who want to find those critiques from me look at the two blogs where I registered them. The topics are easy to find.

I'd like to point out this statement from Dr. Yarnell's presentation which appears not once, but four times on pages 11, 12, 14, and 16:

Non-Calvinist Baptists would call our Baptist Calvinist brethren to reject clearly and permanently speculative doctrines, extra-biblical distinctions and theological methodologies insofar as they detract from the revelation of the Word of God illumined by the Holy Spirit to the gathered churches.

By way of reply to Dr. Yarnell. Brother, if what you said is just true, then I hope your words are just as strong when it comes to Dr. Keathley's presentation. You see, if what you just said is true, then you have thereby undermined Dr. Keathley's article which will appear alongside your own. The audience must have felt, and indeed I hope feel, mighty conflicted. In fact, as I understand this from Tom Ascol and Nathan Finn, your papers will be included in part of a book. I suppose this is the sort of thing that goes with the territory in a group work, but if what is in your paper makes it to press, then the readers will be mighty confused. This is why, I might add, that I'm an advocate of good editors. I truly want you all to put your best feet forward, and, well, it's just a bad idea to contradict each other in the same volume.

You see, Dr. Yarnell, here's what Dr. William Lane Craig, who is, I'm sure you know, the leading advocate of this position among us Protestants, has stated:

1. Molinism is not explicitly taught in any biblical text (Divine Foreknowledge, 4 Views, p. 143).

2. "Since Scripture does not reflect upon this question, no amount of proof-texting can prove that God’s counterfactual knowledge is possessed logically prior to his creative decree. This is a matter for theological-philosophical reflection, not biblical exegesis. Thus, while it is clearly unbiblical to deny that God has simple foreknowledge and even counterfactual knowledge, those who deny middle knowledge cannot be accused of being unbiblical. " (Ibid., p. 125).

3. So, can we conclude, Dr. Yarnell, that this theory, one put forth by another representative of the non-Calvinist position in the SBC is "speculative?" Surely it must be, if it is a matter for theological-philosophical reflection" and not biblical exegesis. If so, then what you stated about Calvinist ideas here must equally stand against those of Dr. Keathley on this issue.

4. I'm also curious about libertarian action theory's basis in Scripture. Isn't this also permanently speculative? I mean, Walls and Dongell wrote:

(1) “The essence of this view is that a free action is one that does not have a sufficient condition or cause prior to its occurrence…the common experience of deliberation assumes that our choices are undetermined.”

(2) “…It seems intuitively and immediately evident that many of our actions are up to us in the sense that when faced with a decision, both (or more) options are within our power to choose…Libertarians argue that our immediate sense of power to choose between alternative courses of action is more certain and trustworthy than any theory that denies we have power.

(3) “Libertarians take very seriously the widespread judgment that we are morally responsible for our actions and that moral responsibility requires freedom” That is, a person cannot be held morally responsible for an act unless he or she was free to perform that act and free to refrain from it. This is basic moral intuition.”

(4) "“…Arminians rely on contested philosophical judgments at this point.”

All of this is in their book, Why I'm Not A Calvinist. Surely, Brother, you know that LFW is a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. Surely you know it is employed as part of ethical objections to Augustinianism/Calvinism. Is it or is it not "permanently speculative," and if that's the case, shouldn't you abandon it? That is to ask, shouldn't you do so if you are to follow your own yardstick?

I fear we are back to the statements made earlier this year from, I believe, Dr. Morris Chapman that discussion of these doctrines should stay out of the churches. I hear echoes in that sentiment of Erasmus who told Luther the discussions over the issues arising from justification by grace alone through faith alone were "not for common ears." According to Mike Horton (Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, p. 59), Luther replied, "If it is irrelevant,if it is inquisitive, if it is unnecessary, as you say...what then, I ask you, is there that is reverent or serious, or useful to know?" (Luther, Bondage of the Will, 113).
_____________

I'd also like to wish everyone, including our opponents here, a Merry Christmas.