Choosing
Hats did a recent podcast:
I
believe Joshua Whipps was the speaker. It was a scattershot,
stream-of-consciousness affair, in which he took issue with a wide-ranging cast
of characters, viz. Baptists, dispensationalists, Arminians, evidentalists, W.
L. Craig, J. P. Moreland, Sean Choi, David Byron, Paul Manata, Fred Butler, Dan
Phillips, and last as well as least, yours truly.
i) He
seemed to say Baptists weren’t real Calvinists or truly Reformed because they
aren’t confessional. I find that bizarre considering the fact that according to
his bio at Choosing Hats, he classifies himself as a Reformed Baptist who
subscribes to the London Baptist Confession of Faith. Go figure.
ii) He
seems to regard Scott Oliphint and Lane Tipton as true-blue Reformed/Van Tilian
apologists. But are they confessional by his stringent standards? Do Oliphint
and Tipton espouse six-day creation, like the Westminster Divines? Do they
think the pope is the Antichrist–which, in turn, commits them to a historicist
reading of Revelation? Do they espouse the Confessional position regarding the
duties of the civil magistrate? Do they subscribe to the Westminster Directory
of Worship?
iii)
From what I can tell, the folks who are moving the heavy lumber in apologetics
at WTS these days are in the NT department (e.g. Gregory Beale, Vern Poythress)
rather than the apologetics department.
iv) I
have issues with evidential apologists. However, I prefer working apologists to
navel-gazers. Also, not to put to sharp a point on it, but compare the
apologetic output (both in quality and quantity) of William Lane Craig to Scott
Oliphint. Age-wise, I believe they’re about 7 years apart.
v)
Whipps says a dispensationalist can’t be a Calvinist or Van Tilian apologist.
But that raises a number of issues:
a) Van
Tilian apologetics is no more traditional than dispensationalism. If we date
dispensationalism to the 19C, then Van Tilian apologetics dates to the 20C. Van
Til was consciously bucking the Old Princeton school of apologetics (e.g.
Warfield).
b)
Moreover, to my knowledge, “covenantal apologetics” represents a synthesis of
Van Til and Meredith Kline. So that’s even more recent and innovative.
c) Both
dispensationalism and covenant theology have undergone various developments. On
the one hand you have progressive dispensationalism. On the other hand you have
the contretemps between John Murray and Meredith Kline. You also have mediating
versions of covenant theology by O. Palmer Robertson, Bruce Waltke, and Thomas
McComiskey (to name a few). What version of covenant theology is Whipps
comparing to what version of dispensationalism?
vi) It’s
a problem when we shift our focus from the important question of truth to the
semantic question of definition. This obsession with defining who’s in and
who’s out vis-à-vis Van Tilian apologetics is eerily similar to the way in
which atheists try to discount evidence for miracles. By definition, scientists
and historians must operate with methodological naturalism. By definition,
historians and scientists can’t acknowledge the occurrence of a miracle.
Instead of dealing with reality, the debate is diverted to preemptive rules.
vi)
Whipps doesn’t specify what he’s been reading of mine, but he seems to be
alluding to my mini-series responding to Nate Shannon. Shannon published a
critique of James Anderson and Greg Welty on the theistic foundations of logic.
Let’s stop and consider what was missing from Shannon’s treatment. If a Van
Tilian apologist were serious about laying the theistic foundations of abstract
objects, he’d present a two-step argument:
a)
Present a detailed model of his Christian alternative.
b)
Carefully expound and critique the rival positions, viz. conceptualism,
constructivism, fictionalism, intuitionism, logical nominalism, modal realism
(e.g. David Lewis), &c.
Is that
what Shannon does? No. He just reissues the usual, dog-eared IOUs. Promissory
presuppositionalism. Trust us: the check is in the mail.
vii)
Whipps made glancing reference to my discussion of simplicity and analogy in
reference to Shannon. However, he didn’t bother to say what, if anything, was
wrong with my discussion. In fact, he even admitted that he wasn’t going to argue
the point.
He made
a passing reference to my alleged position on innate knowledge/acquired
knowledge, but there was no follow up.
At some
point your bookie is going to collect on the IOUs. You can’t keep assuring your
bookie that you’ll make it back in the next game. At least where Whipps is
concerned, Choosing Hats needs to doff the top hat and don the hard hat.
(BTW, my
comments are directed at Joshua Whipps, not Chris Bolt or Justin McCurry.)
v) Whipps says a dispensationalist can’t be a Calvinist or Van Tilian apologist.
ReplyDeleteDispensationalist Thomas Ice would disagree. Here's his article:
"The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism"
Hey Steve,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to clarify on two things that you said concerning Josh
"He seemed to say Baptists weren’t real Calvinists or truly Reformed because they aren’t confessional"
He wasn't saying that, he said that there are Presbyterians who say that, and that he doesn't agree with that hardline stance.
"Moreover, to my knowledge, “covenantal apologetics” represents a synthesis of Van Til and Meredith Kline. So that’s even more recent and innovative. "
Only in the sense of the terminology, perhaps. However, it is argued that this is just the approach that scripture takes, it would be considered the "reformation" of apologetics. But I suppose that is to be argued, but I wouldn't be so quick to pin it as "new" or "innovative". It has historical precedent.
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify.
- Justin
So where does he draw the line? More importantly, how does he draw the line?
DeleteTo my knowledge, Lane Tipton is very much a protégé of Meredith Kline. So the synthesis runs much deeper than terminology. And Kline was nothing if not a theological innovator. Not to mention Van Til, who was outspokenly opposed to the Princeton apologetic.
DeleteAs far as the definition of Reformed? I think we've described basically that reformed theism is being covenantal, calvinistic, and mostly confessional. From what I've seen of other posts you would probably disagree. It's not as much drawing a line in the sand, as much as it is trying to understand development in light of what we've confessed to be orthodox Christian belief. I don't know how much sense this is making, however I think you are familiar with what we all confess about Christianity (in the WCF, and Reformed baptists in the LBCF) as a unifying principle. It isn't the final authority of course, so there is room for development, but only within the principle set forth by Scripture which is the final say in the matter.
DeleteI can't speak for Lane Tipton, but Kline wasn't wrong about everything, and I think you could agree with that (I think most of the bite-back with Kline is from a misappropriation of him from the side of WTS-West). Kline, as far as I know, followed in the footsteps of Vos, in a lot of stuff too, so maybe he wasn't as innovative as it has been commonly perceived.
As far as Van Til is concerned, you probably know better than I that Van Til's issue with the Princeton apologetic was it's failure of consistency with Scripture. How it would be consistent with scripture on the one hand and then appeal to common sense reason on the other. He was an opponent of it insofar as the methodology gave the house away in letting the unbeliever interpret the realm of creation without the "spectacles of Scripture". But like I've said, you've been reading Van Til much longer than I have, and you know this more than I do.
Thanks Justin,
DeleteOne of the problems I have with “Confessional Calvinists” is that most “Confessional Calvinists” I’m acquainted with aren’t consistently confessional. To my knowledge, Whipps’ apologetic heroes (e.g. Tipton, Oliphant) aren’t consistently confessional.
Moreover, many “Confessional Calvinists” I’m acquainted with suffer from a streak of anti-intellectualism.
I don’t object to Reformed confessions, but it’s best to define Calvinism according to the inner logic of Calvinism and especially the exegetical case for Calvinism.
No, I think Kline is quite idiosyncratic.
As for Van Til, I don’t think it’s coincidental that his approach is closer to Kuyper and Bavinck than Warfield. Kuyper was a Dutch-Calvinist. He’s more receptive to Continental Calvinism than Anglo-American Calvinism. And he’s clearly influenced by German and English idealism. So it’s not just Scripture.
"I don’t object to Reformed confessions, but it’s best to define Calvinism according to the inner logic of Calvinism and especially the exegetical case for Calvinism."
DeleteI think Josh has done a lot of that on the site, and he doesn't appeal strictly to the confessions. He only does so to give others an idea of where is coming from.
"As for Van Til, I don’t think it’s coincidental that his approach is closer to Kuyper and Bavinck than Warfield. Kuyper was a Dutch-Calvinist. He’s more receptive to Continental Calvinism than Anglo-American Calvinism. And he’s clearly influenced by German and English idealism. So it’s not just Scripture."
I don't think that's fair, Van Til did his studies in idealism, and in most of his apologetic work he was defending Christianity against those who defined God as the idealistic "absolute". He was certainly using the philosophical language of idealism, but he always defined his terms on an exegetical basis. In that case his arguments do go back to scripture, sometimes very explicitly, others not as explicit.
As far as Kline being idiosyncratic, I know he has some very odd views about certain things, and I've had my reservations for him ever since I started reading him. However, in other areas he's dead on. I don't think it's fair to cast Oliphint's apologetic in light of strictly Kline and Van Til. Or Van Til's apologetic in light of Bavinck and Kuyper. They pull from sources way earlier than that, from the Reformation all the way back to the first century.
As far as Oliphint or Tipton not being consistently confessional, I think the way they would answer you is how I've answered you before, that the WCF represent what we believe about the bible, it isn't the final authority. However, it is a good tool for unity in the Church, especially with those who teach and preach the word of God, within any Reformed denomination (it's all out there on the table, as opposed to being held in some private manner without accountability). There is always room for questioning certain aspects (one of which you brought up to Pope being THE anti-christ) on scriptural terms.
I don't want us to come off as anti-intellectual, and I don't think Vantillianism necessarily leads to that. In my own experience, reading Van Til motivated me to read other positions and what not.
Resequitur
Delete“I don't think that's fair, Van Til did his studies in idealism, and in most of his apologetic work he was defending Christianity against those who defined God as the idealistic "absolute". He was certainly using the philosophical language of idealism, but he always defined his terms on an exegetical basis. In that case his arguments do go back to scripture, sometimes very explicitly, others not as explicit.”
i) Van Til’s indebtedness to German and British idealism runs much deeper than terminology. It has a conceptual component, viz. God as personal Absolute, transcendental argument, circular proof.
ii) Van Til doesn’t do exegesis. He takes his interpretations of Scripture for granted. He even admitted that he was deficient on the exegetical front. That wasn’t his métier. He defaulted to his colleagues at Westminster for exegesis.
“As far as Oliphint or Tipton not being consistently confessional, I think the way they would answer you is how I've answered you before, that the WCF represent what we believe about the bible, it isn't the final authority.”
At best, the distinction between selectively confessional Calvinists and allegedly contraconfessional Calvinists is a matter of degree rather than kind.
"i) Van Til’s indebtedness to German and British idealism runs much deeper than terminology. It has a conceptual component, viz. God as personal Absolute, transcendental argument, circular proof.
DeleteAgain, Van Til used the language of idealists because that's what who he spent most of the time arguing with. This is why so many have a hard time understanding him, given most of what we read of him is the taking of those terms and using them in light of the exegesis of Scripture. I think there was an article done in the 90's by Oliphint discussing these very things, I think it was named "The Consistency of Van Til's Methodology". I don't know if you've read it, but Oliphint has spent a lot of time showing that though Van Til used the language of idealists (philosophy in itself being a language of the conceptuals) that it doesn't necessarily mean that he was one. If anything Van Til showed us that we can take reformed theology and apply it to anything, especially in the arena of unbelieving philosophy, using the tools of reason, as long as we begin where Scripture does. You've emphasized this (and even demonstrated it) many times before on your blog!
"ii) Van Til doesn’t do exegesis. He takes his interpretations of Scripture for granted. He even admitted that he was deficient on the exegetical front. That wasn’t his métier. He defaulted to his colleagues at Westminster for exegesis."
At some point you have to do that. If you write out exegesis once, time constraints wouldn't allow you to continue to keep repeating the exegesis you've done over and over. The best you could do is summarize and apply it. It would be an impossible expectation to expect someone to do that every time a doctrine is in question. This was where he'd lean on the Confessions a bit more, in trying to summarize, it is a useful tool, that prevents one from having to throw things away and just start from scratch. Presenting Scripture as a whole system of truth, as Van Til did, is obviously difficult. So he saw each man with his task and ability all working together in that aspect.
Also that isn't to say he was just skipping over the exegetical aspect of his argumentation and letting others just come back later and argue what he's already written, and studied.
That's just to say that most of where he started was from the exegesis of his colleagues, and from the Reformation on.
"At best, the distinction between selectively confessional Calvinists and allegedly contraconfessional Calvinists is a matter of degree rather than kind."
Maybe, as we've understood Calvinism (as it is used today) we've notice the trend in using it strictly to describe one's doctrine of salvation. So the qualifier "Reformed", we understand it to mean Confessional (in the sense that we have in mind the historic Reformed creeds of faith, which again, allows room for development on scriptural terms), Covenantal, and Calvinistic. It's not done with snobbish intent, but rather a conscious affiliation in line with historical Christian orthodoxy. Calvinism and Covenantal wasn't really put at odds with each other until recently, so we are trying to distinguish what we mean.
Hi Resequitur,
ReplyDeleteSince you're clarifying things for Whipps, I left a comment at your place that has not been posted. Could you clarify this for Whipps?
*******
Paul April 1, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Folks in the Steve Hays-, Paul Manata-vein; perhaps even James Anderson. I don’t know how much Anderson agrees with as far as, say Hays and Manata are willing to go in terms of discussing say divine simplicity or analogy as as as you can see on Triablogue recently . . .”
Now, not that I could completely follow the point you were trying to make, I have a question: Where have I commented on divine simplicity or analogy?
"At this point Anderson draws on the doctrine of analogy as used in discussions of religious language; or, God-talk. He favors Ross’ approach to the doctrine of analogy. This all seems like heading in the right direction to me. Anderson would allow that language is looser, rather than rigid. So, we do not have mere equivocation, but analogy going on in the terms we use, and God used(!), to formulate (say) the doctrine of the Trinity. And is not language like this? Christians can make use of some of the insights found in, say, C.S. Lewis’s paper on language Bluspels and Flalansferes, or Lakoff’s Metaphors We Live By, for good arguments in favor of the notion that language is more analogical or metaphorical than we usually think. These insights, and others like them, could be used to bolster viewing apparent contradictions as species of MACRUEs. Viewing language this way, especially language about God, has been a tradition Christians have embraced more than eschewed. As Anderson states,
Delete'If analogy can be explicated as meaning adaptation controlled by linguistic forces exerted through the context and domain of discourse, then the model of theological paradox presented here fits hand—in—glove with at least one contemporary exposition of the Christian doctrine of analogy in religious language.' (PCT, 36.)
After presenting and defending the notion of a MACRUE account of paradox in Christian theology, as well as discussing why Christians should view paradoxical doctrines this way. The three reasons he gives are: (i) it allows the Christian to avoid the irrationalism of denying classical laws of logic; (ii) it provides the groundwork for a defense of those doctrines; and (iii) it comports with the doctrine of analogy."
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/paradox-in-christian-theology.html
That's the only comment (albeit derivative) that comes to mind on analogy. Nothing on simplicity that I can recall... Two cents...
Hello again Paul, :)
DeleteHe was probably referencing an earlier conversation we've had, but I wouldn't be able to go back and quote you verbatim on the matter, because a lot of the wonderful material that you've provided for a long while now, has disappeared from the internet. But I'm pretty sure he's referencing previous interaction
Resequitur,
DeleteWell, he wasn't referencing any such conversation (on either analogy or simplicity) since I haven't made any comments or had any internet conversations on these matters (other than the quote Ben provided). I anticipated the "lost document" out since it's pretty hard to contradict, but you'll have to take my testimony on this. Pretty disappointing, but I've come to expect as much from Whipps.
It's also unfortunate he hasn't published my comment. I would have thought "Choosing Hats" would be more concerned with truth than image. Dude made a mistake, admission would be better than cover-up.
Delete"I anticipated the "lost document" out since it's pretty hard to contradict, but you'll have to take my testimony on this. Pretty disappointing, but I've come to expect as much from Whipps."
DeleteI think it was more along the terms of methodology than it was specifically on simplicity. Listening to the comment again, and if we are going to listen to Josh a bit more graciously here, then I would say he was referring to criticisms you've made of us in the past, and from what I can remember, it has been on your attenuation. As far as the "lost document" goes, there have been websites with a plethora of material that you've written that have vanished, and I think it's happened maybe two times?
Taken for granted that you never said anything at all about simplicity, you blog here on occasion so you could have been (un?)mistakingly lumped with Steve.
As far as your comments not passing through, whomever wrote the post that you comment on gets to decide whether or not it comes through. Josh drives trucks, and is on the go on a full time basis, if you notice, that podcast was recorded on the 1st of March, and released 28 or so days later. So, he isn't always around to let every comment through, hopefully you can be a bit more patient in that respect. No one is trying to cover up anything, that's a bit of a dramatic conclusion.
Another thing about comments is that the biggest concern we have at Choosing Hats is teaching the methodology, and discussing it. We "debate" in the online channel we have, sometimes we do it on the boards, but not always. The focus we have there is simply teaching. Some of the contributors are a bit more open about comments than others, but it comes down to how much time we have.
For what it's worth I think you guys have a lot of good things to offer, even though we disagree on things.
For what it's worth, I can corroborate Paul's "testimony" regarding never discussing analogy or divine simplicity in his older blogs (including the extended exchange with Josh regarding Rom 1).
DeleteI have an old (practically defunct) Google Reader account which still has archives of two of the now-deleted blogs ("Aporetic Christianity" and "Fides Ratio et Mysterium"). A quick search of the posts and meta reveals nothing on the two subjects mentioned. Sounds like Josh just made a mistake during his while-driving-stream-of-consciousness. Skubalon happens...
Thanks, Ben.
DeleteJustin,
"Listening to the comment again, and if we are going to listen to Josh a bit more graciously here, then I would say he was referring to criticisms you've made of us in the past,"
Here's what he said,
"take things as far as, say Hays and Manata are willing to go in terms of discussing say divine simplicity or analogy."
There's really no other charitable or gracious way to take it. Reading him "charitably" here would, in any other circumstance, be considered reading him uncharitably.
I agree I was a bit dramatic, but oh well. At all events, I'm not sure I can understand why either you or Whipps would want to defend the statement. It is literally false, all people listening would take it in the most charitable sense (i.e., as referring to my views on divine simplicity etc), and "defending" if by asking me and listeners to be mind readers seems a bit, well, dramatic! :)
Well, in that case I think it'd be best if Josh talked to you about what he said in the podcast. I'm not defending the statement as much as I am the person making the statement, giving you things to consider. Obviously you two are going to have to talk it out, that is if either of you have time. I don't mind saying that I'm wrong about possible explanations of what Josh said.
DeleteI don't expect anyone to read anybody's mind, nor have I asked, so perhaps another dramatic conclusion of what I said ;)
"...Choosing Hats needs to doff the top hat and don the hard hat."
ReplyDeleteI don't care who you are, that's funny...
Ben,
ReplyDeleteYep, from a review of a book; and nothing in that comment warrants a claim about where I'm "willing to go," which was painted negatively. I've made no remarks on simplicity other than to tell someone that a panentheism that claims we're part of God does not stem from the doctrine of simplicity since panentheism maintains that God has parts, contra simplicity. This was in response to Drake Shelton who claimed Sudduth's panentheism was the logical outworking of his doctrine of simplicity.
And I'd add, if the comment from the book review is what Whipps had in mind, then why would he say he's not sure if James Anderson was not willing to go where Steve and I do, since in my quote I'm *following* James' comments and I say "this seems right to me." So this can't be the quote he has in mind, and I suggest there's not any others, esp. on simplicity.
Delete"At least where Whipps is concerned, Choosing Hats needs to doff the top hat and don the hard hat."
ReplyDeleteThat's a good line. But Whipps has put on the hard hat and done apologetics, even though (as I understand it) the primary focus of Choosing Hats is on promoting the method of presuppositional apologetics, rather than on the practice of it.
Obviously, that does not address any outstanding issues you, Paul, and he may have, which seemed to be just alluded to during the recording.