Pages

Sunday, November 06, 2011

Clark's confused groupies


Drake Shelton has attempted to respond to me on his own blog. Unfortunately, he reads his own assumptions back into what I say.

Wrong. Being outside of space and time simply proves God’s spirituality, transcendence, and eternality.  I remember bringing this up to my Pastor in the Free Church of Scotland (cont). Robert Shaw in The Reformed Faith only mentioned that God is without the metaphysical constitution of matter and form and he mentions nothing about the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity (Essence = Existence). I told my Pastor that this what I believed as well, however, I had done too much reading up to that point to be deceived into thinking that was all there was to it. We shall get into more here in a moment.

Two basic problems:

i) Drake assumes that I was trying to establish the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity. Yet, as I explained to Robinson, that’s not my objective.

Rather, I’m just discussing the sense in which God is ontologically simple. That doesn’t mean I defining simplicity in the same way Medieval theologians do. Shelton’s objection reflects his chronic confusion.

ii) Moreover, he doesn’t consider the implications of subsisting outside of time and space. In that event, God has no spatial or temporal parts or spatiotemporal subdivisions. In that respect, God is incomposite.

That certainly makes him “simpler” than concrete entities that have a spatially, temporally, or spatiotemporally composite mode of being.

iii) We also need to distinguish between complexity and composition. The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex, yet incomposite.

iv) Finally, not only is there a debate over the truth of divine simplicity, but also a debate over what divine simplicity (in the scholastic sense) actually means. As one scholar says:

The major problem with the contemporary debate is that almost all participants misunderstand the classic doctrine of simplicity. The medieval view, spelled out most clearly by Aquinas…is that, strictly speaking God neither has properties nor is He a property…God is simply act…something which is absolutely perfect is something which is fully actualized K. Rogers, Perfect Being Theology (27-28).

Continuing with Drake:

Really Steve? We’ll see if you will remain consistent with that because other premises have historically been used to support the doctrine of epistemic analogy of proportionality, i.e. the crux of the debate between Clark and Van Til.

Yet another example of how Drake imputes positions to his opponents rather than bothering to find out what they actually believe. He’s assuming that I side with Van Til over Clark on the incomprehensibility of God, whereas I’m on record as saying I thought both protagonists were confused and simplistic.

For some odd reason, Drake imagines he can critique someone’s position without having to first acquaint himself with that person’s position.

Steve’s whole Van Tilian view of analogy of proportionality currently referred to as archetypal ectypal is based on a premise that he admits is in philosophical theology and therefore not dogma.

Confusion worse confounded:

i) I didn’t say the archetype/ectype distinction is an artifact of philosophical theology. Rather, I said the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity is an artifact of philosophical theology. Drake needs to brush up on remedial reading skills.

ii) There’s nothing uniquely Van Tilian about the archetype/ectype distinction. For instance, you can find that in Bavinck.

iii) I used that terminology in response to Craig French because that seemed to be how he was implicitly framing the issue. It was an attempt to state Craig’s position.

iv) I don’t have to begin with a theory of analogy. This got started when Craig responded to something I wrote about Waldron, and Drake jumped into the fray.

I pointed out that Scripture uses theological analogies and/or theological metaphors for God. Metaphors are analogies (although not all analogies are metaphors). On a related note, I pointed out that God reveals himself in human language.

I can therefore legitimate analogical predication in theology on the authority of Scripture, without having to back that up with a theory of analogy.

You don’t have to start with a theory of analogy, then reason from your theory of analogy to the fact of analogy. Rather, you can start with the fact of analogy, then reason from the fact of analogy to a theory of analogy.

v) Drake seems to think an analogy is equivocal unless both analogues are the same type of thing. Belong to the same ontological domain, or rang along the same ontological continuum. Therein lies the appeal of idealism. Make both subject and object of a kind.

vi) Apropos (v), I asked him if a description, such as a verbal description, must ontologically resemble the thing it describes. He played into my trap. It was easy to cite counterexamples from Scripture. As a “Scripturalist,” that put him in a bind.

In response to Perry Robinson, I said “This assumes that we’re committed to the doctrine of Platonic simplicity.”

To which Drake replies, “But Steve, that is what Divine Simplicity is.”

Irrelevant, since I’m not defending Platonic simplicity. 

6 comments:

  1. Steve,
    “Drake assumes that I was trying to establish the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity”

    >>>Here we see Steve’s Personal Black Night Ecclesiocracy at work. He has no developed theory of much of anything and he thinks he can fight with no arms and legs.

    “Rather, I’m just discussing the sense in which God is ontologically simple. ”

    >>If you want to call that a discussion it’s your business but I can’t see how that half paragraph explanation cuts it in the history of biblical interpretation.

    “ii) Moreover, he doesn’t consider the implications of subsisting outside of time and space. In that event, God has no spatial or temporal parts or spatiotemporal subdivisions. In that respect, God is incomposite.”

    >>>In that sense I have no problem with that. I am trying to see how you can be “supportive not necessarily commitive” (ambigiously-Black Night-ish-LOL!) of Van Tillian view of knowledge and deny the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity. The analogogy of proportionality is seated in that doctrine as Clark proved.

    Still looking for your support for the essence = existence premise which is the foundations of Scholastic and Van Tillian epistemology. What else is there Steve? Are you seriously going to admit that you have no worked out theory and you truly are the black night groveling on the ground yet insistently insultive of your opponent?

    “The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex, yet incomposite”

    >>>So are you saying that the Mandelbrot set proves that essence=existence? If so then you admit that your original limit to exegetical theology was wrong or do you admit that you have no basis for essence = existence? Either way, you’re black night is impaled like a shish kebob.

    “He’s assuming that I side with Van Til over Clark on the incomprehensibility of God, whereas I’m on record as saying I thought both protagonists were confused and simplistic.”

    >>>The black night strikes again. Have at thee!

    “Rather, I said the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity is an artifact of philosophical theology.”

    >>>I’m done. I just showed you in my article that the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity is the basis of analogy of proportionality. You then need to admit that is an artifact as well and leave western thomistic philosophy in toto as well as all its children like I have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    “v) Drake seems to think an analogy is equivocal unless both analogues are the same type of thing. Belong to the same ontological domain, or rang along the same ontological continuum. Therein lies the appeal of idealism. Make both subject and object of a kind.”

    >>>It depends on what kind of analogy steve. Herman Reith showed four different kinds in his exposition of Aquinas if memory serves me right.

    I know you don’t like the subject of the history of ideas Steve but I just find your scriptural “humility” to be quite arrogant as if you are so infallible as to not repeat the mistakes of history; As if you assume that for all these centuries Christian brethren in the Roman and Eastern communions have had altogether less desire for piety and theological orthodoxy than you.

    “vi) Apropos (v), I asked him if a description, such as a verbal description, must ontologically resemble the thing it describes. He played into my trap. It was easy to cite counterexamples from Scripture. As a “Scripturalist,” that put him in a bind.”

    >>>Keep typing Steve, please. I’m rooted even deeper in my rejection of you by every letter.

    “Irrelevant, since I’m not defending Platonic simplicity. ”

    >>>So then you admit that Turretin was wrong? For a child of Protestant Scholasticism admitting that Francis Turretin was wrong on the ultimate principle of the entire Protestant Scholastic tradition, is like a Nazi admitting that the Aryan race is of the same value as the Jewish. If so, thank you for the admission.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Drake,

    Are you familiar with "Red Beetle"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Coram Deo,

    Yes. He thinks I am an uncover conspirator for the eastern orthodox church. His exact words were I believe "Greek Orthodox whore". I told him, look man I admit I am of the Van Duyn Illuminati bloodline. I am a 33rd Degree Mason of the Scottish Rite and a master Templar Mason. I am a member of a secret Templar rite within the Eastern Church sourced in Romania where I meet for secret Babylonian fertility rituals and drink blood. I have been commissioned by the establishment to shepherd the Reformed community back into the hands of the Eastern Communion. But hey it could be worse. I could be a Baptist. I mean come on man who would pass up the opportunity to be a secret agent?

    But seriously he hates me because I pointed out a number of hyper calvinist errors in Clark's later thinking and I believe in the free offer and common grace. Crazy me, I just can't dismiss the entire history of the church of scotland. Anyway, I stopped watching his videos and reading anything he has done in a couple years. He's good entertainment if you're into the melodramatic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is Drake Shelton a member of and hence under the authority of any church body yet?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does some of this disagreement between Reformed thinkers historically have been some of the factors of many areas in the world that were formerly Evangelical Reformed areas (Trinitarian, believed the Bible as the Word of God, did evangelism and missions) are now Unitarian and Universalists or other Liberal enlightenment /modern heredical tendencies? (New England, Holland, Scotland, Switzerland, other parts of Western Europe, ?)

    ReplyDelete