Reformed Theology

God and the Laws of Logic. Archetypal Ectypal Model vs Theistic Conceptual Realism Model

The Theistic Conceptual Realism Model view of relationship between God and logic

The Archetypal Ectypal Model view of relationship between God and logic

Key:
AEM = Archetypal-Ectypal Model.
TCRM = Theistic Conceptual Realism Model
ATSC = Archetypal Trinitarian Self Coherence
I = ‘‘l’’ refers to the laws of logic as we know it, an accommodated form of the ectypal laws of thought in God’s mind
————- Continue reading “God and the Laws of Logic. Archetypal Ectypal Model vs Theistic Conceptual Realism Model”

Herman Bavinck Archetypal-Ectypal Model of Knowledge and True Theology. BB003

Divine revelation is the foundation of true knowledge of God
For Herman Bavinck, the only adequate foundation for human knowledge of God is God’s self-disclosure. Without divine revelation, human knowledge remains speculative and distorted by finitude and sin. Divine revelation bridges the knowledge gap between God and man, but what is the relationship between knowledge in God and knowledge that is revealed to us? Continue reading “Herman Bavinck Archetypal-Ectypal Model of Knowledge and True Theology. BB003”

Herman Bavinck’s Metaphysics of Knowledge. BB002

Herman Bavinck’s Metaphysics of Knowledge. BB002

Knowledge beyond the Immanuel Kant’s Bounds of Pure Reason
“Pure reason” refers to Immanuel Kant’s idea of the faculty of reason operating independently and applying a priori concepts or innate forms and categories of thought to impose order to makes sense of sensations received from the world. Effectively, the mind becomes the measure and bounds of all knowledge. But we can never be sure if there is correspondence between the structured experience in mind and reality outside the mind. Kant’s conclusion is that there is an unbridgeable gap between what the mind perceives with its constructed concepts and representations (phenomena) and the world or the things-in-themselves (noumena).

Herman Bavinck agrees with Kant that the mind plays a determinative role for all meaningful experience but Bavinck argues that Kant’s epistemological dualism undermines knowledge altogether. “For, says idealism [Kant], if a thing and the representation of a thing are two different realities, then we must despair of knowledge of the thing. Since we simply can never test our representation of a thing by the thing itself, we can never step outside of ourselves, of our representational world…We always remain inside the circle of our representations and never come into contact with the thing itself, only with our representation of the thing. Stated differently, only that which is conscious exists for us; I can only think the thought, not the thing itself. That which is not my thought is inconceivable, unknowable to me; it does not exist for me.” [RD 1.216] Continue reading “Herman Bavinck’s Metaphysics of Knowledge. BB002”

Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate

Leighton Flowers begins in his chapter, “A Critique of Unconditional Election,” published in the latest critique on Calvinism by David Allen and Steve Lemke, Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique by emphasising the contrast between “the biblical choices of God which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen” with the Calvinist “unbiblical principle of God secret making arbitrary choices which unilaterally fixes the eternal destiny of every individual.”

A clear distinction must be drawn between the biblical choices of God, which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen, versus the Calvinist system, which logically entails the unbiblical principle that God secretly made arbitrary [emphasis original] choices before the foundation of the world, unilaterally fixing the eternal destiny of every individual. (CBTC 51)

Flowers concludes, I believe this doctrine, when logically and consistently applied, can be dangerous for the believer and the overall mission of the church and thus must be firmly refuted and soundly rejected as unbiblical teaching.” (CBTC 68) Continue reading “Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate”

Herman Bavinck: Bridging the Dichotomy between Thinking and Being, and Breaching Kant’s Epistemological Firewall between the Phenomenal and Noumenal. BB001

Notes and Reflection on Herman Bavinck, Christian Worldview. Chapter 1. Thinking and Being.

A. Critique of empiricism and rationalism and the Kantian impasse. Empiricism which accepts sense perceptions as the only source of knowledge ends up with subjective representations or mental ideas disconnected from reality. Fluctuating and unstable sensations cannot allow us to see the essence of things.

“For as long as the human being has occupied himself with this problem, he almost always ends up on one side or another, either sacrificing knowledge to being or being to knowledge. Empiricism trusts only sensible perceptions and believes that the processing of elementary perceptions into representations and concepts, into judgments and decisions, removes us further and further from reality and gives us only ideas [denkbeelden] that, though clean and subjectively indispensable, are merely “nominal” [nomina] and so are subjective representations, nothing but “the breath of a voice” [flatus vocis], bearing no sounds, only merely a “concept of the mind” [conceptus mentis]. Conversely, rationalism judges that sensible perceptions provide us with no true knowledge; they bring merely cursory and unstable phenomena into view, while not allowing us to see the essence of the things. Real, essential knowledge thus does not come out of sensible perceptions but comes forth from the thinking of the person’s own mind; through self-reflection we learn the essence of things, the existence of the world.”

However, rationalism which argues that knowledge is attained by reflecting on the ideas of the mind fails to deliver its promise. Contrary to its claim (Descartes), the ideas of the mind are far from being clear and distinct and are basically circular or self-referential.

“No law of cause and effect can release the one who accepts the principle and starting point of idealism from the Circassian Circle [toovercirkel] of his representations: out of one representation he can only deduce another, and he is never able to bridge the chasm between thinking and being by reasoning.” Continue reading “Herman Bavinck: Bridging the Dichotomy between Thinking and Being, and Breaching Kant’s Epistemological Firewall between the Phenomenal and Noumenal. BB001”

The Problem With Arminian Middle Knowledge

Some young Calvinists I know are not sure how to respond to their friends who reject the Calvinist doctrine of God’s foreknowledge and predestination with a self-assured declaration, “No thanks, Calvinist predestination is theologically and logically problematic. I prefer Luis de Molina’s teaching of the “scientia media or middle knowledge as it is more coherent and persuasive.” These young Calvinists become unsettled and feel intimidated by the unfamiliar terminology thrown at them. However, a simple question would dispel the Molinist’s aura of sophistication. “As a Molinist, are you then a Jesuit or an Arminian? Since you are Protestant, I conclude that you are basically rebranding old-time Arminianism by using exotic language, granted that the idea of a divine middle knowledge is at the heart and soul of the Arminian view.”

This being clarified, we can focus on the theological problem with Arminian middle knowledge. To begin, classical theology referred to two kinds of divine knowledge: Continue reading “The Problem With Arminian Middle Knowledge”

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) Does Not Mean Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only – Biblicism)

What is Biblicism?
To be Protestant is to believe in biblical authority. However, biblical authority and biblicism are not synonymous. Biblicism moves beyond believing in the final authority of the Bible to imposing a restrictive hermeneutical method onto the Bible. Biblicism can be identified by the following symptoms:

(1) Ahistorical mindset: Biblicism is a haughty disregard (chronological snobbery in the words of C. S. Lewis) for the history of interpretation and the authority of creeds and confessions, chanting an individualistic mantra, “No creed but the Bible,” which in practice translates into “No authority but me.” Sola scriptura is radicalized into solo scriptura. As a result, biblicism fails to let theology inform exegesis, which is designed to guard against heresy.

(2) Irresponsible proof texting: Biblicism treats Scripture as if it is a dictionary or encyclopedia, as if the theologian merely excavates the right proof texts, chapter and verse, tallying them up to support a doctrine. Biblicism limits itself to those beliefs explicitly laid down in Scripture and fails to deduce doctrines from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Continue reading “Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) Does Not Mean Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only – Biblicism)”

More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Invitation to Join the Jury

The book, More Calvinistic Than Calvin? (MCTC) was published in 2023 by a team of local seminary lecturers under the leadership of Bishop Hwa Yung. [The book is available from Canaanland Book Store]. The aim of the book is to refute what it describes as “hardline Calvinism”, and to counter the influence of “hardline Calvinism” among college students in Malaysia.

Dr. Poh Boon Sing of the Reformed Baptist Church (Damansara Utama) has just published a rebuttal of More Calvinistic Than Calvin? on the internet, Beware of the Ecumenical Agenda (BEA) [<–link to file download].

I managed only to give the new book a super quick browse. Will give it a more thorough read after completing some urgent tasks presently.

BEA offers vigorous rebuttals to what it deems to be superficial and unsubstantiated misrepresentations of (hardline) Calvinism as presented by MCTC. Malaysian Christians should read the two books and decide for themselves whether the writers of MCTC and BEA have been fair and accurate in describing the opposing views and evaluate whether the rebuttals from both sides are well-founded and cogent. Continue reading “More Calvinistic Than Calvin? Invitation to Join the Jury”

Reformed Compatibilist Freedom. Part 2. Harry Frankfurt on Hierarchy of Motives and Free Will

The debate on free will has traditionally focused on how external constraints may prevent us from freely doing what we want to do. In contrast, modern psychology highlights how internal constraints (or drives) such as addictions, phobias and other kinds of compulsive behavior can be even more compelling in determining our actions. Frankfurt introduces several distinctions to our internal constraints or desires in order to shed light on they affect the way we exercise our free will.

(1) First-order desire: “A wants X”, is a desire to perform some action. A desire to eat a mango is a first-order desire; a desire for world peace is not.

(2) Will: a first-order desire which is effective, i.e. which causes one to do what one desires to do. A desire to eat mango is one’s will in Frankfurt’s sense, if that desire brings one to actually eat mango. Continue reading “Reformed Compatibilist Freedom. Part 2. Harry Frankfurt on Hierarchy of Motives and Free Will”

Reformed Compatibilist Freedom. Part 1. Critique of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities by Harry Frankfurt

A. Definitions
1) Determinism: Determination is, intuitively, the thesis that, given the past and the laws of nature, there is only one possible future. [Van Inwagen, Essay on Free Will (Oxford UP, 1983), p. 65] In theological terms, an event (such as choice or action), is determined, that is, it must occur because there are sufficient conditions for its occurrence obtained earlier by the decrees of God.

The two major contending positions in the debate on determinism and free will are:
Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will.
Incompatibilism is the idea that determinism rules out free will.

2) The principle of alternative possibilities (PAP)
PAP: A person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise.

PAP has been at the centre of current debates about free will and moral responsibility. Harry Frankfurt, an accomplished philosopher observes: “Practically no one, however, seems inclined to deny or even to question that the principle of alternate possibilities (construed in some way or other) is true. It has generally seemed so overwhelmingly plausible that some philosophers have even characterized it as an a priori truth. (p. 1).

B. PAP Argument Against Determinism (Predestination)
Critics against predestination (as a form of causal determinism) contend that (1) causal determinism rules out free will or our ability to do otherwise. Then, they conclude via (PAP) that (2) causal determinism is inconsistent with moral responsibility.

Argument Part 1
1. If someone has free will, then he is able to do otherwise.
2. If determinism is true, then he is no able to do otherwise.
3. Therefore, if determinism is true, he does not have free will.

Argument Part 2
P1 A person’s act is free and morally responsible if and only if that person could have done otherwise. (PAP).
P2 Predestination teaches that no one could have done otherwise than what he is predestined to do.
P3 Predestination is inconsistent with moral responsibility (given PAP).
C1: Predestination is not true.

The subtext of this argument is that predestination cannot be true since it undermines human moral responsibility by denying free will and makes God culpable for the sins of his creatures.
Continue reading “Reformed Compatibilist Freedom. Part 1. Critique of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities by Harry Frankfurt”