Debating Rules for Clarkians

As a proponent of Reformed theological paradox, I've found my most vocal critics and philosophical opponents (aside from atheists, agnostics and Pelagians) are Clarkians. One of their popular bloggers has kindly referred to me as "the poor soul who runs THEOparadox." He has also recommended people Google "THEOparadox" to find an example of horribly bad theology. Yep, you got it. Look no further than Bible-believing, orthodox, Gospel-centered, conservative, essentially Reformed THEOparadox for some horribly bad theology. Has anybody seen my pitchfork?

Ironically, I've learned a few genuinely helpful things from Clarkians. I'm not going to discuss those things in this post. Instead, I'm publishing my tongue-in-cheek observations about their debating techniques. Don't get bent out of shape, this is just for laughs. By God's grace, I can honestly say I love these guys more than I disagree with them (and we disagree rather thoroughly on some topics). In those disagreements, I've observed that these are the rules by which they play the game . . .

Debating Rules For Clarkians

1. If you insult the other guy, you've won.

We are of peace. Always.

2. If you quote Gordon Clark, you've won.

Surely he's the smartest guy who ever lived. Never made a mistake, either. Like Superman without the cape.

3. If you link the other guy's position to something in Roman Catholicism, no matter how contrived or unrelated, you've won.

Those Catholic heretics think the Trinity is a paradox, too. So it can't be true.

4. If you endlessly repeat the same argument he's already answered 20 times, you've won.

Pretend he didn't just wipe out your argument, and say it again as if it's the first time. If that doesn't work, try playing dumb. And repeating yourself. Repeating yourself is a good strategy. Repeating yourself is a good strategy. Repeating yourself is a good strategy (I must be winning!)

5. If you say he's irrational or illogical, you've won.

There are, after all, only two kinds of arguments. Perfectly sound Clarkian arguments and total irrationality. Only read Clarkian books and blogs. You can read other stuff if you're looking for something to attack, but not to learn anything.

6. If you quote John Robbins, you've won.

He's smaller than Guru Clark, but still a guaranteed winner. He works especially well with the Pope Card.

7. If the other guy responds to your argument, you've won. Same as if he doesn't respond.

Cover your ears whenever the heretic speaks!

8. If you declare him to be a Van Tillian, you've won.

Sure, Van Til was a genius who was firmly committed to Reformed orthodoxy. But why should that garner any respect? Never say his name without showing your utter disdain.

9. If you cite lopsided articles from the Trinity Review, you've won.

It's everything you'd want in a tabloid, minus the doctored up pictures of the people being tattled on.

10. If you can't derive everything you claim to know directly from Scripture, you've lost.

So if you don't happen to have a Biblical name, we don't know what to call you. In fact, you may not even exist.

Based on #10, they lose every time. But watching #1-9 keeps it entertaining.

Categorical Distinctions in the Knowledge of God

Editor's Note: Close the hatches, we are about to go deep into the waters of Reformed theology.

Thanks to Brandon Wilkins at A Pilgim's Theology for pointing us to this quote from Louis Berkhof:

“Alongside of the archetypal knowledge of God, found in himself, there is also an ectypal knowledge of Him, given to man by revelation. The latter is related to the former as a copy to the original, and therefore does not possess the same measure of clearness and perfection. All our knowledge of God is derived from His self-revelation in nature and in Scripture. Consequently, our knowledge of God is on the one hand ectypal and analogical, but on the other hand also true and accurate, since it is a copy of the archetypal knowledge which God has of himself” (Berkhof, ST, 35).

This thought wasn't original to Berkhof; it is reflected in a long line of Reformed thinkers. The distinction was heavily pressed by Cornelius Van Til, while it was minimized by Gordon Clark. Maintaining the "categorical distinction" is important for many reasons, some of which are discussed in the comments at this post on R. Scott Clark's Heidelblog. Some have described "Archetypal Theology" and "Ectypal Theology," or the TA/TE distinction for short. Others have merely discussed Archetypal and Ectypal knowledge. It's the same thing either way. Those who hold the distinction are sometimes called "analogical theologians" because they affirm that our knowledge of God is an analogy of His own higher and perfect knowledge.

Those of a Clarkian mindset (followers of Gordon Clark, not R. Scott Clark) tend to take issue with such distinctions, but we believe the distinctions are essential to the development of an orthodox view of God, revelation and humanity.

Here is a comment I left at the Heidelblog in response to certain criticisms of this doctrine that were leveled by previous commenters:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that some here are building a straw man and not taking the TA/TE distinction at face value.

Aren’t these straw men?

“If the truths revealed in Scripture are not what God really thinks . . .”

I don’t hear analogical theologians saying that. They’re saying the truths of Scripture are a faithful copy of God’s actual thoughts.

“if there is and can be no identity of content between God’s knowledge and man’s . . .”

That’s not what they’re saying, either. It’s not a question of content, but of our ability to humanly comprehend and categorize the content that is only divinely comprehensible.

“If the human words of Scripture are not also God’s own divine words . . .”

Absolutely wrong. No analogical Reformed theologian denies that the Bible is God’s Word.

“If the truths revealed in Scripture are not what God really thinks . . .”

Analogical theologians don’t say this. If there are truths revealed in Scripture (and we believe there are), God thinks them. But He thinks more than that, and He thinks in a different way (a divine way).

“if there is and can be no identity of content between God’s knowledge and man’s . . .”

A totally false inference. Read the Berkhof quote again.

These straw men do not reflect the things I hear those who hold to the distinction saying (e.g. Berkhof). They are simply comparing the intellectual apparatus of man with that of our Creator. These men are saying the propositions we receive from Scripture are a faithful, accurate copy of God’s own thoughts (that’s what ectype means). Hence, we can think some of the same propositional content of God’s thoughts after Him, but we cannot think God’s actual thoughts because we don’t have the apparatus to do so. (It’s like trying to pick up a TV signal through a radio. Even when you get tuned in to the right station, you’re still missing something – a picture). One can think of propositional revelation (the ectype) as 2-dimensional, and God’s archetypal thoughts as 3-dimensional. He sees stereoscopically, with infinite depth, while we see with an eye patch called “creaturehood” makin Truth look flat. Since we are so limited, God reduced His thoughts into language that we can understand (Calvin’s “lisp”), language that is necessarily limited (but not false or uncertain). Guys like Berkhof are simply saying that God Himself cannot be reduced to a mere set of propositions (contra Gordon Clark). Propositions are containable and controllable. God isn’t.

Far from devaluing Scripture, these men are exalting God. Some theologians who have a rationalistic bent etch away at the glory of God by reducing Him to a set of humanly explicable propositions. He’s never going to be that small.

Another comment laying out a Biblical basis for the doctrine:

Perhaps there is a tension between emphasizing the comprehensibility of divine revelation and the incomprehensibility of the One revealed. The comprehensible revelation reveals that the Revealer is too incomprehensible to comprehend … and it does so with amazing clarity.

I think when some Reformed theologians say our knowledge is “different” than God’s, they are referring quantitatively to a reduced content on the one hand (accommodating to our weakness, as in the illustrations above), and qualitatively to a reduced depth of apprehension on the other hand (accommodating to our innate creaturely limitations). I doubt even Van Til would say God knows one thing archetypally and reveals something of a completely different content ectypally. That would make God a liar, or at least a distorter of His own Truth. Ectypal knowledge has to be as true as Archetypal, or else the whole thing falls apart. But I believe there is a Biblical case for the distinction in both aspects, reduced content and reduced depth of apprehension.

In discussing God’s meticulous sovereignty in Psalm 139, David says, “Such knowledge is too wonderful [Heb. pil'iy, incomprehensible] for me, I cannot attain to it.” (Ps. 139:6, NASB). David “knows” the propositions he has just written, yet in some way he is unable to grasp them. The revealed propositions are just the tip of an incomprehensible iceberg.

The only other occurrence of the Hebrew word pil’iy is in Judges 13:18, where the angel of the Lord says he has an incomprehensible name. The name of an angel should consist of the simplest possible propositional statement, yet in this case it is obviously much more. So, the Biblical proposition revealed is not “The angel’s name is ___________,” but instead perhaps, “Things that are simple to God and His angels are way beyond your grasp.” These are two isolated texts, but along with others they point us toward the categorical distinction.

In another comment you mentioned I Cor. 2, which is certainly apropos to this topic. I’m fascinated by a few of Paul’s statements there:

1. No one knows the mind of God except the Spirit of God.

2. We have received the Spirit who is from God.

3. We may understand the things freely given to us by God.

Note that he doesn’t say we know the mind of God directly. He says we have received the Spirit who knows the mind of God. So, the Spirit living in us has exclusive Archetypal knowledge (knows the mind of God), and He shares Ectypal knowledge with us (so that we may understand the things freely given to us by God). He doesn’t say “so that we may understand the mind of God,” but the things freely given to us. Interestingly, unbelievers also have things freely given to them by God, yet they remain willfully ignorant of that fact. Both are recipients of His gifts, but only believers can perceive how greatly they have been “graced.”

Could all of this be evidence that God Himself has carefully preserved the categorical distinction in His Word?

This creates plenty of opportunity for verbal paradoxes, but is there a logical paradox at work here? Or is the categorical distinction intended to solve a logical paradox? I favor the latter, and a good solution it is.

Return to Your First Love

There are a few songs that make me cry every time I hear them, without fail. This is one of them. God brought this song by Lee Behnken into my ears when I had wandered away from Him, when my heart was hard like granite, when I had sold out to indwelling sin and felt no hope at all. I melted, and felt His love again. He renewed my repentance, and for that I will bless His Name always.

I love the fact that this was aired on Chinese television. Unfortunately, the video quality is poor, and Lee had to sing over a soundtrack including his own pre-recorded voice (makes an interesting "chorus" effect). But nothing can repress the beauty and joy of these lyrics. It's a song from God to His prodigals. Come back to Jesus, dear prodigal! Return to your first love!



No one loves you more! There is no one like the Lord!

Luke 15:11-32
There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.“Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

“When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’ So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

“The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

“The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

The paradox is that God initiates our return in one sense, and awaits our return in another. Wandering prodigals find they must choose to return, and as they return they find a patient Father who eagerly longs for them to make this choice. But once they have returned to His arms, they look back and see that His cords of love drew them, and His effectual call caused them to repent. They are responsible to repent, yet they get no credit for it. He alone gets the glory. All who are truly repentant cannot and will not resist giving the Father this glory, though they may find it impossible to explain.

Questions That Don't Need Answers

Skeptics sometimes ask: "If God created everything, who created God?"

The question seems reasonable enough, but it overlooks the eternality, transcendence, and self-existence of God.

I like this turn of the tables: "If man created God, then who created man?"

Since human beings are clearly not eternal, transcendent, or self-existent, and the person asking the question is a human being, this seems to be the more important of the two questions. Skeptics say they cannot see or sense God, so how can they know He exists? Okay, fine. But all of us can perceive human beings, and must somehow account for their existence. As I see it, the choices ultimately boil down to spontaneous generation in an illogically eternal universe, or creation by God (which may sometimes appear illogical to some, but is ultimately the most logical of all possibilities).

Someone will say that skeptics don't know the eternality, transcendence, and self-existence of God, which is why they're asking the question in the first place. The Bible says they most certainly do know these things, and they are therefore without excuse in their stubborn refusal to glorify their Creator by trusting in Him.

Romans 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

It is not a lack of logical explanation, but a lack of trustful adoration, which prevents sinful man from believing in his Creator.

God exists as the uncaused Cause, the unsourced Source, the unmoved Mover, the uncreated Creator, the unmade Maker, the ungiven Giver - and all too often as the unloved Lover. Even those who deny this know it to be true.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 13 - Henry Mahan

I found an excellent message titled "Orthodox Paradoxes" by Henry Mahan, a well known "Sovereign Grace" Baptist who has enjoyed a fruitful preaching ministry for over 50 years. Here is Mahan's bio from sermonaudio.com:

Henry T. Mahan was born in Birmingham, Alabama August 1926. He began pastoring at the young age of 21 and has wide experience in the pastoral ministry, having been pastor of Thirteenth Street Baptist Church, Ashland, Kentucky, for over 50 years. He also travels widely as a conference speaker and evangelist. What draws the positive reaction from people all over the world to Henry Mahan's preaching is not primarily the man, but the message. It is not the preacher so much as the One preached. Listeners know that each one of these sermons will honor their precious Savior and lift up the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Pastor Mahan believes in the sovereign free grace of God. He sees all of God's plan and purpose directed toward one end of glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ in the salvation of sinners. His sermons are God honoring, Christ exalting, and places the Savior at the forefront of our attention, the worth of Christ's blood and righteousness on the lips of every saved sinner. If you love the God-honoring preaching of God's sovereign grace, you will not be disappointed in the preaching of Henry T. Mahan!

Among other things, Mahan discusses the paradoxes of faith & works, the Trinity, the Incarnation, God's sovereignty & human responsibility, active election & passive reprobation, divine love & wrath, law & grace, and the sinner/saint paradox. This is a very encouraging message that gives helpful perspective on the struggles of the Christian life.

Quotes:

"One of the evidences that a person has not been taught of God - has not been taught of God . . . has not heard that voice from heaven in his soul, he has not learned of the Father - is when a man continually has problems with the orthodox paradoxes."

"You can't handle a paradox unless you're taught of God."

Well said.

Listen to it here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72106144825

Christianity and We-Are-Able-ISM

"This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of the free-will ministers to the pretension of the natural man not to be entirely lost, for that is just what it amounts to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all those with whom this conviction is based on gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans and all reasoners, of all philosophers; but it completely changes the whole idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it."

J.N. Darby (Source)

Note: The first line is clumsily worded, but it's worth reading over again if necessary. The word "ministers" is a verb, not a noun. I finally got it on the 3rd reading. The full article is excellent, too.

Note #2: In case you're wondering, I'm not a dispensationalist, but I do appreciate the Christ-centered devotional writings of the Plymouth Brethren.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Conclusion

A Calvinist is a person who knows he is bad, and knows Christ is good. It's that simple.

In this series I have endeavored to show how a Biblical understanding of human depravity leads directly and necessarily toward a theological viewpoint which exalts the grace and mercy of God, maximally glorifies Him, and gladly rejoices in His exhaustive, meticulous, comprehensive, detailed, enveloping, all-encompassing sovereignty over all things - including the salvation of individual sinners. The five parts coincide with the 5 points of Calvinism.

The trouble with some Calvinists is they have forgotten they are bad. A "good" Calvinist (indeed, a "good" Christian of any sort) has a short shelf life and spoils immediately. Bad Christians, on the other hand, never stop repenting and never stop receiving more of Christ and grace. And when Christ's work in us is complete, we will be fully restored from all the effects of the fall - better than if it had never happened.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Solus Christus!
Sola Gratia!

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 5

Because I am so utterly sinful that I would turn back to sin and fall away from Christ if God did not keep me. I could never - and would never - do a single thing to please Him, except as He works in me to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Apart from Him, I can do nothing.

God, who elected us before the world began, gave us life, preserved us when we rebelled against Him, called us through the Gospel, regenerated us by the Holy Spirit, gave us faith, washed us in Christ's blood, and saved us by His grace, will certainly keep us to the very end and bring us safely into His glorious, eternal rest!



I think this is my all time favorite Keith Green song.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 4

Because it required the direct intervention of the Third Person of the Trinity to turn me from my love of sin and bring me to faith in Christ.

The Holy Spirit unveils the beautiful Son of God to us and instills in us His own love for Christ. No fallen sinner will ever choose Christ on his own. But thanks be to God, He draws us to Himself.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 3

Because my sins and offenses against a holy God are so completely wicked they require an infinite payment - a payment in sinless blood. A Perfect man had to die in my place to satisfy the justice of a Perfect God, so that the unutterable sinfulness of my soul would be forgiven and a sufficient, saving righteousness would be freely given to me. My moral bankruptcy is so great that I can not even pay a fraction of a penny toward my own salvation. I can bring only the immensity of my debt and the fact of my inability to pay.

Man's iniquity is so vile that there is no way for us to approach God (or even continue to breathe!), apart from the Mediator who experienced the immeasurable spiritual agony we deserve, died in our place, and rose to new life so that He might apply the benefits of His sacrifice to His chosen ones.

 

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 2

Because there was NOTHING good in me that would make me worthy enough for God to choose me . . . unworthy sinners are elected unconditionally on the basis of God's mercy, according to His own sovereign purpose, and not according to any merit or worth in them.

We would never have chosen Him, so He chose us. That's a remarkable and humbling fact.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 1

Because there's no such thing as a good Calvinist . . . by definition, we're all totally depraved.

Christ died for sinners, and only His grace can make any good of any of us.

Marveling at the Gospel

The incomprehensible God united Himself incomprehensibly with humanity, to die under the incomprehensible suffering generated by His just and incomprehensible wrath, paying an incomprehensible price to redeem incomprehensibly sinful sinners through His incomprehensible grace, rising again by His incomprehensible power, showing His incomprehensible love, displaying His incomprehensible wisdom, revealing His incomprehensible glory.


  

Why I Spell Coincidence with a Capital "G"

It's been an interesting week. I was in Atlanta on business from Sunday evening through Tuesday. The trip wasn't going very well, and a lot of my "personal expectations" (read: idolatrous desires) were not being met. We stayed in an atrocious downtown hotel and, out of fear of our lives, decided to move to another hotel after the first night. I had hoped to stay for the full week, but my boss insisted I return on Tuesday. The trade show was smaller than expected, and didn't seem too productive. I had hoped to have dinner with some business associates before flying out on Tuesday night, but it didn't work out. By 5:00, I hadn't had any lunch, and I found myself heading to the airport several hours earlier than expected. As I walked alone toward the train station, preparing for the 20-minute ride to the airport, I sensed the Holy Spirit calling me to submit my self-centered and complaint-ridden attitude to God's mercy and sovereignty.

Then something strange happened. Just after sitting down on the train, I overheard a conversation nearby. I distinctly heard someone utter the words, "the Arminian system." That caught my attention. I figured I could use some fellowship with other believers, whether Calvinists or Arminians, so I went over to the two men who were obviously discussing theology and introduced myself. They said they were indeed believers and told me their names. That's when my jaw dropped, and I saw the sovereign hand of God in the midst of all my petty disappointments (something tells me heaven will be like this).

Here's a little background to help you understand why my jaw dropped. Over a year ago, my pastor gave me a little book called "Uniting Church and Home," written by his friend Eric Wallace. Eric is a pastor who lives in Virginia, and a leader of the family-integrated church movement. I enjoyed the book and have become excited about returning to the Biblical vision for church, family, marriage, parenting, and household-based ministry. The concept has transformed and is continuing to transform my family.

The last thing I expected was to meet Eric Wallace in Atlanta, but one of the men I met on the train was him! The other man was an elder from his church. They just "happened" to be in Atlanta, just "happened" to be on my train, we just "happened" to be in the same car, and I just "happened" to overhear their conversation. So, for 20 minutes my soul was refreshed as we chatted about the good things of God, Scripture, theology and life. God knew. God knew!

That's coincidence with a capital "G."

Here is a link to Eric's website:
The Institute for Uniting Church and Home

and a short video (note the Gospel-centeredness!)

Dr. Andreas Kostenberger was at my church last Sunday!

Yes, it's true. One of the great Biblical scholars of our day taught a small Sunday School class and then preached to less than 100 people at Lakeside Community Church.

Dr. Kostenberger capably answered several tough questions about the book of John, from my "definition-of-world" multi-question to the reason why John 7:53-8:11 is included in the Bible. His working definition of "world" was surprisingly close to mine, but he added "in need of redemption," which I thought was helpful. He also noted that there could be some aspect of "Gentiles & Jews" (i.e., "the whole world" as opposed to Jews only) in John 3:16. I'm not opposed to "Gentiles & Jews" because, well, that pretty much encompasses every individual. You're either one or the other, right? In addition, he mentioned some passages where "world" clearly means "earth" or created universe, and showed how John can quickly switch between the two meanings.

As for the apparently spurious passage in John 8, Dr. Kostenberger said he has contacted Bible publishers and asked them to consider removing it. Although it's probably historically true, the passage lacks the needed textual evidence to be considered an authoritative part of the New Testament. Contrary to the impression given by Bart Ehrman, this is one of only two passages in the New Testament which fall into this category (the other is the famous "second ending" of Mark). An interesting point made during the Q and A session was that John's Gospel has many parallels with the book of Isaiah.

The sermon covered John 20:26-29, which is the account of Thomas' refusal to believe in the resurrection without physical proof. This was timely for me, as I had just confessed to my accountability partners that "my number one problem at the moment is unbelief." God is always the master of perfect timing, is He not? In the middle of the sermon, my 8-year-old daughter looked up at me and said, "Daddy, this is interesting - I like it!" Wow.

What struck me most about Dr. Kostenberger was the way he exuded humility. He was thoughtful, gracious and not quick to speak. It is rare to see such great knowledge and insight unaccompanied by the arrogance that sometimes results from learning. God's Word, rightly handled, does produce a remarkable humility and Christ-centeredness which are inspiring.

My pastor exhibits the same characteristics, and he's no theological lightweight himself. I'm grateful to God for providing these men as examples of character qualities I hope to attain, by grace, in His time.

I haven't figured out how to upload the audio files yet, but if I figure it out I'll offer them for the benefit of all interested THEOparadoxians.