Ken Temple on who is 'acceptable' for inclusion in his paradigm

Our Reformed Baptist brother in Christ, Ken Temple, and yours truly, have been engaged in some interesting dialogue (at least to me), in the combox of my most recent, prior thread (link). I have started this new thread to address some of the issues raised by Ken, and shall now provide a few quotes for context (quotes in red shall be from Ken's posts, and quotes in blue from my posts):

David Waltz wrote:
Let me ask you a question: what if your interpretation of the NT concerning the possibility of future revelation is wrong?

This is the same kind of skepticism that Dave Armstrong and my friend Rod Bennett, based on Newman and all the RC apologists play with Protestants of "what if your interpretation is wrong?" and "how do you know for sure?" and "how do you know for sure the Early church got the canon right?" etc. etc.

I just don't find that kind of skepticism compelling or practical or healthy, given what I do know about the NT and what it is says.

That kind of doubting leads to madness; and holding your position, means you never settle on anything. (SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 9:40 am POST)

In my subsequent response to Ken, I posted the following:

==That kind of doubting leads to madness; and holding your position, means you never settle on anything.==

Me: You "doubt" that Arminians are correct, that padeo-baptism is correct, that the three-fold ministry is correct, that baptismal regeneration is correct, etc. etc. I suspect that if you and sat down together that many, many more "doubts" would be established. (SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 11:51 am POST)

Later that same day, Ken fired back with:

I am frankly amazed that you put those in house Christian issues on the same level as the doctrinal issues and difference between NON-Christian systems such as JW, Mormonism, Islam, and Bahai'ism. But all of those things are secondary issues within Protestantism and Christendom - even the different ways of interpreting those issues within RC and EO, but Protestant groups have certain takes on all those issues.

But, JW, Mormonism, Islam, and Bahai'ism are all outside of Christianity, and to keep open possibility of further revelation means re-interpreting essentials like the incarnation, atonement, Deity of Christ, Trinity, etc. That is denial essential doctrine vs. secondary, debate-able doctrines and practices.

Don't you see those are on a completely different level?

Though I think RC and EO are wrong and preach a false gospel, RC being worse than EO ( IMO); they are still better than those other 4 false religions. ( SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 1:16 pm POST)

Some issues with Ken's responses:

First, Ken likes 'labels'; as with many apologists, it is a popular tool to identify/label someone who disagrees with you with something, and/or someone, who has been stigmatized by others within your 'club'/paradigm. Unfortunately, the 'labels' utilized by Ken are woefully inaccurate.

Second, Ken ignores the considerable 'common ground' that I have with 'historic' Christianity; in fact, a good deal of my understanding of Christian doctrine has a much greater historical pedigree than Ken's views.

Third (this is the area I am going to focus on in the rest of this post), Ken minimizes the important differences that exist within his accepted 'club'/paradigm; though he has termed his view as the Reformed Evangelical Biblical view, he has on numerous occasions included conservative Arminians and Lutherans in the broader Evangelical Biblical view which is 'acceptable' to him. Basically what Ken has done is establish in his mind what 'common' doctrines must be held, and what doctrines are 'acceptable', for one to be included in his understanding of the broader context.

Now, though Ken has yet to provide an exact, precise list of the 'common' doctrines that must be adhered to, as well as those that are 'acceptable', for one to be in his 'club', I have deduced from our discussions that one of those doctrines that must be 'common' is some form of 'Trinitarianism' which includes an Athanasian/Augustinian understanding of the term homoousios. Unfortunately, scholars within his 'club'/paradigm have pointed out that, "Today most Western Christians are practical modalists" [1]. And further, Calvin's teaching of the autotheos of the Son, which has become quite 'popular' among many who identify themselves within Ken's narrower Reformed Evangelical Biblical view, has recently been associated with "tri-theism" [2]. Fact is, so many of the understandings of 'Trinitarianism' within the Evangelical Biblical view are essentially either neo-modalistic, or neo-tritheistic (depending on how on defines homoousios and "person").

Moving on to the inclusion of Arminians as 'acceptable' members within the Evangelical Biblical view, I would like to reference Dr. Michael Horton's (a scholar within the narrower Reformed Evangelical Biblical view) telling essay, Evangelical Arminians: Option or Oxymoron [3]. I would like to encourage everyone to read this entire essay (links provided in the footnote), and as an enticement, shall provide a few selections:

A number of evangelical leaders met at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near Chicago two years ago for the purpose of defining the term "evangelical," but many left as confused concerning what that label comprehends as they were when they arrived. It is becoming increasingly difficult to say what an evangelical is and is not. Basically, American evangelicalism divides, from the mid-eighteenth century on, into two traditions: revivalistic and Reformational (as in the 16th century Reformation). While the Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Revival in Britain were examples of the harmony between reformation and revival, these eventually became rivals as the latter developed an Arminian theology. As the Arminian branch of revivalism gained the popular advantage, evangelicalism became increasingly shaped by human-centered theology on a popular level even while its principal works of systematic theology were reformed.
However, today we see a shift even within the evangelical theological leadership. Pinnock writes, "It is my strong impression, confirmed to me even by those not pleased by it, that Augustinian thinking is losing its hold on present-day Christians." Evangelists are not the only ones preaching an Arminian gospel: "It is hard to find a Calvinist theologian willing to defend Reformed theology, including the views of both Calvin and Luther, in all its rigorous particulars now that Gordon Clark is no longer with us and John Gerstner is retired...So I do not think I stand alone." The drift is on. Pinnock insists that Augustine was shaped by Greek thinking more than scripture and the reformers simply followed his mistakes, but that was acceptable for their time: "Just as Augustine came to terms with ancient Greek thinking, so we are making peace with the culture of modernity."

The purpose of these quotes is not to focus attention on one evangelical theologian's departure from Reformation theology, but to raise the question in very practical terms, "Is it possible to be an 'evangelical Arminian'?" In this article I attempt to defend a negative answer to that important question. (Bold emphasis mine.)

We later read:

The heart of the Reformation debate was, Who saves whom? Does God save sinners? Or do we save ourselves with God's help? The Roman Catholic Church was confused on that question throughout the Middle Ages, sharply divided at the time of the Reformation, but finally determined by the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century that the second answer was better. God's grace is the source, but human cooperation with that grace is what makes God's saving will effective. Thus, God justifies us by making us better and that involves our own participation.

The orthodox Protestants were not over-reacting, therefore, when they regarded the Arminian denials as no different from the positions of Trent, which had declared the evangelicals "anathema." It would have been bigoted for them, therefore, to regard Trent's position as unorthodox if they were unwilling to say the same of a similar "Protestant" deviation.

And towards the end, Dr. Horton does offer some hope to Arminians, Roman Catholics, and "others":

Having said that, it is equally important to realize that this is not a matter of bigotry or denominational pride. We will see non-evangelicals in heaven. As I reflect on views that I used to hold, it is sobering to say the least and it reminds me that the chances are pretty good that I have a good distance to go yet. While we must believe certain essential truths in order to be saved, we are not saved by the amount of doctrine that we know. There will doubtless be Roman Catholics, Arminians, and others in Paradise who were saved by God's grace even if they, like me, did not understand or appreciate that grace as much as they should have. Nevertheless, if we are going to still use "evangelical" as a noun to define a body of Christians holding to a certain set of convictions, it is high time we got clear on these matters. An evangelical cannot be an Arminian any more than an evangelical can be a Roman Catholic. The distinctives of evangelicalism were denied by Rome at the Council of Trent, by the Remonstrants in 1610, were confused and challenged by John Wesley in the eighteenth century, and have become either ignored or denied in contemporary "evangelicalism."

I shall end this post with my summation of Ken's minimizing intra-paradigm tendencies: IMHO they are highly subjective, and at times, inaccurate.



Grace and peace,

David


Notes:

[1] Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, 2004, p. 3.

[2] Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, 2007, p. 324. (See also THIS THREAD, for some further reflections.)

[3] Links to Dr. Horton's essay: Reformation Online; Modern Reformation.

Ken Temple and Robert Reymond

I have been meaning to address certain comments that our Reformed brother in Christ, Ken Temple, made in the combox of our previous thread (LINK) concerning what theologians have termed the "timelessness" God; Ken wrote:

As for Scriptural evidence that the God of the Bible is above and outside of time; and created time, matter, space, energy:

Genesis 1:1

Psalm 139

Rev. 1:8; 4:8

Isaiah 46:9-10

Isaiah chapter 40

Psalm 90:42

Peter 3:8

Isaiah 45:21

I Cor. 8:6

Colossians 1:16

Hebrews 1:2

"I am that I am" - Exodus 3:14

John 8:24, 8:58, and all the other "I am" statements in John. John 1:1-5; 17:5

Read a good Systematic Theology such as Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, pages 156-261, including the Trinity; or Louis Berkhof or Robert Reymond.

I sincerely wonder how closely Ken has read Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, for Reymond actually denies the "timelessness" God; note the following:

These verses [Gen. 21:33; Ps. 29:10; 45:6; 90:2, 4; 102:25-27; Is. 40:28; 1 Tim. 1:17] clearly ascribe everlastingness to God. But what is not so clear is whether his everlasting existence should be understood, with most classical Christian thinkers (for example, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas), as also involving the notion of timelessness. (Page 192, 1st ed.)

In pages 173-177, Reymond reflects on what some other Reformed thinkers have had to say on this issue (e.g. Gordon H. Clark, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles Hodge), and provides "three reasons" why he ends up rejecting God's "timelessness". He sums up his conclusion with:

...it would seem that the ascription to God of the attribute of timelessness (understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence) cannot be supported from Scripture nor is it self-consistent. At best, it is only an inference (and quite likely a fallacious one) from Scripture. These reasons also suggest that the Christian should be willing to affirm that the ordering of relationships of time are true for God as well as for man. (Page 176, 1st ed.)

Not only is Reymond at odds with many of his fellow Reformed theologians on this issue of God's "timelessness", he also takes issue with the Nicene Creed, the eternal generation of the Son, and the term "person", all of which has caused some Reformed folk to express certain reservations about his book. Perhaps the most thorough critique of the tome was provided by Dr. Robert Letham in his Fall 2000 - 62.2, Westminster Theological Journal (pp. 314-319) review.

Anyway, I hope that Ken drops by so we can discuss some of these issues.


Grace and peace,

David