I just watched two little clips of Michael Horton and Roger Olson in their recent discussion about Calvinism and Arminianism; which took place at 
Biola University in California (hereΒ & here). And then I followed up these two little clips by listening to James White [here] (of his Alpha and Omega Apologetic Ministries) critique Roger Olson’s recently released book Against Calvinism (which by the way was what prompted the coming together of Horton and Olson at Biola—they have also had conversation on Horton’s ‘White Horse Inn’ broadcast in the past about the same subject). What continues to intrigue me about this debate (the one between Arminians and Calvinists—both classic versions of that) is that neither side of this debate seems to want to recognize that the impasse they are facing will not be solved until at least they deal with their informing assumptions about God—but more importantly, and directly related, their understanding of God’s Self-revelation in Christ. James White, for example, mockingly cajoles Olson’s book and points against Calvinism as surfacey shallow blather that have been around for years, and refuted over and again; he thinks that engaging Olson’s book is a waste of time (which makes me wonder why he devoted at least one hour if not two hours to it on his internet radio show). White, in the video I link to above, rebuffs Olson by simply asserting that “that’s not what the Bible says.” In other words, for some reason White seems to think that there is only one way to read Scripture; apparently, and he owns that way. And yet, it seems that someone like Roger Olson sets himself up for this kind of beating around the head; since he tries to out-pace his classic Calvinist counterpart by engaging in the same kind of thought experiments about God and God’s relation to creation and humanity in particular. I guess the most troubling thing about this kind of fiasco (what I think it is), is that neither Olson, nor Horton, nor White try to think these kinds of questions through the most revealing point of contact that God has with man; through theΒ IncarnationΒ and/or hypostatic union of God and humanity in Christ. What they need is what Muller and David Gibson after Muller categorized as Karl Barth’s approach to interpreting Scripture and his Christology; that is, they need to adopt a ‘principled’ intensive methodology that sees Christ as the bedrock of all things scriptural—that sees Christ as the depth of Scripture’s witness and authority, and thus seek to parse out the relation and dynamic of God’s sovereignty and human freedom within this interstice, and not one, which I think is imposed back upon God through the logico-deductive schemata deployed by Horton, Olson, and White as they engage in biblical exegesis.
I will have to flesh out what I have reflected upon above at a later point. But I find this song and dance (the one that Horton, Olson, and White are fiddling) to be out of touch with what’s really going on in God’s Self-revelation of himself in Christ for us.
“…the Bible says…”, so often a red-flag if not an intentional “red herring”(unless if what follows is a direct quote from scripture). Last week I just happened to have started to listen to that debate online myself (whether sovereignly decreed or not, “I do not know.” – the Bible says π ) and found it too painful to continue (you’re a better man than me, Bobby).
Two questions, Bobby: does Torrence have a Chisto-centric place for natural revelation via Logos – and hence some grounding for logical-deductive rationality playing some part in this debate?
And- can you recommend one book that, in your opinion, best summarizes Torrence’s theology?
Thanks!!
Hi Bobby
Thanks for your overview in this blog.
Just re-reading “The Mediation of Christ” by TF Torracnce and find it full of relational nuggets in regards to this area.
Loved the cartoon!
@Wayne,
1) Are you asking if Torrance has some sort of foundationalism at play in his theological approach? If so, No, he doesn’t. And the reason I like TFT is because he eschews any kind of deterministic logico-deductive approaches (or something akin to a Cartesian foundationalism). But let me know if this answers your question.
2) HIs little book “The Mediation of Christ” is the best way into his theology, I think. But then after that his posthumously published (edited by his nephew Robert Walker) Edinburgh, New College Lectures entitled Incarnation & Atonement (2 vols.) I think summarize TFT’s theology better than anything. One of my first books by him is his classic “A Christian Doctrine of God,” which summarizes his Trinitarian theology better than anything else. These are the places I would start with TFT.
@Jerome,
That is a funny one! π
Hi John,
Amen! TFT’s ‘Mediation’ is just awesome!!!
Bobby – of first importance, know that you are in my prayers today…
Secondly, I didn’t have foundationalism in mind (at least not consciously π ) – Last night I read a former post by you where you are in dialogue with a former prof about “foundationalism” – and have done some additional research on Torrance and natural theology. As much as I appreciate much of Barth’s theology (well, what I have grasped thus far) I have always been a bit chagrined at his take on natural theology. Something just seems amiss – that certain scripture(s) remain unappreciated in the drive to secure the distinct and sovereign revelation of God in Christ. Particularly, a theology of Logos (John 1 – even Acts 17, though not explicitly mentioned, definitely implied in Paul’s quotations from Stoic philosophy…) – would seem to go further – or at least blur a dogmatic demarcation.
I must believe that natural revelation (which I take to refer to more than analytical philosophizing) includes an immediate awareness of God – “in whom we live and move and have our being” – but which or course we can suppress in unrighteousness. Let me be clear – I do NOT believe that this revelation is full or complete apart from the revelation of that same Logos in the incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ – who reveals the Truth of the Trinitarian God – by whom and through whom “Natural Theology” is brought into greater maturity and (much) clarity. But (as I see it) they are part of the same continuum of the Logos in self-revelation.
I am reading McGrath’s “The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology” – and, while he has the same reservations as Torrance – he also seems to be taking his mentor’s insights a bit further in regards to the renewed and fruitful dialogue between Theology and Science – the point of engagement being natural theology…..
@Wayne,
Thank you for praying … it worked, I am cancer free still π !!
I just don’t believe in natural theology; the closest I might come is Calvin’s senus divinitatis, but I go with TFT’s modified version of that and his epistemological inversion (see his ‘Theological Science’). I really cannot see any room for an analogia entis or natural theology, that’s what my personal chapter is on (and against) in our forthcoming book. I’ll have to elaborate more further here at the blog sometime (I have, but don’t know where the links are).
I can’t jive with McGrath; you’re right, he does take TFT to the breaking point, and goes beyond TFT in ways that I think are not reflective of TFT at this juncture.
I’m much more sympathetic to natural theology than the home crowd here – but I do think that the more Barth-ian ideas against it are quite interesting.
@WF,
I’ll have to write a post in the near future against natural theology; or at least give my reasons for not following it. I ultimately think that it collapses God into the creation, and thus undercuts the reality that he is actually Lord over creation. Anyway, I’ll have to flesh that out soon (I have other posts on this, and guest posts by Myk Habets on TFT’s aversion to natural theology etc.). Thanks.
I’d be interested in that – while I am, like I said, not averse to natural theology in a biblical form (I am opposed to the notions of Thomism/Roman Catholicism), I find the Barthian arguments interesting but also not easy to pin down – there’s not a nice, compact little statement, ‘in a nutshell’ versions of the arguments, at least that I’ve been able to find. I’d be interested in seeing a post like that.
WF,
Okay, I’ll try to do that soon.
Pingback: Elsewhere (03.03.2012) « Near Emmaus