Some Positions I Hold on Issues

The following is a list, in no particular order, of various positions I hold within philosophy and theology. I don’t really explain these positions as follows. I also hold these positions to varying degrees ranging from “fairly certain” all the way down to “leaning this way,” and I don’t provide any way to distinguish these degrees in this list. I encourage you to comment on some of my positions, whether you want clarifying questions (I’m happy to explain both the question and the answer) or want to know the degree to which I hold these things. I am also willing to answer questions about positions I forgot to include!

Theism: Theistic personalism

Worldview: Christianity

Human constitution: Cartesian dualism, dichotomy

Modal actualism/modal realism: Modal actualism

Omniscience: Yes, full omniscience

Providence: Molinism (middle knowledge)

Soteriology: Corporate election and individual election

Eschatology: Premillennial, pre-tribulational

Dispensational/Covenant: Progressive dispensationalism

Sign gifts: Moderate cessationalist

Science, realism/anti-realism: Realism

A priori knowledge: Yes, intuitionism

Justification: Basic foundationalism

Epistemology: Reformed epistemology, proper functionalism

Perception: Direct realism (adverbial theory)

Abstract objects: Nominalism-Divine conceptualism (tie)

Internalism/Externalism: Externalism

Natural Theology: Yes

Ontological argument: Yes, including original and modal formulations

Apologetic method: Cumulative case

Free will: Soft libertarianism

Ethics: Objective morality, deontological, divine command theory

Coherence of moral law: non-conflicting absolutism

Truth: Correspondence theory

Knowledge: warranted true belief

Time: A-theory

Bible: Inspired, inerrant

Trinity: Trinity Monotheism model of Social Trinitarianism

Impeccability/Peccability of Christ: Impeccability

Original sin/Original guilt: Original sin

Atonement: Kaleidoscope theory

Eternal security: Yes

Creation/Evolution: Creation

Genesis 6, fallen angels or godly/ungodly lines: Lines

Rahab: sin/innocence: Innocence

Logical Problem of Evil: Free will defense

Probabilistic Problem of Evil: Skeptical theism

Theodicy: Kaleidoscope theodicy approach

My Appearance on Apologetics 105

The Apologetics 105 Podcast



This link is for a podcast on which I appeared as a guest. We discussed irresistible grace, prevenient grace, John 6, and a lead-up to Romans 9! Check out his other podcasts as well; you'll like them!

The Law and the Sabbath

In a recent post, I had a brief discussion on why the Law should be interpreted by a semi-continuity approach, and said that I would tackle the idea of applying it in the form of a discussion on the Sabbath. That is, I wanted to see what would be the results of applying the teaching of principlism to the fourth commandment.

Many I know would say the Sabbath does not apply; you can, and perhaps even should, work seven days a week. I say we should see what theological and textual pattern we can see within the Bible. Just for a refresher, we want to say that principlism states there is a moral principle behind every one of the commandments in the OT Law, and it is these principles that we are to obey. So what is the principle behind the Sabbath? The Sabbath is a time of rest, every week, where no work is to be done. Now this was abused by the first century (and even well before that), in that long lists of legalistic rules were applied, to where the Sabbath was a burden, and not the rest it was intended to be!

Take Genesis 1-2 and the creation account. On the seventh day, God rested. Why? Did he have to because he was so exhausted? No; he was setting a pattern of rest for us to observe. Take the Decalogue itself: In Exodus 20:8-11, the basis for the rest on the seventh day was the Lord’s resting. The concept of a routine rest is built into the very fabric of physical reality. See every day, for example, where we rest overnight. At the end of every week, we have usually done a lot of work, and require a day of rest. Spiritually, the theme of rest can be found throughout Jesus’ teaching, in the eschatological teachings, and in the book of Hebrews. God made us to enjoy creation, and rest is part of that.

So what does that mean? Does it have to be on Sunday? No. The time of rest is made for you. A lot of people do it on Sunday because that’s when church meets, and that’s as good of a time as any for a lot of people. But it’s totally up to you. Take a day when you’re just relaxing and recharging for the Lord. This might involve prayer, family time, a recreational activity, watching a movie, reading a devotional, or any number of things. “But can I mow my yard? And how many daily chores can I still do?” Asking those questions misses the point. It’s not about how many chores you’re allowed to do and whatnot; you can still take care of some of the basics (I know this becomes more complex with larger families, but you can get creative!). The issue is not the legalistic list of what you can and cannot do. You just should be resting and communing with God and your family. If your rest is doing yard work (despite the fact you might be crazy), you can still do that.

This also has the interesting consequence that, if we do not take a Sabbath rest each week, we are trying to operate in our own strength for longer than we were intended. We are, in effect, not taking God at his word. A flip side is abuse in the opposite direction: not to work during the other six days in some way, shape, or form, can be considered (in normal cases) slothfulness or laziness. We should work throughout the week, and then enjoy the time off God has given us! Much more could be (and has been) written on this topic, but I just wanted to leave you with the idea that work is needed for all of us, and so is rest.

Video: Christology and the Atonement

This is another video I made discussing Christ and the atonement, dealing with both the penal substitution account of atonement and objections, and the extent of the atonement (limited or unlimited?). I define both terms for clarity before proceeding with a brief defense of the unlimited view. This video is just a supplement, not a full teaching or even a survey, to the material my students already have. Enjoy!

Does the Law Apply to Us?

Jesus said, in Matthew 5, that he did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. What did he mean here? What Law was he even talking about? Some have used this to claim that we are all still under the Law. Others have used it to emphasize that the Law is fulfilled, and thus we are no longer under the Law. The former approach is called the continuity approach. This approach has a variety of sub-approaches, but the general idea is that the Law of the Old Testament (OT) is fully binding on us today. There are two major ways the continuity approach tends to be applied. The first way is called theonomy, where the claim is that we ought to live, more or less, as OT Israel, and that the various OT laws ought to be not only practiced by us, but put into national law as well. The other way is to divide the Law up into ceremonial, moral, and civil, and claim that while Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial and civil laws, he did not destroy them, so that the moral law is binding.

The latter approach (of the two major approaches) is called the discontinuity approach. This approach teaches that the OT Law is totally unrelated to anything we are going through now, seeing that we are in a different dispensation. The major, or perhaps even only, reason we are required to fulfill any of the Ten Commandments is because they are generally repeated or endorsed in the New Testament.

Hermeneutically and theologically, continuity approaches have been favored by covenant theologians, and discontinuity approaches have been favored by dispensational theologians. I’m a big fan of middle ground (where I can), and it may be no surprise to those readers that I favor a semi-continuity approach, with a specific hermeneutic called principlism. First, however, let me list a few problems that tend to afflict the other two approaches. For continuity issues, the hermeneutic tends to be that the church is the new Israel, whereas national Israel has been completely cast off; the Abrahamic covenant is totally fulfilled in Christ, and there are no political or land promises for Israel yet future. Because the church has replaced Israel, the OT has a spiritual, or even allegorical, hermeneutic that applies to the church. This seems to me to be problematic, in that it seems to allow theology to drive the interpretation (more than it should, anyway). The discontinuity approach seems to leave the OT as irrelevant, at least with respect to grammatical-historical interpretation. Because the Law totally belongs to another dispensation, unrelated to the current one, there is one correct major interpretation that applies only to national Israel; thus, it has nothing to do with the church. Hence, when Jesus speaks of the new covenant, which seems to be almost obviously an allusion to Jeremiah, many here are forced to say Jesus was talking about a different new covenant, and not the new covenant in Jeremiah. On the other hand, in order to make the OT even remotely relevant for us (beyond mere academic/historical interest), a second hermeneutic takes place, one in which the content is spiritualized or allegorized in having meaning for the church. This is why Song of Solomon is often represented by some (though not all) as being about Christ and the Church. Essentially, it forces us to make some unwise hermeneutical choices, on both sides.

I’m still a dispensationalist (save your stones, people of both sides!), but I choose neither the continuity nor the discontinuity approach. I choose a semi-continuity approach. I believe the OT has a specific, grammatical-historical interpretation that applies to Israel, and that there are nationalistic/political promises to Israel that will be fulfilled in the future. However, I believe we need not resort to allegory to have the text have interpretive relevance for us. With the OT, this is where principlism comes in. Briefly, the view is that the Law is still in force, but not in the sense of the letter, but in the sense of the spirit of the Law. Every OT law had a “spirit” sense behind it, which is what the particulars of the law (the “letter” of the law, if you will) showed. For instance, there is the great example of the commandment forbidding Israel from cooking a baby goat in its mother’s milk. Why would God forbid this? Or wearing mixed fabrics. Why is it wrong to wear cotton and polyester?!

The answer is because of what they symbolized: the ancient near east (ANE) cultures often boiled baby goats in their mother’s milk as a sacrifice to the pagan gods; Yahweh is saying, “You aren’t going to do that; you’re going to communicate by your actions that you serve one God.” So the symbolism involved here is not concerned with diet itself; it is concerned with the worship of the one true God, and thus is related to the first commandment. In not wearing mixed fabrics, Israel wanted to communicate they were a pure people to the cultures of the ANE, and that they served only one god, and they would not engage in syncretism (the fusing together of the true God and beliefs about him with pagan gods and beliefs). Again, this goes back to the first commandment.

So, semi-continuity says we are still under the spirit of these laws, and that they apply to everyone, everywhere. Idolatry was not morally permissible prior to the giving of the Ten Commandments, and neither was anything else listed there that would be forbidden. It’s the spirit of the law that is in view here, and the way we find that is by finding the correct principle behind these laws (the NT gives some great clues about some of these things, by the way), and obeying those principles of morality. The next post will tackle a common objection/issue: the Sabbath.