McCall Plantinga Christianity and Plurality Review
I have before questioned Yong’s treatment of Exclusivism in terming a position to be such, when I thought it was better equated to an Inclusivist position (see my Yong Review). Plantinga, in the introduction, also treats Inclusivism and Exclusivism in a similar manner. In fact, he says that inclusivism is a variant of Exclusivism, which entirely puzzles me. I must be missing something there, as both Yong and Plantinga argue seemingly congruent points re: Exclusivism. I digress. I found Plantinga’s distinction between Exclusivism (Christocentric), Inclusivism (Christocentric), Pluralism (Theocentric), and Universalism intriguing. However, how is Universalism also a “variant” (like Inclusivism aforementioned) of Exclusivism? I am puzzled. I found several miss-spellings in this text, which indicated to me the hasty manner in which it was probably released (e.g. argiculture, 78).Onward to the writings I go.
Justin “pounds” on the Bible from beginning to end of his “First Apology” and that is fine and well for convincing a person who believes in the authority of the written Word. However, his arguments would fall on deaf ears today, for the mass of men do not attribute to the Bible an authority that is normative and/or formative. So then, Justin’s “First Apology” is without any usage for those outside of the Church, I do contend (even though his arguments are mentally stimulating to me!). I took issue, however, with his assertion that “consciousness continues for all who have lived” (#18, pg. 38), for I deem it to be true that we are not conscious until the “Second Death”, or at least until Judgment Day. So then, I indeed argue for type of Sheol/Hades in which one is merely ‘kept’ until the “Last Day”, when all things come unto the feet of the only begotten Son of the Father in order to be meted out their reward or punishment. I also took issue with Justin in his statement re: the Trinity on pg. 45. Indeed, he writes that the “Spirit and Power from God cannot rightly be thought of as anything else than the Word”. Is this not an open denial of the Holy Spirit being a distinct person within the Godhead? It seems as though he collapses both the Spirit and the Power of God (which I take to mean the Son, as He is the One through whom all things are created…) into one symbol: the Word. He also says that it was the “Word” that moved the apostles to record the Scriptures, and NOT the “Spirit”, which is another, I deem, implicit denial of the Trinitarian formulae.
I am, and have been for years, infinitely attracted to Augustine’s notion of “faith seeking understanding” (62), as this is the approach that I have utilized in my attempts to harmonize my earlier Biological training with my later Theological training. On a lighter note, I have garnered many a “short snippet” (i.e. phrase and or terming of words) from Augustine’s selection (giggling goddesses, irresponsible frivolity, senile inertia, hirsute adornment, utterly inimical, etc.). Augustine invokes Varro, who was afraid that “the [pagan] gods would perish, not through an attack of the enemy, but through indifference of Roman citizens [i.e. its adherents]” (67). I likewise share this same fear, but in relation to Christianity instead, as I deem it true that indifference is multitudes more destructive than direct assault by chagrins.
I detest the filoque insertion within the Athanasian Creed, but I otherwise can affirm all contained therein. In beginning to remark on Aquinas, I will state that I have faith in Dr. Yong that he will impart unto us what is necessary in order for us to be competent in World Theology. I appreciated Aquinas’s emphasis on a sort of Preveinent Grace being required in order for us to know God (“disposing and “activation” are used, pg. 95, cf. 101), as man can know God only if God draws him to Himself (cf. 97). So then, by this Preveinent Grace (as I term it, following Wesley) becomes disposed toward God, is inwardly activated, and is able to be healed by ensuing grace received from God. Moreover, as Aquinas states, ‘faith requires supernatural interior stimuli from God’ (taken & adapted from 115). I almost started jumping upward and downward in jubilation as I read that “God plans to draw men back to Himself by grace through others (as I deem it to be true, beloved of God, that we MUST needs be other’s-centered in this life). However, in the extrapolation of the grace-derived disposition and the resulting source of righteousness which one receives thereby, I was appalled at Aquinas’s vehement posit that our works “earn” us heaven (cite esp. 101, but the theme runs throughout). I could accept a rewording of “earn” being replaced with “enact”, because ‘enactment’ preserves the necessity of our response to God, but also retains God’s prior moving, which would not be a thing that one may “earn”. I adored Aquinas’s insistence that all truth (I define this as what is orderly and regular in disposition) comes from God, whether it be secular or sacred, for He is the basis and originator of all things that are orderly and regular in disposition. Aquinas seemingly speaks directly to this era in that he properly states, in a sense, that forgiveness of sin must be followed by instilling of grace, or else ‘one by be twice the son of hell as before’. Indeed, it seems that our culture today would benefit enormously from grasping that idea, and thereby realizing that salvation is MORE than just walking down the aisle and joining a church! Thus, Aquinas can affirm that grace leads one toward life, as enabled by charity and grace (cf. 108). Creation and Reconciliation, Aquinas astutely notes, are God’s greatest works (105). Furthermore, I enjoyed Aquinas’s delineation of the degrees of disbelief (Heretics primary, Jews secondary, and pagans tertiary, ref. 117). After reading through page 118, I understand how the RCC has wielded so much political power throughout the ages, as Aquinas affirms the RCC to have both secular and sacred powers. It is interesting that Boniface VIII extended, seemingly, Aquinas’s directives regarding the power of the RCC over secular matters (124).
I sensed false humility throughout the selected text of Martin Luther (ref. 1st and 2nd paragraphs on 131), though once more I picked up some “short snippets” from the text before me (e.g. Roman rascals, demolishing heaven and consuming the earth, diabolical lie, & Anabaptist affairs).
John Calvin’s text interesting, but not as much so as the others, as it contained some reasoning that I have subsequently relinquished as ‘heretical’ (from my Baptist days, i.e.). I did appreciate his insistence that real religion consists of faith, fear, and reverence (143). I like the sentiment of the “bridle of the Holy Spirit” (147), and I dare say that my congregation will hear more about that notion later! I laughed as I encountered, “what concourse of atoms cooks food and drink, turns part of it into excrement, part into blood, and begets such industry in the several members to carry out their tasks…” (150). Calvin seemingly belies Yong’s intention by conceiving of a “Theology of Religions” on page 157 in saying, “the Holy Spirit rejects as base all cults contrived through the will of men”. Moreover, “let the readers observe that Scripture, to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects all gods of the heathen”. Whither a “Theology of Religions”?
I found Hubert’s Common Notions intriguing (i.e. 1. Blessed, 2. End of all, 3. Cause of all, 4. Responsive Prayer, 5. Eternal, 6. Is Good, 7. Is Just, 8. Is Wise, 9. Infinite, 10. Omnipotent, 11. Marked by Liberty). However, I do not think they are the summation of the Gospel of God made manifest in Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, I cannot advocate the Common Notions as being the basis of a “Theology of Religions”.