<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Princess,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thank you for keeping a civil tone; this is very helpful. Your
comment below about Christian society and law is not true to the current concern.
The classic theonomic position, which is one that <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Wilson</st1:place></st1:City> has flirted with in a fickle manner
for the last decade, is not the statement that “the laws of the land
reflect the Christian faith of a Christian people.” Rather, it is
the statement that our legal tradition is too stupid (from a Van Tilian
perspective) to give us just law, and we therefore need to go to direct,
special revelation to know what laws would be just and what laws would not be
just. Therefore, the civil laws for theocratic <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region> –the suffering, child-servant
wandering in the desert waiting for the days of maturity and freedom –
are generally the perfect reflection of God’s wisdom in society. The
problems with this are many, and it has been largely despised even within your
very narrow reformed tradition. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>A quick note regarding your two book referrals, I’ve read the
three selections myself. John Frame’s DKG might be of interest to
some given Frame’s clear writing style and his exhaustive, encyclopedic approach
in this work. But I don’t think it will be of much value nailing
any contemporary philosophical or apologetic issue, and in many respects is a
very “in house” sort of read for the Van Tilian, reformed
Christian. What Frame has produced since writing that book in the early 80s
does not give evidence that the philosophical work within DKG has much staying
power. As for Ralph Smith’s books: although I think it is nice that
Canon Press likes to publish family and friends, and although I like Smith as a
pastor and person, I would not recommend these books. There are some beneficial
sections, but not the ones you reference here. My two cents anyhow... <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>2. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName
w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
prays, along with all other churches, "Thy will be done on earth as it is
in Heaven." <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> would like to see
the laws of the land reflect the Christian faith of a Christian people. But
even if an absolute majority of people in every state came to see things as <st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Christ</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Church</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
does, there are certain sins that would never be made crimes. For example,
failure to attend congregational worship at church when one is able to is a
sin. But it can never legitimately (i.e., biblically speaking) be made a crime,
even in a thoroughly Christianized society.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>I would say that apparent
randomness and mechanical determinism are two sides of the same coin. What I
didn't mention last time, and which I perhaps should have mentioned, is the
fact that our minds cannot delve deeply into any subject without being confronted
by paradox. This is true for the Christian as well as for the non-Christian,
viz. the title of Ralph Smith's excellent book published by Canon Press,
"Paradox and Truth." (Although I suspect you would profit most by
reading another of Smith's books, "Trinity and Reality," also
published by Canon Press, which explains how the Trinitarian Christian
perspective alone is able to resolve the paradoxes and epistemological problems
that face us as human beings.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>I'd like to share with you
two quotes from John Frame's "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God"
that you may find interesting and useful in this context:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>' . . . to make human beings
creators or attestors in any sense might seem to detract from the ultimate
causality and authority of God. We must not forget, however, that not only is
the Lord authoritative and in control but He is also covenantally present.
Because He perfectly controls our interpretative work, all of our thinking is a
revelation of Him and a manifestation of His presence. Thus we do not need to
feat that the work of the human mind necessarily competes with the authority of
God, because the Lord reveals Himself in and through our thinking. Human
freedom then, need not block out God's revelation. Thus we need not fear
thinking and knowing. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>And so a . . .
[correct] understanding of what the Bible teaches champions the true freedom of
human thought. If true the . . . ["autonomous thinker's] boast that he is
able to think autonomously ("freely") would imply only that human
thought is in bondage to the random forces of chance, when in reality .. . .
that is not the case . . . [to the extent that] we think in obedience to God's
Word, we know that our very thinking processes will reveal God to us. Our minds
image God, even in His sovereign attributes of control and authority.'<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>'The Paradox of Analysis<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>'Another way to make the
same point has been described as the "paradox of analysis." Pretend
that I try to gain knowledge of kangaroos by formulating various equations such
as "kangaroo=mammal," "kangaroo=marsupial mammal," <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>"kangaroo=marsupial
mammal found in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Australia</st1:place></st1:country-region>,"
and so forth. Such a process might be called an "analysis" of the
concept "kangaroo." It works fine, until I decide that there must be
an absolute identity between the two sides of the equation, which is the desire
for perfect or exhaustive knowledge of the kangaroo. When I make that demand, I
can satisfy it only by the equation "kangaroo=kangaroo." Although
that equation gives me an absolute identity, it gives me absolutely no useful
information. The moral is the same: when we seek Godlike, exhaustive,
infallible knowledge, we are likely to achieve only total ignorance.
Rationalism begets irrationalism.'<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>