Regarding the Roman Catholic nature/grace dualism – with respect to the Hebrew word “adam” in Hosea 6:7, I have argued that to take it as “man” would necessarily involve something like Rome’s nature/grace dualism because covenant breaking would be of the essence of human nature (including prelapsarian human nature). What do you Forumers think?

I also appreciate the careful way in which Dr. Tipton distinguished between Dr. VanDrunen’s two kingdom methodology and Kline’s common/redemptive methodology. The first time I was asked to comment on Dr. VanDrunen’s thesis, my intial reaction was that I was not sure that it was necessarily compatible with Kline (but I must admit that I am sympathetic to it in so far as it opposes theonomy and wants to protect my conscience from well-meaning Republicans and Christian-schoolers).

I am loathe to take issue with Dr. Tipton, but I am not sure that Kline would say that the kingdom of common grace is governed by special revelation. I think he would be very comfortable with something that Dr. Tipton said years ago (while working on his PhD?) – that whether Adam looked within or without, he (Adam) was confronted with the revelation of the Triune God of Scripture. But I think of his argument about covenant and canon in The Structure of Biblical Authority, that the NT canon is the document that regulates the new covenant (and people who are only members of the covenant of common grace, while called by the NT canon to leave the kingdom of darkness and enter the kingdom of God by faith in Christ, are not regulated by the NT in the same way Christians are). I also think of his response to student questions who were concerned about common grace being autonomous. Dr. Kline did not respond the same way Dr. Tipton did. Some of these questions and answers can still be heard on the WSC Pentateuch recordings that are available online.

Other than that, I really enjoyed the show, as usual!

One thing that confused me was that the Roman Catholic position was presented as man being able to know that there is one God/Creator by unaided reason, and this was contrasted with special revelation (both with regards to Adam before the fall, and with regards to what RC apologists try to achieve). But isn’t general revelation different to both of these – i.e. it’s revelation given to all, but it’s not the same as unaided reason based on nature. Maybe I’ve completely missed/misunderstood something, but it seems to me that this opens the door to 2K theology, in a way that doesn’t involve any kind of nature/grace dualism. Does that make sense, or am I way off on this?

2. Lane’s discussion of the Reformed view on arguments for God’s existence, contrasted with arguments in nature-grace dualist views, is also unclear at times. Yes, Van Tillian’s reject the “blockhouse” method, autonomous reason, etc. However, when Lane says that the Reformed reject (or have to reject) the possibility of having knowledge of God’s existence “based on arguments independent of SR,” he could mean a few different things. Presumably there are valid arguments for God’s existence and Lane is not denying that. If you know what validity is, that’s easy: If 1+1=2 then God exists. 1+1=2. God exists. MP is valid. And presumably, this argument is sound (at least, any theist might think as much)—the premises are also true. Lane at one point adds in that in any argument for God’s existence, SR is necessary for the argument to result in knowledge. I’m wondering, though, what “knowledge” means here. A Reformed apologist might think that some natural theistic arguments—such as versions of the cosmological argument—confer justified belief in the existence of God (or, a being with some properties the biblical God possesses), yet that for the JB to rise to knowledge requires SR. That would be consistent with Lane’s comments, yet would also entail that some arguments for the existence of a being possessing some of God’s properties (or, perhaps, simply the existence of some of those properties—one need not build a being or person, “God,” into the argument, but rest content with certain properties which one, with SR, knows are God’s properties—and given simplicity, God himself) are “strong,” in the sense that they confer some positive epistemic status to belief in God (or some properties, which happen to be possessed by God). Is Lane saying that is impossible? (Sorry for all the parentheses.)

These statements seem to imply that since God created man righteous but not in a final ultimate state without possibility of sin he must somehow be implicated in evil. However, we know that God is not the author of sin and Adam’s sin was uncoerced by God. Instead Adam’s rebellion was all his own. The comments seem like something Adam fully appreciated. God, it was the woman YOU gave me. We often talk about how Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent but the fundamental claim is that it is the creator’s fault for making the creature in the first place. Can the pot say, why did you make me thus?

The whole discussion was useful but I especially appreciated the last half.

I wrote a reply from a Catholic perspective, to the first 30 minutes or so of this podcast. It is in comment #83 at the following link:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/09/nature-grace-and-mans-supernatural-end-feingold-kline-and-clark/

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

Jim

I think you mean Timothy Cardinal Dolan. But as much as I enjoyed the RNC, and I did, I was tremendously frustrated with the prayers. Lots of references to the Holy Spirit decoupled from Jesus Christ. About the only thing going for Cardinal Dolan was he did at least reference Jesus somewhere in the middle of the prayer.

The prayers were calculated to cover a multitude of sins, such as Mormonism.

How about the nature/grace dualism in Cardinal Nolan’s benediction at the RNC!!!???