Comments on: The Deeper Protestant Conception

By: Brad Anderson

Brad Anderson — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 02:29:36 +0000

Can you point me to where I will find the donum superadditum in Aquinas? I am guessing it’s in Part 1, Question 95?

By: Matt Sanders

Matt Sanders — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 04:40:59 +0000

In reply to Glen Clary. Vestiges of truth mixed with hearty heresies doth not make Rome a Christian church.

By: Matt Sanders

Matt Sanders — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 04:38:34 +0000

The Deeper Protestant Conception was very enjoyable. Overall though you are not as harsh on Romanism as you should be.

By: Richard Brash

Richard Brash — Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:47:55 +0000

In reply to Richard Brash. OK sorry I have just watched to the end of the video and I see that you will be making the talks available online afterwards. Thankyou. I really look forward to these. A great service to the church. Your broadcasts have been really useful. Blessings on the conference.

By: Richard Brash

Richard Brash — Sat, 15 Sep 2018 16:35:39 +0000

Will the conference talks and Q&A be available online afterwards?
I am a PhD student in the UK and would love to get to this conference, but I have just googled the airfare!!

By: Bill Kron

Bill Kron — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:05:59 +0000

In reply to Glen Clary. That helps—thank you, Glen!

By: Glen Clary

Glen Clary — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 21:11:31 +0000

In reply to Bill Kron. I think Lane meant to say that Rome is a Christian church because there are vestiges of the true church in it. That was the position of Calvin and Hodge and the reason they accepted Roman baptisms.

By: Bill Kron

Bill Kron — Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:20:27 +0000

Can you clarify the statement that Dr. Tipton makes about Rome being a true church? How can Rome be called a true church while holding to a false gospel?

The comment in question can be heard at this timestamp:

https://overcast.fm/+50Ze-4mY/1:01:01

I do hear some clarification in his statements following, but can we rightly call them brothers?

Thank you!

I’m probably misunderstanding, would appreciate the clarification nonetheless.

By: Timothy Joseph

Timothy Joseph — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:50:09 +0000

In reply to Camden Bucey.

Camden,
Thanks for the kind reply. I appreciate the clarifications, at least of my misunderstanding. I do hope to be able to attend in October.

In Him whose Grace is Sufficient!

Tim

By: Patrick Brink

Patrick Brink — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:47:01 +0000

I’m with Brian. It would be helpful to point out some concrete examples. For example, how does Thomas’s nature grace dualism color his idea of God’s simplicity compared to a Reformed view?

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:14:49 +0000

Hey guys. I love all your episodes and this one too. I also read Dolezal’s book, loved it, and didn’t find your episode to attack him in any way. However, for uninformed guys like me, it did seem like you were punching into the wind. You are seeking to “sound an alarm” but I guess I’m not seeing where the fire is. If you wouldn’t mind stating who and what’s being said where, it would be helpful to others like me who seek to avoid the fire. Finally, you’ve asked me to be patient and listen, so that’s what I will do in hopes to further understand your concerns.

Keep up the good work men. Can’t join you in October but maybe some day.

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Tue, 28 Aug 2018 23:21:30 +0000

In reply to Timothy Joseph.

Tim,

I regret you interpreted our episode in this manner. James Dolezal is a friend. I greatly appreciated James’s book, and I share James’s criticisms of the “Vosians” you believe we’re trying to protect. But in reality, I don’t believe there are any Vosians addressed in All that Is in God, at least regarding the specific issue of divine immutability and God’s relation to creation. That includes Dr. Oliphint—meaning I believe he differs with Vos on this point. But just because I share the same deep concerns about theological mutualism, doesn’t mean I have to follow James at every point. Friends can disagree.

James still has an open invitation to join us. I would love to speak with him about these important matters. Nonetheless, the episode wasn’t about James. There are scores of Reformed theologians who have turned to Thomas on these matters. That is what is most concerning.

I believe there are deep structural problems with a Thomistic theology and philosophy. I also hold to a “classic Reformed understanding of God’s simplicity and immutability,” yet such a position is not identical to Thomism. You claim that we idolize Vos. I believe we set forth quite clearly why Vos is so helpful in these matters. He offers a Deeper Protestant Conception that avoids the twin errors of Roman Catholicism and modernism. This will be substantiated further in October. I’d still love to see you there.

Regards,

Camden

By: Timothy Joseph

Timothy Joseph — Tue, 28 Aug 2018 13:51:41 +0000

Hilarious, start the program by stating James Dolezal is a friend, then spend an hour and a half attacking him, of course, not by name. Whether Dolezal is overly influenced by Thomas is not the issue in your attack, as evidenced by your idolization of Voss, it is simply that James has a classic Reformed understanding of God’s simplicity and immutability and calledout some fellow Vossians for their deviation from it.
I was wavering on attandence at this conference hoping it would be about the Beatific Vision from a Reformed perspective, but no longer interested if it is about defending Vossians.

This also answers your ‘inability’ to get James on to discuss ‘All that is in God’!!!

Disappointing at least.

Tim

By: CM

CM — Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:00:26 +0000

Fantastic show. Finding Dr. Strimples online lectures, especially on Roman Catholicism is Difficult. Is there anyway you can make them more accessible?

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:10:18 +0000

I think I mentioned you can’t divide a negative number in half. Well, that’s ridiculous. I was thinking of square roots, which you still can do if you consider the “imaginary” number i. I should stick to theology…