No abstract

It is common in evangelical circles to discount theological interpretations based on methodological critiques—especially those related to areas involving reliance on intuitions such as perfect being theology. Therefore, this article argues that the traditional Protestant doctrine of ‘sola scripture’ makes room for natural means besides supernatural revelation such as intuitions in theological formation. It argues this by showing how the alternative understanding of scripture is theologically unsatisfying and impossible. Subsequently, the article defends the use of intuitions such as perfect being theology as compatible with the traditional sola scriptura doctrine.

In several recent publications, Craig A. Carter argues that classical theism is the only model of God that can consistently affirm the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (that God creates from nothing). He claims that because competing models of God deny true transcendence of God they cannot affirm creatio ex nihilo. We argue that Carter’s claim is false and that his argument is both unclear and fallacious. We further argue that creatio ex nihilo is consistent with other models of God, and we argue this by demonstrating the coherence between the doctrine and two competing models of God: neoclassical theism and open theism.

The Philosophy of Mind is an ever-burgeoning field of research, yet there are few contemporary confessionally Reformed examples of serious philosophical engagement. I argue that Herman Bavinck is a worthy candidate for theological and philosophical retrieval. I argue that while Bavinck attempted to ward off the growing popularity of materialism in his day, his own philosophical commitments provide a gateway to several versions of it. In so arguing I attempt to retrieve his insights and formulate them into a coherent structure that is both theologically serious and philosophically interesting. I argue that he provides several conceptual resources that would be of value to those committed to various non-reductive physicalist proposals such as hylemorphic animalism.

Multi–site and multi–service ecclesiology has become common place in many areas over recent decades. This innovation has not been subjected to rigorous systematic or analytic theological thought. Therefore, this article subjects these ecclesiological variations to critique and finds them wanting. It offers four theological principles by which to analyze the nature of the church and determines that multi–site and multi–service churches fail to meet the necessary requirements for what is required of a numerically identical Protestant church. Therefore, it is metaphysically impossible for multi–site and multi–service churches to exist as the numerically same church. Each multi–site or multi–service entity is its own numerically distinct local church.