Douglas J. Douma's Blog, page 11

GHC Review 2: Readings in Ethics

[image error]

Readings in Ethics, Gordon H. Clark and T. V. Smith, eds., New York: F. S. Crofts and Co., 1931, Second Edition 1935, 435 pp.

Not counting his dissertation, Gordon Clark’s first published book was Readings in Ethics. But as the majority of the content of Readings in Ethics is reproduced sections of the writings of various philosophers, and as Clark was not working alone on this volume, and as his next three published volumes share those same features, we have to go fully fifteen years later to Clark’s A Christian Philosophy of Education to find his first fully original and independent production.

The first question one might have with respect to the present book is “who was Clark’s co-editor T. V. Smith?” Well, this T. V. was Thomas Vernor Smith (1890 – 1964), a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Chicago and later an Illinois State Senator (1936 – 1938) and Congressional Representative (1938 – 1940). Smith wrote or contributed to a number of books including his 1962 autobiography A Non-Existent Man. How Clark came to know him I have not been able to determine. It seems reasonable to think they made contact somehow through professional philosophy circles.

The preface to Readings in Ethics explains that the goal of the book is to combine both “source and explanation” for use in an introductory course on ethics. “Chapters I–VII, IX–XI, XIII are the work of Dr. Gordon H. Clark; chapter XII, XIV–XVII of Professor T. V. Smith; and chapter VIII was contributed by Dr. Francis Palmer Clarke of the University of Pennsylvania.” (Ten years later this “Clarke with an e” contributed again with Gordon Clark and two others to A History of Philosophy.) Clark’s chapters then are Introduction, Pre-Platonic Period, Plato, Aristotle, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Early Christianity, Thomas Hobbes, Benedict De Spinoza, Joseph Butler and His Century, and Betham and Mill. Smith writes on Immanuel Kant, T. H. Green, Henry Sidgwick, G. E. Moore, and John Dewey. Francis Palmer Clarke writes on The Middle Ages. Each chapter contains a few pages of historical overview and then reproduces sections of the writings of the philosopher or philosophers in view.

Gordon Clark’s chapters, mostly focusing on the ancient period, are befitting his interest and knowledge. That Francis Palmer Clarke (and not Gordon H. Clark) wrote on Augustine (in his chapter on The Middle Ages) is unfortunate since I would greatly welcome more insights into Gordon Clark’s understanding of—and reliance upon—Augustine. As Readings in Ethics is in that early phase of Clark’s writings on Greek Philosophy and is not a place where he propounds his own Christian philosophy, this review will be limited to just some brief comments.

Clark calls Plato “Probably the most brilliant, original, and profound thinker in the world’s history.” (p. 21) Three periods of Plato are delineated. The early period is exemplified by the dialogues Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Protagoras. The middle period includes Gorgias, Phaedo, Symposium, and the Republic. The third period is then the dialogues Sophist, Politicus, Timaeus, and Philebus. On ethics, these periods are hedonism, “strenuous” morality, and a final readmission of some pleasures as an element in the good life.

Clark explains, “The term ‘Epicurean’ applied opprobriously is an unhistorical usage. Whenever we condemn indulgence in food and drink, we may say Epicurean, but we mean Cyrenaic.” (p. 87)

In his chapter on Stoicism, there is a passage which is of interest relative to Clark’s work on “Determinism and Responsibility” (1932) and his later work on “God and Evil” in a chapter in Religion, Reason, and Revelation. In a rare break in this volume from purely descriptive historical comments Clark provides some insight into his own view. He writes:

“Yet if all events are determined from all eternity including the decisions of the will, how can man be responsible for what he does? Does it not seem strange that the school which most insists on rigid determinism should be the ethical school par excellence of antiquity? How a man can be held responsible for an act which by necessity he must do may at first seem a difficult problem; yet we find the Stoics even condemning most men. The Stoics do not completely solve this problem, although it can be done by showing that responsibility is independent of freedom. The stoics do, however, point the way to a solution. Man in a very special sense is his will; the decision of the will makes an act own’s own. We are responsible for what proceeds from our will, for such an act is our act, and whether we might have acted otherwise or not is irrelevant.” (p. 99)

In his chapter on Early Christianity, Clark writes,

“The astounding thing is that while the Greek schools in general appealed only to a select class of specially educated people and even with those usually failed of actual reform, as is pictured for us in Kingsley’s Hypatia, and while the comparatively wide appeal of the Stoics neither affected the masses nor stayed the corruption of the Emperor’s court, Christianity, within twenty-five years of its inception gave a totally new life to thousands and thousands.” (p. 121)

As there were a number of printings and even a second edition, Readings in Ethics must have found an audience, perhaps though as a required book at the university level.

For the previous review in this series see here.

For the next review in this series see here.

GHC Review 1: Empedocles and Anaxagoras

This review is the first in a series I intend to write on each of the published works of Gordon H. Clark. That is, I hope to summarize and comment on of each of his many books.

But first we start with Clark’s Ph. D. dissertation. Before he wrote any books for publication he completed his 1929 dissertation Empedocles and Anaxagoras in Aristotle’s De Anima for his Ph. D. in philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania.

Like many academic dissertations Clark’s was scarcely noted in the subsequent literature. Copies of it do exist however at nearly three score universities worldwide. I found one of these copies some years ago at the library of the University of Texas at Austin. At that point I had not yet realized that the dissertation (technically labeled as a thesis) is more easily accessible in a later published form—included along with other material in Ancient Philosophy (Trinity Foundation, 1997). Today also there is an online version accessible here: https://archive.org/details/empedoclesanaxag00clar

At only fifty pages long the dissertation seems rather short by today’s standards. Yet it is rather lengthy compared to the “one page poster” my own sweatpants-wearing philosophy professor at the University of Michigan required for one course’s final paper … er, final poster. It would be hard to conclude, from my own experiences anyways, that university quality standards have increased over the last century.

While Clark had articles published as early as 1923, Empedocles and Anaxagoras in Aristotle’s De Anima was his first lengthier writing to come available.

The preface to the dissertation opens with a passage fit for a philosopher:

“Save us, we pray from those who have so entombed themselves in the dark and damp of antiquity that they no longer appreciate the light of the present day; but save us all the more from those who go blithefully on their way in utter disregard of the lessons the past can teach. Why is it necessary to insist that the wise man should learn by the mistakes of others? Yet we do our forefathers great injustice if we think of them merely as makers of mistakes. Not only have they formulated an ideal for us and given us inspiration, they have as well, among their mistakes, laid the basis of our more exact science which short-sightedness alone would call emancipated from the past.”

In the preface also Clark credits a number of individuals. Among these are three of his closest professors (Edgar A. Singer Jr., William Romaine Newbold, and Isaac Husik) and two classical scholars (Paul Shorey and R. D. Hicks) whom Clark surely knew only through their writings.

As for the dissertation itself, it should be helpful to note first that De Anima is the Latin title of Aristotle’s treatise On the Soul (or Περὶ Ψυχῆς in the original Greek). Empedocles and Anaxagoras— who are among those mentioned in the text—were each pre-Socratic philosophers. It is my impression that so little of the writings of the pre-Socratics exist that to understand them scholars must look to later Greek philosophers who quoted from them or commented on them. Here Clark looks to Aristotle’s De Anima.

One question Clark focuses on is “How just was Aristotle in De Anima to the philosophies of Empedocles and Anaxagoras?” And, he asks, was Aristotle “reasonably trustworthy in his account of Empedocles?” It is on Empedocles that Clark then spends most of his time; allotting only a few pages of discussion to Anaxagoras. Following “a careful induction of the individual passages” Clark concludes that “Aristotle is very exact in his quoting” and that “It appears, therefore, even in the little so far covered, that Aristotle is as trustworthy as any historian can be expected to be.” Positively appraising Aristotle, Clark concludes that “Anaxagoras was philosophically impossible.” Likewise, he concludes that there was much confusion in the philosophy of Empedocles. In both Empedocles and Anaxagoras we see early stages of philosophical development where terms were unclear and where many questions were raised but few answered.

Of interest biographically, Clark mentions chess, the earliest reference he makes to this passion of his. Also of note is that Clark makes botanical references possibly influenced by his soon-to-be bride who was as that time studying botany at Pennsylvania.

While Clark was thoroughly involved in the church at this time in his life and here uses certain Christian phrases (“proving all things and holding fast to that which is good” – 1 Thess. 5:21) this dissertation fits in the earliest period of his writings where his focus was on Greek Philosophy. The next four books he then had published continue on this subject.

Review of Coffee and Coffeehouses by Ralph S. Hattox

Coffee and Coffehouses, The Origins of a Social Beverage in the Medieval Near East by Ralph S. Hattox, University of Washington Press, 1985, 178 pp.

Coffee and Coffehouses reads at times like a dissertation. The author, Hattox, apparently didn’t think his book would reach an audience beyond scholars of his subject. Thus he writes, “The greater part of the works cited in this book have been published, and will be familiar to many.” I can safely say that I’m not familiar with a single one of the books cited. Most of the citations are to books published by academic presses and in many cases they are written in Arabic. Coffee and Coffehouses was probably well-accepted as a dissertation. It contains historical research sufficient to drive the author to make distinctions upon distinctions.

There is still much that is interesting in the book. The basic story is that coffee original comes from Ethiopia, but was popularized in Yemen in the 15th century by Sufi mystics. From there the use of coffee spread to the middle east, Europe, and the rest of the world. The story of coffee and coffeehouses is then one of conflict as various muslim leaders and lawyers sought at times to ban the substance or the establishments in which it was purveyed. Though at times the opposition was due to the natural effects of the coffee bean, more often it seems the problem was that coffee got a bad reputation as elicit activity went on at the coffeehouses. Even so, the coffeehouse performed a valuable function in middle eastern societies giving people a place to have conversation, play chess or backgammon, or simply to get out of the house.

Ek, Dia, En, and Kata

The Reformed Faith maintains that the grace of God is the sole ground of man’s salvation (WCF 9:4, 10:2), that faith is its alone instrument (WCF 11:2), and that works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively faith (WCF 16:2).

With this in mind, it is important to note that there is a different meaning applied to the “by” of “salvation by grace” and the “by” of “salvation by faith.” It is somewhat unfortunate that the same preposition is used in both cases when in the former it is in reference to the ground and in the latter it is in reference to the instrument. To more clearly indicate the distinction I often like to say that salvation is “by grace through faith.” These, in fact, are the prepositions used in the English translations of Ephesians 2:8 – “For by grace are ye saved through faith.”

But what of the original Greek prepositions? What can be learned from an analysis of the Greek?

I looked up all of the places in the Pauline Epistles in the King James Version relevant to the topic of salvation that have been translated either “by grace,” “through grace,” “according to grace,” “by faith,” “through faith,” “according to faith,” “by works,” “through works,” or “according to works.” (I intentionally have avoided the Epistle of James as its use of these terms is substantially different from Paul)

Verse
Greek Preposition
Translation


Romans 1:17
ek

(The just shall live) by faith.

Romans 2:6
kata
(He will render to each one) according to his works


Romans 3:20
ek
by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified


Romans 3:22

dia

(the righteousness of God which is) by faith

Romans 3:24

dia

(being justified) freely by His grace

Romans 3:25

dia

(to be a propitiation) through faith

Romans 3:28

[no preposition]

(one is justified) by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 3:30

ek

(shall justify the circumcision) by faith.

Romans 3:30

dia

(and the uncircumcision) through faith.

Romans 4:2

ek

(For if Abraham were justified) by works …

Romans 4:16

ek

(Therefore it is) of faith

Romans 4:16

kata

(that it might be) by grace.

Romans 5:1

ek

(being justified) by faith

Romans 5:15

en

(and the gift) by grace

Romans 9:32

ek

(because they sought it not) by faith

Romans 9:32

ek

(but as it were) by the works of the law

Romans 11:6

ek

(it is no more) of works

1 Cor. 10:30

[no preposition]

(for if I) by grace am a partaker

Galatians 3:11

en

(no man is justified) by the law

Galatians 3:11

ek

(The just shall live) by faith

Galatians 3:24

ek

(that we might be justified) by faith

Ephesians 2:5

[no preposition]

by grace ye are saved

Ephesians 2:8

[no preposition]

(for) by grace ye are saved

Ephesians 2:8

dia

through faith

2 Thess. 2:16

en

(giving us consolation) through grace

Hebrews 10:38

ek

(Now the just shall live) by faith.

Titus 3:5

ek

(not) by works of righteousness which we have done

All of this can be summarized in the following table:

Grace

Faith

Works / Deeds of the Law

Ek (by / out of)

Yes

Yes

No

Dia (through)

Yes

Yes

–

En (in)

Yes

–

No

Kata (according to)

Yes

–

Yes

There are positive statements that salvation is ek/dia/en/kata grace and ek/dia faith. Then there are statements that salvation is not ek/en works.

What then does Paul mean when he says that God will render to each kata works, according to works? With the numerous statements that salvation is not ek/en works, kata works cannot mean that works contribute to salvation.

When preaching on Romans 2:5-11, I was not entirely satisfied with the explanations of “He will render to each according to works” in the commentaries (Calvin, Hendricksen, Lenski, Murray, Bruce) I read. Most commentaries seem to avoid the question entirely and focus on the overall meaning of the passage that God shows no partiality.

Nevertheless, my conclusion was that “rendering according to works” means not that works are the ground of salvation, nor even an instrument, but that as the fruit of our justification the works match up with—or accord with—the salvation we have in Christ. That is, God sees the good works of Christians and God sees the evil works of non-Christians. And that while our works are not the basis of our salvation, those who are saved do good works.

Unless, do some theologians want to say that we are saved by God’s grace, but that we get other rewards in heaven based on our works? This doesn’t seem applicable in the context of Romans 2 since it is about “the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.”

I admit to not knowing the answer. And perhaps some things wrong I’ve said in this post could be pointed out to me by more learned theologians. Maybe here I’m banking on one of the rules of the internet: if you want an answer don’t ask a question, provide a wrong answer and then many answers will be forthcoming.

Rating 100 Books I’ve Read This Year

2018 has already been my reading-est year ever. I’ve made a dedicated effort to read as often as possible. I’ve done some of this by waking up at 5 A.M. to stay on schedule with my wife who worked some early morning nursing shifts at the hospital.

Many book reviews, particular of Christian (or “Christian”) books give glowing endorsements. But not all books can be great. Probably an honest review of books would give ratings that fit a bell curve. But, that would only be if books were chosen at random. Since I have chosen to read books that I have some expectation of liking, it is no surprise that my ratings are more of a positive-shifted bell curve.

I strongly recommend reading the books which I’ve given 10/10, and I recommend considering to read those which I’ve given scores of 9/10 and 8/10. The books I’ve rated lower might have some value to you depending on your interests.

10/10

Theological Roots of Pentecostalism by Donald W. Dayton 10/10

A Church You Can See by Dennis Bills 10/10

Race over Grace by Charles Roberts 10/10

Attack on Everest by Hugh Ruttledge 10/10

A Reverence for Wood by Eric Sloane 10/10

Creative Historical Thinking by Michael J. Douma 10/10

9/10

Education, Christianity, and the State by J. Gresham Machen 9/10

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert by Rosaria Butterfield 9/10

Pat Robertson, A Warning to America by John Robbins 9/10

Scriptural Form of Church Government by C. C. Stewart 9/10

The Truth About Christian Science by James H. Snowden 9/10

Facing Up by Bear Grylls 9/10

Absolute Predestination by Jerome Zanchius 9/10

Christianity at the Crossroads by Michael Kruger 9/10

Corrupting the Word of God by Hanko and Hoeksema 9/10

Migration of Birds by Frederick C. Lincoln 9/10

For a Testimony by Bruce Hunt 9/10

Christian Reconstruction by Michael J. McVicar 9/10

The Johnstown Flood by David McCullough 9/10

Melanchthon The Quiet Reformer by Clyde Manschrek 9/10

8/10

Princeton Seminary by James Moorhead 8/10

Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church be Saved by John Robbins 8/10

Jonathan Edwards by Iain Murray 8/10

The Gospel Comes With a Housekey by Rosaria Butterfield 8/10

The Great Evolution Mystery by Gordon Rattray Taylor 8/10

Can the Presbyterian Church in America by Saved by Sean Gerety 8/10

Strangers in Zion by William R. Glass 8/10

The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 8/10

The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion by John Howard Smith 8/10

12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson 8/10

Children of Doom by John W. Drakeford 8/10

The Gospel Truth of Justification by David Engelsma 8/10

7/10

Henry J. Kuiper by James A. DeJong 7/10

The Emperor Has No Clothes by Stephen M. Cunha 7/10

John Gerstner by Jeffrey S. MacDonald 7/10

Hell on Trial by Robert A. Peterson 7/10

The Man Who Moved a Mountain by Richard C. Davis 7/10

The Unlisted Legion by Jock Purves 7/10

The Final Word by O. Palmer Robertson 7/10

The People’s History of Presbyterianism by Robert P. Kerr 7/10

Presbyterians by George P. Hays 7/10

United Presbyterians by William J. Reid 7/10

The Presbyterian Standards by James Beattie 7/10

Prophecy and the Church by Oswald T. Allis 7/10

Samuel Davies by Dewey Roberts 7/10

Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig 7/10

Intellectuals by Paul Johnson 7/10

An Introduction to Christian Apologetics by E. J. Carnell 7/10

Repentance by Charles Walker 7/10

6/10

History of the Presbyterian Church by Charles Hodge 6/10

Dispensationalism by Keith Mathison 6/10

The History Behind the RPCES by George Hutchinson 6/10

Letters of Francis Schaeffer ed. Lane Dennis 6/10

Fair Sunshine by Jock Purves 6/10

The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant 6/10

Letters from the Front ed. Barry Waugh 6/10

Thomas Jefferson’s Military Academy by Robert M. S. McDonald 6/10

Singing the Songs of Jesus by Michael Lefebvre 6/10

A Digest of the Records of the GA of the PCUSA, 1820 6/10

Songs of Zion by Michael Bushell 6/10

Instrumental Music by John Lafayette Girardeau 6/10

5/10

Letters of A. W. Pink 5/10

For Me to Live is Christ by Davis A. Young 5/10

The Death of a Church by Carl McIntire 5/10

The New Haggadah 5/10

Chosen by God by R. C. Sproul 5/10

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J. I. Packer 5/10

Getting the Message by Dan Doriani 5/10

No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer 5/10

Finding a Pastor by Joel Hathaway 5/10

Naming the Elephant by James Sire 5/10

Choosing the Good Portion ed. Clawson and Olinger 5/10

The Church Before the Watching World by Francis Schaeffer 5/10

Why Do They Dress That Way by Stephen Scott 5/10

The PCA Book of Church Order 5/10

4/10

Westminster Assembly by Robert Letham 4/10

Summoning Up Remembrances by Henry Stob 4/10

The God Who Shows Himself by Carl Henry 4/10

Openness Unhindered by Rosaria Butterfield 4/10

Her Hand in Marriage by Douglas Wilson 4/10

The Marrow Controversy and the Seceder Tradition 4/10

The Basis of the Christian Faith by Floyd Hamilton 4/10

The Creative Gift by H. R. Rookmaaker 4/10

Christianity and Philosophy by Arthur P. Holmes 4/10

A Guide to Fervent Prayer by A. W. Pink 4/10

Exclusive Psalmody by Brian Schwertley 4/10

3/10

Children of the Reformation by Marian M Schoolland 3/10

The Search for Salvation by David F. Wells 3/10

Why I am Not an Arminian by Robert Peterson 3/10

Creation Regained by Albert Wolters 3/10

2/10

McCheyne and Burns by James Alexander Stewart 2/10

Ecclesia Lutherana by Joseph Seiss 2/10

The Gospel as Taught by Calvin by R. C. Reed 2/10

The Infallible Word by Stonehouse and Woolley 2/10

Pleading for a Reformation Vision by David Calhoun 2/10

High Calvinism by Sonny Hernandez 2/10

1/10

The Complete Husband by Lou Priolo 1/10

The Lifegiving Parent by Clay and Sally Clarkson 1/10

The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum by R.J. Rushdoony 1/10

0/10

Seeing Christ in All of Scripture 0/10

“The Presbyterian Philosopher” – International Sales

I’ve recently ordered an additional 100 copies of my book “The Presbyterian Philosopher” from the publisher and am for the first time now willing to ship internationally. If you are outside of the United States and would like to order a copy (or copies) of the book, please let me know and I’ll give you a quote on the book plus shipping.

[image error]

Review of Melanchthon, The Quiet Reformer by Clyde L. Manschreck

Melanchthon, The Quiet Reformer by Clyde Leonard Manschreck, New York: Abingdon Press, 1958, 350 pp.

Melanchthon, The Quiet Reformer was an interesting read with no fluff. That is, Manschreck chose his words carefully. I found essentially every paragraph in the book to be meaningful, even if in some places his conclusions are doubtful.

Manschreck writes in general favor of Melanchthon working to rescue him from the critics of times past. He argues that Melanchthon was devoted to the evangelical cause, but did not slavishly follow Luther on all points. Also he contends that Melanchthon found much to appreciate in humanism, but did so without compromising his biblical faith.

The name Melanchthon we learn comes from the greek equivalent of his German family name Schwartzerd, “black earth.” This name was given to Philip at the age of twelve by his great-uncle Reuchlin.

There are certain interesting oddities about Melanchthon one learns from this book. For one, he had a strong interest in astrology. Manschreck argues that in this Melanchthon was a product of his times. And he was a palm-reader. (p. 303) Also I learned with considerable surprise that Melanchthon (and Luther alike) held that bigamy (being married to more than one person) might be acceptable in certain cases of “extreme necessity.”

Melanchton is to be remembered not just as a second to Luther, but as a prolific writer and an important figure in the formation of public schools in Germany. In some ways he was more central to the Reformation than even Luther. That is, it seems that Melanchthon was involved in more ecumenical meetings with other protestant leaders and more political meetings with princes, bishops, and kings than the more severe Luther ever was. And while Luther wrote more influential books, Melanchthon penned the most important evangelical confessions of their era.

Unfortunately in chapter 22, “The World, the Holy Spirit, and the Will,” Manschreck approves of Melanchthon’s basically Arminian confusion over justification. Manschreck even argues that Luther agreed with Melanchthon’s synergism! (p. 300) He bases this on the fact that Luther never objected to certain more synergistic statements of Melanchthon. Manschreck, it turns out, was a Methodist minister. The theological error both Manschrek and Melanchthon make is to think that responsibility implies ability. That is, like Arminians of all times, they falsely argue that God’s commanding man to live in certain ways means that man can in fact live in those ways. This is biblically unsupported, logically fallacious, and contradicted by experience.

There is one further observation I might make of my own interest. In traditional Lutheran churches like the one I grew up in—the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod—pastors are required to agree with Martin Luther’s view of the real physical presence of the Christ in the Lord’s supper (as expressed in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord.) Philip Melanchthon however, as this biography shows, came to disagree with Luther’s view and believed, like Bucer and Calvin, in the real spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper. Thus Melanchthon, the very man who wrote the Augsburg Confession and the Apology to the Augsburg Confession which are contained in the Lutheran standards in the Book of Concord, would not himself be able to be ordained in such a Lutheran church!

The Transcendental Argument, Its Got What Theologians Crave

The movie Idiocracy portrays a dystopian era five-hundred years in the future where the breeding of the dullest has drastically lowered the average mental abilities of the whole society. An average man from our own times who finds his way there is found to be the smartest man in their world. In one scene he attempts to convince the President’s council (made up of idiots) of the value of putting water on the crops rather than Brawndo, a gatorade-like drink with the slogan “it’s got what plant’s crave” that is actually ruining the harvest. The dialogue is as follows:

Idiot 1: Brawndo’s got what plant’s crave.

Idiot 2: Yeah, it’s got electrolytes.

Smartest Man: What are electrolytes? Do you even know?

Idiot 3: It’s what they use to make Brawndo.

Smartest Man: But why do they use them to make Brawndo?

Idiot 4: Because Brawndo has electrolytes.

Now, consider the similarity of this dialogue to that of a typical (though made up) conversation with a proponent of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG).

Proponent: The transcendental argument proves the existence of God.

Proponent: Without God you can’t prove anything.

Questioner: Why can’t you prove anything without God? Do you even know?

Proponent: Because TAG proves the existence of God.

Questioner: But why does TAG prove the existence of God?

Proponent: Because without God you can’t prove anything.

It is a curious wonder to me that some theologians drink TAG.

The Lord has Blessed Us with a Baby!

[image error]

A Phantom Presbyterian Denomination

Among the presbyterian denominations listed on wikipedia’s “List of Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in North America” is one called the Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches in America (EAPCA).

To the best of my knowledge this group does not exists.

On the wikipedia page of the EAPCA is the dubious claim that they have 73 churches. And, quite improbably, also is the claim that “its churches can be found in every state.” These two claims possibly find their origin in the actual website of the EAPCA which claims (in 2012) to have a “task force” to build 73 church websites. But there is no other indication that the denomination has that (or any other number) of churches. Then, there is a “Find a Congregation” map which appears to be some stock image with a red location dot on each state. When you click on the map nothing happens.

While “73 churches” might sound small to some, among Presbyterian denominations this would be a significant and notable group. But where are there churches?

The denomination is, as far as I can tell, entirely phantom. And its website pages present nothing of substance to indicate any real existence.

It appears to be some sort of promotional opportunity for its “moderator” Dr. Tom J. Cowley, who as far as I can tell, is the denomination.

Does anyone else know anything about the EAPCA?