So the story goes like this…One day I said to myself, “Self, there really aren’t enough blogs in the world. Let us make a blog in our own image, in our likeness.” I leave it up to you to determine if it is “good”. I personally have my doubts.
A Note on Religious Affiliation
When reading some of the posts on this site, it may be helpful to know the context. I was raised in a conservative, evangelical Christian atmosphere; specifically, it was a Baptist church. I have over the years also attended a Wesleyan church and an Anglican church. These days, I am a member of Patterson Park Church in Beavercreek, Ohio. If it matters to you, I am what was historically known as a “Particular Baptist” or what is more commonly called a “Reformed Baptist”. (That second title annoys my Reformed friends, so I will avoid the term out of something like respect.) More about what I believe can be found on this page.
I contribute some articles to the various websites of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. If you dislike something you see me writing either there or here, I am under the authority of the elders at Patterson Park Church. However, I do not speak for them and they are not responsible for any mistakes I might make. You can also send complaints via post to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
Amy (Watkins) Mantravadi – Biographical Highlights
Born: Columbus, Ohio
Raised: Muskegon, Michigan
Currently Resides: Dayton, Ohio
Degrees: B.A. in Political Science and Biblical Literature (Taylor University – 2008), M.A. in Non-proliferation and International Security (King’s College London – 2010)
Employment Highlights: Congressional intern for Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Columnist and Opinions Editor for The Echo at Taylor University, Assistant to the Director at the Egyptian Press Office in Washington, D.C. (2009-2013), Field Interview at University of Michigan Institute for Social Science Research (2014-2016), Penniless Writer (2016-present)
Amy, Just read your excellent article on Anne Bradstreet. Thank you for showing the conflicts that numbers of Puritan sympathisers felt: that Charles’ sympathies were dangerous, but that at the same time he was an authority instituted by God. Theologically, do you think it’s connected with the idea that sin is always about mankind reaching up to usurp, whereas God’s work always comes from above? (Wow, am I saying monarchy is more biblical than the will of the people?!) As an Englishman I’ve sometimes wondered which side of the Civil War I’d have found myself on. I’ll have to try and read a bit more of Anne Bradstreet!
So glad you liked the article! There were certainly a lot of theological implications to be drawn from the English Civil War. If I had been able to write a longer article, I suppose I could have examined those more in-depth. Bradstreet herself only gives certain hints of her theological viewpoint regarding the divine right of kings. However, a strong view of the sovereignty of God could certainly lead to the kind of opinion you mentioned. I think the Civil War period shows us that Puritanism was hardly monolithic. It encompassed a wide variety of opinions. Much as you wonder which side of the English Civil War you would support, I have wondered whether or not I would have remained loyal to the king during the American Revolution. Of course, practically everything you hear on this side of the pond lionizes the American revolutionaries and their aims, but I think the situation was actually more complicated. Many colonists did not support the revolution and moved back to England when it was over. I can see their point of view – the king never treated any of the colonists as bad as they themselves treated their slaves and the Native Americans, for example. Well, interesting things to consider. Thanks for stopping by!
amy,
just read your piece on aquinas, found at the aquila report. i am recommending it on my facebook page. i wrote a piece defending thomas against the stupid attacks offered by dewey roberts. as i read your essay i thought, “finally, a good and balanced critique of thomas.” as i say in my piece, i love his metaphysics and epistemology, but his so-called science (from aristotle) and views on women are just ridiculous! so, thanks for making these points. i will definitely share your piece with my students!
also, we may have a mutual friend. anthony bradley was a classmate of mine at westminster seminary! :)
Amy, I am Lindsay Adams Nixon great aunt. My heart aches for what God is allowing you to go through! Please be assured I will pray for you – for answers, grace, comfort and complete healing! ~ Love, Ruth
After our fun lunch, I decided to check out your blog! Can’t wait to dive in….
Hi Amy. Very interesting about all the traitors in your family history. 2 small points. Badlesmere couldn’t have been annoyed about the Despensers by 1281. That’s 30 years too early. And it’s Gaveston not Galveston…though I’ve often thought that the great Jimmy Webb/Glen Campbell song could easily be adapted to work in a musical about Edward II. Sorry to be pedantic. But kids studying history do read these blogs.
Mr. Gross,
Thank you for bringing these errors to my attention. I apologize that I did not approve your comment sooner. I will look into this.
All the best,
Amy
Just read on article of yours on Tim Keller as a quick refresher. Saw your about page as well; just found it funny that you live in Dayton, OH! Same here. I know a lot of the guys from Patterson Park, used to go to the church father’s study Friday mornings at Panera. I’ll try to keep up with your blog since you’re a local.
Is the Baptist church heading back to Catholicism for the sake of unity? I ask after seeing this on fb:
https://pulpitandpen.org/…/baptists-join-with-pope-for-th…/…
Linda,
Thank you for visiting the site. Baptists are a large and diverse group. There may well be times when certain Baptist groups join with the Catholic Church on certain issues. I do not believe this signals a large-scale move toward complete fellowship and/or unification. With all due respect, I will not respond directly to anything published by Pulpit & Pen, as they have failed to repent of numerous occurrences of slander and other ungodly behavior. Many respected Christians have rebuked them, but they continue to rejoice in tearing others down (and here I particularly mean other Christians) rather than building them up. I do not fault you for your own personal decision to read their material, especially as some Christians may not know about P&P’s problematic reputation. Let me know if you have any further questions.
I read two of your articles on Tim Keller and they read like much ado about nothing. Had you listened to a handful of Tim Keller’s sermons all of your questions would have been answered. Keller’s critics seem to be arguing about orthodoxy, which misses the point of the Gospel entirely. As Keller often says, “The Gospel is good news, not good advice.” Keller preaches the Gospel of Jesus, “For our sake he made him (Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him (Jesus) we (you and me) might become the righteousness of God.”
Hello and thank you for taking the time to read my articles. I did listen to sermons by Tim Keller in addition to reading his published works. For the article on his teachings regarding the Trinity, I also spoke with a knowledgeable person who was able to answer my questions. It is certainly possible that I erred in my analysis, but I made a sincere attempt to find answers to such questions as I had. I am not sure what you mean about orthodoxy missing the point of the gospel, or how my articles were in violation of this principle. I do not consider myself an opponent of Tim Keller – quite the contrary. In fact, it was because I was troubled by all the criticism he had been receiving around that time (summer 2017) that I wrote the articles. I believe I made every effort to engage in good faith and according to scriptural principles. I did make one error of fact due to my failure to double check something. I corrected this as soon as I was informed (the day after publication) and issued a public clarification. The majority of people who read the article never viewed this inaccurate information. I wish Tim Keller all the best and am thankful for his ministry.
Amazing job here.You know what?I like your writing style.I’m also a blogger and its so hard sometimes.My time will come but I know I’m on the right path.PS.I’m gonna have to share this post!
I just read your article on why the brazen serpent was destroyed that Moses was commanded to make. Anyway I found it very helpful and wanted to thank you for writing it. I am teaching a sermon on Judgment, evil for evil and how God established this principle to turn us to life but instead we focused on the judgment instead of the opposite which is life. So then God sent his only Son, the intended purpose of the judgment which was life. Anyway I had a problem with them destroying the serpent which gave life to those that looked upon it… Thanks…
Thanks Brian! I’m glad it was helpful.
I recently read a couple of your articles on the Alliance site and was pleased to discover you’re a local and a member of Patterson Park. I know your pastors through our local TGC chapter. Blessings.
Yes, I am a member of Patterson Park Church. We have some wonderful pastors. I hope that your fellowship is beneficial. Thanks for reading!
Great articles to explain profound doctrines to lay people. Thanks so much!
New to site/author. Enjoyed the transparent cogency. the nuances of “Christian liberty” sometimes trigger to us old hippies; “do what thou wilt”. I believe the man how may have made that popular was pretty committed to “party hearty marty”. Alister something or other? I don’t pick up in any way you are on a trajectory with a pudding and jello approach to “Christian Liberty”. I would like your thinking on hat wearing/head covering. I’m fine with it while at the same I believe/think doing so “says something”. That something finds its “center” close to where chewing, card playing, frolicing, and of course wine bibbing live. Get much closer; it’s my thinking the falcon no longer hears the falconer.
I have become fond of Peter Ramus who was influenced by other men; but came to impress upon men like William Ames a the “method” to understand “the marrow of theology”. Mrs Ames did make it to Salem MA. do you have any familiarity with her? sdg b.
As to the matter of Christian liberty, I’m not sure I understand your question. Regarding Mrs. Ames, no, I do not have any familiarty with her specifically. I have certainly heard of her husband.
Oh my goodness, Amy. Time is a precious thing. You could be spending the precious time you have to be doing some thing MUCH, MUCH more worthwhile than this.
On your website you say, “Never underestimate what a woman can do with time on her hands.”
I definitely believe you have TOO much time your hands. Please use your time to do something much more useful for the cause of our Lord Jesus Christ.
All the best,
Jeanne Rice
God will be the ultimate judge of whether or not my work is worthwhile. I use my time for many purposes and hope that they are useful for God’s glory.
Hello Amy,
I think you wrote a fair and insightful article about Timothy Keller. I’m most of the way through his “Reason for God” book and stopped to see who and what problems other people had with him.
His approach to engaging lost sinners on a level of their choosing is helpful to me. I already know I will be re-reading many passages, just to etch the principles in my own mind. I meet with other Christians in a fashion you might understand as Plymouth Brethren, therefore, three of the five points regarding RPC following church rules, which I read, and you examined, were to me, pointless, however, I’m glad you saw very little to find fault with.
I trust the Holy Spirit will guide me to retain and use the truth he teaches. I will pray for him, since I see him coming to a troublesome state. Much the way Martin Luther is praised for his stand on salvation by faith, but condemned for his antisemitism. I also see Mr. Keller’s humility.
Penniless, I LOL
Sincerely, Mild Bill
Bill,
Thank you for visiting and reading. I’m so sorry I originally missed your comment. Looking at the time stamp, it was in my early days with a new baby, and I suspect this might have had something to do with my negligence.
I absolutely agree with you about evaluating writers charitably, taking the good and leaving the not so good, etc. My overall opinion of Rev. Tim Keller is quite positive. Were I to write those articles again today, I would probably tweak them a bit, but for the most part I believe they stand as a positive analysis.
Again, thanks for taking the time to read!
Amy, thank you for your article on Van Til’s limiting concept, very useful, many thanks!
Hopefully you may get time to unpack a few more of his technical terms for us laymen at some point? I often struggle to follow his arguments fully. Maybe it will sink in with repeated reading…
Many thanks, Mark
So glad the article was helpful! I would love to write more such articles, though things are rather busy right now. I’m conducting an extensive analysis of the Reformed Protestant and Roman Catholic views on soteriology while taking care of a new baby. I very much appreciate your encouragement!
Have you ever thought about publishing an e-book
or guest authoring on other sites? I have a blog centered on the
same information you discuss and would really like to have you share
some stories/information. I know my readers would value your work.
If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e-mail.
I get a lot of spam comments and the generality of your comment makes me suspect that it may also be spam. If not, tell me what you liked or didn’t like about one of my articles and we can talk.
Amy, I’m excited to have found your site. Thank you for taking time to do the research, reading and analysis, then sharing on these topics.
It’s a blessing and inspiration to me! Jocelyn
I thoroughly enjoyed perusing your site.
Blessings.
Fraser
<
Hello Amy,
Thank you for your site and perspectives! In your July 18, 2017 article ‘What’s the Matter with Tim Keller?’
you end with: That is the end of part one of this discussion. Come back next week for part two.
I cannot seem to locate part two; can you direct me to it please?
Blessings, Joan
The second part ended up being an examination of his views on the Trinity. https://amymantravadi.com/2017/07/26/an-examination-of-tim-kellers-views-on-the-trinity/
Dear Amy,
I was glad to discover your expose on Tim Keller. I have created a document of a long list problems with him.
But for starters I would had two false teachers and unholy alliances he has:
1. Biologos and Hugh Ross,
2. Rick Warren (I have written two books and produced two investigation video documentaries exposing him.
Blessings,
James Sundquist
Mr. Sundquist,
I do not believe Tim Keller has much involvement with either Biologos or Rick Warren. He did something for Biologos once a while back, but it’s not a major part of his ministry by any stretch. To my knowledge, Rick Warren is not part of The Gospel Coalition or in any other way affiliated with Tim Keller except that maybe there has been some communication or endorsement one way or the other in the past. So to say that he has, as you say, unholy alliances is overstating the case, without even considering the matter of how holy (or not) those organizations and gentlemen are. I never got to examining Keller’s views on evolution as I chose instead to focus in my second article on his Trinitarian theology. Thank you for reading.
https://www.reformation21.org/articles/how-should-we-distinguish-gods-attributes.php
Amy,
Charles Hodge and Vos rejected the notion of simplicity that construes each divine attribute as identical with all others. (You raised a question about whether they would have. They most certainly did.) Also, you placed Berkhof on the Thomistic side, yet he too clearly rejected the theory. So did Dabney. Others who did not outright reject but did not affirm it are Robert Reymond and James P. Boyce. I plan to blog on this soon.
Ron,
Thank you so much for reading my article, and thank you even more for considering issues of such theological weight. I apologize for taking so long to reply to your comment, as I have found that I often do not receive notification of such posts. This is a problem I must endeavor to fix.
As to my assessment of the Reformed thinkers you mention, I went back and briefly reviewed the article. It has been a little while since I wrote it, and indeed I wrote several articles on similar subjects over the course of that year. I provided a selection of quote from different theologians to give people a feel for what has been said on the subject. I was not necessarily attempting to sort them into two (or more) camps with hardened boundaries. If my memory serves, you are certainly correct that Hodge was further away from Aquinas than most Reformed thinkers and Vos was a little more in that direction as well. This is why they remain favorites of Van Tilians. I would place Turretin and Bavinck on the more Thomistic side of the spectrum, but the one furthest in that direction was probably Stephen Charnock (in terms of major Reformed thinkers who wrote about the doctrine of God in depth). Berkhof I might have placed rather near the middle, but it’s also been a while since I was neck deep in all of this, and I confess my memory is not perfect.
“Congressional intern for Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)”
My wife was a staffer for Pete Hoekstra back in day!
Hi Amy,
I came across your article “The Analogy of Being in the Works of Thomas Aquinas” (MARCH 26, 2020) and also your blog while searching “aquinas analogy of proportion”.
How delightful it is to run across a well written article that succinctly explains the Analogia Entis. This is certainly not a simple topic. While you have not engaged in the debate between Karl Barth and Erich Przywara, you said, “If I have the chance to write further articles, I will explore other related topics and attempt to answer the question of what, if any, place the analogia entis should have in Reformed theology. But first it is necessary to simply understand it.”
I would be most interested in any future comments you may have.
While I find the analogy of being quite helpful in holding a rational world view, even foundational to my understanding of the “how” of it all, faith is a matter of the “that” it is so. No doubt, Phillip was very univocal in expressing his request to Jesus to “Show us the Father…” (John 14:8). Jesus gently challenges the rigidity and/or literality of Phillip’s conception of the Father with identification of himself in the godhead. Karl Barth’s identification of the analogy of being with the doctrines of antichrist seems a little in the realm of pompous hubris. Then again, I am interested in well stated opinions (where you might step in) to the contrary. So far, I would agree with Przywara that Barth just never understood.
I’d sign up to follow here but I do not use or plan to use facebook or twitter.
Oh. Reacting to another’s (Ron’s) comment of divine simplicity; divine simplicity seems to be better understood analogically rather than univocally since God has no boundaries, ergo, no properties or attributes with which to be differentiated until He presents in the contingent created world. Oops. Sorry, I’m not part of that dialog.
Hello Ralph! Thanks for reading, and I apologize for the delayed approval and response. The analogia entis is certainly a difficult topic, but I enjoyed researching it. The lack of follow-up articles is due to two factors. First, I was pregnant when I wrote the original article and have since had a child, which has occupied much of my time. Second, I had been investigating a debate over this issue within the American Reformed community and intended to speak to it. However, the issue resolved itself, at least for the time being, so I felt at liberty to move on to other topics. I am glad that my article was helpful to you.
I’m so grateful for your article on ‘Does God feel pain’? I can see how it was for you a very personal matter, which you needed to work through. I do hope and pray that the outcome of this personal horror has been resolved to a degree and that will discover the Lord’s grace through it all. So whilst thanking you for your article, which was very helpful, I can’t help felling that Father God seems very dispassionate about, for example, Job’s sufferings, which He permits without a moment’s hesitation. And on the Cross His Son experienced a withdrawal of His Presence. So whilst we can all affirm that Our Lord Jesus went through all that we experience of pain & distress, I can only conclude that the Father is , as they say, ‘impassable’ and for reasons that you give, must be so. Otherwise how could He endure the terrible suffering that His creatures experience throughout the world, both Christian believers and non Christian. For example the terrible persecution of Christians in Muslim or totalitarian states like North Korea. Also of course, as has been recognized elsewhere, the Holocaust. I guess we need a God who can understand and sympathize with our sufferings without actually being pained by them. So many will approach the Son, who they feel can empathize not just sympathize with our deepest pain. So personally, in a simplistic way, I differentiate between the Father and the Son, or perhaps better expressed, the Divine and the human aspects of God., After all God cannot die.
Unfortunately I could not print your article (maybe that was deliberate) so I had to copy salient parts. The way the print is displays, as you doubtless know, leaves half your text hidden. Ah well.
Blessings on you & your family. A. X
Andrew,
I think it would be a mistake to say that God does not really love us and care for us in our sufferings. (I’m not suggesting you were saying this.) When God tells Moses, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings,” (Exodus 3:7) that shows something about who God is. We must hold this truth in tension with the fact that God does not feel pain, which is to say that he is impassible. We know only one kind of existence and cannot fully comprehend divine existence. There is a sense in which God does grieve over sin and the sufferings of his saints, but not as we would: moment by moment, in ebbs and flows of emotion, subject to temptations. I wish I could explain it all. Christianity is a religion of paradoxes because we have a God who is not like us. Our logic cannot contain him, which is not to say that he is illogical. There are simply laws beyond our natural ones. We should not think God too much like us, but neither should we think of his as uncaring. He is not uncaring, but neither is he inconstant. When Jesus wept before the grave of Lazarus, he did so as a man, but he also reflected something of the heart of God: a God who cared enough about the devastating effects of sin to send his Son to die for humanity.