View Comments (41)

• 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.