Vern S. Poythress

Vern Poythress attempted to write a textbook on western logic from a Christian perspective. Although he discussed other logics, his main focus was on justifying first order logic with identity (FOL=) as a neo-platonic reflection of “God’s logic” and, because of that, personal and loving.

This reflection bridges the Creator-creature distinction. However, when he sets up this reflection between FOL= and “God’s logic” he assumes that FOL= is not just another example of man’s desire show more for autonomy from God. This is where he makes a mistake.

To see why this characterization of FOL= is problematic, consider that Poythress would not want to describe the Tower of Babel as a reflection of “God’s tower”. Because the Tower of Babel is an example of man’s desire for autonomy from God, it should not reflect anything from God.

Poythress knows that almost no one, Christian and non-Christian alike, thinks FOL= is personal in any way. To counter this anticipated objection, he accuses those who might reject his argument as being “massively guilty” of “idolatry”. For example, consider this comment about guilt and idolatry on page 84:

"Christians too have become massively guilty by being captive to the idolatry in which logic is regarded as impersonal. Within this captivity we take for granted the benefits and beauties of rationality for which we should be filled with gratitude and praise to God."

By committing to FOL= Poythress blinds himself to seeing it as another attempt by man to gain autonomy from God. Given that commitment, perhaps better described as compromise, he now has to defend FOL= even when it attacks the Trinity. show less

It's hard to have a constructive discussion between two opposing viewpoints. This is why Democrats and Republicans fight, Alabama fans and Auburn fans bicker, and Calvinists and Arminians blog against each other with the invective of an ISIS terrorist.

Vern Poythress sees the great divide between theologians who discuss eschatology. Writing from a covenantal perspective, in Understanding Dispensationalists he tries to lay the groundwork for constructive conversations between show more dispensationalists and various other camps. He writes, "I believe dialogue is possible in principle even between 'hardline' representatives of dispensational theology and equally 'hardline' representatives of its principal rival, covenant theology" (7). The tone of this book is pastoral, but it is not limp-wristed. "In the dispute between dispensationalism and covenant theology, both sides cannot be right" (7).

I find the most helpful section of this book to be Poythress' discussion of hermeneutical principles. He argues against the term "literal" interpretation because of its lack of finesse and accuracy in interpreting various genres, especially apocalyptic writings which are essential to any eschatological discussion. He writes, "In a sense nearly all the problems associated with the dispensationalist-nondispensationalist conflict are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation" (78). He notes that most people mean "first-thought interpretation" when they use the term literal interpretation. Instead, he argues for the use of "grammatical-historical interpretation." This methodology moves beyond a "flat interpretation" and attempts to read passages "as organic wholes and tries to understand what each passage expresses against the background of the original human author and the original situation" (84).

This book did much to help my understanding of both covenantal and dispensational frameworks. Poythress navigates the issues while maintaining the clarity of his convictions and a generous spirit. Books like this help foster dialogue where it is sorely lacking. show less

This is a short book from a really good author. Poythress does a great job briefly looking at the various interpretations of Genesis 1 and diagnosing what he sees as their weaknesses and strengths.

Poythress encourages the reader to look into varying explanations of disputed subjects, including how to interpret Genesis 1, because "it helps to be familiar with the possibilities so that we do not too quickly adopt one explanation without considering alternatives."

Poythress is unashamed in his show more view that to be a Christian, you have to believe the Bible. "A person who wants to be a genuine Christian must be a disciple of Christ, and being a disciple of Christ implies submitting to the teaching of Christ the Master. So accepting the Bible as the Word of God is an integral part of Christian faith and living."

Yet, his point is not a Bible vs science, us vs them, sort of mentality. While he is explicit on the Bible being "infallible" and "modern scientific claims being "fallible", he is equally adamant that "even though the Bible is infallible, however, we as interpreters of the Bible are not." I appreciate Poythress making clear that our interpretations are not equivalent with God's revelation and while God's revelation has no room for error or correction, our interpretation most certainly does.

You may not come to the same conclusions that Poythress does on Genesis 1, but you will have to agree that this little book is well worth your time and does a fairly good job of presenting the differing postions well. show less

Excellent and fruitful discussion throughout. I agree wholeheartedly that big-kid timeout known as jail time needs to go away, to mention one of many issues Poythress clear-headedly challenges. The wheezy, groaning sound at the end of the book is the sound of Poythress becoming a reluctant theonomist. The main difference between Poythress and a more full-throated theonomy stems from the role of typological interpretation. On this difference, I am pretty sympathetic towards Poythress, but I show more wish (along with Bahnsen) that he had been more rigorous in defending his typological points, or at least pointed us towards a better case for handling the text that way.

One sentence: Poythress shows us how to love and submit to God's law, giving due respect to its authority and relevance today, in the full light of Christ's work. show less