Review: Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept by Stephen J Wellum

 I did a book review of the newly published Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1 by Dr.  Stephen J. Wellum. Thanks to B&H Academic for allowing me an advance copy of the book. 

Book Review: The Revealed God by Dr. Jeffrey D Johnson

 

Doctrinal Questionnaire

Much of my responses are adapted from this statement of faith simply because it is associated with my local church

1.                  What is the gospel?  What would you tell a person to do who desires to be saved?

The gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ.  

God created mankind to honor and glorify Himself. However, mankind chose to glorify themselves and dishonor Him. The good news is albeit we deserve hell for our sins God offers us heaven in Jesus Christ. We deserve God's wrath for our sins. But God so loved us that he gave his only son Jesus Christ, the infinite God-man--whom died as our substitute on the cross and was resurrected the third day--to pay the penalty for our sins and purchase a place in heaven for us. Christ offers himself as our substitute by faith. By the eyes of faith, we can repent, believe, and rejoice in what Christ has done on our behalf. He died in our place to rescue us from sin--that in Him we would become the children of God. The rags to riches story come true.

2.         Explain how you know for certain that you have eternal life.

My certainty lies in the reality of Christ and His promises in Scripture and not my subjective thoughts or experiences. I know for certain I have eternal life since I believe Jesus Christ alone is my salvation and security (I John 4:). It is not by the works of my hands I bring--but simply to the cross I cling (Eph 2:8-10).     

3.         What is your belief about justification?  How is a man justified before God?  What does justification mean?  What is it based upon?  Is it permanent?

I believe in justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and for the glory of God alone. Justification is the judicial act of God, whereby He declares righteous those who have placed their faith in Christ. It is a final act, so that the believer is forever and completely justified from the moment of saving faith (Romans 5:1, 9). Therefore, the believer awaits no final last day declarative justification. Justification is not based upon the believer’s own righteousness, not even the imputation of faith itself as the believer’s righteousness, but on a righteousness alien to him: the forensically imputed righteousness of Christ alone (Romans 4:3-6, 9-11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:9). In salvation the believer is called, regenerated, forgiven all sin, justified, adopted, made eternally secure, and endowed with every spiritual blessing. Salvation is of the Lord (Romans8:30; 1 Peter 1:3; Colossians 2:13; Romans 5:1; Ephesians 1:3-7; Romans 8:15).

4.         What is your view of election?  Is it unconditional or conditional?  What is it based upon?

I believe that God, under no obligation whatsoever to provide salvation for anyone, unconditionally elected certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world (John15:16; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; Acts 13:48). His election is not based on any foreseen act or response on the part of those chosen, but is based solely on His own good pleasure and sovereign will (Romans 3:11; 9:11-18). I do not believe that God elected others to hell (i.e. double predestination with active reprobation), but passed them by (i.e. single predestination with passive reprobation), leaving them to their own sinful preference, which is self-glorification and a Christ-less life (Matthew 23:37 Romans9:15-15; 10:21; John 3:19-20).

5.         What is the purpose of baptism?  Have you been baptized?

Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. Yes, I have been baptized under the authority of my prior church.

6.         What is your view of eternal security?  Are all true believers secure?

I believe in the biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It has two parts: 1) No true child of God, born of the Holy Spirit, will ever be lost because he is kept by the power of God (Romans 8:31-39; John 10:28; Hebrews 13:5-6; 1 Peter 1:5); 2) It is equally true, however, that no person is saved without persevering to the end. Such perseverance may be marked by periods of discouragement, doubt, and even disobedience, but those genuinely saved will persevere to the end in faith and obedience (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Philippians1:6; Hebrews 8:10-11; 1 John 3:9-10; Hebrews 3:6, 14). Those who make a beginning in the Christian faith but do not continue give evidence that they never really had saving faith (1 John 2:19; Ephesians 5:5-6).

7.         What is your view of the final perseverance of the saints?  Do true believers, in spite of set backs, continue on and progress in their walk?

I believe that every believer is sanctified-that is, set apart-unto God, declared to be holy, and identified as a saint (1 Corinthians 1:2). However, sanctification is both positional and progressive (Hebrews 10:14). Positional sanctification has to do with the believer’s standing, not his present walk or experience. Progressive sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit whereby the believer is brought into an ever-increasing holiness in conformity to the will of God, becoming more and more like our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). Moreover, I believe that sanctification is universal, mandatory evidence of a justification that is already final and complete, and not in any sense a means of attaining justification (Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-15). Finally, I believe that every saved person is involved in a daily, lifelong conflict against the flesh (Romans 7:14-25; Galatians 5:16-17; 1 Peter 2:11). While eradication of sin is not possible, the Holy Spirit empowers both for victory over sin and impact and fruitfulness in ministry (Ephesians 3:16; 5:18; Acts 1:8; 4:31).

8.         Explain the importance of reading and studying the Word.

God commands us to heed to His Words. That is a sufficient reason. Moreover, the Scriptures are the only infallible rule for both faith and practice. They teach us how to properly love and obey God. They are necessary for knowledge, spiritual growth and godly virtue (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

9.         Explain the importance of prayer in your life.

Prayer is sweet fellowship/communion with God. We communicate to God both mentally, verbally and audibly; but it is not vain repetition or constantly saying ‘God’ every other sentence.

I personally pray often. I also pray with my wife and son. It allows me to confess my sins or express my heart. It is a daily reminder as I behold God’s goodness toward me. I petition him with needs (e.g. illumination, humility, finances etc.) with the intent that my will be oriented toward His. I express gratitude and thanksgiving.

10.       Distinguish between the baptism of the Spirit and the filling of the Spirit.

I believe that the moment the believer rests his faith in Christ he is baptized with the Holy Spirit and becomes a functioning member of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13,18; Acts 11:16; Romans 12:4-6). As a result of this baptism, the Holy Spirit imparts a spiritual gift (e.g. preaching, teaching, evangelism, hospitality etc.); the Lord Jesus Christ assigns a ministry for which that gift is to be utilized; and God the Father guarantees supernatural effects as the believer fulfills that ministry (1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:15-16).

First, I affirm all believers are permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit whereby He intimately controls (e.g. guides, teaches, intercedes, illuminates), convicts and empowers believers to obey Christ (John 14:6, 7:37-39; Eph 1:13,4:30; Gal 3:2; 2 Cor 1:22;). Second, I believe we are filled by the Holy Spirit when we yield to His influence through the preaching of the Holy Scriptures (Ep 5:18).   

11.       Explain, with Scripture, the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

The Scriptures identify the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor 6:19). As such, He is referred to as a person in the Scriptures (John 14:26). He grieves (Ep 4:30), loves (Rom 15:30), knows (1 Cor 2:11) and speaks (Acts 8:29). Additionally, he can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4), tested (Acts 5:9) and resisted (Acts 7:51).

12.       What are the spiritual gifts in use today?

I believe some of the gifts given in the church during the ministry of the Apostles were directly related to the founding of the church and the completion of the New Testament and are thus no longer given, such as the gifts of prophecy, tongues, knowledge, and healing (Ephesians 2:20-3:4; Hebrews 2:3-4; 1 Corinthians 14:37-38; 2 Corinthians 12:12). Nevertheless, I believe God continues to work supernaturally among His people. For example, those who have a debilitating sickness are to call for the elders who are to pray and expect supernatural healing as a part of their present-day ministry (James 5:16).

13.       How do you understand the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scripture?

I confess that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the objective, written revelation of God and thus constitute the Word of God (Hebrews 1:1-2); that men chosen by God wrote the Bible under the guidance and enabling of the Holy Spirit; that every word of the original autographs is God-breathed; and, therefore, that the whole of Scriptures both inerrant and authoritative for the faith and life of the believer (2 Timothy 3:16; 2Peter 1:20-21).

14.       What is your belief concerning the sufficiency of Scripture?

I believe that the Scriptures are sufficient and, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit and the caring body of Christ, are entirely adequate for every spiritual or emotional problem, and are in no need of any supplement from secular psychotherapies (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:3-4; Psalms 19:7-11). Likewise, I affirm that Scripture is the fresh and present voice of Christ by which He communicates through the Holy Spirit to His people. Therefore, no current revelatory, prophetic word is necessary (Hebrews 3:7; 4:12). Furthermore, I believe that the Scriptures are to be interpreted in the literal/grammatical/historical sense.

15.       What does the Bible say about the fall of man? How has this affected the human race?

God created Adam the first man in the image and likeness of God apart from any process of evolution (Genesis 1:26; 2:7). Adam became a sinner, depraved in nature and subject to Satan’s power by personal disobedience to the will of God (Genesis 3:1-6; Romans 5:12-19; John 8:44; Ephesians 2:2-3). As our representative head, the guilt of Adam’s act was imputed to the entire human race (Romans 5:12-14, 18-19). His sin and depravity was also transmitted to the entire human race; so that every man is a sinner by inheritance, imputation and imitation; and possesses within himself no means of recovery (Romans 3:9-18, 23; Ephesians 2:1-3). Man has both dignity (He is created in the image of God) and depravity (He is corrupted in every part of his nature through the Fall) (Ephesians 2:1; Jeremiah 17:9). Man’s depravity extends even to His will. While man is a free moral agent, choosing as he pleases, his will is in bondage to his sinful nature. Therefore, he always chooses darkness and is unable and unwilling to choose Christ (John 3:19-20; 5:40; 6:44, 65; Romans 8:6-8; Ephesians 2:1, 4).

16.       Explain the tri-unity of God.

I testify that there is only one God who is the maximally greatest being. He is one essence that is three distinct persons, coequal and coeternal, neither divided nor separated, namely, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct, yet one in essence, that cannot be divided nor separated (Det. 6:4; Matt 22:37-38; Mark 12:29-30; Mark 1:9-11; 1 John 2:23; John 1:1, John 17:5, Phil 2:5; Acts 5:1- 4; 1 Cor 6:19). [1]      

17.       Is Christ fully God?  Was He fully man?  Explain.

Yes. The Son, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ (very God) became incarnate (very man) through the miracle of His divine conception and virgin birth without change in His deity (Philippians 2:5-11; Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 1:20-21). He is one person with two distinct natures (i.e. Hypostatic Union, John 1:1,14,8:58, 19:28; Heb 2:17). [2]

18.       What does Christ's resurrection mean to us?

It demonstrates our faith is not in vain. Our Lord’s resurrection is vindication of our redemption accomplished. Our Lord lived a sinless life (Hebrews 7:26; 2 Corinthians 5:21) and died a propitiatory, substitutionary death bearing the full penalty of God’s wrath to save His people from their sins (1 Peter 3:18; Romans 3:25; 2 Corinthians 5:21). He rose from the grave and defeated Satan, sin and death. In Christ, we dead with him and made alive unto Christ (Romans 6; 1 Cor 15:20-28,45,55-56).

19.       Was Christ's death on the cross absolutely necessary?

Yes. The proof that it was absolutely necessary is the incarnation itself. God is both loving and just. Only in the incarnation is both God’s justice and love demonstrated/fulfilled.

God created mankind to honor and glorify Himself. However, mankind chose to glorify themselves and dishonor Him. God was the offended. Mankind was the offender. Only the offended can take initiative to voluntarily be reconciled with the offender. Likewise, only the offender can make amends for their offense.  Hence, the marvelous incarnation was necessary. Jesus had to be very God for His substitutionary death to be efficacious to absorb the wrath of God. Moreover, He had to be very man to truly represent mankind before God as our prophet, priest and king.     

20.       What is the importance of the local church to a believer?  

It is vital to be obedient unto God. In the local church we are able to be accountable, encouraged, edified and equipped. I believe that in this age, commencing at Pentecost, Christ is building His church in partial fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic promise, originally stated in the Abrahamic Covenant, to bless all the nations through Abraham’s seed (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:7-9; Isaiah 49:6; Acts 13:47). Christ builds His church by calling out His elect from every tribe, nation, people, and tongue (Romans 1:5; Revelation 5:9). The Holy Spirit forms and constitutes the church by baptizing true believers into the one universal, spiritual body, which is manifested in local churches (1 Corinthians 12:13). The local church has been commissioned to preach the Word faithfully, preserve the purity of the church through discipline, and practice the two ordinances of believer’s baptism and the Lord’s Supper (2 Timothy 4:2;1 Corinthians 5:11-13; Matthew 18:15-18; 28:18-19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The officers of the local church are elders (also referred to as bishop, overseer, and pastor)-godly men to whom is committed the oversight and care of the church-and deacons (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 5:17; Titus 1:5).

[1] <http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/is-the-Trinity-a-logical-blunder_God-as-three-and-one.pdf>

[2] <http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/did-God-become-a-Jew_A-defense-of-the-incarnation.pdf>

Divine Impassability

I'd be the first to admit there is no easy answer. If you affirm or deny it there will be significant implications in your theology. Let's begin with a common argument in its favor:

(1) If God is not impassible then God is not timeless nor immutable.
(2) God is timeless and immutable
(3) Therefore, God is impassable.

Definitions:

There are two interpretations of divine eternity, namely timelessness and everlastingness:

Timeless: God is outside of time. God does not possess temporal duration nor temporal location. For God, all of time exists in one eternal present.

Everlasting: God exists at all moments in time. Time is an attribute of God, however, God created intrinsic metric time with creation.

Both interpretations are underdetermined from scripture thus one must weigh the Pros &amp; Cons.

Timelessness entails the B-theory of time, hence the universe is both contingent and eternal yet dependent on God. Everlastingness entails there is some change, although neither for the better nor worst, in God's life.

Whichever interpretation you affirm both agree: God has neither a beginning nor end; God is the Lord of time. He is forever!

 Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

 Jude 1:25
To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

There are two interpretations of Immutability: Maximal vs. Minimal Immutability. The maximal sense of immutability interprets this attribute as it is impossible for God to change in any and all senses: in all state of affairs. Simply, God cannot change. The minimal sense of immutability concedes God can and does exhibit some change-- that is neither for the better nor worse-- yet remains unchanging in His essential nature and character.

John Feinberg provides a summary that both interpretations affirm:
"At the heart of Christian theology is the belief that God does not change in his person (being and attributes), will (decree), or purposes."

Impassability is logically entailed from timelessness and maximal immutability:

Impassibility: God is unaffected by anything outside Himself.

Richard E Creel writes,

"Some critics object that even if this is possible [God as maximally immutable and impassible], it is a cold, impersonal conception of God. But what could be more intimate than to think of oneself as and to feel oneself to be wrapped in the eternal, all-sufficient providence of a loving God who wants the best for us, who is and always has been willing the best for us, and who continually accom- panies, surrounds, and embraces us in our actuality?
Perhaps we can save what is most important on each side of this dispute [of impassible vs passible] by distinguishing between God being emotionally “touched” and emotionally “crushed” by the experiences and actions of God’s creatures. What we should save from the impassibilist position is that God is not emotionally “crushed” by what goes on in the world. God is perfectly, imperturbably happy through enjoyment of God’s own perfection, through knowledge of the goodness of God’s creation, through enjoyment of the creation, and through knowledge of God’s ultimate control over history.

What should be saved from the passibilist position is that God is emotionally touched by the joys and the sufferings and the good and the evil actions of God’s creatures. .. an adequate conception of God must include the notion that God is touched by our sufferings and joys, victories and defeats – though not necessarily in the same ways as we are."

Malachi 3:6
6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Psalm 102:26-27

26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Hebrews 6:17-18
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Clarkian Philosophy

Gordon H. Clark argues there is no tabula rasa (i.e. blank slate). Man is the image of God-- and as such, consciously rational--in contrast to animals. Hence, man is able to use signs to refer to thoughts. Language is formed a priori not a posteriori. All forms of empiricism are objectionable since sensations suffer: (1) ambiguity, (2) unreliability, and (3) relativity. Therefore, knowledge (i.e. the propositions of Scripture) is revealed, directly or indirectly, via the Divine Logos, Christ. It is limited to only those propositions deduced from Scripture.

Clark doesn't explain precisely how knowledge is revealed. Is it by telepathy? Does man create language as it reflects God? If so, does this not entail Adam had an actual private language (at one point in time)? Does not a private language entail self-knowledge? If a private language is denied, then language is a social construct, then how can there be agreement between symbols that matches thoughts without self-knowledge? How precisely does first order knowledge (e.g. I know P) refute Skepticism, if second order knowledge (e.g. I know that I know P) is denied? Moreover, how is skepticism circumvented if there is no standard to confirm language and thoughts match? If Clark appeals to the Divine Logos to prevent skepticism, does not Christian empiricists (e.g. Representational realists) have the same option?
 
Clark's demand for a definition of sensations is reasonable. Yet it is not necessary to define sensations in order to possess prima facie warrant to believe in sensations. Furthermore, it strikes me as a category mistake to require a definition of sensations in terms of logic and math. (e.g. Rationalism requires empiricism to provide definitions in terms of Rationalism).The traditional definition of sensations is a non-propositional experience possessed by an experiencing subject. Further distinctions are made in philosophy (e.g. Seeing, seeing as, and seeing that). Thomas Reid makes a helpful point that sensations cannot be reduced to a mere logical definition. Hence, my charge that Clark seems to make a category mistake (e.g. The smell of logic). I think sensations and/or experiences are irreducible to a mere logical definition but that is not to render them unintelligible. For example, we can make sense of the sensation of pain but pain is not reducible to C-fiber stimulation or a mere logical definition (e.g. A person experiences the sensation of pain iff a person's physical body functions properly to interact with the mind in which the mind is aware " I am in pain."

Clark states God causes us to believe in Christianity. In what sense does God 'cause' us to believe? Obviously Clark excludes any empirical method. It's like saying, "I don't know what a 2017 Honda Civic looks like but it doesn't look like that! Clark does narrow what he considers how God 'causes' us to know. It reminds me of the brain in a vat thought experiment. We are to suppose the possibility of a person existing as a brain in a vat. Next, we are to envision an agent (often a mad scientist or demon--take your pick) is the primary efficient cause of the person's beliefs by electrodes. This thought experiment is often leveled in favor of skepticism. The warrant for beliefs is argued to be underdetermined.  Any argument put forward against such skepticism is argued to be based upon beliefs from the agent (presupposing skepticism). I wish to make two points. First, as you know, 'cause' deals primarily with metaphysics and ''beliefs' deal with epistemology. If it is granted a causal process produces beliefs then beliefs are not acquired merely for their truth-value but due to the intentionality of an agent. Second, this view seems to commit the genetic fallacy. If one traces the belief to its origin this does not make it true nor false. Furthermore it commits the naturalistic fallacy. It confuses what 'is' the case (e.g. I believe P) for what 'ought' to be the case (e.g. I ought to believe P). Thomas Reid, the Old Princeton tradition and arguably Plantinga, follows direct realism. Of course one experiences things. They would argue directly a posteriori with properly functioning cognitive faculties. My point is to demand a definition of experiences, e.g. experiencing the color red, such a request seems to confuse categories on the one hand and denies any limit to the extent of how far such a demand can be met.  

(1) If Clark's metaphysics is deduced from his epistemology then his epistemology can be understood from his metaphysics.

(2) Clark's metaphysics is deduced from his epistemology 

(3) Therefore, Clark's epistemology can be understood from his metaphysics. 

In Clark's metaphysics propositions are the object of thought and knowledge not things. The only logically possible world is the actual world. God actualized the actual world comprised of propositions (that can be further reduced to subjects and predicates). All propositions are logically necessary. But some if not all propositions are necessarily instantiated (in virtue of necessitarianism). Each proposition is necessarily true. 

Each person is (i.e. in the sense of identity) a set of propositions. Any given person is what he/she thinks. I think it can be argued Dr. Clark's system may be properly associated with these ideas epistemic foundationalism, accessible internalism, infallibilism, metaphysical realism and a coherentism theory of truth. But in particular on the issue of epistemic justification an argument can be formulated in favor of some form of internalism:   

(1) If Clark affirmed some form of reliabilism/externalism then a person is warranted/rational to believe X, independent of any accessible reasons.

(1a)  If any given belief must be deduced by its axiom to be justified then Clark affirmed any given system of beliefs must be logically deduced from its axiom to be justified.

(1b) Any given belief must be deduced by its axiom to be justified.

(1c) Clark affirmed any given system of beliefs must be logically deduced from its axiom to be justified.

(1d) Logical deduction either requires mental awareness or mental unawareness

(1e) not mental unawareness 

(1f) mental awareness 

(2) A person is not warranted/rational to believe X, independent of any accessible reasons.

(3) Clark did not affirm some form of reliabilism/externalism.

Premise (2) can be demonstrated by Clark's critical analysis of ideas contrary to his. He didn't simply level objections/defeaters. He demanded reasons from his opponents. Clark argued against any position that allowed for the possibility of skepticism. Reliabilism/externalism argues a belief is warranted without conscious awareness, if and only if any given belief is produced by a reliable belief forming process, in the absence of defeaters. But this does not assail skepticism since a person would need to "know" all his/her beliefs are produced by a reliable belief forming process to avoid skepticism. This will not do for Clark. Furthermore, the doctrine of divine simplicity entails some form of epistemic mentalism. God's omniscience flows from His decrees. In other words, divine foreknowledge is grounded in divine foreordaination.   

Divine Command Theory

I believe Dr. Gordon H. Clark affirmed the traditional divine command theory of ethics as the solution to the problem of evil qua ex lex. 

The traditional divine command theory is demonstratively false. 

(1) If the traditional divine command theory of ethics is true then moral values/duties are grounded alone in God's will. 

(2) Moral values/duties are not grounded alone in God's will.

(3) Therefore, the traditional divine command theory of ethics is false. 

Assuming (1) entails:

(4) God can legislate any action or act to be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy.  [Hence volunteerism]

Further, if we affirm (4), with possible world semantics, we are left with an implausible conclusion:

(5) There is a possible world which God legislates adultery to be praiseworthy in all possible worlds.   

(6) The actual world is a possible world. 

(7) Hence, God legislates adultery to be praiseworthy in the actual world. 

The only way out of the volunteerism from the traditional divine command theory is the tertium quid, the modified divine command theory, but it costs a philosophical price, it requires one must reject a robust doctrine of divine simplicity (i.e. The primacy of God's will: God wills His essence and His essence is His will; hence God's will and essence are one in the same qua divine simplicity).

Hays on Clark

Read a post from Steve Hays criticizing Clark as too simple. Just some thoughts. I understand his criticisms are valid given that philosophical sophistication began to take root right around the time Clark died. Alvin Plantinga wrote some of his most sophisticated treatises' around the 1970s? By that time Clark grew old and academic isolation both had its toll on him.