# Aquinas Disagreement



## Imputatio (Aug 3, 2022)

Can someone give me:

1) An overview of the current Aquinas disagreement going on in the Internet world.

2) An assessment of the best of the pro-Aquinas side. Davenant Institite, etc 

I have no idea how to assess the situation. 

Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 3, 2022)

The explanation I typically get is "Aquinas is bad, m'kay."

In other words, I haven't heard a good reason why not to read him yet.


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 3, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> The explanation I typically get is "Aquinas is bad, m'kay."
> 
> In other words, I haven't heard a good reason why not to read him yet.


Okay, but that’s not really helpful for someone with no knowledge of the situation.


----------



## Beoga (Aug 3, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> The explanation I typically get is "Aquinas is bad, m'kay."
> 
> In other words, I haven't heard a good reason why not to read him yet.


The twofold understanding I have as a layman trying to understand both sides as there are men I respect and have learned a lot from:

1. Aquinas is bad because of how he is being used (or Plato?). That is, the “other side” sees fans of Aquinas as elevating him and/or the Great Tradition to an equal plane with Scripture and thus denying Sola Scriptura. 

2. Aquinas gets salvation so wrong, and since doctrine of God is connected with doctrine of Scripture, that Aquinas is really of no benefit and should be discarded except to understand Rome (and not the Reformed Tradition). Anything that Aquinas gets right can be found stated by someone “safer.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2022)

He was right on God. Mostly right on metaphysics. Not so much on salvation, but he isn’t wrong the way people think he is. Geisler book on him is good.

Free talks here








Dr. Norman Geisler - WordMp3.com


Dr. Norman Geisler, PhD, is a prolific author, veteran professor, speaker, lecturer, traveler, philosopher, apologist, evangelist, and theologian. To those who ask, "Who is Norm Geisler?" some have suggested, "Well, imagine a cross between Thomas Aquinas and Billy Graham and you're not too far...




www.wordmp3.com

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 3, 2022)

If you get salvation wrong isn't that the most important thing? If you think you are saved through works or working some system does this not mean someone is lost?

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Beoga (Aug 3, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> If you get salvation wrong isn't that the most important thing? If you think you are saved through works or working some system does this not mean someone is lost?


If you get God wrong aren’t you in the same boat?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 3, 2022)

Beoga said:


> If you get God wrong aren’t you in the same boat?


Yes. But I don't think the reformers got God wrong. They got salvation and God right.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Beoga (Aug 3, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Yes. But I don't think the reformers got God wrong. They got salvation and God right.


That is fair. As I understand it though, one of the layers of this discussion is that the reformers got God right and salvation right, and had not problems using Aquinas as a resource and interacting with him favorably. One side says that like the reformers we should use Aquinas as a resource, and now that I think of it, I haven’t seen or listened to properly to a response to the reformers and those after them using Aquinas favorably.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 4, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Okay, but that’s not really helpful for someone with no knowledge of the situation.


Lol. Sorry, I was trying to make a funny.

Honestly, I don't know much on the issue myself. I also have a limited internet awareness (ignorance is bliss). What I've mostly come across are folks who are over zealous in an anti-Papist stance. They are ready to quickly throw any baby out with the Papist bathwater. They fail to recognize an entire church history prior to the Reformation, to put it plainly. With anyone, you should read them in a measured way. Be cautious about those who fall too far one way or the other.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 4, 2022)

Beoga said:


> That is fair. As I understand it though, one of the layers of this discussion is that the reformers got God right and salvation right, and had not problems using Aquinas as a resource and interacting with him favorably. One side says that like the reformers we should use Aquinas as a resource, and now that I think of it, I haven’t seen or listened to properly to a response to the reformers and those after them using Aquinas favorably.


Luther was said to have called Aquinas a “blind cow.” The Reformers didn’t think highly of him. The later Reformed, I think, bounced back from the over correction.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> Lol. Sorry, I was trying to make a funny.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know much on the issue myself. I also have a limited internet awareness (ignorance is bliss). What I've mostly come across are folks who are over zealous in an anti-Papist stance. They are ready to quickly throw any baby out with the Papist bathwater. They fail to recognize an entire church history prior to the Reformation, to put it plainly. With anyone, you should read them in a measured way. Be cautious about those who fall too far one way or the other.


I don't think this is the only other option. I can recognize people before and after Thomas that were good, while still recognizing Thomas specifically had dangerous views. To those that are really into philosophy he will be very tempting as well. Thomas is one of the main reasons we have the modern Roman Catholic Church with all their strange beliefs. Many of his beliefs and reasonings are the reason a reformation was needed. It doesn't mean it is his fault specifically, but recognizing he is likely the origin point for many errant beliefs. He may have been good at philosophy, but he often times was a bad exegete because of his reliance on tradition. Can we learn from Thomas, sure. But what other heretics in history do we hold in such high regard? And I can him a heretic in the sense that if you follow his way of salvation, you will likely end up in hell.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> ... Can we learn from Thomas, sure. But what other heretics in history do we hold in such high regard?


so is the agreed point is that we can learn from Thomas or no? I don’t think Reformed folks who are advocating Thomism would deny being careful e.g see https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/significance-thomas-aquinas

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## alexanderjames (Aug 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> so is the agreed point is that we can learn from Thomas or no? I don’t think Reformed folks who are advocating Thomism would deny being careful e.g see https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/significance-thomas-aquinas


RC Sproul had a great appreciation for Thomas, especially as a defender of the faith. He said that he doubted whether those who were most vocally against Aquinas had actually read him let alone understood him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

ZackF said:


> Luther was said to have called Aquinas a “blind cow.” The Reformers didn’t think highly of him. The later Reformed, I think, bounced back from the over correction.


That is not true. Early reformers like Zanchi modeled their work on Aquinas

Reactions: Love 1 | Informative 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

Beoga said:


> That is fair. As I understand it though, one of the layers of this discussion is that the reformers got God right and salvation right, and had not problems using Aquinas as a resource and interacting with him favorably. One side says that like the reformers we should use Aquinas as a resource, and now that I think of it, I haven’t seen or listened to properly to a response to the reformers and those after them using Aquinas favorably.





J.L. Allen said:


> Lol. Sorry, I was trying to make a funny.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know much on the issue myself. I also have a limited internet awareness (ignorance is bliss). What I've mostly come across are folks who are over zealous in an anti-Papist stance. They are ready to quickly throw any baby out with the Papist bathwater. They fail to recognize an entire church history prior to the Reformation, to put it plainly. With anyone, you should read them in a measured way. Be cautious about those who fall too far one way or the other.



The problem with these arguments- that the Reformers used them; that there is a long church history before the Reformation- is that the Reformers were the first Protestants. They were separating from the established church and they wanted to first of all explain why they were doing so and secondly to defend themselves from accusations of schism and novelty. And so they make great use of those who went before them to illustrate how they were not advocating _new_ theology but were recovering Biblical theology, which could be seen in the best of the church through the ages. But obviously there was a lot wrong with the theology of the pre-Reformation church otherwise a Reformation wouldn't have been necessary.

The Reformed articulated a consistent Biblical and systematic theology, which drew on the best of what had gone before but cast aside all the error. That is the legacy we have today. The question which needs to be asked is: why Aquinas? As someone observed: what other heretic is so highly valued by Protestants today? Why the focus on Aquinas? We are told that this is because Protestant theology today is so shallow and ignorant. This is obviously true. So why not return to the Puritans? The Scottish divines? The American divines? Why Aquinas?



John Yap said:


> so is the agreed point is that we can learn from Thomas or no? I don’t think Reformed folks who are advocating Thomism would deny being careful e.g see https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/significance-thomas-aquinas



The problem here is that those who are promoting him assume everyone is as discerning as they are (and that they are indeed discerning). I do not understand how pastors can so casually recommend to all and everyone that they study a heretic. Furthermore, Aquinas is not an easy read. Whereas with the Puritans you have writers who are easy to read, godly, discerning and orthodox.

We are not Thomists, we are not Patristics, we are not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. We are Protestant. We have a very rich heritage and library. Stick with that,

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 4, 2022)

My two cents: I think we should learn from the Church Catholic throughout history. Thomas had many good things to say. Yet, there is nothing in Thomas that I can't find said better by the reformers and post reformation divines.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Early reformers like Zanchi modeled their work on Aquinas


Do you mean in terms of organization and presentation? If so, Aquinas' _Summa_ was in turn somewhat modeled on Lombard's _Sentences_, which starting in about 1225 all students at the Sorbonne, like Aquinas, were required to create a commentary on, for what amounted to their doctoral thesis. To be sure, the slightly later _Summa_ quickly became the most acclaimed, and thus the new standard among these types of systematic works within the RCC. But while many of the earliest continental reformers cited Lombard quite copiously (for whom they even used a particular moniker that escapes me presently - maybe "the master"?...), they seem to have directly cited Aquinas only relatively rarely.


----------



## alexanderjames (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> The problem with these arguments- that the Reformers used them; that there is a long church history before the Reformation- is that the Reformers were the first Protestants. They were separating from the established church and they wanted to first of all explain why they were doing so and secondly to defend themselves from accusations of schism and novelty. And so they make great use of those who went before them to illustrate how they were not advocating _new_ theology but were recovering Biblical theology, which could be seen in the best of the church through the ages. But obviously there was a lot wrong with the theology of the pre-Reformation church otherwise a Reformation wouldn't have been necessary.
> 
> The Reformed articulated a consistent Biblical and systematic theology, which drew on the best of what had gone before but cast aside all the error That is the legacy we have today. The question which needs to be asked is: why Aquinas? As someone observed: what other heretic is so highly valued by Protestants today? Why the focus on Aquinas? We are told that this is because Protestant theology today is so shallow and ignorant. This is obviously true. So why not return to the Puritans? The Scottish divines? The American divines? Why Aquinas?
> 
> ...


Ok I absolutely get your point. But (to be difficult,) why should I take your word for it? I want to see what Thomas and others have said so that I’m not blindly accepting what others say about them.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

How many here have actually read through the Summae?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> How many here have actually read through the Summae?


Only browsed it but have read through certain parts.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

alexanderjames said:


> Ok I absolutely get your point. But (to be difficult,) why should I take your word for it? I want to see what Thomas and others have said so that I’m not blindly accepting what others say about them.



But why? What is your motivation in reading Aquinas? Is it to get a better grasp of Biblical teaching; a well-articulated doctrine of God? Read the Puritans: you'll get those and you'll avoid the dangers. If you just want to know what _Aquinas _said, then fine read Aquinas. But we should be reading theologians to better understand Scripture, not a particular theologian's interpretation of Scripture. I can't help but think the advocacy of Aquinas is because those advocating reading him just like to read philosophy. If their motivation was solely to gain a deeper knowledge of the _truth_, they wouldn't be reading Aquinas. There's too much soul-destroying error there. What he gets right is found elsewhere. Therefore there is something else motivating these people.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Aug 4, 2022)

For the life of me, I have yet figure out what all the hubbub is about.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I can't help but think the advocacy of Aquinas is because those advocating reading him just like to read philosophy.


Is there anything wrong with being interested in philosophy?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

To those saying we should only read the Puritans, it is the Ressourcement guys like myself who are doing the serious reading of Perkins and Zanchi and Vermigli. The thebros aren’t. Check the book review section of Puritanboard and tell me what’s happening

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Is there anything wrong with being interested in philosophy?


You’ll probably get a proof text on vain philosophy that begs the question on whether the philosophy under discussion is vain or not

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexanderjames (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> But why? What is your motivation in reading Aquinas? Is it to get a better grasp of Biblical teaching; a well-articulated doctrine of God? Read the Puritans: you'll get those and you'll avoid the dangers. If you just want to know what _Aquinas _said, then fine read Aquinas. But we should be reading theologians to better understand Scripture, not a particular theologian's interpretation of Scripture. I can't help but think the advocacy of Aquinas is because those advocating reading him just like to read philosophy. If their motivation was solely to gain a deeper knowledge of the _truth_, they wouldn't be reading Aquinas. There's too much soul-destroying error there. What he gets right is found elsewhere. Therefore there is something else motivating these people.


What I mean is simply that you are making assertions such as Puritan writings have a doctrine of God at least as good as Aquinas, without errors. I don’t doubt that is probably the case (having read several Puritans). But why should I take your word for it?

If I had just listened to the teachings of people from the start of my Christian journey, I would be a shallow dispensationalist who thought the rapture was next week.

I want to read from the breadth and depth of church history so I can understand how doctrine has been formed and formulated over time. I want to read Aquinas given his vast influence so that I can understand his arguments and see how he has influenced later thinkers.

I don’t think this is a fruitless endeavour. Perhaps I will see truths about God from a different perspective. Perhaps I will see the errors to beware of. Perhaps I will learn how to defend the faith better, or lead Romanists out of Rome. Perhaps I will understand how to reason better and approach things with a more informed and logical mind. Ultimately I am wanting to read Aquinas so that I might become a more fruitful servant of Christ.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 4, 2022)

What in Aquinas is taught in such a great way that can’t be found in other places?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> What in Aquinas is taught in such a great way that can’t be found in other places?


Metaphysics 
Natural law
His doctrine of God is more developed, though Turretin surpasses him on the decree.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

We really haven’t improved upon his act/potency distinction

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Metaphysics
> Natural law
> His doctrine of God is more developed, though Turretin surpasses him on the decree.


That's all assuming his metaphysics, natural law, and doctrine of God are more biblical than Turretin et.al. though. Those categories may be more developed in a less biblical way than the reformed divines. That would be a safe assumption considering how unbiblical many of his other views are.

That's also not a dog against him necessarily. A product of his time. His unbiblical views were not for a lack of trying. He was a passionate exegete (c.f. His massive commentaries on many portions of scripture).

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> For the life of me, I have yet figure out what all the hubbub is about.



No offense but this argument- and I don't mean to single you out, others use it- comes across as deliberately obtuse. It's pretty clear what the disagreement is; both sides have made their case in no uncertain terms. You might think there is nothing wrong in reading Aquinas but in that case you're not a disinterested party but actively taking a side.

At the end of the day this comes down to whether or not we should be recommending Christians read a heretic to grow in their faith. Unless one thinks Aquinas is not a heretic, but that's a whole other problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 4, 2022)

Reading _Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism_ edited by van Asselt helped me understand the importance reason and mediaeval methodology in the Reformed tradition. There is not a load of Aquinas, but you get the idea that the Reformed did not do theology in isolation, but drew from the "great tradition", of which Aquinas among others was a part of. To simply say "read the Puritans" or something of that ilk is to ignore this important truth.

No one is recommending placing the Summae in the hands of a new Christian, but Aquinas is a giant who's influence on theology and particularly Protestantism cannot be ignored.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Knight (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Metaphysics
> Natural law
> His doctrine of God is more developed, though Turretin surpasses him on the decree.



If I am not mistaken, you've engaged quite a bit with Eastern Orthodox apologists. What particularly is it that makes Aquinas' view more attractive to you than their - or others' - criticisms being sufficient to turn you off from him (granting, of course, that EOs have their own problems)?


----------



## Taylor (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> …this argument…


I made no argument. I literally have no idea what this debate is about. I’m simply stating a fact.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 4, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Reading _Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism_ edited by van Asselt helped me understand the importance reason and mediaeval methodology in the Reformed tradition. There is not a load of Aquinas, but you get the idea that the Reformed did not do theology in isolation, but drew from the "great tradition", of which Aquinas among others was a part of. To simply say "read the Puritans" or something of that ilk is to ignore this important truth.
> 
> No one is recommending placing the Summae in the hands of a new Christian, but Aquinas is a giant who's influence on theology and particularly Protestantism cannot be ignored.


I think my only push back to this is: what would I possibly be lacking by reading the puritans and post reformation divines and NOT reading Thomas?
Again that is not to say we shouldn't read him, I just don't see any reason someone would need to go to Thomas for things they can get better said in more sound theologians.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

Knight said:


> If I am not mistaken, you've engaged quite a bit with Eastern Orthodox apologists. What particularly is it that makes Aquinas' view more attractive to you than their - or others' - criticisms being sufficient to turn you off from him (granting, of course, that EOs have their own problems)?


He is much better on the Filioque


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> I think my only push back to this is: what would I possibly be lacking by reading the puritans and post reformation divines and NOT reading Thomas?
> Again that is not to say we shouldn't read him, I just don't see any reason someone would need to go to Thomas for things they can get better said in more sound theologians.


Thomas is better on the Filioque than anyone else

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Is there anything wrong with being interested in philosophy?



Not necessarily. I question how useful it is to spend much time in worldly philosophy for its own sake. But that isn't the issue here. Aquinas isn't being read because he's an interesting philosopher, out of academic interest; he is being read, and promoted, as a useful _Christian theologian _and that is altogether different. 


RamistThomist said:


> To those saying we should only read the Puritans, it is the Ressourcement guys like myself who are doing the serious reading of Perkins and Zanchi and Vermigli. The thebros aren’t. Check the book review section of Puritanboard and tell me what’s happening



I'm glad. Why not just stick with that then?


alexanderjames said:


> What I mean is simply that you are making assertions such as Puritan writings have a doctrine of God at least as good as Aquinas, without errors. I don’t doubt that is probably the case (having read several Puritans). But why should I take your word for it?
> 
> If I had just listened to the teachings of people from the start of my Christian journey, I would be a shallow dispensationalist who thought the rapture was next week.
> 
> ...



Is following the permutations of doctrine, including the errors, really a profitable endeavour for the lay Christian? Perhaps instead of being made aware of the errors to avoid, you will become ensnared in those errors? Perhaps your faith will be harmed, not strengthened? How will you learn to lead Papists out of Rome by becoming learned in the Romish theologian ne plus ultra? Will you be able to deconstruct Aquinas? Find the fatal flaws?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I made no argument. I literally have no idea what this debate is about. I’m simply stating a fact.



Apologies. I thought you meant "I don't understand" in the sense of "I don't see the harm in reading Aquinas nor how anyone else could see any harm".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Reading _Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism_ edited by van Asselt helped me understand the importance reason and mediaeval methodology in the Reformed tradition. There is not a load of Aquinas, but you get the idea that the Reformed did not do theology in isolation, but drew from the "great tradition", of which Aquinas among others was a part of. To simply say "read the Puritans" or something of that ilk is to ignore this important truth.



If someone has mastered the Puritans, the Scottish divines and the American divines (not to mention the Bible!) then fine, read Aquinas.



Tychicus said:


> No one is recommending placing the Summae in the hands of a new Christian, but Aquinas is a giant who's influence on theology and particularly Protestantism cannot be ignored.



Are they not? I don't see this distinction in the discussions I'm seeing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> He is much better on the Filioque



I find the Bible is the best volume on the Filioque

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 4, 2022)

By "read the Puritans" standard, why must anyone read anything prior to the Reformation?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 4, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> By "read the Puritans" standard, why must anyone read anything prior to the Reformation?


What "standard"? 
No one MUST read anything. However, For your average Christian nothing will do more for their soul than those classic works of practical divinity produced by those godly men during the greatest move of God's Spirit in church history, the reformation and post reformation. I don't see how that can be argued. 

There are of course many great works from before and after that. Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard, Athanasius, Thomas, etc etc. Still for the practical use of the average Christian, they pale in comparison to Calvin, Brooks, Gurnall, Rutherford, Sibbes, Turretin, Boston, etc etc etc etc.

Reactions: Amen 4


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 4, 2022)

I'm not sure any of the "safe" theologians mentioned from _any_ time in history should be read with complete acceptance. Everyone one of them has an error somewhere. We would repudiate the possibility of Christian perfectionism in our walk. Why would we adopt something akin to it in writers of theology or, perhaps more appropriately, the product of their mind and pen?

Note: this is not a defense of Aquinas, per se. It is simply asking all of us to step back and consider any and all theologians we hold dear.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I'm not sure any of the "safe" theologians mentioned from _any_ time in history should be read with complete acceptance. Everyone one of them has an error somewhere. We would repudiate the possibility of Christian perfectionism in our walk. Why would we adopt something akin to it in writers of theology or, perhaps more appropriately, the product of their mind and pen?
> 
> Note: this is not a defense of Aquinas, per se. It is simply asking all of us to step back and consider any and all theologians we hold dear.


I think the issue is that Aquinas was a heretic. Many that came before him were not, they had flaws, but not fatal flaws.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 4, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I'm not sure any of the "safe" theologians mentioned from _any_ time in history should be read with complete acceptance. Everyone one of them has an error somewhere. We would repudiate the possibility of Christian perfectionism in our walk. Why would we adopt something akin to it in writers of theology or, perhaps more appropriately, the product of their mind and pen?
> 
> Note: this is not a defense of Aquinas, per se. It is simply asking all of us to step back and consider any and all theologians we hold dear.


This was the point of my post (#43). Replace Aquinas with any pre-reformation theologian; and most of the critiques made would apply to them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I find the Bible is the best volume on the Filioque


My Eastern Orthodox friends say the same thing. Metaphysics is inescapable

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I find the Bible is the best volume on the Filioque


This particular argument has been answered to, not a few times in the span of the past few months.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> My Eastern Orthodox friends say the same thing. Metaphysics is inescapable


So says you. Perhaps God didn't reveal more to us because he didn't want us going any deeper.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So says you. Perhaps God didn't reveal more to us because he didn't want us going any deeper.


So says you. Any statement about reality is a metaphysical statement


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> So says you. Any statement about reality is a metaphysical statement


Okie dokie


----------



## Knight (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> He is much better on the Filioque


Does he respond to the argument that whatever is not common to all three persons ought to be a hypostatic property?


----------



## Taylor (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Apologies. I thought you meant "I don't understand" in the sense of "I don't see the harm in reading Aquinas nor how anyone else could see any harm".


You’re good, brother; no apologies necessary.

My limited understanding is that this whole “Great Tradition” thing arose partly in response to the more harmful forms of biblicism that have resulted in aberrations in theology proper _a la_ John Frame and Scott Oliphint. And I agree that there is a form of biblicism that, when it tries to approach Scripture apart from the lens of the Christian tradition, almost inevitably ends up in error and novelty. As Herman Hoeksema said, “It would be quite contrary to the will and providence of God, who establishes and keeps his church and the knowledge of his covenant in the line of continued generations, should the dogmatician attempt to start his dogmatic career without any prejudice. He must labor with the treasures he has already received and must attempt to enrich them.”

My problem is this: Why must it be _either_ Oliphint or Aquinas? Is there not some balance? I understand Aquinas is important for theology proper. But in the end, as a confessional Presbyterian, I don’t understand the problem, because my subscription is not to Aquinas or John Frame—or even Calvin or Turretin, for that matter—but rather to the Scriptures as interpreted by the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> My problem is this: Why must it be _either_ Oliphint or Aquinas? Is there not some balance?


And that's what Reformed Forum seem to be doing. They are not Thomistic like Davenant or CredoMagazine but at the same time they are not going down the Theistic Mutualist path.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> So says you. Any statement about reality is a metaphysical statement


I apologize if my last post was flippant. I guess my attitude at this point is, if I faithfully attend sound preaching, read my Bible daily, and read reformers, I believe my metaphysic will be fine. I have never been concerned enough that I need to go out and read everything Thomas wrote because I didn't feel the previous methods were sufficient.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexanderjames (Aug 4, 2022)

I think a good point was raised earlier, namely, shall we then disregard all of the early church because the Puritans were better?

(No one here is advocating Thomas over and against or at the expense of the Puritans. I don’t think anyone here either is mandating the study of Thomas.)

Side question for those opposed to Thomas Aquinas - do you regard him as being a false convert because of his heresy? What do you do with those in the early church who we would consider heretics by today’s standards?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 4, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> And that's what Reformed Forum seem to be doing. They are not Thomistic like Davenant or CredoMagazine but at the same time they are not going down the Theistic Mutualist path.


Yes, I love their work. Lane Tipton is doing the church a great service in preserving Dr. Van Til’s orthodoxy against his alleged successors who have deviated so severely from his thought in these matters.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

alexanderjames said:


> I think a good point was raised earlier, namely, shall we then disregard all of the early church because the Puritans were better?
> 
> (No one here is advocating Thomas over and against the Puritans. I don’t think anyone here either is mandating the study of Thomas.)
> 
> Side question for those opposed to Thomas Aquinas - do you regard him as being a false convert because of his heresy? What do you do with those in the early church who we would consider heretics by today’s standards?


Yes to the false convert question. Either you believe salvation is by faith alone or you don't. That appears to be the dividing line in scripture. Why is that controversial on these boards? We all know the right answer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexanderjames (Aug 4, 2022)

Seems like the first question of the OP has been answered as it’s worked itself out in this thread!


----------



## ZackF (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> How many here have actually read through the Summae?


I assuming ST here not SCG. I have. Over two decades ago.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 4, 2022)

The reason why people are arguing that we need to go back to reading Thomas Aquinas and earlier writers rather than just reading the Reformers and Puritans is that you cannot properly understand the Reformers and Puritans without having a reasonable background in the Patristics and Scholastics. 

Why do you think that so many men who have read a lot of Puritans have fallen into such gross errors concerning theology proper and Christology? (Seriously, think carefully about this question for a while before answering. A lack of catholicity in one's reading will have serious implications further on down the line.)

Reactions: Like 8 | Love 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 4, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The reason why people are arguing that we need to go back to reading Thomas Aquinas and earlier writers rather than just reading the Reformers and Puritans is that you cannot properly understand the Reformers and Puritans without having a reasonable background in the Patristics and Scholastics.
> 
> *Why do you think that so many men who have read a lot of Puritans have fallen into such gross errors concerning theology proper and Christology?* (Seriously, think carefully about this question for a while before answering. A lack of catholicity in one's reading will have serious implications further on down the line.)


I’d love an example of this to do a case study, brother.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

ZackF said:


> I assuming ST here not SCG. I have. Over two decades ago.


Actually I had in mind both. I’m halfway through with scg


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The reason why people are arguing that we need to go back to reading Thomas Aquinas and earlier writers rather than just reading the Reformers and Puritans is that you cannot properly understand the Reformers and Puritans without having a reasonable background in the Patristics and Scholastics.
> 
> Why do you think that so many men who have read a lot of Puritans have fallen into such gross errors concerning theology proper and Christology? (Seriously, think carefully about this question for a while before answering. A lack of catholicity in one's reading will have serious implications further on down the line.)


Do we have catholicity with heretics though? There was a reason the reformation took place and it wasn't because the theology was awesome.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 4, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I'm not sure any of the "safe" theologians mentioned from _any_ time in history should be read with complete acceptance. Everyone one of them has an error somewhere. We would repudiate the possibility of Christian perfectionism in our walk. Why would we adopt something akin to it in writers of theology or, perhaps more appropriately, the product of their mind and pen?
> 
> Note: this is not a defense of Aquinas, per se. It is simply asking all of us to step back and consider any and all theologians we hold dear.


There's an error and there's flagrant heresy.



RamistThomist said:


> My Eastern Orthodox friends say the same thing. Metaphysics is inescapable





Tychicus said:


> This particular argument has been answered to, not a few times in the span of the past few months.



So are you saying that unless I read Aquinas I cannot understand and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? The explicit words of Christ are not enough? This truth was considered so basic that it was included in the Nicene Creed but I need Aquinas to understand it? This is a perfect example of the problem here.

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox would disagree but their rejection of the Filioque is probably due to a more fundamental error in their understanding of the Trinity.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> There's an error and there's flagrant heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What flagrant heresy are you referring to and how do you know its heresy? Without the great tradition of course? People like Aquinas worked on the backs of the Cappadocian's to further refine what they did. I agree that lay people shouldn't read anyone or everyone but perhaps a more controlled Sunday school class or whatever might be ok. I've been very careful with which of my books I lend out without proper education. 
In reading this, and other threads, I'm not sure I understand the disagreement outside one of emphasis. I could be wrong though, maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan (Aug 4, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> What flagrant heresy are you referring to and how do you know its heresy? Without the great tradition of course? People like Aquinas worked on the backs of the Cappadocian's to further refine what they did. I agree that lay people shouldn't read anyone or everyone but perhaps a more controlled Sunday school class or whatever might be ok. I've been very careful with which of my books I lend out without proper education.
> In reading this, and other threads, I'm not sure I understand the disagreement outside one of emphasis. I could be wrong though, maybe there's something I'm not seeing.


Do you not agree that a great deal of Thomas' theology is unbiblical?


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 4, 2022)

@RamistThomist and others:

IF we assume that there’s value in studying the whole body of Christian writing throughout the history of the Church, 

BUT, not every Christian is equipped or ready to either profit from, or discern the problems with, someone like Aquinas,

THEN, what would be the fundamental works your average reading layman should focus on? 

I’m talking about more than the Puritans. 

Should someone in this position start at Calvin and move forward? 

I’m sure everyone has a different answer, but I’d love to have a manageable list for study that doesn’t necessarily require Aquinas.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

I can respond more when I get back to my computer in a few days

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> There's an error and there's flagrant heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Christ just says he temporally sends the Holy Spirit in economy.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Aug 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Thomas is better on the Filioque than anyone else


I've not read Thomas on the Filioque, but is he really better on it than Smeaton?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Do we have catholicity with heretics though? There was a reason the reformation took place and it wasn't because the theology was awesome.



So why did the Reformers, to use your own words, "have catholicity with heretics"? One point to remember is that the likes of Francis Turretin argued that someone was not to be considered a heretic merely for embracing gross error, but on account of obstinately maintaining it after their error had been pointed out to them. For this reason, those who lived prior to the Reformation ought not to be judged as severely as those who maintained popish errors in its aftermath. This distinction is important because it highlights the absurdity of those equating the errors of Federal Visionists with the errors of the Patristics. The latter did not have the benefit of living after the Westminster Confession was written.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 4, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Do you not agree that a great deal of Thomas' theology is unbiblical?


Yeah. But on theology proper he is a major foundation whether or not they agree. If you have different preferences ok. I've only read secondary stuff on him. But I'm trying to figure out the main point under dispute. One side seems to be saying yes read him but the other side says no. With varying perspectives that seem to be divided down a middle problem I can't figure out. This is like what the third thread started on this? 
It just seems should one read him? That is way over simplifying the question, even should one recommend him is way too simple. Thats my take but I'm positive I'm not seeing something thats why I asked for clarification.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I've not read Thomas on the Filioque, but is he really better on it than Smeaton?


I’d have to double check


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Do we have catholicity with heretics though?


This argument:


retroGRAD3 said:


> Either you believe salvation is by faith alone or you don't. That appears to be the dividing line in scripture.


If applied consistently would mean not a few theologians prior to the Reformation to be regarded as heretics. (For instance, Augustine, see the section "justification" here: https://delatinized.wordpress.com/2020/09/30/the-soteriology-of-st-augustine/)

I'm not sitting at home all day reading Aquinas. I haven't read him much at all (I do intend to), only excerpts from him mediated through other theologians. I'm not necessarily defending Aquinas per se, but the method of dismissing him is unfair.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 4, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> This argument:
> 
> If applied consistently would mean not a few theologians prior to the Reformation to be regarded as heretics. (For instance, Augustine, see the section "justification" here: https://delatinized.wordpress.com/2020/09/30/the-soteriology-of-st-augustine/)
> 
> I'm not sitting at home all day reading Aquinas. I haven't read him much at all (I do intend to), only excerpts from him mediated through other theologians. I'm not necessarily defending Aquinas per se, but the method of dismissing him is unfair.


I don't agree. The Bible is clear on how a man is saved and 2 Timothy 3:16 and following makes it clear the Bible is enough. Galatians also is very clear on how we should view people who add works or rituals to the gospel. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God. Your philosophy is twisting you up and you are giving passes to people who the Bible does not. Perhaps they won't be judged as severely as those who persisted in their error as those after the reformation, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where people get a pass because they decided to follow human tradition rather than search the scriptures. Thomas was wrong on salvation and nothing will change that. We are supposed to mark and avoid teachings that will send you to hell.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 5, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't agree. The Bible is clear on how a man is saved and 2 Timothy 3:16 and following makes it clear the Bible is enough. Galatians also is very clear on how we should view people who add works or rituals to the gospel. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God. Your philosophy is twisting you up and you are giving passes to people who the Bible does not. Perhaps they won't be judged as severely as those who persisted in their error as those after the reformation, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where people get a pass because they decided to follow human tradition rather than search the scriptures. Thomas was wrong on salvation and nothing will change that. We are supposed to mark and avoid teachings that will send you to hell.


Brother, I'm not insisting we read him positively on justification. But on the other hand, on a subject like natural law, he is essential reading. Natural law is a good reason for retrieving Aquinas. The degeneracy and confusion over gender and sexuality is due to the decline of natural law. The root reason is sin, the rejection of _God's design_ in nature.

I'm not giving a pass to anyone. One must read Aquinas just like one reads Augustine or any of the Patristics. I'm not saying anything positive or negative about Aquinas or any of the men involved in the debate, but merely calling for consistency. If Aquinas goes out, so does everyone prior to the Reformation. The confessional understanding of justification cannot be as _clearly _found in the pre-reformation theologians as it is now. I'm sure many of the Patristics would be brought under charges for their understanding of salvation if they said what they said then, now.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 5, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> In reading this, and other threads, I'm not sure I understand the disagreement outside one of emphasis. I could be wrong though, maybe there's something I'm not seeing


I think you're on to something. There's a lack of specificity. Unless one starts specific threads like "Aquinas and divine simplicity", "Aquinas and Natural Law", "Aquinas and Justification", we won't get anywhere. This is the fourth or fifth thread related to Aquinas/philosophy/great tradition and the *same arguments* are being made over and over again. There have been 100s of replies in these threads but we have not let the man (Aquinas) speak for himself. Specificity is the way to go.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Christ just says he temporally sends the Holy Spirit in economy.



But the economic Trinity _is _the immanent Trinity, is it not? Or to quote a couple of guys who are a bit more sound:

“What is true for His manner of operation is also true for His manner of existence. The manner of His operation is a necessary consequence of His manner of existence.” (Brakel)

This is because “the being or essence of a thing is the foundation or principium of its activity or operation, and all things operate in a manner proper or proportionate to what they are...The correlation of the way in which God is known through his self-revelation and the way in which God truly is in himself constitutes the necessary presupposition of true doctrine, i.e., of the truth of the revelation itself; therefore the revelation that God is one and the revelation that God is three cannot be reduced to an eternal oneness and a temporal or economical threeness." (Muller)


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I've not read Thomas on the Filioque, but is he really better on it than Smeaton?



But is Smeaton better or worse than Turretin?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> But the economic Trinity _is _the immanent Trinity, is it not? Or to quote a couple of guys who are a bit more sound:
> 
> “What is true for His manner of operation is also true for His manner of existence. The manner of His operation is a necessary consequence of His manner of existence.” (Brakel)
> 
> This is because “the being or essence of a thing is the foundation or principium of its activity or operation, and all things operate in a manner proper or proportionate to what they are...The correlation of the way in which God is known through his self-revelation and the way in which God truly is in himself constitutes the necessary presupposition of true doctrine, i.e., of the truth of the revelation itself; therefore the revelation that God is one and the revelation that God is three cannot be reduced to an eternal oneness and a temporal or economical threeness." (Muller)


The economic reveals the immanent. I’m surprised to see you quote a liberal papist like Rahner.

I’m not sure how abrakel is saying what you think he is saying. I agree that the missions reveal the processions.

Muller is a Thomist

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> But the economic Trinity _is _the immanent Trinity, is it not? Or to quote a couple of guys who are a bit more sound:
> 
> “What is true for His manner of operation is also true for His manner of existence. The manner of His operation is a necessary consequence of His manner of existence.” (Brakel)
> 
> This is because “the being or essence of a thing is the foundation or principium of its activity or operation, and all things operate in a manner proper or proportionate to what they are...The correlation of the way in which God is known through his self-revelation and the way in which God truly is in himself constitutes the necessary presupposition of true doctrine, i.e., of the truth of the revelation itself; therefore the revelation that God is one and the revelation that God is three cannot be reduced to an eternal oneness and a temporal or economical threeness." (Muller)


I just had to do this: 


All in good fun.....

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Funny 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> The economic reveals the immanent. I’m surprised to see you quote a liberal papist like Rahner.
> 
> I’m not sure how abrakel is saying what you think he is saying. I agree that the missions reveal the processions.
> 
> Muller is a Thomist



Is the economic Trinity different from the immanent Trinity? Brakel and Muller are saying that the operations of the Trinity in time flow from the nature of God's being and the relations of the Persons. By saying what you said - "Christ just says he temporally sends the Holy Spirit in economy." - you are separating the economic Trinity from the immanent and suggesting there are two different Trinities; or that the one Trinity acts in a way in time so different from how it exists ontologically that we do not know anything about the ontological Trinity. As Muller says: if the economic Trinity is different from the immanent then the Revelation we have of God is not true. We can make certain distinctions between the economic and immanent but if Christ's statement refers _only_ to how the Trinity operates in time then God remains cuts off from our knowing Him. The Westminster divines were quite content to use Christ's statements about His sending of the Spirit in time to support the claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father _and the Son_ from eternity.

I didn't know whether Muller was a Thomist or not. I didn't need to read Aquinas to follow Muller's argument. This only strengthens my argument: what I need to know from the likes of Aquinas is found in orthodox Protestant theologians.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Is the economic Trinity different from the immanent Trinity? Brakel and Muller are saying that the operations of the Trinity in time flow from the nature of God's being and the relations of the Persons. By saying what you said - "Christ just says he temporally sends the Holy Spirit in economy." - you are separating the economic Trinity from the immanent and suggesting there are two different Trinities; or that the one Trinity acts in a way in time so different from how it exists ontologically that we do not know anything about the ontological Trinity. As Muller says: if the economic Trinity is different from the immanent then the Revelation we have of God is not true. We can make certain distinctions between the economic and immanent but if Christ's statement refers _only_ to how the Trinity operates in time then God remains cuts off from our knowing Him. The Westminster divines were quite content to use Christ's statements about His sending of the Spirit in time to support the claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father _and the Son_ from eternity.
> 
> I didn't know whether Muller was a Thomist or not. I didn't need to read Aquinas to follow Muller's argument. This only strengthens my argument: what I need to know from the likes of Aquinas is found in orthodox Protestant theologians.


I’m not disagreeing with Muller. I’m simply pointing out that a proof text of Jesus using the word send doesn’t immediately get you dual eternal procession from a single source. To get there you need a robust trinitarian metaphysics, which is what I’ve been saying all along

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I’m not disagreeing with Muller. I’m simply pointing out that a proof text of Jesus using the word send doesn’t immediately get you dual eternal procession from a single source. To get there you need a robust trinitarian metaphysics, which is what I’ve been saying all along



So is the economic Trinity the same as the immanent, or not?

But also do I need a robust trinitarian metaphysics (supplied by Aquinas) to know and believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? I'm not saying that this truth can't be parsed out theologically but if you're saying I can't know and believe this truth simply from the statements of Christ then I think we have a very big problem.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> So is the economic Trinity the same as the immanent, or not?
> 
> But also do I need a robust trinitarian metaphysics (supplied by Aquinas) to know and believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? I'm not saying that this truth can't be parsed out theologically but if you're saying I can't know and believe this truth simply from the statements of Christ then I think we have a very big problem.


When I get back to my computer I can explain why Rahners Rule is very dangerous


----------



## 83r17h (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> But the economic Trinity _is _the immanent Trinity, is it not?



I'm pretty sure this is the identity that various modern theologians assert (Rahner for example), but they end up making God subject to history in some way because of it. Is God's action of becoming incarnate in Christ (economic) essential to the being of God? If you answer yes, then there are significant problems (least of which is the idea that God needs to "become" fully God through history). If you answer no, then there is no longer an identity between the economic and immanent Trinity.

The quotes you provide actually make a distinction (not identity) between the two. Distinction is neither separation nor identification. 
Brakel: "necessary consequence"
Muller: "the foundation or principium"



alexandermsmith said:


> As Muller says: if the economic Trinity is different from the immanent then the Revelation we have of God is not true.



I think that you are reading too much into what he actually says here (at least in the quote you provide). Consider:


> The *correlation *of the way in which God is known through his self-revelation and the way in which God truly is in himself constitutes the necessary presupposition of true doctrine, i.e., of the truth of the revelation itself;


Note that there are two things here: the way in which God is known (economic) and the way in which God is (immanent). Not their _identity_, but their _correlation_ is here asserted as the necessary foundation of true revelation. Further:



> therefore _the revelation that God is one _and _the revelation that God is three_ cannot be reduced to an eternal oneness and a temporal or economical threeness.


His point is that you have two items in revelation: oneness and threeness. Because of the aforementioned correlation (not identity), you cannot make the oneness immanent and the threeness economic. Both oneness and threeness are immanent, and both oneness and threeness are economic. This is because the economic reflects the immanent. What is being countered here isn't Thomas, or the idea of distinguishing the two. What is being countered is a destruction of the doctrine of the Trinity itself that is probably a form of modalism - or, the inherently deistic doctrine of liberal protestantism. 

You can have a distinction with an extremely strong (and necessary) connection. But _identity_ is an improper reduction which actually prevents rightly understanding the relationship. In an identity, only one (at most) of the original two survive in the definition. If we define the economic Trinity as God's free actions in the economy, then we can't assert an identity between the economic and immanent Trinity. Rather, the immanent Trinity is the acting agent in the economy (which is why the economic Trinity - the missions - are grounded in and reveal the processions; but the missions are not the processions). 

I'm probably messing up the terminology here somehow. When you ask whether or not the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, we need to define the word "is" carefully. God in himself is not strictly or absolutely identical with God's action in history. Rather, God in himself is the agent who acts in history, but his action in history is not himself (he does not enact himself), rather a reflection and revelation of himself. This is summed up in "processions ground missions." But for processions to ground missions, processions cannot be identical to missions. Instead of removing God from our knowledge, this provides the basis for our knowledge of God through his works while honoring God's own nature. 

But to go back to one of the original points: Thomas discusses this pretty clearly and precisely. I can't imagine why we would be opposed to ever reading Thomas when he discusses the Trinity in an edifying manner, but absorb the incorrect, reductionistic, and modern identity between economic and immanent Trinity from someone far worse like Rahner. I personally find great profit in reading theologians that I disagree with, if only because it sharpens me and points me back to the Scriptures so that I might know why I disagree. They challenge me, and direct me back to God. It also helps me develop more charity in dealing with others, rather than assuming a purely critical/judgmental perspective that I am the only one (or part of the only group) with access to the truth. Aquinas was wrong on soteriology, sure. But does being wrong on soteriology mean that you are unsaved? That seems to go too far, and actually contradict our own soteriology. We believe in justification by faith alone, not justification by belief in justification by faith alone. It is difficult to read Thomas and judge him to be against the Lord. Was he in error? Definitely. Was he seeking to be obedient to the Scriptures? It certainly seems so. It is an overrealization of eschatology to demand a perfect systematic theology (or perceive a perfect systematic theology) at any point in history. Acknowledging that the saints are imperfect until glory, we should be fine learning from them both where they are correct (by imitation) and where they are incorrect (by being different). This is why we have the examples of saints for us: to learn both from their failures and their successes. And furthermore, to read a non-modern perspective like Aquinas challenges us against the excesses and deficiencies of our own age, and those of any particular age we might wish to imitate (the Puritans were not perfect). And, the Puritan/Reformed example is to read widely throughout church history - perhaps one of the reasons why they were so great! It doesn't make sense to both hold them up, but also call their practice of reading and study evil or to be avoided. There's also a matter of individual wisdom. I would not send many people to _The Domain of the Word_ by John Webster for example, even though I have gotten incredible profit from reading through and wrestling with it, and the Scripture that he comments on. Others (few), I would send there if I knew they had a solid basis to be able to profit from it without wholesale accepting what he says. 

A question for you Alexander: how would you define "the immanent Trinity" and "the economic Trinity?" If you define them strictly as the being of the agent, then it seems that you are correct in saying that there is nothing different...but there will also be nothing "economic" about either definition. 



RamistThomist said:


> When I get back to my computer I can explain why Rahners Rule is very dangerous



You replied right as I finished typing - hopefully my poor explanation is helpful in the meantime. But you are more widely read and more articulate than me, so I'll look forward to your corrections and improvements when you have the time.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

83r17h said:


> I'm pretty sure this is the identity that various modern theologians assert (Rahner for example), but they end up making God subject to history in some way because of it. Is God's action of becoming incarnate in Christ (economic) essential to the being of God? If you answer yes, then there are significant problems (least of which is the idea that God needs to "become" fully God through history). If you answer no, then there is no longer an identity between the economic and immanent Trinity.
> 
> The quotes you provide actually make a distinction (not identity) between the two. Distinction is neither separation nor identification.
> Brakel: "necessary consequence"
> ...



This is very informative and helpful. How old is this distinction between the immanent and economic? Has it always been a feature of theology or is it a more recent articulation? I mean the terms themselves not just the ideas behind them.

I understood quoting Rahner would cause a reaction. Having never read him (because he's a heretic) I don't know how he defines what he means by that statement. My point was that to say Christ's statements about sending the Spirit are "just" about what He does in time is very dangerous because it separates the Trinity as it is from eternity and the Trinity as it operates in the world. These statements of Christ (and maybe a couple of others in the NT) are what we use to justify the claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. If they are just about God's works in time then I don't know what other ground we have for making that claim. Our trinitarian metaphysics has to be based on Scripture: we can't read our metaphysics _into_ Scripture. I used Muller's argument because it seemed to be saying that if we separate rather than distinguish between the two then we can't know the truth about God. I agree we must avoid both extremes. But what I heard in RamistThomist's statement was a separation and not merely a distinction. He seemed to be saying that without someone else explaining trinitarian metaphysics, the Scriptural account left us only with an economic Trinity. 

The language of a Brakel is far better and the distinction made by him and Muller seems sound. My concern has been suggestions- intentionally or not- that we can't know fundamental truths without reading someone like Aquinas. And yes when I read Scripture I am reading it with certain presuppositions drawn from the teachings of Reformed theology. But that is my point: *I *don't need to read Aquinas because Protestant divines before me did and produced a consistent, extensive body of systematic theology (which is very pastorally focused) and I can use that. I've never said Aquinas wasn't important in the history of the church or development of theology. I have only ever questioned the cavalier and enthusiastic recommendation of him _today _to Christians. Ostensibly because theology today is so shallow and yet I can't say I've seen as much vigour being displayed for Turretin and Van Maastricht as I'm seeing for Aquinas.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 5, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't agree. The Bible is clear on how a man is saved and 2 Timothy 3:16 and following makes it clear the Bible is enough. Galatians also is very clear on how we should view people who add works or rituals to the gospel. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God. Your philosophy is twisting you up and you are giving passes to people who the Bible does not. Perhaps they won't be judged as severely as those who persisted in their error as those after the reformation, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where people get a pass because they decided to follow human tradition rather than search the scriptures. Thomas was wrong on salvation and nothing will change that. We are supposed to mark and avoid teachings that will send you to hell.


Well ok, I think I know what's going on here. So, if I understand you correctly, don't read anyone before the Reformation because they were tainted by RCC. Do I understand you correctly, I don't want to misunderstand you so correct me if I'm wrong? Also the whole "your philosophy is twisting you up" comment is a bit presumptuous how do you know thats what the person, or anyone else agreeing with them is doing, you responded to is guilty of? 
I don't know your level of familiarity with the philosophy you're critiquing is but you would have to have a pretty familiar understanding of it to adequately critique anyone using it, maybe you have such knowledge IDK. Jacob and I disagree on several points here, but we both have (to give my brother kudos he has way more expertise on scholasticism than I do) adequate understanding in philosophy to engage in a respectful but sometimes critical discussion of them. But we both agree where it matters. Point being he and I have done the research to engage in such, I've always found it delightful, conversations. In order for you to know what "vain philosophy" is you first have to know philosophy.
But that seems to be what you have a problem with, any philosophy. But let's get back to my first point. If anyone before the Reformation is bad than how do you explain several points? They used people, like Aquinas, that came before them. So either you have some insight that they did not, nor would they agree with, but they're Reformation returned the gospel to the church by a methodology that you're saying is "Bible only" but they were too ignorant to see ultimately thats what they did (despite disagreeing with you on the value of people who came before)? 
This insight, which seems to me to be largely and almost exclusively, is an American thing popularized by Fundamentalists in the early parts of the 20th century. This insight was lost almost exclusively from the Apostles to the Fundamentalists. I say that because the logical consequences of what seems to be your opinion is that despite the Reformers and Puritans disagreeing with you on the value of those that came before they got it right on "sola scriptura" (they just didn'ttake it far enough). A further consequence would be that they started us on the right path but it took Fundamentalists in the 20th century to finish the Reformation on this and thus give us a correct way to view history, I say Fundamentalists because they are the first to popularize this in America. If I misunderstand you please correct me. Now one more problem I see, what to do with the Apostolic fathers? RC or saved? Problem being they learned directly from the Apostles, but since they came before the Reformation they probably aren't saved. Or you could come up with an arbitrary date of when the RCC started to preach a "gospel" sending people to hell (I think you made the comment about Aquinas and Augustine) but the date and the substance of the argument would be simplistic and arbitrary at best. Please correct any misunderstandings I have of your view. 
I tried to pinpoint the middle problem I spoke about and hopefully show it really is a bigger problem for the otherside. The person who above me spoke of "a lack of specificity" you're dead on and I hope this post focuses on what's really being said and how problematic it can be. If I or anyone else is misunderstanding you than perhaps being a bit more specific on your thoughts might alleviate that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 5, 2022)

The immanent Trinity/economic Trinity equation sets up a very traditional Roman Catholic mutualism. It makes God dependent on creation, which is one of the main problems with Aquinas, though he would probably deny that such was an implication of his theology. What God does in history that appears to change reflects only the change of the creation/created being, not a change in God. God is always consistent in His treatment of creation, so if the creation changes, then God's treatment of that person will change without reflecting any change in God Himself. But if you equate the immanent with the economic, then that forces a change within God Himself if there is a change in the economic Trinity. Ultimately, then, the equation of immanent and economic is equivalent to a denial of the immutability of God. The Reformed Forum guys are really great at filling out this discussion. In fact, they thread the needle between the very real problems of Oliphint's treatment of Aquinas, and the Reformed Thomists.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 5, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Well ok, I think I know what's going on here. So, if I understand you correctly, don't read anyone before the Reformation because they were tainted by RCC. Do I understand you correctly, I don't want to misunderstand you so correct me if I'm wrong? Also the whole "your philosophy is twisting you up" comment is a bit presumptuous how do you know thats what the person, or anyone else agreeing with them is doing, you responded to is guilty of?
> I don't know your level of familiarity with the philosophy you're critiquing is but you would have to have a pretty familiar understanding of it to adequately critique anyone using it, maybe you have such knowledge IDK. Jacob and I disagree on several points here, but we both have (to give my brother kudos he has way more expertise on scholasticism than I do) adequate understanding in philosophy to engage in a respectful but sometimes critical discussion of them. But we both agree where it matters. Point being he and I have done the research to engage in such, I've always found it delightful, conversations. In order for you to know what "vain philosophy" is you first have to know philosophy.
> But that seems to be what you have a problem with, any philosophy. But let's get back to my first point. If anyone before the Reformation is bad than how do you explain several points? They used people, like Aquinas, that came before them. So either you have some insight that they did not, nor would they agree with, but they're Reformation returned the gospel to the church by a methodology that you're saying is "Bible only" but they were too ignorant to see ultimately thats what they did (despite disagreeing with you on the value of people who came before)?
> This insight, which seems to me to be largely and almost exclusively, is an American thing popularized by Fundamentalists in the early parts of the 20th century. This insight was lost almost exclusively from the Apostles to the Fundamentalists. I say that because the logical consequences of what seems to be your opinion is that despite the Reformers and Puritans disagreeing with you on the value of those that came before they got it right on "sola scriptura" (they just didn'ttake it far enough). A further consequence would be that they started us on the right path but it took Fundamentalists in the 20th century to finish the Reformation on this and thus give us a correct way to view history, I say Fundamentalists because they are the first to popularize this in America. If I misunderstand you please correct me. Now one more problem I see, what to do with the Apostolic fathers? RC or saved? Problem being they learned directly from the Apostles, but since they came before the Reformation they probably aren't saved. Or you could come up with an arbitrary date of when the RCC started to preach a "gospel" sending people to hell (I think you made the comment about Aquinas and Augustine) but the date and the substance of the argument would be simplistic and arbitrary at best. Please correct any misunderstandings I have of your view.
> I tried to pinpoint the middle problem I spoke about and hopefully show it really is a bigger problem for the otherside. The person who above me spoke of "a lack of specificity" you're dead on and I hope this post focuses on what's really being said and how problematic it can be. If I or anyone else is misunderstanding you than perhaps being a bit more specific on your thoughts might alleviate that.


I didn't say not to read anyone before the reformation or that anyone before is romanist. My response was on Thomas specifically and his false teaching. It is also against people going beyond what scripture says. Thomas in his commentary on Romans (I believe it's Romans) somehow comes up with original, venial, and mortal sins. Two of those are cleverly devised myths. Thomas is full of stuff like that. I'm also not against all philosophy, but am against any philosophy that thinks it knows better than God and tries to explain things that God in his wisdom has decided not to reveal to us. 

In any case, I have said my piece and as others have said it has been stated multiple times and we always end up in the same place. I have no doubt some can read Thomas and not be taken in by his false teaching while focusing on what he says right, but in the other cases I have heard of many swimming the Tiber because they weren't firmly grounded in scripture and his reasoning seduced them. EO seems to have this affect on many reformed these days as well. It's very sad. You all are still my brothers and sisters who are thomists, but I just can't go along with you on this one. God bless.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> This is very informative and helpful. How old is this distinction between the immanent and economic? Has it always been a feature of theology or is it a more recent articulation? I mean the terms themselves not just the ideas behind them.
> 
> I understood quoting Rahner would cause a reaction. Having never read him (because he's a heretic) I don't know how he defines what he means by that statement. My point was that to say Christ's statements about sending the Spirit are "just" about what He does in time is very dangerous because it separates the Trinity as it is from eternity and the Trinity as it operates in the world. These statements of Christ (and maybe a couple of others in the NT) are what we use to justify the claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. If they are just about God's works in time then I don't know what other ground we have for making that claim. Our trinitarian metaphysics has to be based on Scripture: we can't read our metaphysics _into_ Scripture. I used Muller's argument because it seemed to be saying that if we separate rather than distinguish between the two then we can't know the truth about God. I agree we must avoid both extremes. But what I heard in RamistThomist's statement was a separation and not merely a distinction. He seemed to be saying that without someone else explaining trinitarian metaphysics, the Scriptural account left us only with an economic Trinity.
> 
> The language of a Brakel is far better and the distinction made by him and Muller seems sound. My concern has been suggestions- intentionally or not- that we can't know fundamental truths without reading someone like Aquinas. And yes when I read Scripture I am reading it with certain presuppositions drawn from the teachings of Reformed theology. But that is my point: *I *don't need to read Aquinas because Protestant divines before me did and produced a consistent, extensive body of systematic theology (which is very pastorally focused) and I can use that. I've never said Aquinas wasn't important in the history of the church or development of theology. I have only ever questioned the cavalier and enthusiastic recommendation of him _today _to Christians. Ostensibly because theology today is so shallow and yet I can't say I've seen as much





retroGRAD3 said:


> I didn't say not to read anyone before the reformation or that anyone before is romanist. My response was on Thomas specifically and his false teaching. It is also against people going beyond what scripture says. Thomas in his commentary on Romans (I believe it's Romans) somehow comes up with original, venial, and mortal sins. Two of those are cleverly devised myths. Thomas is full of stuff like that. I'm also not against all philosophy, but am against any philosophy that thinks it knows better than God and tries to explain things that God in his wisdom has decided not to reveal to us.
> 
> In any case, I have said my piece and as others have said it has been stated multiple times and we always end up in the same place. I have no doubt some can read Thomas and not be taken in by his false teaching while focusing on what he says right, but in the other cases I have heard of many swimming the Tiber because they weren't firmly grounded in scripture and his reasoning seduced them. EO seems to have this affect on many reformed these days as well. It's very sad. You all are still my brothers and sisters who are thomists, but I just can't go along with you on this one. God bless.


Well thank you for the clarification I'm glad j understand it now. For what its worth i have my own problems that can come from Thomism. Outside of theology proper and natural law I don't have much use for him. I've studied Thomists more than Thomas. I also echo your concerns about Thomas and philosophy. Thanks again as in for clarification. I'm sorry I misunderstood your larger concern.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The immanent Trinity/economic Trinity equation sets up a very traditional Roman Catholic mutualism. It makes God dependent on creation, which is one of the main problems with Aquinas, though he would probably deny that such was an implication of his theology. What God does in history that appears to change reflects only the change of the creation/created being, not a change in God. God is always consistent in His treatment of creation, so if the creation changes, then God's treatment of that person will change without reflecting any change in God Himself. But if you equate the immanent with the economic, then that forces a change within God Himself if there is a change in the economic Trinity. Ultimately, then, the equation of immanent and economic is equivalent to a denial of the immutability of God. The Reformed Forum guys are really great at filling out this discussion. In fact, they thread the needle between the very real problems of Oliphint's treatment of Aquinas, and the Reformed Thomists.


Thanks for that Lane. This is an area where I need to learn more. I have been wondering if people prefer Aquinas over Vos (and his student, Van Til), will it mean a subtle unthreading of important Reformed distinctives over time?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 5, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have been wondering if people prefer Aquinas over Vos (and his student, Van Til), will it mean a subtle unthreading of important Reformed distinctives over time?


Yes. This is what the work of Dr. Lane Tipton at Reformed Forum is really about. He has shown—convincingly, I believe—that Aquinas’ errors were not only soteriological, but also anthropological. This is where Vos is so important in highlighting the “deeper Protestant conception” as it regards the image of God, a facet of Vos which Dr. Tipton has apparently made his life’s work to propagate, for which I am very thankful.

I would highly encourage you to go to Reformed Forum’s website and sign up for their free classes.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thanks for that Lane. This is an area where I need to learn more. I have been wondering if people prefer Aquinas over Vos (and his student, Van Til), will it mean a subtle unthreading of important Reformed distinctives over time?



Most Reformed people today don't read either Aquinas or Vos/Van Til. One problem with that formulation is that Reformed distinctives (not least of which are "light of nature") were codified long before Van Til/Vos (though Vos was more open to natural theology than was Van Til). The natural theology of guys like Turretin didn't seem to unthread Reformed thought.

Another problem is that Van Til posited, if only accidentally, a gap between Calvin and the mid-20th century in terms of Reformed philosophy.

Van Til had many fascinating suggestions about anthropology. He developed almost none of them in any systematic, analytical sense. That is why I am cautiously open to Tipton's work. I think he can move the discussion past Van Til the apologist and Van Til the philosopher.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

Why do I read Thomas Aquinas? Because I can. It's as simple as that. I am part of Mortimer Adler's Great Books program. It's a conversation free men have been having for 3,000 years. No one is making you join.

Everyone here is overestimating Thomas's appeal to the general public (it's also easy to see who has read him and who hasn't). For one, it's hard to find good copies of Summa Theologiae that aren't bastardized anthologies (anthologies are places where good thinkers go to die). They are usually quite expensive. And it isn't easy to read. I mean, it is quite difficult. Not Hegel difficult, but still very hard.

I can't even get Reformed people to read Turretin and move beyond "yet another book on the 5 Points that is exactly the same as the last 300 on the subject." I have no illusions about getting people to read Thomas.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## DanSSwing (Aug 5, 2022)

We ought to be deriving our theology from divine revelation. Thomas derived most of his from Rome and from Aristotle. That doesn't mean that he didn't make some valuable contributions. But we need to be extra careful in his case to weigh his claims against Scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 5, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Yes. This is what the work of Dr. Lane Tipton at Reformed Forum is really about. He has shown—convincingly, I believe—that Aquinas’ errors were not only soteriological, but also anthropological. This is where Vos is so important in highlighting the “deeper Protestant conception” as it regards the image of God, a facet of Vos which Dr. Tipton has apparently made his life’s work to propagate, for which I am very thankful.
> 
> I would highly encourage you to go to Reformed Forum’s website and sign up for their free classes.


Thanks Taylor. I love the Reformed Forum. I assume the Fellowship in Reformed Apologetics course is the one you mean? It looks quite extensive https://reformedforum.org/fellowship-in-reformed-apologetics/

Jacob recently made reference to the natural theology of Francis Turretin. I wonder how the Reformed Forum treats this? 


RamistThomist said:


> Most Reformed people today don't read either Aquinas or Vos


Actually more people are reading Vos today thanks to the publication of his Reformed Dogmatics, his writings on Covenant Theology, his sermons recently published by Banner of Truth, and Olinger's biography of Vos. 


RamistThomist said:


> That is why I am cautiously open to Tipton's work.


I hope it leads to a consistent strengthening of Reformed theology.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

DanSSwing said:


> We ought to be deriving our theology from divine revelation. Thomas derived most of his from Rome and from Aristotle. That doesn't mean that he didn't make some valuable contributions. But we need to be extra careful in his case to weigh his claims against Scripture.



Natural revelation is also divine revelation, as it comes from God.

There are many things I get from Aristotle that I can't imagine doing without. Such as: 


B is or exists (principle of existence)

B is B (principle of identity)
B is not non-B (principle of non-contradiction)
Either B or non-B (principle of excluded middle)
Non-B -/> B (principle of negative causality)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> @RamistThomist and others:
> 
> IF we assume that there’s value in studying the whole body of Christian writing throughout the history of the Church,
> 
> ...



I'm back at a computer so I can give more of an answer:

On whom should I layman focus? The Hodges. Preferably Charles, but A. A. is probably more accessible.

As to Puritans most would say Owen, but if you do that then you are more likely to focus on a particular topic than a systematic whole. In that case, do volumes 1 and 2.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The immanent Trinity/economic Trinity equation sets up a very traditional Roman Catholic mutualism. It makes God dependent on creation, which is one of the main problems with Aquinas, though he would probably deny that such was an implication of his theology. What God does in history that appears to change reflects only the change of the creation/created being, not a change in God. God is always consistent in His treatment of creation, so if the creation changes, then God's treatment of that person will change without reflecting any change in God Himself. But if you equate the immanent with the economic, then that forces a change within God Himself if there is a change in the economic Trinity. Ultimately, then, the equation of immanent and economic is equivalent to a denial of the immutability of God. The Reformed Forum guys are really great at filling out this discussion. In fact, they thread the needle between the very real problems of Oliphint's treatment of Aquinas, and the Reformed Thomists.


What is lacking in the treatment of this problem by the Reformed Scholastics?
I'm concerning that in this whole discussion, the juxtaposition is being made between modern manners of dealing with these matters, including the approach of Van Til, and the method of Thomas, with the Reformed Scholastics getting lost somewhere in the middle. If there is any value in appropriate Aquinas, I think it is to be found in how he has already been appropriated by Turretin, Ames, Maccovius, Voetius, etc. It's fine to point out this or that problem in Aquinas himself, I supposed, but are these problems also present in the Reformed Scholastics?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't agree. The Bible is clear on how a man is saved and 2 Timothy 3:16 and following makes it clear the Bible is enough. Galatians also is very clear on how we should view people who add works or rituals to the gospel. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God. Your philosophy is twisting you up and you are giving passes to people who the Bible does not. Perhaps they won't be judged as severely as those who persisted in their error as those after the reformation, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where people get a pass because they decided to follow human tradition rather than search the scriptures. Thomas was wrong on salvation and nothing will change that. We are supposed to mark and avoid teachings that will send you to hell.



I don't think you understood what he asked. If you did, you didn't answer his question. Would you apply the same standard to Augustine? Augustine is not as clear on justification as we would wish him to be. He said justification is "to be made righteous." From a Protestant standpoint that is unacceptable.


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I'm back at a computer so I can give more of an answer:
> 
> On whom should I layman focus? The Hodges. Preferably Charles, but A. A. is probably more accessible.
> 
> As to Puritans most would say Owen, but if you do that then you are more likely to focus on a particular topic than a systematic whole. In that case, do volumes 1 and 2.


Thank you, sir. I just so happen to have Hodge’s 3 volume ST. I also have Berkhof’s ST and Manual, which are both on the list.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I don't think you understood what he asked. If you did, you didn't answer his question. Would you apply the same standard to Augustine? Augustine is not as clear on justification as we would wish him to be. He said justification is "to be made righteous." From a Protestant standpoint that is unacceptable.


It isn't worth arguing anymore. I listed my standard and it is scripture. I believe I answered the question. The Bible is clear across the board on who should inherit the kingdom of God and that is the standard. The gospel was given to the simple. We never needed Thomas and we don't need him now. We have him though, great, use what you can and throw out the trash he invented if you want. God is bigger than a man and can communicate clearly on his own. You don't like my answer. I don't like your answers. Just going to have to agree to disagree as we have in the past.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> You don't like my answer.



You actually didn't answer the question. But yes, we've gone round this before.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Thank you, sir. I just so happen to have Hodge’s 3 volume ST. I also have Berkhof’s ST and Manual, which are both on the list.



Berkhof is more succinct, but I like Hodge better. And despite his unfair reputation, Hodge is actually a good writer. He's no WGT Shedd, of course, but still better than any modern.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Natural revelation is also divine revelation, as it comes from God.
> 
> There are many things I get from Aristotle that I can't imagine doing without. Such as:
> 
> ...


Could you really not have grasped these without reading Aristotle though? I've read very little of Aristotle, and I'm pretty sure that all of those principles were fairly clear to me before I read the little of him I have read. In fact, the first 4 propositions are manifest to the average 7 year old, even if they wouldn't express them in exactly the same terms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Could you really not have grasped these without reading Aristotle though? I've read very little of Aristotle, and I'm pretty sure that all of those principles were fairly clear to me before I read the little of him I have read. In fact, the first 4 propositions are manifest to the average 7 year old, even if they wouldn't express them in exactly the same terms.



In a sense that's true. That's why you have to use logic and first principles before you can even presuppose God. Part of it is tongue-in-cheek. We have this reaction against Aristotle that our fathers like Peter Martyr Vermigli didn't have.
https://www.amazon.com/Commentary-A...eter+martyr+vermigli+aristotle,aps,139&sr=8-1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 5, 2022)

I appreciate many of he things shared in this lengthy thread.

Getting back to the OP, the controversy I've been following more closely is between James White and other Baptists who are into what they insist is "Great Tradition" exegesis and theology.

I see a lot of it as speaking past one another.

On the one hand there are those who are rightly pointing out that there is a well-worn doctrine of God that carried over into the Reformation.

On the other hand, some of the same just use the term "Great Tradition" and if someone (like James White) says that he's not sure that he can go with some very fine distinctions about God's simplicity then James has left the faith. The specific issue James started with had to do with whether God's attributes are really distinguishable between each other in the Godhead. He pushes back that, exegetically, this is a hard conclusion to come to and he's not willing to go there but doesn't cast out those who disagree. 

I rather see that issue concerning God's attributes as crossing into archetypal theology where God is in Himself qualitatively different than we can comprehend. I'm willing, for the sake of not understanding all the issues, to see a metaphysical argument toward that end as valid.

James wasn't had had been asking for exegetical arguments. He's then accused of sort of a gross Biblicism where he throws out all of Church history if he doesn't side with Aquinas as the sine qua non on the doctrine of God.

Instead of remaining focused on this issue, what James has been doing is pointing out this sort of simple syllogism:

P1: If a man errs greatly in other areas of theology he cannot necessarily be relied upon as the final word concerning the doctrine of God.
P2: Aquinas errs regularly in other aspects of theology.
Conclusion: Let's not be too hasty making Aquinas the final word on the doctrine of God.

What James has been doing is doubling down on P2 showing how often Aquinas' theology on the Mass and many other topics is way off. He's the first one to regularly admit that Aquinas need not be disposed of, but that he errors are not inconsequential and so where does this "Great Tradition" party get the authority to judge all (even minor) departures from Aquinas as rejecting Church history.

in my opinion, there has been a lot of really childish circling of the wagons by some in response to White preferring to just mock Sola Scriptura or claiming,, baldly, that he's a Socinian.

White is not one to back down or lower the temperature either and I think many might come to the conclusion that his regular pointing out of Aquinas' well-known errors mean he rejects the value of Church history.

White, I think, rightly points out that even historical theology ultimately needs to be defended by appeal to the exegesis or GNC of Scripture, but it appears (to me at least) that others who Tweet against him as a rank heretic are not able to mount the case from a Biblical standpoint. In other words, the doctrines of the Godhead that arose over time did come about not by appealing to a "tradition" but to Scripture as their foundation. It wasn't a bald exegesis and required some use of GNC, but it did ultimately rest on Scripture.

In all of this, I'm willing to concede I haven't studied the issue on some of the finer points of simplicity to either argue for or against Aquinas on some of the specific issues that White is arguing regarding God's attributes ultimately all being the same. I do agree with those who have criticized Frame and others as departing from basic ideas of Divine simplicity but those were mounted with much greater care than I see here.

I'm not saying James is going about this in the best possible way, but it is pretty hard for anyone in his position to suddenly have fellow Baptists accusing him of things that are just not true regarding his facility with Church history whether you agree with all his conclusions. Even during the ERAS and ESS debates years ago, James has sufficient facility to see the problems inherent in that controversy and those who love Aquinas on this topic would do better to mount arguments rather than retreating behind vague ideas that there is a "Great Tradition exegesis" and the like.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> In a sense that's true. *That's why you have to use logic and first principles before you can even presuppose God*. Part of it is tongue-in-cheek. We have this reaction against Aristotle that our fathers like Peter Martyr Vermigli didn't have.
> https://www.amazon.com/Commentary-A...eter+martyr+vermigli+aristotle,aps,139&sr=8-1


I'm not sure the part in bold is true, at least one does not need to be consciously using these to presuppose God. Today my wife asked our 3 year old son whether he had prayed to God today, he said, "Yes, I said 'God be merciful to me, a sinner'". I doubt he could articulate, or even get his little head around any logical proposition in any meaningful way, but he was sure that God exists and that he had prayed to him.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The immanent Trinity/economic Trinity equation sets up a very traditional Roman Catholic mutualism. It makes God dependent on creation, which is one of the main problems with Aquinas, though he would probably deny that such was an implication of his theology. What God does in history that appears to change reflects only the change of the creation/created being, not a change in God. God is always consistent in His treatment of creation, so if the creation changes, then God's treatment of that person will change without reflecting any change in God Himself. But if you equate the immanent with the economic, then that forces a change within God Himself if there is a change in the economic Trinity. Ultimately, then, the equation of immanent and economic is equivalent to a denial of the immutability of God. The Reformed Forum guys are really great at filling out this discussion. In fact, they thread the needle between the very real problems of Oliphint's treatment of Aquinas, and the Reformed Thomists.



Could you recommend any particular episodes of Reformed Forum on this issue?


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 5, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I appreciate many of he things shared in this lengthy thread.
> 
> Getting back to the OP, the controversy I've been following more closely is between James White and other Baptists who are into what they insist is "Great Tradition" exegesis and theology.
> 
> ...


You know I first saw James and I thought wait a minute thats not me. Than I kept reading and I thought that's not me. Too many james out there. I agree Rich with everything you said. I do doubt why this is such a problem given that I think, we disagreeing have at least superficially, reached some sort of understanding. We are in Christ.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Why do I read Thomas Aquinas? Because I can. It's as simple as that. I am part of Mortimer Adler's Great Books program. It's a conversation free men have been having for 3,000 years. No one is making you join.
> 
> Everyone here is overestimating Thomas's appeal to the general public (it's also easy to see who has read him and who hasn't). For one, it's hard to find good copies of Summa Theologiae that aren't bastardized anthologies (anthologies are places where good thinkers go to die). They are usually quite expensive. And it isn't easy to read. I mean, it is quite difficult. Not Hegel difficult, but still very hard.
> 
> I can't even get Reformed people to read Turretin and move beyond "yet another book on the 5 Points that is exactly the same as the last 300 on the subject." I have no illusions about getting people to read Thomas.



Well then I really don't know what we have been arguing about. No one said you couldn't read Aquinas if you wanted to. We have been discussing the recent promotion of him by, amongst others, Christian ministers to the church at large. And claims being made that it is important for Christians to be reading him. This is very different from one's private reading. This is about the dangers of unqualified advocacy of dangerous writers (whether or not people actually get round to reading them). We have a responsibility to our brethren- and ministers especially so- not to place stumbling blocks in their way. That is what this discussion, and the wider discussion, has been about as much as it has been about the merits of Aquinas' work itself.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Most Reformed people today don't read either Aquinas or Vos/Van Til. One problem with that formulation is that Reformed distinctives (not least of which are "light of nature") were codified long before Van Til/Vos (though Vos was more open to natural theology than was Van Til). The natural theology of guys like Turretin didn't seem to unthread Reformed thought.
> 
> Another problem is that Van Til posited, if only accidentally, a gap between Calvin and the mid-20th century in terms of Reformed philosophy.
> 
> Van Til had many fascinating suggestions about anthropology. He developed almost none of them in any systematic, analytical sense. That is why I am cautiously open to Tipton's work. I think he can move the discussion past Van Til the apologist and Van Til the philosopher.


I think personally bringing Van Til into the mix is going complicate things. I'm saying this because we both know it will. Jacob out of respect let's stick to Aquinas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well then I really don't know what we have been arguing about. No one said you couldn't read Aquinas if you wanted to. We have been discussing the recent promotion of him by, amongst others, Christian ministers to the church at large. And claims being made that it is important for Christians to be reading him. This is very different from one's private reading. This is about the dangers of unqualified advocacy of dangerous writers (whether or not people actually get round to reading them). We have a responsibility to our brethren- and ministers especially so- not to place stumbling blocks in their way. That is what this discussion, and the wider discussion, has been about as much as it has been about the merits of Aquinas' work itself.


I'm glad for your response, I am. But historically speaking there has been a resurgence of interest in Aquinas in protestant circles. So that may explain it.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I don't think you understood what he asked. If you did, you didn't answer his question. Would you apply the same standard to Augustine? Augustine is not as clear on justification as we would wish him to be. He said justification is "to be made righteous." From a Protestant standpoint that is unacceptable.



This really isn't the point. Why must @retroGRAD3 , or I, or anyone who believes Aquinas to be a heretic, have to go through the list of all pre-Reformation theologians and give our verdict on their salvation? It is not for us to put a man into heaven or hell, for we cannot do either. They are in the Lord's hands. All we can do is evaluate their work as to its usefulness. As @retroGRAD3 has said: Scripture is our standard whereby we must judge everything. That standard has never changed. At the moment Aquinas is the subject of debate. This asking "what about him, what about so-and-so" to try to undermine our criticism is actually very dangerous. It is not for us to make exceptions to clear Scriptural teaching. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." Rome has ensnared untold millions in her lies and heresies and Aquinas is one of the chief architects of her soul-destroying system. This is not a philosophical debating society. These teachings have eternal consequences and that is why we question the wisdom of promoting writers like Aquinas.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> And despite his unfair reputation, Hodge is actually a good writer.


I didn’t realize he had this reputation. I never had any problems with his writing. I do wish, though, that someone would do with Hodge what Alan Gomes did with Shedd—namely, translate the lengthy sections of Greek, Latin, German, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> and those who love Aquinas on this topic would do better to mount arguments rather than retreating behind vague ideas that there is a "Great Tradition exegesis" and the like.


We have mounted many arguments.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> This really isn't the point. Why must @retroGRAD3 , or I, or anyone who believes Aquinas to be a heretic, have to go through the list of all pre-Reformation theologians and give our verdict on their salvation? It is not for us to put a man into heaven or hell, for we cannot do either. They are in the Lord's hands. All we can do is evaluate their work as to its usefulness. As @retroGRAD3 has said: Scripture is our standard whereby we must judge everything. That standard has never changed. At the moment Aquinas is the subject of debate. This asking "what about him, what about so-and-so" to try to undermine our criticism is actually very dangerous. It is not for us to make exceptions to clear Scriptural teaching. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." Rome has ensnared untold millions in her lies and heresies and Aquinas is one of the chief architects of her soul-destroying system. This is not a philosophical debating society. These teachings have eternal consequences and that is why we question the wisdom of promoting writers like Aquinas.


The point is that we give Augustine a free pass even though he errs on justification


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> The point is that we give Augustine a free pass even though he errs on justification


No one gets a free pass. The answer I gave before is still the same. The standard is scripture and specifically Galatians in this discussion. Did he do what Paul said makes you accursed? If our beliefs violate this, then we are lost. I'm not willing to go against God on this and think I know better.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 5, 2022)

The doctrine of Galatians that those who preach a false gospel is clear, but we should not overlook the fact that Paul wrote to those who had been "bewitched" with a false gospel as if they were still brothers, because of his confidence that they could we restored, and did not hold firmly to a false gospel. The point being, not everyone who at some point in their lives expresses an incorrect formulation of the gospel is damned. Augustine's and Thomas's formulations of the gospel both exclude any imputation, and are somewhat similar, the main difference is that Thomas more clearly articulated what we call the doctrine of merit. Neither is orthodox from a protestant perspective, as Jacob has pointed out. Personally I do not feel the need to speculate on whether either is in heaven to read them. What errors they committed and how these errors can be avoided is the more pressing matter. Personally I would not recommend the reading of Thomas to those who cannot already explain reformed doctrine on all points from the Scriptures, and who have not already studied the biblical languages and our controversies with the church of Rome. Then one reads the fathers and scholastics to learn historical theology. This is the order that Hoornbeek recommends. But the Reformers give us a good example of how to usefully appropriate scholastic categories and learning, while rejecting their errors. It is unwise to try to start from zero, as if the reformation, or worse yet, old Princeton, or 20th century Westminster seminary, is the starting point and genesis of what is good and useful in theology. Our doctrine of God is in shambles and countless men who should know better have fallen into some form of Arianism or Tritheism in trying.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 5, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> The doctrine of Galatians that those who preach a false gospel is clear, but we should not overlook the fact that Paul wrote to those who had been "bewitched" with a false gospel as if they were still brothers, because of his confidence that they could we restored, and did not hold firmly to a false gospel. The point being, not everyone who at some point in their lives expresses an incorrect formulation of the gospel is damned. Augustine's and Thomas's formulations of the gospel both exclude any imputation, and are somewhat similar, the main difference is that Thomas more clearly articulated what we call the doctrine of merit. Neither is orthodox from a protestant perspective, as Jacob has pointed out. Personally I do not feel the need to speculate on whether either is in heaven to read them. What errors they committed and how these errors can be avoided is the more pressing matter. Personally I would not recommend the reading of Thomas to those who cannot already explain reformed doctrine on all points from the Scriptures, and who have not already studied the biblical languages and our controversies with the church of Rome. Then one reads the fathers and scholastics to learn historical theology. This is the order that Hoornbeek recommends. But the Reformers give us a good example of how to usefully appropriate scholastic categories and learning, while rejecting their errors. It is unwise to try to start from zero, as if the reformation, or worse yet, old Princeton, or 20th century Westminster seminary, is the starting point and genesis of what is good and useful in theology. Our doctrine of God is in shambles and countless men who should know better have fallen into some form of Arianism or Tritheism in trying.


Nothing to disagree with here and I do understand what you are saying about Galatians and that he is warning them to cease from their current path. However, this does not change the fact that it is also saying that if the path is continued then the gospel will be of no use/effect to them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Redneck_still_Reforming (Aug 5, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't agree. The Bible is clear on how a man is saved and 2 Timothy 3:16 and following makes it clear the Bible is enough. Galatians also is very clear on how we should view people who add works or rituals to the gospel. You aren't disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with God. Your philosophy is twisting you up and you are giving passes to people who the Bible does not. Perhaps they won't be judged as severely as those who persisted in their error as those after the reformation, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where people get a pass because they decided to follow human tradition rather than search the scriptures. Thomas was wrong on salvation and nothing will change that. We are supposed to mark and avoid teachings that will send you to hell.


I know this is about Aquinas but you have regularly advocated Puritans and other Reformed authors. If this is your standard, that adding to justification is wrong (and I agree), I assume you reject Jonathan Edwards (for he redefined justification with affections) and "mark and avoid" him. Pre and post Reformation still isnt clean. I think we should still read him but with a Bible in hand.

Where they lay-person is concerned, should we so vocally support Puritans so quickly without proper context? They commited regicide (see Cromwell and Owen), violated the standards of Christian obedience to government through an imposition of an over-realized Church dominated society, and eventually evolved into unitarians in New England (with much of this resulting from Edwards and his disciple in spirit, Finney). Many Puritans are a beautiful help to the Christian life, I love them, but they arent without flaws. Nobody here has said anyone is flawless!

Part of what I don't get with the arguments is that nobody here is advocating a contra-confessional view concerning the reading of Scripture and its interpretation on the PB at least. We aren't saying that nobody understands Scripture without Aquinas or Aristotle, we are merely making use of natural revelation that is hidden in various places. Scripture is still our firm foundation amd we reject that which is repugnant to it. Even though the truth may be buried, it is still of use. Aquinas is not being sold in the church bookstore for everyone to read (for example), he is being advocated among confessionally reformed men and women who seek to engage in educated discourse.

I mean what I have said not to be combative but after reading the entire thread, these are my thoughts. I now understand more nuance. I appreciate everone looking to Scripture and holding fast to justification by faith alone. We are dealing with each other with respect even when we disagree in what is prudent for the lay-persons library. Im glad that we all know that when working with impure metal, you have to remove that which is dross to get to the best part (which might be tin or gold). We do this with all men. But we know only God's Word is perfect (Ps. 12:6-7).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 5, 2022)

Redneck_still_Reforming said:


> Part of what I don't get with the arguments is that nobody here is advocating a contra-confessional view concerning the reading of Scripture and its interpretation on the PB at least. We aren't saying that nobody understands Scripture without Aquinas or Aristotle, we are merely making use of natural revelation that is hidden in various places.


I would agree this is true of many, but based on some of the things I see on Twitter and other places I'm not sure it's true of all. There are some that seem to advocate that we can't understand scripture without tradition and philosophy. That is what I am pushing back against.


----------



## Tychicus (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> He's no WGT Shedd, of course, but still better than any modern.


So I'm at this makeshift Christian bookstall, and I go around to the used books section scouring for something worth getting. And there, among the Benny Hinns and TD Jakes, I find the 3 volume Dogmatic Theology, the 1981 set published by Thomas Nelson. Picked it up in a jiffy, and got a reasonable price for it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> We have mounted many arguments.


I wasn't referring to you, per se. As I said, I was dealing with White's disagreement. I haven't seen much in response to him other than labelling and charging him.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 6, 2022)

https://puritanboard.com/threads/wh...omas-aquinas-for-the-reformed-theology.11463/

Ahh the good old days when rsc was here


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I wasn't referring to you, per se. As I said, I was dealing with White's disagreement. I haven't seen much in response to him other than labelling and charging him.


Barrett, Carter and others have done well researched articles on these topics. white responds with DL episodes


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Barrett, Carter and others have done well researched articles on these topics. white responds with DL episodes


Can you point me to the articles, please?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Can you point me to the articles, please?


My internet gets fixed this afternoon. Until then, Credomag has done outstanding work


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> My internet gets fixed this afternoon. Until then, Credomag has done outstanding work


Are you saying they publish good articles on the topics in general or that they are publishing articles directly interacting with James White's criticisms? If it's not the later then I don't believe this actually accomplishes anything. You seemed to disregard White responding on the DL, but you yourself spend ample time responding to things on Twitter and these boards, so why is his show not a valid format for responding to criticisms? That was a pointless comment and an attempt it seems like to poison the well. On Twitter the stuff you and your group posts is no more mature than any other random tweets, except I would say they come off as far more arrogant. As far as I can tell, he reads the material directly (including Thomas) and then makes a response. Then, as far as I can tell, your side responds by name calling and offers no exegesis. I'm starting to think your side is incapable of exegesis. You yourself are constantly avoiding ever opening your Bible. If these articles or responses are out there, please point us to them so we can be corrected. I'm not interested in philosophy if it cannot be backed up by scripture.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 6, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> What is lacking in the treatment of this problem by the Reformed Scholastics?
> I'm concerning that in this whole discussion, the juxtaposition is being made between modern manners of dealing with these matters, including the approach of Van Til, and the method of Thomas, with the Reformed Scholastics getting lost somewhere in the middle. If there is any value in appropriate Aquinas, I think it is to be found in how he has already been appropriated by Turretin, Ames, Maccovius, Voetius, etc. It's fine to point out this or that problem in Aquinas himself, I supposed, but are these problems also present in the Reformed Scholastics?


I wouldn't say that anything is really lacking in the Reformed Scholastic treatment of the issues here. The Reformed Scholastics rigorously avoided mutualism, so on this point they disagreed with Aquinas. They may have agreed with Aquinas on some points concerning natural law. But I think they stop short of affirming any sort of mutualism. The very consistent archetype/ectype distinction in the Reformed Scholastics would preclude it, when applied consistently, as the Scholastics did. Van Til would therefore be in continuity with the Reformed Scholastics on it as well. Some people try to drive a wedge between Van Til and the scholastics because Van Til wrote pre-Muller, when most scholars thought of scholasticism as a description of content instead of method. But in substance, VT is, I believe, in continuity with the Reformed scholastics. 


alexandermsmith said:


> Could you recommend any particular episodes of Reformed Forum on this issue?


I would recommend the Tipton courses on Van Til, and the lectures on mutualism in particular. You can sign up for free on those classes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> You seemed to disregard White responding on the DL, but you yourself spend ample time responding to things on Twitter and these boards, so why is his show not a valid format for responding to criticisms? That


I do write articles. Some are published on heidelblog. 

He’s welcome to do his DL. But he isn’t demonstrating any analytical understanding of the issues


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I do write articles. Some are published on heidelblog.
> 
> He’s welcome to do his DL. But he isn’t demonstrating any analytical understanding of the issues


You accused me before of not answering the question. Do you feel this response answered the question that was actually asked? If your blog articles directly interacting with white, even to point out where he is not understanding, I will gladly read them. Or, are these just random articles? If you provide links I can read them either way.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> You accused me before of not answering the question. Do you feel this response answered the question that was actually asked? If your blog articles directly interacting with white, even to point out where he is not understanding, I will gladly read them. Or, are these just random articles? If you provide links I can read them either way.


Until my internet gets fixed, that’s about all I can do

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Until my internet gets fixed, that’s about all I can do


Fair enough


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 6, 2022)

Maybe we could all get together on a teams, Skype, or zoom call someday and just talk straight to each other about all this. I sometimes fear we can lose a lot when we just message at each other. I have always found my in person chats with @Charles Johnson to be extremely helpful (thank you brother).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

As to responding to White in some formal way. Well, there are several ways to look at it. To my knowledge he hasn't written on these topics (I'm excluding his earlier book on the Trinity, since it didn't really deal with simplicity, inseparable operations, etc). At best, all I have to go on are Dividing Line transcripts. We did talk about that once where it seemed like he affirmed the kenotic heresy. I know he rejects it, but still...

He does have at least one AOmin article on simplicity where he lists his problems with it. About all one needs to do in response is quote Dolezal's "all that is in God is God." If Dolezal's claim is false, then it means God depends on something besides God to be God.

Any of my reviews where I formally state and champion the classical view of God can serve as an initial rebuttal to White's view.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Now, to address some ambiguities:

1) What does it mean to "go beyond Scripture?" We hear that a lot but I am not sure what to make of it. Go beyond the "words of Scripture?" We must do that to affirm the Trinity. Go beyond the "teaching of Scripture?" Well, that begs the very question.

2) Thomas and Aristotle. I'm not sure how tagging Thomas with Aristotle is supposed to reflect poorly on him. Some of what Aristotle said is wrong. Much of what he said is correct. If Thomas is bad for using Aristotle, then he must be using the bad parts of Aristotle. What are those?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Now, to address some ambiguities:
> 
> 1) What does it mean to "go beyond Scripture?" We hear that a lot but I am not sure what to make of it. Go beyond the "words of Scripture?" We must do that to affirm the Trinity. Go beyond the "teaching of Scripture?" Well, that begs the very question.


I think you know what is meant. Words of scripture would be very shallow. Teaching of scripture is what is meant. No question begging, I believe again, you know what this means. I see you made sure to call White a heretic again when you know it isn't true. He actually has a program aimed specifically at the charge of him being a heretic. You can see it here: https://odysee.com/@aominorg:0/james-white-is-teaching-heresy!:6?r=HtsnXLUzt1Q6NKMA91A8gS9mbQxD1ncQ.



RamistThomist said:


> 2) Thomas and Aristotle. I'm not sure how tagging Thomas with Aristotle is supposed to reflect poorly on him. Some of what Aristotle said is wrong. Much of what he said is correct. If Thomas is bad for using Aristotle, then he must be using the bad parts of Aristotle. What are those?


My comments throughout this entire thread are about Thomas as a heretic...which he actually was, not that he used Aristotle. So, do you believe Thomas is more orthodox than White at this point?

This entire subject is beyond insider baseball at this point and seems to only be useful in driving a wedge in between Christians. Both sides are being immature and don't seem to have much to say to the other besides calling each other names. I don't believe there has been any actually interaction and you are unable to provide any evidence of this either. Perhaps this is because neither side is willing to actually directly engage. As far as I can tell though, White has not resorted to calling everyone heretics that disagrees with him. He is arrogant at times, sure, but I don't see him casting people out of the kingdom.

This subject is clearly really important to you. Be careful to stay balanced. This isn't the gospel though and I don't think it's very edifying to just know a bunch of facts and philosophy and terms. It doesn't bring me any closer to Jesus. If it does for you, great, go for it. I just don't care anymore. I should have learned that the last time we did this dance. In any case, I will try my best to keep silent when these conversations come up from now on.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So, do you believe Thomas is more orthodox than White at this point?



On the doctrine of God and Christology, yes. On justification, no.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I think you know what is meant. Words of scripture would be very shallow. Teaching of scripture is what is meant. No question begging, I believe again, you know what this means



It was a legitimate question. Everyone believes his view is the teaching of Scripture, so simply saying "the teaching of Scripture" doesn't tell me all that much.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I see you made sure to call White a heretic again when you know it isn't true. He actually has a program aimed specifically at the charge of him being a heretic.



I did not call him a heretic. I said it seemed he promoted the kenotic heresy.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't believe there has been any actually interaction and you are unable to provide any evidence of this either.



I can very easily provide evidence of all the invitations White has received from numerous scholars to discuss these issues. He refuses.


retroGRAD3 said:


> and I don't think it's very edifying to just know a bunch of facts and philosophy and terms.



How is that remark helpful? I'm literally promoting the same view of God (which the ancients always believed lead to adoration) the church has always confessed.



retroGRAD3 said:


> It doesn't bring me any closer to Jesus.



Studying God does bring me closer to Jesus. At this point we are just trading anecdotal experiences.


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 6, 2022)

For myself, discussions like this tend to become overly pedantic, and 1 Cor. 8:1-3 comes to mind. But then I've been called simplistic...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> For myself, discussions like this tend to become overly pedantic, and 1 Cor. 8:1-3 comes to mind. But then I've been called simplistic...



It comes back to the doctrine of God. Either God has unrealized potency or he doesn't.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Here is another reason we read Thomas. As we are reading guys like Ames (didn't someone say that the Puritans said everything that was good in Thomas?), we might not always be aware of what Ames is talking about.
(starts around 3:00)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Here is another reason we read Thomas. *As we are reading guys like Ames (didn't someone say that the Puritans said everything that was good in Thomas?), we might not always be aware of what Ames is talking about*.
> (starts around 3:00)



If you do not have some background in the Patristics and Medieval scholastics, you will be at a loss to understand what the Reformers, Puritans, and even the Westminster Confession itself are actually teaching on various issues.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If you do not have some background in the Patristics and Medieval scholastics, you will be at a loss to understand what the Reformers, Puritans, and even the Westminster Confession itself are actually teaching on various issues.



As I love to keep saying, the Confession says that God's foreknowledge is the First Cause.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> As I love to keep saying, the Confession says that God's foreknowledge is the First Cause.



And to understand what that term means, you have to have some understanding of scholastic metaphysics.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Either God has unrealized potency or he doesn't.


Is there a technical definition of “unrealized potency”?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Is there a technical definition of “unrealized potency”?



Technical or lay? In any case, something in God that is unrealized or capable of motion and change.


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 6, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> This really isn't the point. Why must @retroGRAD3 , or I, or anyone who believes Aquinas to be a heretic, have to go through the list of all pre-Reformation theologians and give our verdict on their salvation? It is not for us to put a man into heaven or hell, for we cannot do either. They are in the Lord's hands. All we can do is evaluate their work as to its usefulness. As @retroGRAD3 has said: Scripture is our standard whereby we must judge everything. That standard has never changed. At the moment Aquinas is the subject of debate. This asking "what about him, what about so-and-so" to try to undermine our criticism is actually very dangerous. It is not for us to make exceptions to clear Scriptural teaching. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." Rome has ensnared untold millions in her lies and heresies and Aquinas is one of the chief architects of her soul-destroying system. This is not a philosophical debating society. These teachings have eternal consequences and that is why we question the wisdom of promoting writers like Aquinas.





retroGRAD3 said:


> I think you know what is meant. Words of scripture would be very shallow. Teaching of scripture is what is meant. No question begging, I believe again, you know what this means. I see you made sure to call White a heretic again when you know it isn't true. He actually has a program aimed specifically at the charge of him being a heretic. You can see it here: https://odysee.com/@aominorg:0/james-white-is-teaching-heresy!:6?r=HtsnXLUzt1Q6NKMA91A8gS9mbQxD1ncQ.
> 
> 
> My comments throughout this entire thread are about Thomas as a heretic...which he actually was, not that he used Aristotle. So, do you believe Thomas is more orthodox than White at this point?
> ...


Did I call anyone names, besides pointing a historical linkage in ideas? I would like to please consider a possibility of perhaps your dislike of philosophy is because you don't understand it? Also you seem to be a follower of James White, but we can both agree he's not scripture. So I guess we're not orthodox because we admit up front influences from God's servants, however imperfect. I take older people as influences and you take james white, no difference. Just because someone claims scripture doesn't make it so.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Technical or lay? In any case, something in God that is unrealized or capable of motion and change.


So in other words, could God _be_ something other than he is? 

Certainly he could _do _other than he does if he so chooses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> So in other words, could God _be_ something other than he is?


No


Eyedoc84 said:


> Certainly he could _do _other than he does if he so chooses.


Correct.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Aug 6, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> No


What I mean is, is the question “is there unrealized potency in God” the same as asking “could God be other than he is”?


----------



## J.L. Allen (Aug 6, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> What I mean is, is the question “is there unrealized potency in God” the same as asking “could God be other than he is”?


I think it would mean that "God" would become a greater being than he is currently. When I was researching panentheism, it was commonly held by proponents that "God" is in midst of change in a sense of fulfillment. Not that it is a "redemptive" plan or a carrying out of decrees and desires through volitional acts, though some say so, but that it is an ontological fullness when all things are reconciled in "God." He becomes a perfected or harmonious form of what is better than before. Perhaps, more specifically, it could even pertain to power fully realized in the act of becoming.

It's bananas.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Did I call anyone names, besides pointing a historical linkage in ideas? I would like to please consider a possibility of perhaps your dislike of philosophy is because you don't understand it? Also you seem to be a follower of James White, but we can both agree he's not scripture. So I guess we're not orthodox because we admit up front influences from God's servants, however imperfect. I take older people as influences and you take james white, no difference. Just because someone claims scripture doesn't make it so.



I don't know if the James White comment is aimed at me but I'll respond anyway. I am only a "follower" of White insofar as I watch those shows of his on topics which interest me. I don't watch his shows on textual criticism or the KJV because he is obsessed with the KJV and KJV Onlyists and I'm not particularly interested in listening to him making the same points over and over and targeting the very worst of KJV proponents just to ridicule them or hold them up as representative of all those who use the KJV. I haven't even watched any of his shows where he has been talking about the "Great Tradition" recently, but have been concerned by some of the comments he has made on certain passages/doctrines (which I think have occurred during his discussion on this issue) that have done the rounds on social media. So this certainly isn't about being in the White camp in this discussion. I don't generally look to immersionists and anabaptists for instruction in the history of doctrine.

As to philosophy I have no problem in admitting a lot of what passes for it goes over my head. This does not concern me. Man has often got himself tangled into knots following his own wisdom rather than the wisdom of God; over-complicating things which often aren't complicated. But I've also spent very little time reading philosophy. As a general rule I don't think it's profitable for Christians to be looking to atheists for their worldview or understanding of mankind. Their thinking is too infected by that spirit that what good they write only goes so far. I would particularly level this criticism at the post-Reformation philosophers. I don't deny that there is helpful stuff in philosophy and on particularly subjects, such as Beauty, I would be quite interested to read philosophers. But I question the general usefulness to the Christian in reading extensively in philosophy, especially those of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment era.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> Man has often got himself tangled into knots following his own wisdom rather than the wisdom of God; over-complicating things which often aren't complicated.



This is certainly true of modern philosophy. Such criticisms, however, could equally apply to biblical scholarship and theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2022)

And we can't get away from philosophy and metaphysics. Once you start to say things like, "One *nature, three persons*," you are doing metaphysics, since those terms aren't glossed in the Bible. And even when the bible uses terms like hupostasis, it doesn't always have the same gloss we later gave it. Here is an example:

Ousia: Essence, substance, being, *genus*, or nature.

Physis: Nature, make up of a thing. (In earlier Christian thought the concrete reality or existent.)

Hypostasis: The actual concrete reality of a thing, the underlying essence, (in earlier Christian thought the synonym of physis.)

Prosopon: The observable character, defining properties, manifestation of a reality.

Even at first sight it is clear that the words bear a range of meanings that overlap in some areas so as to be synonymous. This is particularly so with the terms Physis and Hypostasis which in the fifth century simultaneously bore ancient Christian meanings and more modern applications..* In relation to Physis, Cyril tended to use the antique meaning, Nestorius the modern. In relation to Hypostasis the opposite was the case.”*

McGuckin, 138-139.

7. “Ousia is the genus of a thing. Once can think, for example of the genus ‘unicorn.’ Such a genus exists, *but only theoretically*, not practically or concretely. It does not exist, that is, ‘in reality’ as we would say today. Nonetheless, it makes sense to talk of the necessary characteristics of a unicorn such as its magical horn, its horse like appearance, its whiteness, its beard and lion’s tail, and so on. Thus the genus of unicorn is the ousia, that which makes up the essential being of a thing.. The notion of the physis of our unicorn is intimately related to this. It connotes what we might call the palpable and ‘physical’ characteristics of a unicorn such as outlined above-but always understanding that his possession of a physis-nature *still does not necessarily imply that such a creature is real*…In some circles, especially those represented by the Christian thinkers of Alexandria following Athanasius, the word physis signified something slightly different from this sense of ’physical attributes’ and had been used to connote the physical existent-in the sense of a concrete individual reality. *In the hands of Cyril* the word is* used in two senses*, one in what might be called the standard ‘physical usage where it connotes the constituent elements of a thing, *and the other in which it serves to delineate the notion of individual existent-or in other words individual subject.* This variability in the use of a key term on Cyril’s part goes some way to explaining Nestorius’ difficulties in following his argument over the single Physis of the Incarnate Word (Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkoene). By this Cyril meant the one concrete individual subject of the Incarnated Word. Whereas Nestorius heard him to mean the one physical composite of the Word (in the sense of an Apollinarist mixture of fusion of the respective attributes of the natures of man and God.)

McGuckin, 139-140.

“*The prospon is the external aspect or form of a physis as it can be manifested to external observation and scrutiny. It is a very concrete, empirical word, connoting what appears to outside observation. * Each essence (ousia) is characterized by its proper nature (physis), everything that is, which makes it up,* and in turn every nature that is hypostatically real presents itself to the scrutiny of the senses in its own prosopon*-that list of detailed characteristics or ‘propria’ that constitute this thing individually and signal to the observer what nature (physis) it has and thus to what genus (ousia) it belongs. In the system Nestorius is following, every nature has its own prosopon, that such of proper characteristics (idiomata) by which it is characterized in its unique individuality and made known to others as such. The word carried with it an intrinsic sense of ‘making known’ and appeared to Nestorius particularly apt in the revelatory context of discussing the incarnation.”

McGuckin, 144.


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 8, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I don't know if the James White comment is aimed at me but I'll respond anyway. I am only a "follower" of White insofar as I watch those shows of his on topics which interest me. I don't watch his shows on textual criticism or the KJV because he is obsessed with the KJV and KJV Onlyists and I'm not particularly interested in listening to him making the same points over and over and targeting the very worst of KJV proponents just to ridicule them or hold them up as representative of all those who use the KJV. I haven't even watched any of his shows where he has been talking about the "Great Tradition" recently, but have been concerned by some of the comments he has made on certain passages/doctrines (which I think have occurred during his discussion on this issue) that have done the rounds on social media. So this certainly isn't about being in the White camp in this discussion. I don't generally look to immersionists and anabaptists for instruction in the history of doctrine.
> 
> As to philosophy I have no problem in admitting a lot of what passes for it goes over my head. This does not concern me. Man has often got himself tangled into knots following his own wisdom rather than the wisdom of God; over-complicating things which often aren't complicated. But I've also spent very little time reading philosophy. As a general rule I don't think it's profitable for Christians to be looking to atheists for their worldview or understanding of mankind. Their thinking is too infected by that spirit that what good they write only goes so far. I would particularly level this criticism at the post-Reformation philosophers. I don't deny that there is helpful stuff in philosophy and on particularly subjects, such as Beauty, I would be quite interested to read philosophers. But I question the general usefulness to the Christian in reading extensively in philosophy, especially those of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment era.


I for the most part regret that post. I'd like to publicly apologize to anyone who took offense. As far as the James White comment goes, or any other. If I offended I certainly didn't mean to. We're in this together brothers and sisters. As the philosophy thing goes I completely agree with you exclusively reading philosophy into theology. But it is necessary to understand as far as we can these great mysteries. Again I'm sorry for any offense. 
I also agree that its not profitable for the average Christian to study philosophy. But there are those uniquely called for such service, like Jacob and I.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexanderjames (Aug 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I also agree that its not profitable for the average Christian to study philosophy. But there are those uniquely called for such service, like Jacob and I.


I’m in full agreement with this. May I please ask how one might discern whether their curiosity for studying philosophy is worth pursuing? I ask out of self-interest (and do sincerely believe my intentions are good, for whatever that’s worth).


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2022)

alexanderjames said:


> I’m in full agreement with this. May I please ask how one might discern whether their curiosity for studying philosophy is worth pursuing? I ask out of self-interest (and do sincerely believe my intentions are good, for whatever that’s worth).



I would start with "What do you want to learn?" On one hand, there are the basics that an educated man would do well to read: Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. Beyond that it just depends. 

Even though he blocked me on Twitter, I highly recommend Tom Morris's _What if Aristotle Ran General Motors? _It is the single best intro text I have read. It's almost inspiring in parts.








If Aristotle Ran General Motors


Morris, Tom. If Aristotle Ran General Motors: The New Soul of Business. New York: Holt, 1997. Greatness is rooted in simplicity. Former Notre Dame philosophy professor Thomas Morris takes the…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 8, 2022)

As someone with an engineering background, I didn't start off with an appreciation of philosophy. I would say, "What do you mean, "How do I know that table is really there? I can see and touch it"?" As I have grown older, I have grown in appreciation of the helpfulness of some basic philosophical understanding, as well as for those who invest themselves deeply in the study for the sake of the church. You don't have to study philosophy to be influenced deeply by it; you probably just aren't aware of the influence. There are many scientists, for example, who think that because they do science they have an understanding of what science actually is; if they had taken a basic philosophy of science class, it might guard them against some of the more ridiculous things that they say. In particular, a knowledge of the history of philosophy can be helpful to understand the history of Western Civilization. For example, the move to a solar-centered model of the universe was not "just science" but fitted with the rise of neo-platonism. Likewise, it would seem to me that some study of Aquinas would be a necessary part of a well-balanced seminary Church History program. That doesn't mean everyone should read him, but some people should know him very well, and certainly anyone involved in debates about the doctrine of God would be well-advised to have a good grasp of the history of that doctrine.

(By the way, I believe he was the first to introduce the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law, distinctions that the Reformers found very useful.)

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 8, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> As someone with an engineering background, I didn't start off with an appreciation of philosophy. I would say, "What do you mean, "How do I know that table is really there? I can see and touch it"?" As I have grown older, I have grown in appreciation of the helpfulness of some basic philosophical understanding, as well as for those who invest themselves deeply in the study for the sake of the church. You don't have to study philosophy to be influenced deeply by it; you probably just aren't aware of the influence. There are many scientists, for example, who think that because they do science they have an understanding of what science actually is; if they had taken a basic philosophy of science class, it might guard them against some of the more ridiculous things that they say. In particular, a knowledge of the history of philosophy can be helpful to understand the history of Western Civilization. For example, the move to a solar-centered model of the universe was not "just science" but fitted with the rise of neo-platonism. Likewise, it would seem to me that some study of Aquinas would be a necessary part of a well-balanced seminary Church History program. That doesn't mean everyone should read him, but some people should know him very well, and certainly anyone involved in debates about the doctrine of God would be well-advised to have a good grasp of the history of that doctrine.
> 
> (By the way, I believe he was the first to introduce the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law, distinctions that the Reformers found very useful.)


Could not agree more, thank you.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> This is certainly true of modern philosophy. Such criticisms, however, could equally apply to biblical scholarship and theology.



Undoubtedly.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 9, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I for the most part regret that post. I'd like to publicly apologize to anyone who took offense. As far as the James White comment goes, or any other. If I offended I certainly didn't mean to. We're in this together brothers and sisters. As the philosophy thing goes I completely agree with you exclusively reading philosophy into theology. But it is necessary to understand as far as we can these great mysteries. Again I'm sorry for any offense.
> I also agree that its not profitable for the average Christian to study philosophy. But there are those uniquely called for such service, like Jacob and I.



Not to worry no offence taken. My complaint has always been with general recommendations of what I would consider to be dangerous writers to Christians at large, with little or no qualification. My own church's ministers often study a course in philosophy in preparation for their theological studies and there is good reason for that. But Christians- especially ministers- whatever they may read with profit privately must be very careful what they recommend to others.


----------



## alexanderjames (Aug 9, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I would start with "What do you want to learn?" On one hand, there are the basics that an educated man would do well to read: Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. Beyond that it just depends.
> 
> Even though he blocked me on Twitter, I highly recommend Tom Morris's _What if Aristotle Ran General Motors? _It is the single best intro text I have read. It's almost inspiring in parts.
> 
> ...


I think mainly I want to learn 1. how the civilisation we live in in the Western world thinks, and why it thinks that way. Then I can interact with people and ideas in a more productive way; 2. How to reason better and so a) mature in faith, b) be a better student, and c) not fall prey to influences of modern culture; and 3. the ethical outworking from good philosophy is interesting, so the book you recommend looks good from that sense (thank you!).

I’ve previously dabbled in Plato and the history of earlier philosophy.. Aristotle’s ethics I’m keen to get in to. Recently started the Geisler & Feinberg intro to philosophy following your review. But being busy with work, Christian reading, and other distractions, it’s been difficult to stay on track. Oh and then Aquinas piqued my interest, hence my recent thread on studying him.


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 9, 2022)

alexanderjames said:


> I think mainly I want to learn 1. how the civilisation we live in in the Western world thinks, and why it thinks that way. Then I can interact with people and ideas in a more productive way; 2. How to reason better and so a) mature in faith, b) be a better student, and c) not fall prey to influences of modern culture; and 3. the ethical outworking from good philosophy is interesting, so the book you recommend looks good from that sense (thank you!).
> 
> I’ve previously dabbled in Plato and the history of earlier philosophy.. Aristotle’s ethics I’m keen to get in to. Recently started the Geisler & Feinberg intro to philosophy following your review. But being busy with work, Christian reading, and other distractions, it’s been difficult to stay on track. Oh and then Aquinas piqued my interest, hence my recent thread on studying him.


I’m curious, are you married with children?


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 9, 2022)

alexanderjames said:


> I’m in full agreement with this. May I please ask how one might discern whether their curiosity for studying philosophy is worth pursuing? I ask out of self-interest (and do sincerely believe my intentions are good, for whatever that’s worth).


Getting a


alexandermsmith said:


> Not to worry no offence taken. My complaint has always been with general recommendations of what I would consider to be dangerous writers to Christians at large, with little or no qualification. My own church's ministers often study a course in philosophy in preparation for their theological studies and there is good reason for that. But Christians- especially ministers- whatever they may read with profit privately must be very careful what they recommend to others.


I actually have books I will not lend to others because they are bad theology. My mom wanted to borrow Rudolph Bultmann's "Theology Of The New Testament" and I said no, but if she really wanted to I would be happy to explain his theology and why its wrong. She opted out. 
Many people in my life are amazed at the books I read but being a staunch Vantillian I just have never read anything that made me doubt my faith, and I read atheists some times.
I'm trying to start an ongoing thing with a couple of threads I started on vantillion apologetics in practice on a transcendental perspective on.... various philosophers from a Biblical and Reformed perspective to help people navigate through those ideas. 
I have a lot going on in my personal life and so I have to put it at a secondary place because I re-read the primary sources for this sort of thing but I plan to do one soon on the later Sartre. I only have so much energy and I don't how Jacob can do his wonderful book reviews or ReformedCovenanter can do his wonderful quotes in all honesty. So we'll see. I'm glad no offense we're in this together as brothers and sisters in Christ.


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 9, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I’m curious, are you married with children?


I'm Ted Bundy. Sorry that probably dates me but I'm 40. It was a good show though, raunchy but entertaining.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 9, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I'm Ted Bundy. Sorry that probably dates me but I'm 40. It was a good show though, raunchy but entertaining.


I think you mean *Al* Bundy. lol

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 9, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think you mean *Al* Bundy. lol


Oh right (joking only now) I gotta quit letting my private life bleed into my public life.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 10, 2022)

Credomag’s issue on Aquinas

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 10, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Credomag’s issue on Aquinas


Good articles there.

The collection of some articles by the editors at the end by Kapic, Tureman, and Horton are really good (as are others).

I'll say that there is a sense in which there is sort of an argument (back and forth) that many have not appreciated Aquinas as much as they ought. I'm left with the conviction that I'm not going to wade into highly technical discussions about historical connections or even find philosophical points that are well beyond my study and grasp.

What I do find interesting, however, is how Calvin dealt with some of these really finely "ground" philosophical arguments where he refused to really think that trying to figure out all the philosophical stuff. He sort of dismisses it as useless in some ways and not profitable. The authors point out that Calvin wasn't really a trained philosopher and it reminds me of something Iain pointed out earlier in the thread. 

It seems to me (at least) that some of the trained philosophers are really irked by those who might dismiss things the way Calvin does. Some of us are of the opinion where we appreciate that there are people who spend their time sort of "protecting the ground" where philosophers like to tread for theological reasons but that there are times when we only need 5 "gears" for some issue of theological furitfulness in the Christian life and the philsophically minded are arguing that, unless you accept gear 1.159326 that you are not really adopting some critical theological point. It seems to me, at least, that they have about 10,000 microgears between each major point and then camp out on the finely tuned things that only philsophers might fully understand. Again, it's just my observation as one who can divide other subjects in a finely grained way that is completely fruitless if I can only communicate to a few who have my level of competency in the topics I'm well-studied.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 11, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Good articles there.
> 
> The collection of some articles by the editors at the end by Kapic, Tureman, and Horton are really good (as are others).
> 
> ...



I agree, but Thomas is clear. And Geisler's lectures on Thomas are some of the clearest material I've ever heard. Certainly a lot clearer than equal ultimacy, concrete universal, etc. (and I am not opposed to terms like "concrete universal").


----------

