# Glossing the Great Tradition



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

In light of recent comments on James White and the Great Tradition, I thought it might be helpful to clear the ground on what it might mean.

1. I agree, Christian Platonism is a terrible moniker. I've read all of Plato's writings and though it is fun to watch Socrates troll people, Plato qua Plato has problems.
2. What Carter and others mean, though, is simply metaphysical Augustinianism. If you are a historically-minded Western Christian, this is you. You might not like it, but this is probably what you default to.
3. That means things like Truth and Goodness really exist and aren't simply names.
4. I don't like allegory, but I have not yet seen them say they affirm the fourfold method. I could be wrong, though. Typology, by contrast, is the answer. Typology is rooted in historical realities.
5. It is possible to give too much credence to tradition. That's not really what modern Americans are guilty of. The opposite error is also likely.
6. Even though I believe metaphysical realism is true, not all of them are the same. Plato's view of the soul is not the same as Aquinas's.
7. The Great Tradition is probably more amenable to Augustine's view of "Signs/Things" as discussed in _On Christian Doctrine_.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 26, 2022)

Or you could just call it Thomism…. no? Are you sure this is not some kind of repackaging? What about the Great Distinction? Only semi-serious. Listen, I’m down with all these metaphysical arguments. Which of us wouldn’t be??? And the realities that support the legitimacy of the Bible. We have to find our purpose and what ever shows us these deeper realities are very good endeavors.

Although, this sounds like a presupposition….
“Pope Pius X cautioned that the teachings of the Church cannot be understood without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Aquinas' major theses:


> The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.











Thomism - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## A.Joseph (May 26, 2022)

“Few Christians today have ever heard about the church fathers. Those that have heard about the fathers have been warned that they are Roman Catholic or untrustworthy exegetes, or both! However, there is a retrieval underfoot that is not so easily overcome by ignorance or lax acceptance of sloppy caricatures. Christians are now rediscovering the fathers for the first time. They are also noticing that many of the doctrinal missteps today could have been avoided if we had only paid attention to the insights the fathers offer.”








The Great Tradition: Patristic Edition - Credo Magazine


Few Christians today have ever heard about the church fathers. Those that have heard about the fathers have been warned that they are Roman Catholic or untrustworthy exegetes, or both! However, there is a retrieval underfoot that is not so easily overcome by ignorance or lax acceptance of sloppy...




credomag.com





See, this is such a broad statement. What are the examples? I am completely on board with the ECFs but they were incomplete in many areas as well. Who are your targets here? Could the PC(USA) been salvaged? They denied all these things - were they not aware of the Great History? I know Aquinas is rock solid on the metaphysics (and he was a child of Augustine) so lots of good there. Most Reformed types I know love harkening to the ECFs as part of their apologetics as far as that goes…. Many of these guys were giants and are in many ways foundational. This should be acknowledged and referenced often!

Maybe this movement will get Baptists and others away from the culture wars and politics and back on first things. I, personally, don’t think this is really a problem but if it can unify the masses, have at it….. as long as it doesn’t somehow go wrong.

A moderate Lutheran on Augustine’s influence on Western Christianity (its undeniable- we all know this, no?)…




I used to always debate my Catholic friends with Augustine as my main ammo. He’s a hero to the Reformed camp. I don’t really see the issue, but I don’t think it’s a threat. I just think it’s overstated and overshooting… and being oversold as the antidote. Folks who are not receptive to sound doctrine and true faith will probably be just as resistant to these possibly under emphasized realities. I just think too many are comfortable in their lukewarm, surface faith. Politics and culture is where they want to remain. Regardless of the side to which they identify. We are totally depraved don’t forget… Godspeed nonetheless!

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Or you could just call it Thomism…. no? Are you sure this is not some kind of repackaging? What about the Great Distinction? Only semi-serious. Listen, I’m down with all these metaphysical arguments. Which of us wouldn’t be??? And the realities that support the legitimacy of the Bible. We have to find our purpose and what ever shows us these deeper realities are very good endeavors.



There are similarities between Thomas and the Great Tradition. Thomas would not accept Plato's view of the soul, for one. And while Anselm was also in the Great Tradition, Thomas rejected Anselm's ontological argument.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> There are similarities between Thomas and the Great Tradition. *Thomas would not accept Plato's view of the soul, for one.* And while Anselm was also in the Great Tradition, Thomas rejected Anselm's ontological argument.


ok, which Augustine did. So what role did that have on Reformed theology? Was that a major point of emphasis in the development of our theology? Plato’s influence on Augustine regarding his view of the soul, etc. …. I know Cary touched on that in his lectures.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> ok, which Augustine did. So what role did that have on Reformed theology? Was that a major point of emphasis in the development of our theology? Plato’s influence on Augustine regarding his view of the soul, etc. …. I know Cary touched on that in his lectures.



I'm not 100% sure what your question is. Are you asking about Augustine's view of the soul or Aquinas?


----------



## Tychicus (May 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> 6. Even though I believe metaphysical realism is true, not all of them are the same. Plato's view of the soul is not the same as Aquinas's.


I came across a video by Thomistic institute on realism. They contrasted "moderate realism"; the realism of Aristotle and Aquinas, with the extreme view of "Platonic realism". (



)

Then in what sense are we Christian "Platonists", when even the great Doctor wasn't one? What's this Platonism that is being talked about by them?

(I know you've said you prefer Augustiniaism, but CP seems to be more than a moniker. A recent Cambridge University press volume was titled " Christian Platonism: A History". )


----------



## A.Joseph (May 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> I came across a video by Thomistic institute on realism. They contrasted "moderate realism"; the realism of Aristotle and Aquinas, with the extreme view of "Platonic realism". (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good question. I’m also trying to figure out, what, if any, influence Plato had in shaping Reformed Theology via Augustine.

If we are just talking Grace and Original Sin. Of course Augustine is a Giant. He’s Leviathan, no doubt! We know this! Nothing to rediscover there but shout it out just in case somebody didn’t get the memo!

But we are Calvinists, not Thomists. Let’s get the distinctions out of the way first before we start harping on the Great Tradition. … whatever that may be….?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> But we are Calvinists, not Thomists. Let’s get the distinctions out of the way first before we start harping on the Great Tradition. … whatever that may be….?



Clarification: I am *not* a Calvinist. I am Reformed, and the Reformed used Thomistic distinctions.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> I came across a video by Thomistic institute on realism. They contrasted "moderate realism"; the realism of Aristotle and Aquinas, with the extreme view of "Platonic realism". (



Platonic realism sees universals floating in some abstract realm. A universal is what you predicate of something else. The problem is that many Platonists also want to see the universal as some kind of substance itself, and it is hard to have both. Aristotle and Aquinas, by contrast, said the universal is in the thing iteself. A substance is form + something else (usually matter).

For example, Plato (and probably Augustine) believed the soul was a substance in the body. A ghost in the machine. Aquinas, on the other hand, believed the soul was the form of the body. It in-formed the body. That's closer to the biblical position of a more holistic person.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Clarification: I am *not* a Calvinist. I am Reformed, and the Reformed used Thomistic distinctions.


But you’re a Thomist? I don’t think we’re in the same club. I’m ex-RCC so I draw lines too…. I guess I’ll meet you at Augustinian. But by way of Calvin & Luther for me!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Clarification: I am *not* a Calvinist. I am Reformed, and the Reformed used Thomistic distinctions.


If you're not Calvinist then you're not Reformed. Calvinism isn't the whole sum of being Reformed, but it's essential to it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> If you're not Calvinist then you're not Reformed. Calvinism isn't the whole sum of being Reformed, but it's essential to it.



That is not what Jacon means; obviously, he holds to "Calvinistic" soteriology. What he means is that Reformed is the proper label for those who confess the Reformed faith, not Calvinist.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> That is not what Jacon means; obviously, he holds to "Calvinistic" soteriology. What he means is that Reformed is the proper label for those who confess the Reformed faith, not Calvinist.


It's not that obvious, Calvinism has an accepted usage, by which everyone on this board should confess to being a Calvinist. What you say he means is both known to everyone on this board, and completely irrelevant to the thread, so it's by no means obvious that he means that. He can't spend a whole thread leaning on the importance of precision in terminology, then emphatically (I assume that's what the asterisks were for) say he's nor a Calvinist and expect it to slide.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> If you're not Calvinist then you're not Reformed. Calvinism isn't the whole sum of being Reformed, but it's essential to it.



I subscribe to the WCF. That is much better than saying "Calvinist." Calvinist could mean John Piper or Wayne Grudem. Confessional Christian, by contrast, clarifies that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> He can't spend a whole thread leaning on the importance of precision in terminology, then emphatically (I assume that's what the asterisks were for) say he's nor a Calvinist and expect it to slide.



Exactly. Calvinism isn't precise. That's why I don't use the phrase Calvinism. Reformed Christian rules out credobaptists. Calvinism does not.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I subscribe to the WCF. That is much better than saying "Calvinist." Calvinist could mean John Piper or Wayne Grudem. Confessional Christian, by contrast, clarifies that.


In that case you are a Calvinist. We can make a long list of people who are Calvinist but not Reformed (relevant to this discussion, James White would be a prime example). The fact that there are Calvinsts with whom we strongly disagree on certain points (since they're not Reformed and we are), does not justify us in saying we are not Calvinist.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> But you’re a Thomist? I don’t think we’re in the same club. I’m ex-RCC so I draw lines too…. I guess I’ll meet you at Augustinian. But by way of Calvin & Luther for me!



I accept the same Thomist distinctions that Owen did in volume 10. I accept the same Thomist outline that Zanchi did. I hold to a more Scotist view, howeer, ala Franciscus Junius, when it comes to the ectypal distinction.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> In that case you are a Calvinist. We can make a long list of people who are Calvinist but not Reformed (relevant to this discussion, James White would be a prime example). The fact that there are Calvinsts with who we strongly disagree on certain points (since they're not Reformed and we are), does not justify us in saying we are not Calvinist.



You originally said I wasn't being precise, but then you choose to use a very imprecise term, Calvinism, whereas a rich term like WCF/Confessional is far better.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I accept the same Thomist distinctions that Owen did in volume 10. I accept the same Thomist outline that Zanchi did. I hold to a more Scotist view, howeer, ala Franciscus Junius, when it comes to the ectypal distinction.


The majority of people don't know what this means. It seems like you just want to name drop. I am interested after all this, how do you say, in your own words, is a man saved?


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> You originally said I wasn't being precise, but then you choose to use a very imprecise term, Calvinism, whereas a rich term like WCF/Confessional is far better.


It's not imprecise, it's just broader. I have no issue with you being more specific by claiming the label "Reformed", I just dont understand why you would want to disown the label "Calvinist", which is a broader label, and includes everyone who is Reformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> The majority of people don't know what this means. It seems like you just want to name drop. I am interested after all this, how do you say, in your own words, is a man saved?



Jesus' blood and righteousness.

Ectypal distinction is huge in Reformed theology. I will not apologize for using Reformed terms.






A Primer on Ectypal Theology


I first discovered ectypal theology from Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Rather than being an academic topic, ectypal theology unites theological method with Christology. I’ve done pieces on ectypal theology in the past, but the following from Willem Van Asselt’s...




www.puritanboard.com












categorical distinction – The Heidelblog


Posts about categorical distinction written by Patrick J. O'Banion, R. Scott Clark, and Heidelcast




heidelblog.net





This is why I say "Reformed" and not "Calvinist." Reformed demands a use of the categorical distinction. Calvinist just demands five points.

I stand with Junius on this terminology. I won't back down from that point.








Junius: There Are Two Kinds Of Theology


Now indeed these two kinds of theology are so different that they cannot truthfully be related to some one, definite head and shared genus. Of course the first kind of theology, which we have named…




heidelblog.net


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Jesus' blood and righteousness.


Amen brother.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Jesus' blood and righteousness.
> 
> Ectypal distinction is huge in Reformed theology. I will not apologize for using Reformed terms.
> 
> ...


Again, that's fine, Calvinism doesn't sufficiently narrow down your position. But you said (emphatically) that you are not a Calvinist. So which of the 5 points do you disagree with?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Again, that's fine, Calvinism doesn't sufficiently narrow down your position. But you said (emphatically) that you are not a Calvinist. So which of the 5 points do you disagree with?



I do not take any exceptions to the American Westminster Confession. I do take exception to narrowing the Reformed faith down to a bullet list.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I do not take any exceptions to the American Westminster Confession. I do take exception to narrowing the Reformed faith down to a bullet list.


Ok, that suggests that you're a Calvinist, but not Reformed. Can of worms though.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I do not take any exceptions to the American Westminster Confession. I do take exception to narrowing the Reformed faith down to a bullet list.


This is a less serious comment now, trying to lighten the mood. Isn't your Twitter name rogue Tory? And, you subscribe to the American wcf and not the original?


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I accept the same Thomist distinctions that Owen did in volume 10. I accept the same Thomist outline that Zanchi did. I hold to a more Scotist view, howeer, ala Franciscus Junius, when it comes to the ectypal distinction.


yeah, yeah....we know. You're waving the flag for Thomism. But without Calvin and Luther where would you be?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> This is a less serious comment now, trying to lighten the mood. Isn't your Twitter name rogue Tory? And, you subscribe to the American wcf and not the original?


Yes

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> yeah, yeah....we know. You're waving the flag for Thomism. But without Calvin and Luther where would you be?


Zwingli or Hooker, probably

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tychicus (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Platonic realism sees universals floating in some abstract realm. A universal is what you predicate of something else. The problem is that many Platonists also want to see the universal as some kind of substance itself, and it is hard to have both. Aristotle and Aquinas, by contrast, said the universal is in the thing iteself. A substance is form + something else (usually matter).
> 
> For example, Plato (and probably Augustine) believed the soul was a substance in the body. A ghost in the machine. Aquinas, on the other hand, believed the soul was the form of the body. It in-formed the body. That's closer to the biblical position of a more holistic person.


Thank you for the explanation.

Ok, if Aquinas and Aristotle are closer, then why not say moderate realism instead of Platonism? 

Is there something distinctly Platonist with the recent retrieving the great tradition? How do they say they are Thomist and Platonists? .


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I dont know if you are being smart. As in wise-guy. But my point is, unless Reformed Theology was always a thing, as in a fully-formed theology at the core of the Great Tradition, your stating point has to be Luther, Calvin, Zwingli (and those poor/brave/righteous souls that preceded them and died for the cause) and the Protestant Reformation. They are the ones that championed and systemized sound doctrine. Let that be your starting point. Calvin is the one where it all really came together. Forget YRR .... you, my friend, are a Calvinist before you are a Thomist. Without Calvin (and Luther - Justification by faith!) you would probably be semi-pelagian. Augustine's doctrines of Grace was recovered with the Reformers.... they championed it! The church, by and large, had gone astray. What was the state of the church in Aquinas' day?


Was Peter Martyr Vermigli, a man that Calvin looked up to and considered his superior, a Calvinist? Same with Bucer and Zanchi


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

This twitter thread explains my position.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530167225982029824

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Now you are just being silly. Maybe I’ll just leave you alone for a while. Peace!



It was a legitimate question. I'm fairly certain Calvin would have abhorred the term "Calvinist." Given that, it's awfully bizarre to want another person to label himself a Calvinist. 

It's not a silly question as Richard Muller gave at least one outstanding lecture on it.


https://agrammatos.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/was-calvin-a-calvinist-12-26-09.pdf

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## CathH (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Ok, that suggests that you're a Calvinist, but not Reformed. Can of worms though.


Come off it mate. Are you a Highlander or a Scot? A Scot, you say? So which part of the Highlands do you hate then?! None, you say? Then you must be a Highlander but not a Scot..! Jacob's patience over the last while under endless provocation has been pretty phenomenal, and now you're adding wilful misunderstanding into the mix. It's no use saying "we're Calvinists," as a way of brushing off Aquinas as irrelevant, when there wouldn't even be "Reformed" without Aquinas.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tychicus (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> This twitter thread explains my position.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530167225982029824


This was an excellent read. Thank you for taking the time to do this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> It was a legitimate question. I'm fairly certain Calvin would have abhorred the term "Calvinist." Given that, it's awfully bizarre to want another person to label himself a Calvinist.
> 
> It's not a silly question as Richard Muller gave at least one outstanding lecture on it.
> 
> ...


I wasn’t talking about peers or colleagues, 

I’m talking about who we are indebted to for our theology and the Protestant church. If it wasn’t for the reformers the great tradition would continue to get buried by the rediscovery of the Pelagian heresy. It appears you are trying to establish a fluid succession that never existed. If Aquinas was so great why was his church such a corrupt institution? Was he so impotent or did he embrace heretical practices? Could his wisdom see through that? If the great tradition was so great why did we need the Protestant Reformation? The great tradition was pretty spotty…..

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> This twitter thread explains my position.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530167225982029824


When I get a chance I will try to charitably read this.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

CathH said:


> Come off it mate. Are you a Highlander or a Scot? A Scot, you say? So which part of the Highlands do you hate then?! None, you say? Then you must be a Highlander but not a Scot..! Jacob's patience over the last while under endless provocation has been pretty phenomenal, and now you're adding wilful misunderstanding into the mix. It's no use saying "we're Calvinists," as a way of brushing off Aquinas as irrelevant, when there wouldn't even be "Reformed" without Aquinas.


No doubt I should just bow out. The point at issue was not that Reformed is a better term than Calvinist - I agree with Jacob there. My issue was with saying he's *not* a Calvinist. Not all Calvinists are Reformed, but all the Reformed are Calvinists (in the accepted usage). In my experience those who are at pains to say they're not Calvinists usually aren't Calvinists.

Saying that subscribing to the American CF suggests Calvinist but not Reformed was an unrelated, and admittedly unnecessary jibe at that Confession's unreformed teaching of voluntaryism. I also wasnt weighing in at all on anything related to Aquinas - I've not read very much of him so have nothing to add on that front.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> No doubt I should just bow out. The point at issue was not that Reformed is a better term than Calvinist - I agree with Jacob there. My issue was with saying he's *not* a Calvinist. Not all Calvinists are Reformed, but all the Reformed are Calvinists (in the accepted usage). In my experience those who are at pains to say they're not Calvinists usually aren't Calvinists.


Not moderating, but speaking from the sidelines, this issue seems distracting.

Despite common usage, if someone says he doesn’t like the common usage but still affirms the Confession, it should be the end of it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m talking about religious affiliation and who we are indebted to for our theology and the Protestant church.



Calvinist isn't a religious affiliation. My claim is to be a Western Reformed Catholic. I am part of that historic movement that reformed and seeks to Reform the Western church. There are identifiable markers to that, the WCF for one.

Yes, Calvin did great things. I've read through the Institutes three times. 
I've provided some outlines here.








Outline of Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1


Outline and Notes. Knowledge of God Calvin placed intuitive knowledge on a more direct footing. We have direct knowledge of an actually present object: Intuitive knowledge arises under the direct…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












Outline: Book 2, Calvin’s Institutes


Book 1. Summary of argument so far: Doctrine of the Knowledge of God –> Man’s problem –> Ten Commandments –> Old and New Covenants –> Person of the Media…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com





He's nowhere near as important for me as someone like Turretin. If anything, I am a Turretinist.


A.Joseph said:


> If Aquinas was so great why was his church such a corrupt institution?



If Calvin so great, then why does the PCUSA have lesbian ministers? Be careful using that type of argument.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (May 27, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> Not moderating, but speaking from the sidelines, this issue seems distracting.
> 
> Despite common usage, if someone says he doesn’t like the common usage but still affirms the Confession, it should be the end of it.


That's fair - it is off topic, apologies for the derailment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Calvinist isn't a religious affiliation. My claim is to be a Western Reformed Catholic. I am part of that historic movement that reformed and seeks to Reform the Western church. There are identifiable markers to that, the WCF for one.
> 
> Yes, Calvin did great things. I've read through the Institutes three times.
> I've provided some outlines here.
> ...


Ok, that’s fine. 

You are a little exhausting. I say that in love. I’m talking about the Protestant Reformation, period, or at least in general. Forget any one man.


----------



## CathH (May 27, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> No doubt I should just bow out. The point at issue was not that Reformed is a better term than Calvinist - I agree with Jacob there. My issue was with saying he's *not* a Calvinist. Not all Calvinists are Reformed, but all the Reformed are Calvinists (in the accepted usage). In my experience those who are at pains to say they're not Calvinists usually aren't Calvinists.
> 
> Saying that subscribing to the American CF suggests Calvinist but not Reformed was an unrelated, and admittedly unnecessary jibe at that Confession's unreformed teaching of voluntaryism. I also wasnt weighing in at all on anything related to Aquinas - I've not read very much of him so have nothing to add on that front.


No worries, it's just a question of context. On reading Aquinas - you should! Or (not quite equivalent, just topical) Michael Barrett, _Simply Trinity _(https://www.amazon.co.uk/Simply-Trinity-Unmanipulated-Father-Spirit/dp/154090007X )

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 27, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> The majority of people don't know what this means. It seems like you just want to name drop. I am interested after all this, how do you say, in your own words, is a man saved?


Be careful about making your own understanding the measure of others brother. Some of us have read these men and omitting their names would leave Jacob's explanation vague.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 27, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I dont know if you are being smart. As in wise-guy. But my point is, unless Reformed Theology was always a thing, as in a fully-formed theology at the core of the Great Tradition, your stating point has to be Luther, Calvin, Zwingli (and those poor/brave/righteous souls that preceded them and died for the cause) and the Protestant Reformation. They are the ones that championed and systemized sound doctrine. Let that be your starting point. Calvin is the one where it all really came together. Forget YRR .... you, my friend, are a Calvinist before you are a Thomist. Without Calvin (and Luther - Justification by faith!) you would probably be semi-pelagian. Augustine's doctrines of Grace was recovered with the Reformers.... they championed it! The church, by and large, had gone astray. What was the state of the church in Aquinas' day?


That's the thing, though. Reformed Christianity didn't begin with Calvin or Luther. It began with Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Bucer, and continued with Bullinger, before Calvin ever entered the ministry. Calvin was a godly and sound minister, but saying he created reformed Christianity is to greatly exaggerate his importance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 27, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Be careful about making your own understanding the measure of others brother. Some of us have read these men and omitting their names would leave Jacob's explanation vague.


Yes, that's why I made sure not to say "all" or "no one". But I take your point.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> That's the thing, though. Reformed Christianity didn't begin with Calvin or Luther. It began with Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Bucer, and continued with Bullinger, before Calvin ever entered the ministry. Calvin was a godly and sound minister, but saying he created reformed Christianity is to greatly exaggerate his importance.


Yes, the whole Protestant Reformed movement. …. you may go even earlier. They all built upon one another. So there is a tradition but it didn’t necessarily radicalize or at least to the great extent till Luther set it off. If you want to say it didn’t develop into a religious institution till a certain point that doesn’t detract from my argument but for the sake of accuracy I thank you for adding that. It’s been well over ten years since I read up on these events (or at least the very specifics) but yes I did know Calvin came a little later and Calvinism didn’t become a thing till much later obviously.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529846509600223237
I don’t despise metaphysics….. I just don’t see how referencing early philosophers is the mystical spark that will somehow advance eternal truth.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 27, 2022)

I also don’t get how if we rediscover Plato we all of a sudden advance these truths that I agree with 100% by the way …. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529912079628521499


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I also don’t get how if we rediscover Plato we all of a sudden advance these truths that I agree with 100% by the way …. Is this guy living under a rock?


Brother, I am mystified at your mocking. You quote two twitter posts that seem fairly unremarkable and uncontroversial. To what end?

Dr. Craig is open about his "stubbornness." So it goes. The "improved" Intro to Christian Anthropology demonstrates he does not live under a rock, because he added "including my sex." That's an obvious reaction to our current confusion.

The thread began with a general outline about what is meant by the Great Tradition. It started as a mere statement of facts concerning the topic. Jacob added that he didn't like the term "Christian Platonism." But some people use it.

As far as I can tell, Dr. Craig is a scholar with a particular interest. He may have his idiosyncrasies, most people immersed in a topic do. But I get from your comments that you impute a motive to him and his studies that is not obvious to me. Do you have any evidence that his scholarship is a threat to the church?

There are scholars who devote their professional lives to studying the early church fathers. If they publish something, should we mock their efforts as pointless? Others study philosophy, church history, or a particular passage in 1 Corinthians. Are such efforts something to cause us distress?

To be clear, I know very little about Craig's work. I probably will not look much into it. My question is, why should he be singled out for attacks when, as far as I can tell, he is not promoting anything radical?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I also don’t get how if we rediscover Plato we all of a sudden advance these truths that I agree with 100% by the way ….
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529912079628521499



You might want to read up on the Von Harnack thesis. It's a particular temptation among those inclined to biblicism.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> You might want to read up on the Von Harnack thesis. It's a particular temptation among those inclined to biblicism.


Doing a quick read on him, is it accurate that this man (Von Harnack) rejects the gospel of John and miracles? If so, not sure he is a good source of information. Biblicism (or what seems to be the term being used to negatively portray those cautious of the "great tradition") should likely be the last thing this man has a criticism of.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Doing a quick read on him, is it accurate that this man (Von Harnack) rejects the gospel of John and miracles? If so, not sure he is a good source of information. Biblicism (or what seems to be the term being used to negatively portray those cautious of the "great tradition") should likely be the last thing this man has a criticism of.



Harnak was a liberal who was famous for the Hellenization thesis (i.e., metaphysis bad). Those who attack the Great Tradition inevitably use the same arguments Harnack did. I realize that sounds close to the genetic fallacy, but it's not. I am not saying that someone like White or Strachan is wrong because they sound like Harnack. I am saying they are adopting the same anti-metaphysical stance. And when Strachan says things that are critical of Nicea, one can't help but think how much he sounds like Harnack.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Harnak was a liberal who was famous for the Hellenization thesis (i.e., metaphysis bad). Those who attack the Great Tradition inevitably use the same arguments Harnack did. I realize that sounds close to the genetic fallacy, but it's not. I am not saying that someone like White or Strachan is wrong because they sound like Harnack. I am saying they are adopting the same anti-metaphysical stance. And when Strachan says things that are critical of Nicea, one can't help but think how much he sounds like Harnack.


I don't think they sound like liberals that deny the word of God. Also, Nicea and the Bible are not on the same level.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus (May 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't think they sound like liberals that deny the word of God. Also, Nicea and the Bible are not on the same level.


No, they don't brother.

All he's trying to say is that don't reject metaphysics. It leads to dangerous places. Dr. White has certain metaphysics and Dr. Carter has certain metaphysics. We all have metaphysics (or presuppositions) when we come to the text. Looking to refine those metaphysics is a fine endeavour and one we should all seek to do.


----------



## Tychicus (May 28, 2022)

That being said. The twitter of some the Christian Platonists sounds like I can't read my Bible without getting my metaphysics figured out. This has sometimes discouraged my Bible reading, because what's the point? I haven't got the metaphysics.

I'm sure they are much more nuanced in their works. In the other thread, both @RamistThomist and @Charles Johnson noted this. So maybe a little criticism of Carter, Barrett, et al is also in order.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> No, they don't brother.
> 
> All he's trying to say is that don't reject metaphysics. It leads to dangerous places. Dr. White has certain metaphysics and Dr. Carter has certain metaphysics. We all have metaphysics (or presuppositions) when we come to the text. Looking to refine those metaphysics is a fine endeavour and one we should all seek to do.


If what is actually meant is presuppositions then I would agree to your statement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't think they sound like liberals that deny the word of God. Also, Nicea and the Bible are not on the same level.



Strachan and White aren't liberals. I grant that. And no, Nicea isn't on the same level as the word of God, but at the same time one should still champion Nicea.

Anti-metaphysical thinking is an acid-drip. That has historically been proven true.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> No, they don't brother.
> 
> All he's trying to say is that don't reject metaphysics. It leads to dangerous places. Dr. White has certain metaphysics and Dr. Carter has certain metaphysics. We all have metaphysics (or presuppositions) when we come to the text. Looking to refine those metaphysics is a fine endeavour and one we should all seek to do.


I think as long as they are specific about what the Great Tradition entails they are on solid ground. We are all very orthodox. I don’t know if their target audience, or those who could really benefit from this primer, will get the memo.

So what we have left is are folk like JW really off on some heretical path with his metaphysics (or cause he can’t pronounce Platonism- joking!)? I’m not how sure how they are seeking to apply all this. Does Reformed theology need a makeover or a radical reforming transformation or is this just a hat tip to those who saw clearly in various areas of thought and study and contributed very vitally in many ways….

Is this a back door approach to make Reformed believers Roman Catholic or is this strictly metaphysics? I get the impression that Thomism is more than just metaphysics but an interconnected system of scriptural interpretation that has deep ties to the Roman Catholic sacramental and hierarchal system. I’m ex-RCC and I don’t want to be back doored into in that institution via Thomism. I’m more about distinctions and what makes us distinct, while still appreciating our rich church history (in which some of the most vital areas of truth were often stifled or out-right rejected by the majority church in favor of corrupt and heretical practices and beliefs).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> Brother, I am mystified at your mocking. You quote two twitter posts that seem fairly unremarkable and uncontroversial. To what end?
> 
> Dr. Craig is open about his "stubbornness." So it goes. The "improved" Intro to Christian Anthropology demonstrates he does not live under a rock, because he added "including my sex." That's an obvious reaction to our current confusion.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that gentle admonishment. Noted!


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Harnak was a liberal who was famous for the Hellenization thesis (i.e., metaphysis bad). Those who attack the Great Tradition inevitably use the same arguments Harnack did. I realize that sounds close to the genetic fallacy, but it's not. I am not saying that someone like White or Strachan is wrong because they sound like Harnack. I am saying they are adopting the same anti-metaphysical stance. And when Strachan says things that are critical of Nicea, one can't help but think how much he sounds like Harnack.


How, exactly is White using an ANTI-metaphysical stance to attack the Great Tradition?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I also don’t get how if we rediscover Plato we all of a sudden advance these truths that I agree with 100% by the way ….
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529912079628521499


I know Dr. White wouldn’t disagree with any of this. So at the end of the day what are we talking about? Seems more like projections on all sides and nobody actually taking peoples statements at face value. Is JW not qualified in his presuppositions to even be part of the conversation in good faith? Is JW not enough of an academic to be part of this discussion? Or is he just coming at this from the wrong camp?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I know Dr. White wouldn’t disagree with any of this. So at the end of the day what are we talking about? Seems more like projections on all sides and nobody actually taking peoples statements at face value. Is JW not qualified in his presuppositions to even be part of the conversation in good faith? Is JW not enough of an academic to be part of this discussion? Or is he just coming at this from the wrong camp?



As a general rule White has not tried to engage constructively with Protestant Thomists and those in the Great Tradition. He has been offered to debate/dialogue with Southern Evangelical Seminary on this topic.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> JW really off on some heretical path with his metaphysics (or cause he can’t pronounce Platonism- joking!)?



More likely because he adopted the standard Socinian critique of divine simplicity, the same one that Apollinarians like Craig use.


A.Joseph said:


> Does Reformed theology need a makeover or a radical reforming transformation or is this just a hat tip to those who saw clearly in various areas of thought and study and contributed very vitally in many ways….



I am part of the group that is trying to promote magisterial Reformers like Zanchi and Vermigli. I'm not the radical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m ex-RCC and I don’t want to be back doored into in that institution via Thomism.



I imagine the average Roman Catholic is reading gay activist Jesuits like James Martin than Thomas Aquinas. In any case, I'm just trying to be like Zanchi

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> As a general rule White has not tried to engage constructively with Protestant Thomists and those in the Great Tradition. He has been offered to debate/dialogue with Southern Evangelical Seminary on this topic.


Who are some of the Protestant Thomists in the Great Tradition? Could you link to them?


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> More likely because he adopted the standard Socinian critique of divine simplicity, the same one that Apollinarians like Craig use.
> 
> 
> I am part of the group that is trying to promote magisterial Reformers like Zanchi and Vermigli. I'm not the radical.


Craig the Christian apologist?

How does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Who are some of the Protestant Thomists in the Great Tradition? Could you link to them?


Vermigli
Bucer
Zanchi
Volume 10 of John Owen.




__





Similarities between Zanchi and Aquinas on the Divine Attributes


This chart is from Donnelly's article "Calvinist Thomism." Calvinist Thomism Donnelly, John Patrick Viator; Jan 1, 1976; 7, ProQuest pg. 441




puritanboard.com


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Craig the Christian apologist?



Yes. He is an Apollinarian and White employs his criticism of divine simplicity as the church has understood it.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Vermigli
> Bucer
> Zanchi
> Volume 10 of John Owen.
> ...


How are they Thomists?


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yes. He is an Apollinarian and White employs his criticism of divine simplicity as the church has understood it.


How does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

And the Lutheran Johann Gerhard had similarities to Thomas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> How does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology?



Divine simplicity _*is*_ the foundational issue of the doctrine of God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Divine simplicity _*is*_ the foundational issue of the doctrine of God.


Ok, how does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology specifically? What is White’s doctrine of God?


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> And the Lutheran Johann Gerhard had similarities to Thomas.


How are they all Thomists?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> How are they Thomists?


This thread has all the source material.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1466746058722406401

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Ok, how does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology specifically? What is White’s doctrine of God?



His formal rejection of traditional classical theism on this point is still quite new, so the acid drip hasn't done that much. It will be interesting (in a bad sort of way) to see what happens.

If you can find it, read the sad story of Drake Shelton. He's actually hard to find now on the internet as he has been blocked and banned on every social media platform.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

Seems to all check out. So what aspects of Thomism and Tradition are we on board with. Metaphysics- yes! And more specifically, what areas does Thomism not cover. What are the limitations of his philosophical/theological school (as far as what’s not covered/or at least not in a satisfactory way?) If we get that straight, we should be good!


----------



## py3ak (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> This thread has all the source material.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1466746058722406401


That's a good thread. Another way to come to some similar conclusions is to read John Davenant's commentary on Colossians. He cites an immense array of scholastic sources, and since the editor helpfully footnoted it with some care, the notes serve as quite an introduction to the main figures of scholasticism.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

….. a follow up question would be:
how was Aquinas aligned with the Catholic Church of his day? how was he unique or distinctive?

@RamistThomist This is not a gotcha, I’m not saying Aquinas has to be perfect. Just as long as we are distinguishing good from bad and that it’s not inherently linked too deeply.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> ….. a follow up question would be:
> how was Aquinas aligned with the Catholic Church of his day? how was he unique or distinctive?


Probably somewhat innovative in ways, since the Church was still nervous about Aristotle after the Condemnations of 1277 in Paris. On the other hand, Aquinas would say he was just teaching Lombard's Sentences, which was standard and normal.


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 28, 2022)

We agree with Thomas (and Augustine, Tertullian, Anselm, etc) on what the attributes of God are and the doctrine of the Trinity (with some qualifications regarding analogies for the Trinity.) We disagree with Thomas (but agree with Augustine) on the sacraments and the authority of Scripture (Thomas elevated traditions). On metaphysics and logic we agree with Augustine, and for the most part with Thomas, except where his metaphysics becomes implausible in order to support transubstantiation. On justification both are flawed and Thomas is worse.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 5


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Probably somewhat innovative in ways, since the Church was still nervous about Aristotle after the Condemnations of 1277 in Paris. On the other hand, Aquinas would say he was just teaching Lombard's Sentences, which was standard and normal.


Yeah, I saw that on wiki. That’s good.


----------



## Tychicus (May 28, 2022)

Anyone read Theophilus Gale? 

His work _The Court of Gentiles_ apparently puts forward a reformed Platonism:









Jae-Eun Park, "Theophilus Gale's Reformed Platonism: Focusing on His Discourse of 'Creation' and 'Providence' in The Court of the Gentiles." Mid-America Journal of Theology, 24 (2013): 121-142.


Jae-Eun Park, "Theophilus Gale's Reformed Platonism: Focusing on His Discourse of 'Creation' and 'Providence' in The Court of the Gentiles." Mid-America Journal of Theology, 24 (2013): 121-142.



www.academia.edu


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> We agree with Thomas (and Augustine, Tertullian, Anselm, etc) on what the attributes of God are and the doctrine of the Trinity (with some qualifications regarding analogies for the Trinity.) We disagree with Thomas (but agree with Augustine) on the sacraments and the authority of Scripture (Thomas elevated traditions). On metaphysics and logic we agree with Augustine, and for the most part with Thomas, except where his metaphysics becomes implausible in order to support transubstantiation. On justification both are flawed and Thomas is worse.


Ok, perfect. As long as we keep those differences/distinctions in view and that one teaching of an ECF doesn’t by necessity lead into something heretical. (Which you pointed out with transubstantiation). As long as those areas, if required for distinctive clarification purposes, are laid out as well, this will be a good refresher for many. I don’t think your average evangelical will care too much, but it’s worth a shot. Again, I think most us are aware of these realities. I was somewhat aware (superficially, not the specifics) and never had a problem with Aquinas’ influence in these areas. I just didn’t know if the the Great Tradition was going to be too innovative and possibly get us off track, but it looks like it’s just giving us an accurate history of these matters. Which is no threat at all!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Ok, how does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology specifically?


This is not specific to James White because I really don't know his position. He has said things publicly that are consistent with an incipient denial of divine simplicity of God.

But, to address your question, it can be stated simply, although the more you look into the historic doctrine of God, the more overwhelmed you will become at God's transcendent majesty.

I'll try to set out the simple point: As the Confessions assert, God is without parts, passions; he is transcendent, sovereign, etc. In essence, he is not subject to his creation.

If we deviate from that, we end up with a God who is surprised, who is bound by time, who is in some sense out of control because he can be influenced by the random events in his creation.

This impacts the Trinity, too. If the Son and the Spirit are said to have separate consciousnesses, then triune God is composed of parts. If God is of parts, he is dependent in some way on those parts and is no longer transcendent.

It can impact the two natures of Christ. If we hold that Christ's divine nature is in some sense different from the Father's, then, again, God is dependent and not transcendent. (I bring this up because of a recent assertion that Christ's divine nature could temporarily not know things that the Father's divine nature does--e.g., the time of Christ's return). "I and the Father are not always one."

Waffling on divine simplicity affects everything because it diminishes the transcendent sovereignty of God.

Now, quick note on Plato (I'm no expert but I read him a lot in my youth): The remarkable thing he grasped, by natural revelation (as Paul notes in Romans 1), is that God must be totally other and not subject to creation.

Scripture confirms that. We can learn it without Plato, but the fact that a fundamental truth of God can be discerned by thinking about Creation itself confirms what Scripture teaches. We are truly without excuse.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 28, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> This is not specific to James White because I really don't know his position. He has said things publicly that are consistent with an incipient denial of divine simplicity of God.
> 
> But, to address your question, it can be stated simply, although the more you look into the historic doctrine of God, the more overwhelmed you will become at God's transcendent majesty.
> 
> ...


Awesome! Yeah, I followed that one philosopher I referenced, Phillip Cary, and he touched on some of this. Early philosophers were definitely vitally thoughtful in these areas. They were not hostile to greater spiritual realities or atheistic in their perception of things. So, yes, thank you for that!


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> We agree with Thomas (and Augustine, Tertullian, Anselm, etc) on what the attributes of God are and the doctrine of the Trinity (with some qualifications regarding analogies for the Trinity.) We disagree with Thomas (but agree with Augustine) on the sacraments and the authority of Scripture (Thomas elevated traditions). On metaphysics and logic we agree with Augustine, and for the most part with Thomas, except where his metaphysics becomes implausible in order to support transubstantiation. On justification both are flawed and Thomas is worse.



What he said.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kodos (May 28, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> It can impact the two natures of Christ. If we hold that Christ's divine nature is in some sense different from the Father's, then, again, God is dependent and not transcendent. (I bring this up because of a recent assertion that Christ's divine nature could temporarily not know things that the Father's divine nature does--e.g., the time of Christ's return). "I and the Father are not always one."



Now, I cannot keep up with all the things being said, but who (today) asserts that the divine nature of Christ had something akin to temporary amnesia?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2022)

kodos said:


> Now, I cannot keep up with all the things being said, but who (today) asserts that the divine nature of Christ had something akin to temporary amnesia?



I don't like doing this, but controversy brews from James White in a recent video saying something like that. He later adamantly renounces holding to kenosis heresy.






Text of the video excerpt that has caused commotion:

"you then have the very difficult challenging text where Jesus says that only the Father — not the Son, nor the angels in heaven — no man knows the day or the hour, only the Father in heaven… you could understand that as some people have understood that, as being only in reference to the human nature, I suppose. But I think it follows very much along the lines of what we just discussed; there are certain aspects of the glory of the Son that are veiled during the incarnation, and so at that point in time, in the incarnate state (it’s not that the Son did not know before the incarnation and would not know at His exaltation or anything like that)… there was some reason why at that point in time it was profitable for the Messiah the Son to not know. Those are His words, you’ve got to deal with them… if you have to look at the words written by Matthew and come up with an interpretation that could not have possibly been what Matthew intended or anyone Matthew wrote to intended and could not have been known for centuries, millennia after the point of writing… we’re no longer dealing with with the Scripture being any kind of meaningful foundation of our beliefs."

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Wow 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 28, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> I don't like doing this, but controversy brews from James White in a recent video saying something like that. He later adamantly renounces holding to kenosis heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. That's a pretty stark example of heresy. If at any point the Father is said to be omniscient and the Son not, or the Father said to possess any divine attribute and the Son not, that's Arianism, plain and simple. Unfortunately many are stuck with the misconception that Arianism teaches "Jesus isn't divine", and so as long as the speaker affirms that Jesus is divine, he is thought not to be Arian, but that simply isn't true. Sabellianism, not Arianism, refuses to attribute pre-existence and divinity to the Son. Arianism teaches that he is divine and pre-existent, but not to the same degree as the Father, which is exactly what this is saying.

Reactions: Like 10 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (May 28, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> I don't like doing this, but controversy brews from James White in a recent video saying something like that. He later adamantly renounces holding to kenosis heresy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, that's distressing...


----------



## kodos (May 28, 2022)

Wow. This is very troubling (caveat: I have not watched the video). This is the kind of stuff you (should) learn in your _Doctrine of God _class at Seminary.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2022)

kodos said:


> Wow. This is very troubling (caveat: I have not watched the video). This is the kind of stuff you (should) learn in your _Doctrine of God _class at Seminary.


The video link I posted begins at 57:09. The relevant segment is not very long.

I felt a "tilt" moment listening to it (for those who have played pinball). It is quite troubling. But, on reflection, I've seen similar stuff from others who kick against the classic doctrine of God.

I suspect like you, I do not spend much time on podcasts, and zero time on things like Twitter, so these discussions fly right by me. But I'm sensing now that tension regarding Thomistic/Great Tradition/Platonism etc. arises from a bigger struggle over the doctrine of God.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 28, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> I felt a "tilt" moment listening to it (for those who have played pinball). It is quite troubling. But, on reflection, I've seen similar stuff from others who kick against the classic doctrine of God.


*Cough* Frame *Cough*

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 28, 2022)

VictorBravo said:


> The video link I posted begins at 57:09. The relevant segment is not very long.
> 
> I felt a "tilt" moment listening to it (for those who have played pinball). It is quite troubling. But, on reflection, I've seen similar stuff from others who kick against the classic doctrine of God.
> 
> I suspect like you, I do not spend much time on podcasts, and zero time on things like Twitter, so these discussions fly right by me. But I'm sensing now that tension regarding Thomistic/Great Tradition/Platonism etc. arises from a bigger struggle over the doctrine of God.


I suppose time will tell if that is truly what the root is for White. I know it's not for me personally. My concern was more for Sola Scriptura. Charles' post though cleared up a lot of the details for me.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 29, 2022)

Maybe someone can charitably reach out to Dr. White and help him get on track with his Doctrine of God, rather than take a dismissive tone with him (*not directing this to anyone here!*). I think he’s conflating issues. I know I was. It shouldn’t be too hard to straighten him out. We should be trying to come together if possible. I don’t care for some of his recent associations but taken alone I think he’s been fairly solid and useful throughout his time on the scene.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Maybe someone can charitably reach out to Dr. White and help him get on track with his Doctrine of God, rather than take a dismissive tone with him (*not directing this to anyone here!*). I think he’s conflating issues. I know I was. It shouldn’t be too hard to straighten him out. We should be trying to come together if possible. I don’t care for some of his recent associations but taken alone I think he’s been fairly solid and useful throughout his time on the scene.



It's been done numerous times, though if someone thinks there will be more success this time around, then go ahead. His acolyte, Turretinfan, actually engaged these issues and was willing to concede that Turretin did not hold the same views that Aomin holds.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 29, 2022)

So I guess I’m not ready to theologically cancel White yet, but if he’s just being stubborn on this issue I’m a little disappointing in him.

Going back to the GT, at the 7 minute mark here Cary discusses Plato’s influence on Augustine. He notes that one area Plato’s influence on him that would differ from (or be in contrast to) the Reformers would be with regards to the Beatific Vision. ….





I love Augustine as much as anyone, but I’m wondering if the Reformers were not too quick to point out any potential areas of disagreement with him due to the many vital areas in which they were aligned.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

Interesting dialogue. It appears early Platonic thought influenced the Gnostics and dualism. Also discusses how Aristotle had a positive influence on Plato.

Just a heads up, these guys aren’t Reformed.
Cary is Lutheran, but I like him. He’s a good listen….


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Interesting dialogue. It appears early Platonic thought influenced the Gnostics and dualism. Also discusses how Aristotle had a positive influence on Plato.
> 
> Just a heads up, these guys aren’t Reformed.
> Cary is Lutheran, but I like him. He’s a good listen….



Augustine explains the Platonic influence on the Gnostics in City of God books 8 and 10. I doubt Aristotle had much of an influence on Plato, seeing that he came after Plato.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

Here are some reviews I did of Plato. He's actually a very good writer and some of the dialogues are fun to read.








Parmenides (Plato)


It’s not a good feeling you get when you go to the article on this dialogue at plato.stanford.edu and the author says, “This is his most enigmatic dialogue.” Much of it, though, is quite inte…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












Protagoras (Plato)


This is a complete masterpiece of rhetoric. It ranks with Gorgias and often surpasses the Republic in terms of logical focus. All educators should read it. Plato reminds us that w…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












Theaetetus (Plato)


Plato returns to his criticism of Protagoras’s claim that man is the measure of all things. Granted that such an argument is wrong (and silly), we explore the nature of knowledge and why it c…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












Plato’s Cratylus


For as his name, so also is his nature” [Plato 395] Cratylism throughout this narrative is an extreme naturalism: sign and signifier are so alike as to erase the gap between them. Hermogenes’ posit…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












Notes on Plato’s Dialogues


I’ve reread these several times. I am not a pure Platonist. I do believe in universals, but I don’t think we need to get bogged down in Plato’s specifics. In any case, did Plat…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Augustine explains the Platonic influence on the Gnostics in City of God books 8 and 10. I doubt Aristotle had much of an influence on Plato, seeing that he came after Plato.


They mention that he was a brilliant student at (around 18 years of age) at Plato’s academy then (possibly?) his assistant.
_“At the age of seventeen or eighteen, Aristotle went to study at Plato's Academy in Athens, where he stayed for twenty years until Plato died in 347 BCE. The Academy trained students in mathematics and rhetoric.”_

I don’t know how I could misplace a book that big but I have to search for my copy of City of God.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> They mention that he was a brilliant student at (around 18 years of age) at Plato’s academy then (possibly?) his assistant.
> _“At the age of seventeen or eighteen, Aristotle went to study at Plato's Academy in Athens, where he stayed for twenty years until Plato died in 347 BCE. The Academy trained students in mathematics and rhetoric.”_


_….After his father's death in 367, Aristotle migrated to Athens, where he joined the Academy of Plato (c. 428–c. 348 bce). He remained there for 20 years as Plato's pupil *and colleague*._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> _….After his father's death in 367, Aristotle migrated to Athens, where he joined the Academy of Plato (c. 428–c. 348 bce). He remained there for 20 years as Plato's pupil *and colleague*._



Did you originally mean to say that Plato influenced Aristotle, and not the other way around? The latter is difficult to prove.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Did you originally mean to say that Plato influenced Aristotle, and not the other way around? The latter is difficult to prove.


Nope, from the description of the video:
_“How did Socrates influence Plato at the beginning of his career, and Aristotle towards the end of his career?”_
Might be difficult to prove, true….


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Nope, from the description of the video:
> _“How did Socrates influence Plato at the beginning of his career, and Aristotle towards the end of his career?”_
> Might be difficult to prove, true….



That sentence isn't clear. It could mean that Socrates influenced Aristotle (via Plato) or it could mean that Aristotle influenced Plato. It's hard to imagine how Aristotle might have influenced Plato.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> That sentence isn't clear. It could mean that Socrates influenced Aristotle (via Plato) or it could mean that Aristotle influenced Plato. It's hard to imagine how Aristotle might have influenced Plato.


From 5:40 onward a bit….


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

_“Aristotle is the godless bulwark of the papists. He is to theology what darkness is to light. His ethics is the worst enemy of grace”… “rank philosopher”… “urchin who must be put in the pig-sty or donkey’s stable” … “a shameless slanderer, a comedian, the most artful corrupter of minds. If he had not lived in flesh and bones, I should not scruple to take him for a devil.”_

Who Said It?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> _“Aristotle is the godless bulwark of the papists. He is to theology what darkness is to light. His ethics is the worst enemy of grace”… “rank philosopher”… “urchin who must be put in the pig-sty or donkey’s stable” … “a shameless slanderer, a comedian, the most artful corrupter of minds. If he had not lived in flesh and bones, I should not scruple to take him for a devil.”_
> 
> Who Said It?



I got bad news for chapter 5 of the Westminster Confession of Faith...


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

Luther isn't a very reliable guide to these issues. The Reformed men like Vermigli were of much sounder judgment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Luther isn't a very reliable guide to these issues. The Reformed men like Vermigli were of much sounder judgment.


I wonder what triggered him?


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

I know this is the GBTS guys but this is an interesting read…. I think everything is fair game at this point. We can appreciate one thing while appreciating the other… and Vice versa. Maybe Aquinas is above all this but it appears when the Roman Catholic institution was losing credibility they held onto Thomism for dear life.








Aquinas: Not Among the Protestants


This article is taken from Appendix 1 in my book, The Failure of Natural Theology. Also see my other book, Saving Natural Theology from Thomas Aquinas at freegracepress.com. And until the end of t…



reformedbaptistblog.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I know this is the GBTS guys but this is an interesting read…. I think everything is fair game at this point. We can appreciate one thing while appreciating the other… and Vice versa. Maybe Aquinas is above all this but it appears when the Roman Catholic institution was losing credibility they held onto Thomism for dear life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With all due respect to him, Johnson got most these issues wrong. Feser's review of him was one of the more embarrassing things to happen in the scholarly world.

Half of that article was simply how bad he thought the Dominicans were. Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the issues.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Half of that article was simply how bad he thought the Dominicans were. Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the issues.


That’s pretty vague, but ok. ….


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I know this is the GBTS guys but this is an interesting read…. I think everything is fair game at this point. We can appreciate one thing while appreciating the other… and Vice versa. Maybe Aquinas is above all this but it appears when the Roman Catholic institution was losing credibility they held onto Thomism for dear life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The issue with Johnson's article is not that everything he says is incorrect, but that, like MSNBC in an op-ed on Ted Cruz, he takes up a rankly partisan position and refuses to acknowledge any evidence contrary to his narrative. For example, he mentions Melanchthon as another reformer who hated those scholastics, with no mention of Melanchthon's Commentaries on the works of Aristotle, which were extremely popular. And he neglects to mention that whole-sale anathematization of all things Aquinas and scholastic, rather than his more problematic points, is mostly limited to first-generation Reformers.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> That’s pretty vague, but ok. ….



I don't need to be that specific. It goes like this:

1) Feser refuted Johnson.
2) We've established that the Reformed have always used Thomas, albeit with modifications.
3) Those who are overreacting to Thomas have their own heresies to deal with.
4) I think I have stated what is good and bad about the Great Tradition, with the bad mainly with terminology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> The issue with Johnson's article is not that everything he says is incorrect, but that, like MSNBC in an op-ed on Ted Cruz, he takes up a rankly partisan position and refuses to acknowledge any evidence contrary to his narrative. For example, he mentions Melanchthon as another reformer who hated those scholastics, with no mention of Melanchthon's Commentaries on the works of Aristotle, which were extremely popular. And he neglects to mention that whole-sale anathematization of all things Aquinas and scholastic, rather than his more problematic points, is mostly limited to first-generation Reformers.


True but are the Great Traditionalists engaging in similar tactics? I know he’s trying to sell books, but he’s not overstating his case? Plato was a big influence on Gnosticism too. There’s no nuance in these tweets. Almost a type of virtue signaling. 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531044303916744705

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531643263119200257


----------



## Charles Johnson (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> True but are the Great Traditionalists engaging in similar tactics? I know he’s trying to sell books, but he’s not overstating his case? Plato was a big influence on Gnosticism too. There’s no nuance in these tweets. Almost a type of virtue signaling.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531044303916744705
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531643263119200257


Does he fail to acknowledge Thomas's demerits? Having not read him, I don't know, and it doesn't particularly matter to this discussion, because those in this thread certainly have acknowledged Thomas has shortcomings.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I don't need to be that specific. It goes like this:
> 
> 1) Feser refuted Johnson.
> 2) We've established that the Reformed have always used Thomas, albeit with modifications.
> ...


So why is Carter making Thomas an all or nothing proposition?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Does he fail to acknowledge Thomas's demerits? Having not read him, I don't know, and it doesn't particularly matter to this discussion, because those in this thread certainly have acknowledged Thomas has shortcomings.


Yes you did. Does he? I don’t know.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> So why is Carter making Thomas an all or nothing proposition?



He isn't. Carter likes Plato and Thomas disagreed with Plato on some huge issues (Is the soul in me or is it the form of the body, for example). Carter has regularly said Thomas has shortcomings.


----------



## A.Joseph (May 31, 2022)

Don’t get me wrong, these early philosophers were brilliant thinkers of their day. Imagine they had the Bible at their disposal. Probably would have blown their mind. The metaphysical concepts they developed are impressive and were used by great Christian thinkers to advance great truths and spiritual realities. More power to them.

I probably won’t read too much of their work but I’ll soak up some of podcasts that cover them.

Your average person today prefers to shy away from having to think or reason. (And greater spiritual realities? Forget it!) It’s preferable to bully tweet an ‘ought’ or be encouraged to ‘do what thou wilt.’

The pursuit of advancing our greater purpose is absolutely worth while. I’ll probably buy Carter’s book or something comparable. I think there’s a better marketing campaign. The ‘great tradition’ sounds exciting but one could get the impression they are taking away from the Reformation. I think starting with the Reformer’s utilization of Aquinas in establishing biblical, universal truths and the 5solas (or an early template thereof) is a pretty interesting endeavor.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2022)

Back to the spirit of the title, here is a question to throw out there. 

What does "participation" (methexis) mean? For example, a sacramentum participates in the res. Paul alludes to the idea when he talks about our participation/sharing in the body of Christ. So on one level, participation means sharing. 

When Irenaeus, Ambrose, and Augustine use participation, how does it practically function?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2022)

If someone wants to criticize Platonism "from within," read Plato's dialogue _Parmenides_. It's the only dialogue where Socrates actually loses the match. Platonism gets punched in the face pretty hard. Part of it is difficult, but it's no more challenging than reading Van Til.

One could probably make the argument that even if Plato didn't reject the doctrine of the Forms, his later writings are aware of the criticisms of them. That's why we see a movement from the Philosopher King to a more humble approach to rule by law.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 15, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Harnak was a liberal who was famous for the Hellenization thesis (i.e., metaphysis bad). Those who attack the Great Tradition inevitably use the same arguments Harnack did. I realize that sounds close to the genetic fallacy, but it's not. I am not saying that someone like White or Strachan is wrong because they sound like Harnack. I am saying they are adopting the same anti-metaphysical stance. And when Strachan says things that are critical of Nicea, one can't help but think how much he sounds like Harnack.


I know I'm late to the game here but Jacob you seem to be employing straw man arguments here. You say "those who attack the Great tradition...." are guilty of something like Harnack's thesis. "Those" imply anyone and/or everyone who does x. That almost seems like, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, anyone who is not Thomist is as guilty as these men, despite what they say. 
You also in another post cite "those" as being "anti-metaphysical", I hardly think that Van Til, Dooyeweerd, and Knudsen (possibly) are "anti-metaphysical" or "anti-metataphysics" simply for doubting aspects of Thomism. And citing two aberrant theologians as being representative of "anyone and/everyone" who doubts Thomism is at best a straw man argument.
I think I get what you're trying to say, again if I misinterpret you please correct me, that Thomism is orthodox Christian metaphysics and any alternative is therefore by definition "anti-metaphysics". But that really begs the question on why Thomism is THE Christian metaphysics? Hopefully I didn't throw a wrench in the whole discussion but we'll see.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I know I'm late to the game here but Jacob you seem to be employing straw man arguments here. You say "those who attack the Great tradition...." are guilty of something like Harnack's thesis. "Those" imply anyone and/or everyone who does x. That almost seems like, and correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, anyone who is not Thomist is as guilty as these men, despite what they say.



The first part is correct; the second is not. Just because someone isn't a Thomist doesn't mean they are using Harnack's thesis. I'm not a full thomist, for one.


jwright82 said:


> You also in another post cite "those" as being "anti-metaphysical", I hardly think that Van Til, Dooyeweerd, and Knudsen (possibly) are "anti-metaphysical" or "anti-metataphysics" simply for doubting aspects of Thomism.



This part is tricky. It's true that CVT and HD were metaphysical. Their followers like James White, on the other hand, are most certainly anti-metaphysical.


jwright82 said:


> hink I get what you're trying to say, again if I misinterpret you please correct me, that Thomism is orthodox Christian metaphysics and any alternative is therefore by definition "anti-metaphysics".



I specifically reject that position. That has never been my position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2022)

To be sure, I do push aspects of Thomism. For example, if you can't affirm the following propositions, then you have a very unstable doctrine of God (to put it mildly)

1. All that is in God is God.
2. In God there is no passive potency.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 15, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> The first part is correct; the second is not. Just because someone isn't a Thomist doesn't mean they are using Harnack's thesis. I'm not a full thomist, for one.
> 
> 
> This part is tricky. It's true that CVT and HD were metaphysical. Their followers like James White, on the other hand, are most certainly anti-metaphysical.
> ...


Ok. Thank you for clarifying. I'm not defending White or Strachan. You did make distinctions regarding Harnack so I tried to be careful how I worded it. I'm glad you reject that position again I tried not to misinterpret.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 15, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> To be sure, I do push aspects of Thomism. For example, if you can't affirm the following propositions, then you have a very unstable doctrine of God (to put it mildly)
> 
> 1. All that is in God is God.
> 2. In God there is no passive potency.


Completely agree, the problem for me is their using a defective metaphysics. For whatever my thoughts on Aristotle are his vocabulary was the vocabulary of Nicea and Chalcedon. And we ought not mess around with it. I affirm both those points.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 26, 2022)

I suppose this is turning into my weekly musing on the pros and cons of the Great Tradition. Some more:

1) God created animals according *to their kind*. This means something like natures and essences exist. We don't have to make Plato's mistake of creating a world for these forms.
2) Aristotle placed this world within the thing itself. Not sure if that's right. Better than Plato, but...

One possible alternative, and one I tried to bring out in the Fesko review, but that review, not surprisingly, took on a life of its own:

3) The concrete universal. I think this is one area where Van Til was quite profound and is still untapped. If for Aristotle, particulars contain the forms, in this one, the universal contains the particular. I have some ideas on what this might mean when glossed out.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tychicus (Jun 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I suppose this is turning into my weekly musing on the pros and cons of the Great Tradition. Some more:
> 
> 1) God created animals according *to their kind*. This means something like natures and essences exist. We don't have to make Plato's mistake of creating a world for these forms.
> 2) Aristotle placed this world within the thing itself. Not sure if that's right. Better than Plato, but...
> ...


You've piqued my interest. If you expand on this, it would be mighty helpful. This is the question I had at the beginning; about the problem of universals.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> You've piqued my interest. If you expand on this, it would be mighty helpful. This is the question I had at the beginning; about the problem of universals.



FH Bradley wrote the definitive treatment on it. I'm trying to convince myself to read him.


----------



## Tychicus (Jun 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> FH Bradley wrote the definitive treatment on it. I'm trying to convince myself to read him.


But he's not a realist, is he?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> It's been done numerous times, though if someone thinks there will be more success this time around, then go ahead. His acolyte, Turretinfan, actually engaged these issues and was willing to concede that Turretin did not hold the same views that Aomin holds.


How is White's use of the Son not knowing the your traditionally answered by Thomists?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 26, 2022)

arapahoepark said:


> How is White's use of the Son not knowing the your traditionally answered by Thomists?



A very simplistic answer: Jesus knows the future not from his human nature, but from the divine nature.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jun 27, 2022)

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But *made himself of no reputation*, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jun 28, 2022)

White did a show on Friday where I believe he is asking good questions on this subject.






It seems to me the arguments for the "great tradition" are similar to those Rome would use for their tradition. This could also be applied to any other religion that claims they have the ultimate tradition. In all of the cases, it doesn't seem there is a way to actually define what it is. Why are some creeds in and others not? At least Rome has the magisterium and Pope as an explanation (albeit not a good one). *The discussion starts around the 35 minute mark. *Before that is comments on TR only stuff. As a side note, it would be interesting to see how those two groups interact (TR-only and Great Tradition).

Also, one statement from Josh Summer that stood out as ridiculous was the following: "the great tradition is a Spirit given ministerially helpful *though not infallible* by which we check our own individual theologizing". First issue, something given by the Spirit that is NOT infallible, interesting concept. And then the second part, I don't see how this is ANY different that what Rome (or others) claim for why you NEED some type of sacred tradition to interpret scripture properly. I guess because they say it's "not infallible" so that "makes it ok", but that seems to be blasphemy if we are talking about God doing something that is not infallible. It seems what he is saying is we need an fallible tradition to interpret the infallible words of God.

White also makes the comment on this point "if all he's saying is it's helpful to be able to read people who came before us that has nothing to do with a great tradition". No one would disagree with saying we should read from those who came before us. Is that all the great tradition is? I doubt this is what is meant. The question continues to be "by what standard" is the great tradition defined.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> White did a show on Friday where I believe he is asking good questions on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On my phone now, but several quick thoughts. 

1) Numerous people have offered to dialogue with white on this subject. He ignores them.
2) Great Tradition is trying to point out that John’s prologue has more in common with Plato than it does with modernity or fundamentalism.
4) Does white still hold to a heretical view of kenosis?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jun 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> On my phone now, but several quick thoughts.
> 
> 1) Numerous people have offered to dialogue with white on this subject. He ignores them.


This is not true. He literally does dividing line after divining line on this subject answering critics and asking questions. If you are saying he is not literally having a debate/live dialog, then I would agree.


RamistThomist said:


> 2) Great Tradition is trying to point out that John’s prologue has more in common with Plato than it does with modernity or fundamentalism.


Why are these two things being compared? Neither White nor anyone on this board (if they are confessional) would be concerned with modernity or fundamentalism as a way of interpreting scripture.


RamistThomist said:


> 3) Does white still hold to a heretical view of kenosis?


Does this mean the question isn't valid if he is (I don't know the answer to the specific charge). As far as I can tell Aquinas was also a heretic when it came to the doctrine of salvation. Beyond that, did Aquinas hold to heretical views on MANY other topics? Does that mean we should throw out everything he ever said. You have made it very clear that we should not.

It does not seem any of these 3 comments get to the questions he is asking, or any of the summary I posted either. It appears with #3 you are attempting to poison the well. That would be very easy with Aquinas too if that is the type of discussion we are going to have.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Why are these two things being compared? Neither White nor anyone on this board (if they are confessional) would be concerned with modernity or fundamentalism as a way of interpreting scripture.



Because Plato is the whipping boy in these discussions, and the heritage of the church had different ways of approaching the doctrine of God/Scripture than White does.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Does this mean the question isn't valid if he is (I don't know the answer to the specific charge).



My point was that it isn't the guys on the Great Tradition side that are dropping the ball on the doctrine of God.


retroGRAD3 said:


> As far as I can tell Aquinas was also a heretic when it came to the doctrine of salvation. Beyond that, did Aquinas hold to heretical views on MANY other topics?



When Aquinas made those comments at the time, it would not have been officially heretical. Moreover, Reformers like Zanchi and Vermigli kept the same grammatical structure that Aquinas used on things beyond the doctrine of God.


retroGRAD3 said:


> It does not seem any of these 3 comments get to the questions he is asking, or any of the summary I posted either.



I don't think his questions get to the heart of the issue. He hasn't really glossed the Great Tradition like I have in these threads. He hasn't demonstrated a real knowledge of what Plato and Aristotle said, why they differed, and how we can appropriate them today. That's all we are doing. We aren't trying to force some pre-made grid on Scripture. That is so because I have routinely demonstrated where the main figures disagree. The Great Tradition is more of a conversation than a template. White doesn't get that.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jun 28, 2022)

You seem to always want to excuse Aquinas' heresy. Not sure what to make of that. Even when I asked in another thread was Aquinas saved, you really didn't answer the question. You essentially fell back on, well that's what they believed at that time. I don't think that excuses denying what the Bible teaches on how a man is saved (or rather inventing a new way). Paul didn't seem to think so in Galatians.

You also seem to keep centering this entire discussion specifically on the doctrine of God. For clarification, is that all that the great tradition is concerned with?

You also mentioned the great tradition is more of a conversation than a template. Are you saying this because if it was a template then it would be no different than any other ultimate tradition (what Rome, EO, and various cults claim to have)? Also, what do you mean by conversation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> You seem to always want to excuse Aquinas' heresy. Not sure what to make of that.



I was speaking of heresy as official church denunciation, which had not happened at the time. If we want to call Aquinas a heretic, it would have to be anachronistically.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Even when I asked in another thread was Aquinas saved, you really didn't answer the question. You essentially fell back on, well that's what they believed at that time.



I'll go out on a limb and say yes.



retroGRAD3 said:


> You also seem to keep centering this entire discussion specifically on the doctrine of God. For clarification, is that all that the great tradition is concerned with?



No. I've glossed numerous times what the Great Tradition writers believed. But since the Great Tradition usually deals with forms, universals, and the like, it often falls back to the doctrine of God. It also deal with interpreting Scripture, which probably explains White's hostility to typology, as noted earlier in this thread.


retroGRAD3 said:


> You also mentioned the great tradition is more of a conversation than a template. Are you saying this because if it was a template then it would be no different than any other ultimate tradition (what Rome, EO, and various cults claim to have)?



In a sense, yes. White's comments, at least by your reckoning, try to make the Great Tradition as this "tradition" analogous to Rome and the Reformation debates. That's not the case at all.



retroGRAD3 said:


> Also, what do you mean by conversation?



Let's take the most important topic in Western philosophy for the past 3,000 years as an example. What is being? Plato answered it one way. A good conversation sees the best in the answer but then realizes where it might not be adequate. That's why Aristotle took Plato's forms and put them in the things themselves. That's better, but not perfect. Augustine relocated the forms from the things themselves back to the divine mind (divine exemplars). 

That's an example of one conversation. Other topics would include things like time, eternity, Good, truth, etc.

Time and Eternity is another example. The ancients like Boethius would have seen time as a moving image of eternity and that God relates to time in an eternal simultenaity. Moderns like Wolterstoff (and maybe Bahnsen) reject this view and opt for everlastingness, instead. Familiarity with the Great Tradition might prevent one from those mistakes.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jun 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I was speaking of heresy as official church denunciation, which had not happened at the time. If we want to call Aquinas a heretic, it would have to be anachronistically.


We as reformed believers can rightly call many of Aquinas' beliefs heresy based on our own confession and the authority of the word of God. Calling him a heretic is not anachronistic unless you believe that only historical church councils have the authority to call out heresy. This again, would seem a odd position for someone who says they are a protestant.


RamistThomist said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say yes.


I would disagree and I think many other protestants would as well. However, that is ultimately for God to decide.


RamistThomist said:


> No. I've glossed numerous times what the Great Tradition writers believed. But since the Great Tradition usually deals with forms, universals, and the like, it often falls back to the doctrine of God. It also deal with interpreting Scripture, which probably explains White's hostility to typology, as noted earlier in this thread.


Is it the ultimate authority in interpreting scripture? If it gives off that vibe, this would be a reason for anyone calling themself a protestant to at least be cautious of.


RamistThomist said:


> In a sense, yes. White's comments, at least by your reckoning, try to make the Great Tradition as this "tradition" analogous to Rome and the Reformation debates. That's not the case at all.


I have yet to see anything presented by you or any of the other great traditionalists that really shows otherwise other than just claiming it doesn't. When it is being discussed though, it sounds like you all want to be the next ecumenical council and be authoritative on what is orthodox and what isn't. It's very possible that I am misunderstanding though.


RamistThomist said:


> Let's take the most important topic in Western philosophy for the past 3,000 years as an example. What is being? Plato answered it one way. A good conversation sees the best in the answer but then realizes where it might not be adequate. That's why Aristotle took Plato's forms and put them in the things themselves. That's better, but not perfect. Augustine relocated the forms from the things themselves back to the divine mind (divine exemplars).
> 
> That's an example of one conversation. Other topics would include things like time, eternity, Good, truth, etc.
> 
> Time and Eternity is another example. The ancients like Boethius would have seen time as a moving image of eternity and that God relates to time in an eternal simultenaity. Moderns like Wolterstoff (and maybe Bahnsen) reject this view and opt for everlastingness, instead. Familiarity with the Great Tradition might prevent one from those mistakes.


Still doesn't answer the question of what the "great tradition" actually is or who gets to determine what is in and what is out. This still doesn't seem to define what it actually is. It seems vague. It could mean everything, it might be something specific. One person defines it one way and another something else. If it's just a conversation then it seems like all opinions and arguments should be valid to start with. It seems like to me though it is functionally a template despite claims that it is not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Jun 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Still doesn't answer the question of what the "great tradition" actually is or who gets to determine what is in and what is out. This still doesn't seem to define what it actually is. It seems vague. It could mean everything, it might be something specific. One person defines it one way and another something else. If it's just a conversation then it seems like all opinions and arguments should be valid to start with. It seems like to me though it is functionally a template despite claims that it is not.


Three points, brother:
1. Is it vague, or is it a template? It can't be both. Templates are inherently specific.
2. You are correct that what is meant by great tradition is a bit vague, but so are most words. There is a German word, "Spiel", that variously means "game", "play", and "match". It is famously difficult to define. Should we say to the Germans, "by what standard do you call what these children are doing _spiel_? Who defines what is and is not _spiel_?" My point being, a concept is not inherently invalid because it is vague.
3. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that "great tradition" means "sensitivity to classical philosophical and theological categories and debates," and nothing more. Would that be acceptable? You seem to say that it cannot mean something like this because then everyone would agree to it, but I'm not sure everyone would, because some, with their errors on the doctrine of God, have displayed a marked insensitivity to these things.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jun 28, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Three points, brother:
> 1. Is it vague, or is it a template? It can't be both. Templates are inherently specific.


Fair point. I guess to me it seems to be vague on some topics and a template for other topics. I suppose that would be the reason it is being called a conversation.


Charles Johnson said:


> 2. You are correct that what is meant by great tradition is a bit vague, but so are most words. There is a German word, "Spiel", that variously means "game", "play", and "match". It is famously difficult to define. Should we say to the Germans, "by what standard do you call what these children are doing _spiel_? Who defines what is and is not _spiel_?" My point being, a concept is not inherently invalid because it is vague.


Ok.


Charles Johnson said:


> 3. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that "great tradition" means "sensitivity to classical philosophical and theological categories and debates," and nothing more.


If this is what is meant, I would have no issue. Sensitivity and not declaring it to be the ultimate lens through which other things must be judged.


Charles Johnson said:


> Would that be acceptable? You seem to say that it cannot mean something like this because then everyone would agree to it, but I'm not sure everyone would, because some, with their errors on the doctrine of God, have displayed a marked insensitivity to these things.


The issue seems to be it is reaching beyond the above and seems to be undermining sola scriptura. That has always been my concern throughout these threads. On one hand, it has been stated it's consistent with Sola Scriptura and then other times based on what is being put forward, seems to be indicating this is a framework that is needed to understand scripture correctly and it cannot be understood without it. It is quite possible I am not following correctly and I have made an error in my observations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Is it the ultimate authority in interpreting scripture? If it gives off that vibe, this would be a reason for anyone calling themself a protestant to at least be cautious of.



It's a tool, not an authority. I've demonstrated many times why it can't be an authority (e.g., Plato and Aristotle disagree on the soul, so there's that). On the other hand, I have no problem calling it a ministerial authority on some issues (like the doctrine of God).


retroGRAD3 said:


> I have yet to see anything presented by you or any of the other great traditionalists that really shows otherwise other than just claiming it doesn't. When it is being discussed though, it sounds like you all want to be the next ecumenical council and be authoritative on what is orthodox and what isn't. It's very possible that I am misunderstanding though.



We don't need to call an ecumenical council. We're simply stating the conciliar beliefs on Christology and Trinity.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Still doesn't answer the question of what the "great tradition" actually is or who gets to determine what is in and what is out. This still doesn't seem to define what it actually is.



That statement doesn't. I have listed numerous attributes, so to speak, of the GT.


retroGRAD3 said:


> It seems vague. It could mean everything, it might be something specific.



That's not true. A number of views are ruled out prima facie (and all sides would agree)-- ESS, theistic mutualism, kenosis, etc.


retroGRAD3 said:


> If it's just a conversation then it seems like all opinions and arguments should be valid to start with.



That's no problem. I do believe I can show why many opinions on cross-examination aren't valid and are excluded.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> Suppose, for the sake of argument, that "great tradition" means "sensitivity to classical philosophical and theological categories and debates,"



I second that definition.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> On one hand, it has been stated it's consistent with Sola Scriptura and then other times based on what is being put forward, seems to be indicating this is a framework that is needed to understand scripture correctly and it cannot be understood without it. It is quite possible I am not following correctly and I have made an error in my observations.



Maybe sola scriptura shouldn't be seen as allowing any possible position. For example, if someone were to say, based upon Scripture alone, that God is so omnipotent he could make a world in which he does not exist, then I would say he is wrong. I don't really care what verses he could marshal to the contrary.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jun 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I second that definition.


If this is in fact a good definition, then I will file the GT under it (meaning for my own sake and how I should approach the topic). I think this would be a good statement to put forth by the group. Maybe it already has and I missed it somewhere. If that is the case, I apologize.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jun 28, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Maybe sola scriptura shouldn't be seen as allowing any possible position. For example, if someone were to say, based upon Scripture alone, that God is so omnipotent he could make a world in which he does not exist, then I would say he is wrong. I don't really care what verses he could marshal to the contrary.


Not sure there would be an issue here because the scriptures state that God is omnipotent, but also that he doesn't contradict himself. You could use philosophy to argue against the opponents position, but I believe you could also use the Bible to show that he is in error.

Edit: I do understand the point you are trying to make though. I will try not to get stuck on the specific example.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

