# On the reception of Aquinas, doctrine of God, etc.



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2022)

In order not to derail the Ukraine thread, I thought to answer some questions here. 



retroGRAD3 said:


> Fair, but it should be stated that Feser is a Roman Catholic, so I wouldn't necessarily think his explanation is going to be the right answer either.



Perhaps, but Feser's analysis was more or less air tight. Johnson was saying things like Plotinus didn't leave behind any writings. That was one of the bloodiest reviews I've ever read.



retroGRAD3 said:


> This is interesting to hear. Can I ask an honest question here since I am not nearly as well read as you are (no sarcasm implied at all, I mean this completely). Do you believe Aquinas was saved? Did he believe the true gospel? Perhaps that is too simplistic?


Yes. He had a defective view of justification, but so do most Wesleyans. If we say that he is going to hell (or already in hell) because of that, then we need to say that everyone in the middle ages went to hell. I'm not ready to go that far.



retroGRAD3 said:


> I honestly will appreciate it. I am trying to get a better handle on this whole controversy and unfortunately as you mentioned, there has not really been true interaction between the two sides. This would actually be a debate worth having between White and someone from the other side, or any two others that hold the appropriate viewpoints. If there is stuff I should go read, I can do that too.



That's not entirely true. Strachan, Johnson, and White have done zero critical analysis of Thomas and his leading interpreters. White even mentioned me on the dividing line on historical theology. I said the reason we are more favorable to Thomas today is that Richard Muller has done serious work showing how much the Reformed orthodox received Thomas. Not surprisingly, White completely misunderstood what I said.

The thing is, White and Co., have not shown they understand the Reformation sources after Calvin.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1 | Informative 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> In order not to derail the Ukraine thread, I thought to answer some questions here.


I appreciate the time you put into responding to my inquiries. 


RamistThomist said:


> Perhaps, but Feser's analysis was more or less air tight. Johnson was saying things like Plotinus didn't leave behind any writings. That was one of the bloodiest reviews I've ever read.


Understood


RamistThomist said:


> Yes. He had a defective view of justification, but so do most Wesleyans. If we say that he is going to hell (or already in hell) because of that, then we need to say that everyone in the middle ages went to hell. I'm not ready to go that far.


I think there is a difference though in rejecting 5 point Calvinism (or however you want to label what the Bible teaches on soteriology) and still believing salvation is by faith alone (even though Wesley would be inconsistent here) versus entrusting yourself to a sacramental system. How do you get around this being a violation of the Galatian heresy? The Bible seems extremely clear on what the basic gospel is (faith alone through Christ alone). The Bible also warns about philosophy coming in and corrupting that simplicity. It is to someone's destruction if they abandon what the Bible teaches no matter smart or brilliant someone is (in fact the Bible seems to indicate earthly intelligence in some cases can be to our determent because we start to think ourselves smarter than God). Men are always trying to create new ways for them to justify themselves. In terms of the middle ages, we are talking about a majority of people who could barely read or even understand Latin in the first place. It is possible they heard trust in Jesus and that is exactly what they did. However, neither of us were there and we don't have any inspired writings from that time period, so we will never know the full story of what was actually going on at the time. However, I trust the true gospel was still present and the remnant was still there, God is ever building his church. In any case, I am not making a final judgment call on his soul, that is God's business, but if he put in faith in something other than Jesus for salvation, then I would be very concerned. Perhaps I am ignorant on what Thomas actually believed were the grounds of his salvation. To note, Thomas had access to the Bible and the ability to read it. More light equals more punishment if we willingly reject it.



RamistThomist said:


> That's not entirely true. Strachan, Johnson, and White have done zero critical analysis of Thomas and his leading interpreters. White even mentioned me on the dividing line on historical theology. I said the reason we are more favorable to Thomas today is that Richard Muller has done serious work showing how much the Reformed orthodox received Thomas. Not surprisingly, White completely misunderstood what I said.


This is helpful as I was not entirely sure of the context of White's comment was.


RamistThomist said:


> The thing is, White and Co., have not shown they understand the Reformation sources after Calvin.


This could be a fair comment. I don't know enough at this point to confirm or deny, but I also trust you are telling the truth.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I think there is a difference though in rejecting 5 point Calvinism (or however you want to label what the Bible teaches on soteriology) and still believing salvation is by faith alone (even though Wesley would be inconsistent here) versus entrusting yourself to a sacramental system. How do you get around this being a violation of the Galatian heresy?



I simply acknowledge that's how everyone for over a thousand years believed. Aquinas isn't unique in that regard. And whether he is saved or not is irrelevant to the fact that White is rejecting the standard Christian view of divine simplicity.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Perhaps I am ignorant on what Thomas actually believed were the grounds of his salvation. To note, Thomas had access to the Bible and the ability to read it. More light equals more punishment if we willingly reject it.



His views are fairly standard from Augustine until Luther, and I have outlined them here. When he would read the word _iustificare_, he would see it as "make righteous." In Latin that is literally what it means. He could then turn the tables on us and ask how we reject the clear meaning of the word. We would respond with arguments from the Greek, but that's a moot point since view had access to Greek until Constantinople fell.


retroGRAD3 said:


> This could be a fair comment. I don't know enough at this point to confirm or deny, but I also trust you are telling the truth.



It's pretty easy to verify. Are Owen and White and them interacting with Muller, Steinmetz, Trueman, and Oberman on these issues? The answer is clear. They aren't. White deliberately punted on that when he brought up my name.


----------



## Brian T (Mar 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> It's pretty easy to verify. Are Owen and White and them interacting with Muller, Steinmetz, Trueman, and Oberman on these issues? The answer is clear. They aren't. White deliberately punted on that when he brought up my name.



I think you said elsewhere that anyone who's Reformed and claims to speak on its behalf but hasn't dealt with Richard Muller's works...is an ignoramus. 

Finishing up the first volume of _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, _I see what you mean and you are absolutely correct.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 4, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I simply acknowledge that's how everyone for over a thousand years believed. Aquinas isn't unique in that regard. And whether he is saved or not is irrelevant to the fact that White is rejecting the standard Christian view of divine simplicity.
> 
> 
> His views are fairly standard from Augustine until Luther, and I have outlined them here. When he would read the word _iustificare_, he would see it as "make righteous." In Latin that is literally what it means. He could then turn the tables on us and ask how we reject the clear meaning of the word. We would respond with arguments from the Greek, but that's a moot point since view had access to Greek until Constantinople fell.
> ...


There is nothing I disagree with in what you wrote. I was just asking the questions to get your thoughts on the subject. Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 4, 2022)

Brian T said:


> I think you said elsewhere that anyone who's Reformed and claims to speak on its behalf but hasn't dealt with Richard Muller's works...is an ignoramus.
> 
> Finishing up the first volume of _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, _I see what you mean and you are absolutely correct.


At best such a person would have a surface level understanding of Calvin and Luther, and that's it. 

Here is the problem for these anti-scholastic guys: The Westminster Confession is a scholastic document. It calls the foreknowledge of God the "First Cause." If you hate all things Aristotelian, that is an insurmountable problem.

John Owen is a scholastic writer. Volume 10 of his works drips with Thomism, especially on the doctrine of God.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 7, 2022)

Brian T said:


> Finishing up the first volume of _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, _I see what you mean and you are absolutely correct.


@RamistThomist @Brian T Where does one get these books in print? It appears they are out of print, which is a shame if they are so important to this discussion. I see you can get ebook versions of them, but I tend to like the print versions. I suppose if there is no option, then I will go after the ebook versions. It is a shame though that these books are so expensive. This might be one of the reasons people have not read them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> @RamistThomist @Brian T Where does one get these books in print? It appears they are out of print, which is a shame if they are so important to this discussion. I see you can get ebook versions of them, but I tend to like the print versions. I suppose if there is no option, then I will go after the ebook versions. It is a shame though that these books are so expensive. This might be one of the reasons people have not read them.



Yeah. That's a big problem. You will hear people perhaps naively say "Baker said they are going to reissue a new edition." Baker's been saying that for almost a decade now.

Vols 1 and 3 are the most important. However, there are some alternatives that explore the same angles:

Richard, Guy D. _The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford. _He covers the same methodological ground.
Trueman, Carl. _The Claims of Truth_. An analysis of John Owen's response to Rutherford.
Junius, Franciscus. _The Nature of True Theology_.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yeah. That's a big problem. You will hear people perhaps naively say "Baker said they are going to reissue a new edition." Baker's been saying that for almost a decade now.
> 
> Vols 1 and 3 are the most important. However, there are some alternatives that explore the same angles:
> 
> ...


Ok thanks, I will look for the others. I will also keep a look out for volumes 1 and 3 of Muller.

It would be great if Baker would make good on their statement as well though.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian T (Mar 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> @RamistThomist @Brian T Where does one get these books in print? It appears they are out of print, which is a shame if they are so important to this discussion. I see you can get ebook versions of them, but I tend to like the print versions. I suppose if there is no option, then I will go after the ebook versions. It is a shame though that these books are so expensive. This might be one of the reasons people have not read them.



Yeah, they are almost impossible to find in print. On Amazon right now, you're looking at shelling out at least $1,499 for the 4-volume set (2nd edition), which is a travesty!

https://www.amazon.com/Post-Reformation-Reformed-Dogmatics-Development-Orthodoxy/dp/0801026180

You might be able to find some copies of the first edition of the first two volumes on eBay, but there is a lot more material in the 2nd edition.

I got so tired of looking, I ended up purchasing Logos bible software (I was already an Accordance user) and spent $159.99 for the whole 4-volume set of the 2nd edition.

Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (4 vols.)

Glad I did. That's probably the only viable way to get it these days, and I've become a huge fan of Logos in the past few months.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 7, 2022)

Brian T said:


> Yeah, they are almost impossible to find in print. On Amazon right now, you're looking at shelling out at least $1,499 for the 4-volume set (2nd edition), which is a travesty!
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Post-Reformation-Reformed-Dogmatics-Development-Orthodoxy/dp/0801026180
> 
> ...


As far as I can tell, this is the cheapest way to get the latest editions of the entire set that I can see.


----------



## Brian T (Mar 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> As far as I can tell, this is the cheapest way to get the latest editions of the entire set that I can see.



I was resistant to get Logos at first since I had been using Accordance for 3 years and already had a large library of commentaries in it. And plus, I am old school and tend to prefer hard copies of books, not electronic ones. 

But man, once I bit the bullet and purchased Logos, I am glad I did. Logos has tons more material on offer (Muller's 4-volume set being a perfect example) than Accordance ever will. I've already got over 1,200 works in Logos (far more than I have in Accordance after owning and using it for 3 years) and I've only had Logos a few months now.

BTW, another work of Muller's that's great to have is his Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, which, luckily, IS readily available and at a decent price. And it is also available in Logos, which has come in handy as I've often had both PRRD and his Latin and Greek terms open in separate windows while reading the former. Very convenient!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Brian T (Mar 7, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yeah. That's a big problem. You will hear people perhaps naively say "Baker said they are going to reissue a new edition." Baker's been saying that for almost a decade now.



Isn't there also a rumor that Muller was/is working on a fifth volume?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 7, 2022)

Brian T said:


> Isn't there also a rumor that Muller was/is working on a fifth volume?



Yes, and it was supposed to deal with the Divine Will. I don't think it will materialize as such. Muller has released three books on the will/predestination theme in the past few years, though

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 7, 2022)

Online guys. 

https://reformedbooksonline.com/mullers-post-reformation-reformed-dogmatics-is-now-online/

https://archive.org/details/postreformationr0001mull/page/n5/mode/2up

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Mar 7, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Online guys.
> 
> https://reformedbooksonline.com/mullers-post-reformation-reformed-dogmatics-is-now-online/
> 
> https://archive.org/details/postreformationr0001mull/page/n5/mode/2up


This thread might be relevant to that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

@Brian T Question about Logos. If I purchase the books, is that all I need to purchase? Or, is there some type of logos software I need to purchase as well?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> @Brian T Question about Logos. If I purchase the books, is that all I need to purchase? Or, is there some type of logos software I need to purchase as well?



I'm not an expert on Logos, but I think it can work with the generic software. I think the higher grades have more in the package, which you can purchase separately. I just have Greek and Hebrew on my Logos app.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I'm not an expert on Logos, but I think it can work with the generic software. I think the higher grades have more in the package, which you can purchase separately. I just have Greek and Hebrew on my Logos app.


So, I can purchase the Muller books without needing to purchase anything?


----------



## Brian T (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So, I can purchase the Muller books without needing to purchase anything?



Here's what I did. I shelled out $99 for Logos 9 Fundamentals starter package, which includes 70+ Bibles and commentaries. Once that downloaded and installed, I was off the races with buying everything I could from their store. I think, though, I might have been able to just download Logos by itself and not mess with a starter package at all.

At the link below, you can see if you can get the software itself installed:






Logos 9 Basic—Free Bible Software


Logos 9 Basic is free Bible software that helps you discover life-changing biblical truths wherever you are. Study Scripture and consult commentaries, devotionals, Bible dictionaries, and more—all from your computer, tablet, or phone.




www.logos.com





You will set up an account with your email address; the software downloads and installs very quickly. Once you've got the software, you can head right to the store and start buying stuff. When I purchase books, they are downloaded and indexed in my library in under a minute.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ethan (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> So, I can purchase the Muller books without needing to purchase anything?


Yes. It actually comes with a decent amount of stuff for free.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Alright I got them. Thanks for the help gentlemen. Now because of my reading speed it will just take the next 3 years to read them

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Brian T (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Alright I got them. Thanks for the help gentlemen. Now because of my reading speed it will just take the next 3 years to read them



So were you able to just get the basic Logos software, free from that link, and then grabbed the Muller? If so, I will want to remember that for the next time I am asked. I will be able to save people some money.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Brian T said:


> So were you able to just get the basic Logos software, free from that link, and then grabbed the Muller? If so, I will want to remember that for the next time I am asked. I will be able to save people some money.


Yes, the free version of logos worked. You basically just need a login and then the book shop is open to you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Brian T (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Yes, the free version of logos worked. You basically just need a login and then the book shop is open to you.



Yeah, I didn't think I _needed _that fundamentals package to get up and running, but it was a good investment. 

I love that there are some really nice Reformed packages available, as well as multi-volume sets by all the great Reformed heavyweights. Logos has burned a big hole in my wallet for the past few months, that's for sure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 8, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> At best such a person would have a surface level understanding of Calvin and Luther, and that's it.
> 
> Here is the problem for these anti-scholastic guys: The Westminster Confession is a scholastic document. It calls the foreknowledge of God the "First Cause." If you hate all things Aristotelian, that is an insurmountable problem.
> 
> John Owen is a scholastic writer. Volume 10 of his works drips with Thomism, especially on the doctrine of God.


First off I agree with your post but I do have some questions. If the Aristotle/Thomas model (A/T model) is indispensable for Orthodox/Reformed theology (and it is to some degree) than which school of A/T model scholars can we use? Rahner's Thomism is not Gilson's Thomism, so which one, if either, is the orthodox one that we may use to be Reformed? 
From what I understand, and I'm horribly ignorant here, there isn't a solid enough agreement amongst scholars in the A/T model to even speak of "THE" A/T model. If that's the case, and I could just be ignorant here, than who decides which school of the A/T model is acceptable and not merely arbitrarily chosen? 
If we say the A/T model used by the Reformed scholastics, fair enough but does that involve rejecting all or most of scholarly developments in the A/T model since than? What about developments in the field of metaphysics since than, are those off limits and who decides what is and isn't? 
You see I ask only in a rhetorical sense these questions to point out the difficulties involved in the A/T model that I don't think many people see. I'm not agreeing with White etc only pointing out some difficulties.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 8, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> First off I agree with your post but I do have some questions. If the Aristotle/Thomas model (A/T model) is indispensable for Orthodox/Reformed theology (and it is to some degree) than which school of A/T model scholars can we use? Rahner's Thomism is not Gilson's Thomism, so which one, if either, is the orthodox one that we may use to be Reformed?



It's not simply that we use Thomas and Aristotle. As noted above, I am not a Thomist. As Muller and Van Asselt have shown, the ectypal distinction owes more to Scotus than it does Thomas. Rather, all of this is the current from which everyone drew.


jwright82 said:


> From what I understand, and I'm horribly ignorant here, there isn't a solid enough agreement amongst scholars in the A/T model to even speak of "THE" A/T model. If that's the case, and I could just be ignorant here, than who decides which school of the A/T model is acceptable and not merely arbitrarily chosen?



Very true, which is why we aren't offering such a model.


jwright82 said:


> If we say the A/T model used by the Reformed scholastics, fair enough but does that involve rejecting all or most of scholarly developments in the A/T model since than



Not necessarily. I don't think modern philosophy, whether analytical or contintental, is all that good or worthwhile. I do like some developments made by guys like Oliver Crisp, but Crisp sees much of his project as reclaiming the classical view of God.


jwright82 said:


> and who decides what is and isn't?



Anything that gets rid of essence, nature, or posits a view of knowledge that compromises the ectypal distinction is probably off limits.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 9, 2022)

Here is an example or two of improvements in philosophy. Take the debate over religious language around the middle of the 20th century. In other words, God-talk can't be verified, so it is either meaningless (agnosticism) or known only in the community of faith (which we see in some hippie postmodern communes today). Plantinga and his school effectively buried this nonsense. That really couldn't have happened without the sharp and clear thinking that comes from analytical reasoning.

Thomas Morris (although he blocked me on twitter) did the same thing to liberal Christologies.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 11, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> It's not simply that we use Thomas and Aristotle. As noted above, I am not a Thomist. As Muller and Van Asselt have shown, the ectypal distinction owes more to Scotus than it does Thomas. Rather, all of this is the current from which everyone drew.
> 
> 
> Very true, which is why we aren't offering such a model.
> ...


Fair enough but I may say if there is no model than isn't the method itself called into question because of instability in agreement? Just playing devil's advocate here. If there is no model than that could imply no method. No agreed upon method than no reason to rule out other methods. Devil's advocate again.
Again I have no problem with Aristotle or Aquinas only restricting, which I don't have you in mind here, our metaphysics to them without taking into consideration the complexity of the situation into view.
I've tried to find Jared Oliphint's review of Dr. Dolezal's book on divine simplicity but I can't. He slams Dolezal's book for the same things I'm bringing up here. Now I personally wouldn't slam somebody, per se, for appearing to be ignorant of the philophical literature but that's what he does. Again I'm sorry I can't provide quotes but I can't find it. 
But it is a review like ( not comparing Dr. Dolezal to Dawkins) "if you don't know the complexity of the philophical situation why enter the debate?" Alvin Plantinga destroyed Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" for similar reasons. He, Oliphint, says (again can't quote something I can't find) something like "You're assuming this T/A model but not defending it or appearing to be cognizant of the complexity of scholarship in this area (which is problematic)". Again if anyone wishes to block this because I can't give direct quotes I'll understand. I agree with you only raising questions I would like to see pinned down by critics.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Fair enough but I may say if there is no model than isn't the method itself called into question because of instability in agreement? Just playing devil's advocate here. If there is no model than that could imply no method. No agreed upon method than no reason to rule out other methods. Devil's advocate again.
> Again I have no problem with Aristotle or Aquinas only restricting, which I don't have you in mind here, our metaphysics to them without taking into consideration the complexity of the situation into view.
> I've tried to find Jared Oliphint's review of Dr. Dolezal's book on divine simplicity but I can't. He slams Dolezal's book for the same things I'm bringing up here. Now I personally wouldn't slam somebody, per se, for appearing to be ignorant of the philophical literature but that's what he does. Again I'm sorry I can't provide quotes but I can't find it.
> But it is a review like ( not comparing Dr. Dolezal to Dawkins) "if you don't know the complexity of the philophical situation why enter the debate?" Alvin Plantinga destroyed Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" for similar reasons. He, Oliphint, says (again can't quote something I can't find) something like "You're assuming this T/A model but not defending it or appearing to be cognizant of the complexity of scholarship in this area (which is problematic)". Again if anyone wishes to block this because I can't give direct quotes I'll understand. I agree with you only raising questions I would like to see pinned down by critics.


I’m on my phone. Longer reply later. As I’ve said many times; no one is restricting theology to T/A. Rather T/A was appreciated by our Reformed fathers at times. Getting rid of this appreciation makes one a methodological Socinian, and also gets rid of WCF 5.2


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 12, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yes, and it was supposed to deal with the Divine Will. I don't think it will materialize as such. Muller has released three books on the will/predestination theme in the past few years, though


Muller said at a conference at MARS a couple of years ago that volume five was on natural law, not the divine will, which he has already done, and then some.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Muller said at a conference at MARS a couple of years ago that volume five was on natural law, not the divine will, which he has already done, and then some.


That’s hopeful


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 12, 2022)

Maybe Baker is waiting on that to reprint them again


----------



## Taylor (Mar 12, 2022)

Was Muller intending to cover all the _loci_ eventually, but just got bogged down?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 12, 2022)

Baker has reprinted them fairly recently. Up until a few weeks ago, they were still available at wtsbooks.com. However, they are gone now. Glad I got my set back in '07 or so, when they were still reasonable.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Was Muller intending to cover all the _loci_ eventually, but just got bogged down?


Close. His original focus was Perkins and grace, yet that kept bringing other issues in

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 12, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Baker has reprinted them fairly recently. Up until a few weeks ago, they were still available at wtsbooks.com. However, they are gone now. Glad I got my set back in '07 or so, when they were still reasonable.


I ended up buying on logos because print would have cost $1500. How do you define "recent" because 2007 was 15 years ago (man I'm getting old).


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2022)

I remember when it was reprinted in 2007. And I remember that it has stayed out of print since then.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 12, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I remember when it was reprinted in 2007. And I remember that it has stayed out of print since then.


It was reprinted quite recently, but the print run has already run out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 12, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Fair enough but I may say if there is no model than isn't the method itself called into question because of instability in agreement?



I don't see why. There isn't a method like the one you would find in apologetics, for example. They all agreed that God was pure act, yet they agreed with Scotus over Thomas when it came to ectypal knowledge. They saw themselves as Reforming Catholics, so they didn't feel the need to correct what wasn't broken.


jwright82 said:


> If there is no model than that could imply no method. No agreed upon method than no reason to rule out other methods.



I really don't understand what you mean by model. The only real differences within medieval thought would have been the breakdown between Bonaventure, Anselm, Thomas, and Scotus, and then only on a few specific points. 


jwright82 said:


> only restricting, which I don't have you in mind here, our metaphysics to them without taking into consideration the complexity of the situation into view.



No one is doing that. On the other hand, where Aristotle gets things correct, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.


jwright82 said:


> I've tried to find Jared Oliphint's review of Dr. Dolezal's book on divine simplicity but I can't. He slams Dolezal's book for the same things I'm bringing up here.



Slamming a book isn't the same as refuting it. Dolezal's thesis is air-tight. All that is in God is God, otherwise God would have to rely on not-God in order to be God.

Reactions: Love 2


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 30, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I don't see why. There isn't a method like the one you would find in apologetics, for example. They all agreed that God was pure act, yet they agreed with Scotus over Thomas when it came to ectypal knowledge. They saw themselves as Reforming Catholics, so they didn't feel the need to correct what wasn't broken.
> 
> 
> I really don't understand what you mean by model. The only real differences within medieval thought would have been the breakdown between Bonaventure, Anselm, Thomas, and Scotus, and then only on a few specific points.
> ...


Sorry it took so long to respond but I agree with so much that I had to think about it. If I understand you correctly you're saying that they used Aristotle where he was useful. So there was no "model" per se. Were they aware of the differences that contemporary scholarship has talked about or was that irrelevant to what they were doing? And we should only "tie" ourselves to Aristotle where they did? Again I have no problem with doing that. But it does beg the question of whether or not new insights can be used to better understand things? Or new criticisms, whatever that might be, of Aristotle and Aquinas?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Sorry it took so long to respond but I agree with so much that I had to think about it. If I understand you correctly you're saying that they used Aristotle where he was useful. So there was no "model" per se. Were they aware of the differences that contemporary scholarship has talked about or was that irrelevant to what they were doing? And we should only "tie" ourselves to Aristotle where they did? Again I have no problem with doing that. But it does beg the question of whether or not new insights can be used to better understand things? Or new criticisms, whatever that might be, of Aristotle and Aquinas?



A number of guys like Ramus offered criticisms of Aristotle and new insights.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 30, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I simply acknowledge that's how everyone for over a thousand years believed. Aquinas isn't unique in that regard. And whether he is saved or not is irrelevant to the fact that White is rejecting the standard Christian view of divine simplicity.
> 
> 
> His views are fairly standard from Augustine until Luther, and I have outlined them here. When he would read the word _iustificare_, he would see it as "make righteous." In Latin that is literally what it means. He could then turn the tables on us and ask how we reject the clear meaning of the word. We would respond with arguments from the Greek, but that's a moot point since view had access to Greek until Constantinople fell.
> ...


Hi, if I follow your blog post correctly it appears you are in agreement with this author on this vital point, yet, come to drastically different conclusions otherwise….

You write:
_“Thesis: The work of God in us was being made the basis of God’s forgiveness (90).

And this is what the Reformers rejected and what is at stake. If imputation holds, then the hierarchical mediations of Rome are unnecessary. And this is precisely what is glossed over in many “ecumenical” discussions.”_

But this blog, while in agreement with this most important point, goes in a totally different direction in their analysis. Are you familiar with this ?…..









Thomas Aquinas was the Problem; the Reformation was the Solution


“Where was your Church before Aquinas” Ever since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have been fond of asking, “Where was your Church before ...




triablogue.blogspot.com





The hierarchical mediations of Rome is a very big deal, no? The middle man can only be effective if man maintains a disposition of grace (intrinsic righteousness).


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Hi, if I follow your blog post correctly it ppears you are in agreement with this author on this vital point, yet, come to drastically different conclusions otherwise….
> 
> You write:
> _“Thesis: The work of God in us was being made the basis of God’s forgiveness (90)._
> ...



I'm familiar with the blog post. John is a friend of mine. He knows I disagree with his analysis of post-medieval theology. I do take issue with a number of his claims:
1) It's a bit simplistic to say that Thomas introduced Aristotle to the West. Boethius was analyzing Aristotle almost a thousand years earlier. What Thomas did was use some of Aristotle's categories.
2) I really don't see Luther as agreeing with Lombard. In any case, if Luther wrote his commentary on Lombard when he did, it was long before Luther accepted justification by faith alone. 
2.1) Lombard might have said that the love by which we love God is the Holy Spirit in us, but he still held to the Roman merit system.
3) Scotus disagreed with Thomas on a few points, but I would be cautious about accepting Scotus as an ally. He did invent the immaculate conception, after all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2022)

The anti-Thomists sort of miss the point. No one disputes that Thomas is wrong on grace. We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God. Moreover, to overreact to "substance" categories will probably lead one to Socinianism.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 30, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> The anti-Thomists sort of miss the point. No one disputes that Thomas is wrong on grace. We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God. Moreover, to overreact to "substance" categories will probably lead one to Socinianism.


That’s probably on account of the whole Classical-Presuppositional Apologetic divide which is probably overblown anyway. There is much more overlap in those schools of thought than anyone is giving credit. I do believe the doctrine of grace is the true distinction between the two coincidentally.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 30, 2022)

@RamistThomist off topic a bit, but would your average secularist and practical atheist find Aquinas persuasive? What part of their brain is so dysfunctional to be hardened against the most vital, universal and eternal truths? I think if you accept Aquinas got grace wrong in the theological realm you may accept that others in the Reformed camp got the repercussions of grace (and lack thereof) in all areas (of God’s domain of course) pretty right. 
…. You could say they are blind to reason? Why would that be? They are essentially (metaphysical) materialists.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Mar 30, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> @RamistThomist off topic a bit, but would your average secularist and practical atheist find Aquinas persuasive? What part of their brain is so dysfunctional to be hardened against the most vital, universal and eternal truths? I think if you accept Aquinas got grace wrong in the theological realm you may accept that others in the Reformed camp got the repercussions of grace (and lack thereof) in all areas (of God’s domain of course) pretty right.


I have never met an ex-atheist that was converted by reading Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles and I've never met one that was converted by reading Van Til's Reformed Apologetics. I don't know that that means much of anything. Now, if we just regard the forms of reasoning presented therein, I have personally used classical arguments like Anselm's ontological argument (which Aquinas repeats) to confound atheists and it was very effective.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 30, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> I have never met an ex-atheist that was converted by reading Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles and I've never met one that was converted by reading Van Til's Reformed Apologetics. I don't know that that means much of anything. Now, if we just regard the forms of reasoning presented therein, I have personally used classical arguments like Anselm's ontological argument (which Aquinas repeats) to confound atheists and it was very effective.


And a presuppositionalist couldn’t do that? One conversation does not necessarily illuminate the mind but a dead end is essentially a DEAD end….. You may confound the atheist by presenting reasonable options and variables but can you undarken their spiritual eyes? … Spiritual eyes see ‘everything’ in its proper place (albeit not perfectly) relative to finite understanding. 

The presuppositionist should use ontological arguments without sacrificing anything from their end. Why speak as if our truth is only “our” truth. It’s everybody’s truth.

I would invite that atheist to church after winning them over with kindness (a friendship or a relationship built on trust is what I have in mind). I think the Word and the Gospel is the best apologetic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Mar 30, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> And a presuppositionalist couldn’t do that?


I didn't say that.


A.Joseph said:


> You may confound the atheist by presenting reasonable options and variables but can you undarken their spiritual eyes? … Spiritual eyes see ‘everything’ in its proper place (albeit not perfectly) relative to finite understanding.


No one can open someone's eyes by any method at all, apologetic or otherwise. This strikes me as something of a red herring.


A.Joseph said:


> The presuppositionist should use ontological arguments without sacrificing anything from their end. Why speak as if our truth is only “our” truth. It’s everybody’s truth.


I don't know what you mean by this.


A.Joseph said:


> I would invite that atheist to church after winning them over with kindness (a friendship or a relationship built on trust is what I have in mind). I think the Word and the Gospel is the best apologetic.


I'm not sure what you're responding to here. I don't think anyone is against kindness.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> but would your average secularist and practical atheist find Aquinas persuasive?



Until the Holy Spirit opens their eyes, the secularist won't find Aquinas, Van Til, or James White persuasive.

I have gotten secularists to concede the points on the cosmological argument.


A.Joseph said:


> I think if you accept Aquinas got grace wrong in the theological realm you may accept that others in the Reformed camp got the repercussions of grace (and lack thereof) in all areas (of God’s domain of course) pretty right.



I am not sure what you are getting at.


A.Joseph said:


> What part of their brain is so dysfunctional to be hardened against the most vital, universal and eternal truths?



The brain isn't the same thing as the mind. Unless they have head trauma, their brains are probably functioning properly (cf Plantinga, _Warrant and Proper Function_, Oxford, 2003).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> And a presuppositionalist couldn’t do that? One conversation does not necessarily illuminate the mind but a dead end is essentially a DEAD end….. You may confound the atheist by presenting reasonable options and variables but can you undarken their spiritual eyes? … Spiritual eyes see ‘everything’ in its proper place (albeit not perfectly) relative to finite understanding.



I'm not sure anyone disagrees.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 30, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> I didn't say that.
> 
> No one can open someone's eyes by any method at all, apologetic or otherwise. This strikes me as something of a red herring.
> 
> ...


Ok, forgive me.

Before you responded I was reacting to a previous comment….
“We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God.”

Which is probably true. But I struggle with this distinction (of the quoted portion). I’m not sure we can split up thought and belief this way. I think Calvin and Luther’s (and others throughout church history) view of the depravity of man and the doctrines of grace could have been expanded on in a more philosophical and practical sense as far as one’s understanding of the world, reality and the purpose/meaning of all things.

Wouldn’t the reformers theological views (the doctrine of grace in particular) eventually spill into other areas of thought? Which I’m sure it did….

I know they weren’t dealing with the same philosophical and theological attacks/threats as in more recent times.


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 30, 2022)

I know CVT gets plenty of criticism for being sloppy in some areas (or lacking context, etc.). And maybe this author is not as precise as he should be with all of his information and presentation of historical facts (although I’m assuming he is). Regardless, I think he makes some good points…..

“In my mind, Van Til’s interaction with absolute idealism’s search for a concrete universal is a wonderful example of how to address philosophical questions with Reformed theological answers.”









Van Til's Concrete Universal


Laurence O’Donnell, III, a Cornelius Van Til scholar and critic, has labeled Van Til’s trinitarian theology “idiosyncratic.” He made this remark with respect to Van Til’s conception of the trinity as a concrete universal. In response to O’Donnell’s ascription of idiosyncrasy, I would like to briefly




reformedforum.org














From Absolute Idealism to Analytic Philosophy, Part 2


In a previous post, I gave a brief historical sketch of the movement from nineteenth century absolute idealism to twentieth century analytic philosophy. In this post, I will survey the response Cornelius Van Til gave to absolute idealism, and then examine the analytic tradition in light of Van Til’s




reformedforum.org


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 30, 2022)

I’m just conveying how theology and the doctrines of grace could influence how you do apologetics, etc. The long standing issue for the presuppositionalist is conceding too much to the secularist, atheist, skeptics. These are the dots I’m trying to connect, in conjunction with the related areas of discussion.

…. Sorry, if I got things too off topic.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> Wouldn’t the reformers theological views (the doctrine of grace in particular) eventually spill into other areas of thought? Which I’m sure it did….



They did reject Thomas on one crucial point: instead of Thomas's habit of grace, they changed habit to imputation. That's huge.

The metaphysical stuff really didn't need to be changed. I'm not sure how one can operate without a term like substance. Moreover, if God's simplicity means he is Pure Act, then I really don't see how we could improve or change that. In fact, it would be dangerous to do so.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 30, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> The anti-Thomists sort of miss the point. No one disputes that Thomas is wrong on grace. We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God. Moreover, to overreact to "substance" categories will probably lead one to Socinianism.


Well based on my last response can we not use "substance categories" where they are useful and other categories where they aren't? I think my big question would be this: can I accept substance categories to explain the incarnation and the Trinity and yet be skeptical of its use describing everyday things (in theory)? Or am I a slave to Aristotle, not saying thats what you're saying, in all metaphysics because the church used him?


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 30, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m just conveying how theology and the doctrines of grace could influence how you do apologetics, etc. The long standing issue for the presuppositionalist is conceding too much to the secularist, atheist, skeptics. These are the dots I’m trying to connect, in conjunction with the related areas of discussion.
> 
> …. Sorry, if I got things too off topic.


Only if it dictates where you must go intellectually despite theology and the Bible. So if someone were to say you can't be a Christian unless you hold to this or that philosophy they are wrong. People don't say that but reading some responses to the emerging church you get the impression that certain theory of truth is the Christian theory of truth. It may or may not be.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Well based on my last response can we not use "substance categories" where they are useful and other categories where they aren't? I think my big question would be this: can I accept substance categories to explain the incarnation and the Trinity and yet be skeptical of its use describing everyday things (in theory)? Or am I a slave to Aristotle, not saying thats what you're saying, in all metaphysics because the church used him?



Can you give an illustration where we are currently using substance categories where other categories would be better?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 31, 2022)

A.Joseph said:


> I think the Word and the Gospel is the best apologetic.


Indeed!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 31, 2022)

I am not well-read on Aquinas at all, but I want to inject a point that I’ve seen lead to mistakes in reading other writers as well. 

Using one’s language is not the same as thinking the same thoughts. So when you see the Reformers use Aristotelian or Thomistic words/categories does not mean they were Aristotelian or Thomistic in thought. I’m not making the case one way or the other, but they were interacting with and utilizing the language of their day.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Can you give an illustration where we are currently using substance categories where other categories would be better?


Illegal substance categories—narcotics, methamphetamines, etc.—would be a good example. I think we should use better substance categories, like vitamins, minerals, and protein.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Mar 31, 2022)

A huge portion of the terminology we use in theology proper can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, in the same sense or a closely related one. Calling God "simple" is just one example. Both were wrong about plenty of things, and even Aquinas would disagree with Aristotle on a lot, but it simply is not possible to remove every trace of the Greek philosophers from theology without falling into heresy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I am not well-read on Aquinas at all, but I want to inject a point that I’ve seen lead to mistakes in reading other writers as well.
> 
> Using one’s language is not the same as thinking the same thoughts. So when you see the Reformers use Aristotelian or Thomistic words/categories does not mean they were Aristotelian or Thomistic in thought. I’m not making the case one way or the other, but they were interacting with and utilizing the language of their day.



Noted, but when they are using terms like pure act, potency, and the like, it is pretty clear.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 31, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Can you give an illustration where we are currently using substance categories where other categories would be better?


Yes and no. I uphold the creeds and their language. I think aspect thinking along Dooyweerdian lines is better at explaining everyday things. As to your question, if I buy a bottle of water and I think in terms of substance metaphysics, us philosophical minded are horrible at this, I might be inclined to ask what is the substance of this water? 
How does it hydrate me? By its substance or everything else? Since we can only answer by "everything else" it seems superfluous to include substance as a category of thought. Since I can't know what the substance is why not reject it for ordinary things? 
Aspect thinking allows me to examine the everyday things from different perspectives to come to a fullest knowledge of the thing.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 31, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I am not well-read on Aquinas at all, but I want to inject a point that I’ve seen lead to mistakes in reading other writers as well.
> 
> Using one’s language is not the same as thinking the same thoughts. So when you see the Reformers use Aristotelian or Thomistic words/categories does not mean they were Aristotelian or Thomistic in thought. I’m not making the case one way or the other, but they were interacting with and utilizing the language of their day.


I completely agree. Good post!


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 31, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> A huge portion of the terminology we use in theology proper can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, in the same sense or a closely related one. Calling God "simple" is just one example. Both were wrong about plenty of things, and even Aquinas would disagree with Aristotle on a lot, but it simply is not possible to remove every trace of the Greek philosophers from theology without falling into heresy.


I completely agree. We can't remove everything from theology without them. But can we do philosophy without them is my question?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I completely agree. We can't remove everything from theology without them. But can we do philosophy without them is my question?



Sometimes. On one hand we shouldn't reinvent the wheel, but on the other if x is better at explanation, then by all means go with it. But back to your aspect-thinking, I think if we try to do Christology or Trinity without substance language, we are in trouble.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 1, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Sometimes. On one hand we shouldn't reinvent the wheel, but on the other if x is better at explanation, then by all means go with it. But back to your aspect-thinking, I think if we try to do Christology or Trinity without substance language, we are in trouble.


I agree. We should not tamper with the language of the creeds. Substance language is what we use to talk about those things but every day objects may be better talked about in aspect language. When it comes to our Reformed and Catholic heritage we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. But when Substance language breaks down in describing everyday things we should find an alternative, I propose aspect thinking.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 1, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> I agree. We should not tamper with the language of the creeds. Substance language is what we use to talk about those things but every day objects may be better talked about in aspect language. When it comes to our Reformed and Catholic heritage we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. But when Substance language breaks down in describing everyday things we should find an alternative, I propose aspect thinking.



That's fine. I agree. The great Roger Scruton once asked which was better to capture the essence of gold, its atomic weight or its Platonic form? (Obviously the former).


----------

