# James White on Reformed Thomism



## Stephen L Smith

This is not my area of expertise, but I thought some of you might be interested in this. Feel free to comment pro or con. Just keep the debate respectful. 

"We did a nearly two hour long program today on the issue of hermeneutics, exegesis, tradition, and the current movement in Reformed circles toward the embracing of “the Great Tradition,” “Reformed Thomism,” and “Christian Platonism.” I think this is one of the most important programs we have ever done, and I pray the Lord will bless it to your edification."









Let God Speak: Hermeneutics


We did a nearly two hour long program today on the issue of hermeneutics, exegesis, tradition, and the current movement in Reformed circles toward the embracing




www.aomin.org

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

I believe Dr. White is bringing up good points. I think this is something that needs to be pushed back against. I realize though that not everyone is the same as the baptist opponents he is talking to.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover

The two most important theologians during the Reformation period were Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. I'm glad to see that some in Protestantism, including the Reformed, are giving Aquinas a second look and realizing how valuable he is.

_Thomism in John Owen_ by Christopher Cleveland (2013) is a good example of Thomas's influence among the Puritans.

And _The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas_ by Gilles Emery (2007; French original 2004) gives an explication of Thomas's doctrine of the Trinity.

No, we don't have to agree with everything Thomas wrote, but he is not useless for the Reformed or the wider Protestant world. Let's not let the Roman Catholics have him all to themselves!

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## Polanus1561

Vermigli.. Bucer.. all were influenced by Aquinas


----------



## RamistThomist

Zanchi modeled his outline after Aquinas.

Owen proves predestination by Aquinas's doctrine of God's simplicity (_Display of Arminianism). _

It's as simple as this: is there potency in God?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3

Lots of theology and terms and thoughts from Aquinas, but when he shares the gospel with people how would he teach men are saved? What is his doctrine of salvation? One of Dr White's points was the gospel and evangelism. Be careful how much you get immersed in this stuff and then forget the "simple" nature of the gospel. As for "the great tradition", at least in the way the baptists are using the term sounds like it is coming dangerous close to "sacred tradition". Also, when philosophy and pious thoughts and mysticism start to supercede all grammar and historical hermaneutics (not that this is all there is), Houston we have a problem. 

I would mention I don't think anyone on this board fits the mold of who he was talking to yesterday. From what I heard, it sounds like there are a group of men swimming around in the Tiber. The quotes he was sharing goes beyond just talking about Aquinas' doctrine of God or specific theological topics. To me, it truly does sound like Sola Scriptura is going away for this group. The things they are saying seem to indicate they don't actually believe it anymore or are going as close to the edge as you can go before falling off functionally.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tychicus

Reformed Thomism doesn't come up until 1 hour and 40 mins into the video. He was dealing with hermeneutics, pre-modern exegesis and Christian Platonism. I was hoping for some engagement by anyone with that section because it would be helpful for some of us who are new to this. I couldn't find much here in the PB on pre-modern exegesis/Christian Platonism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Dictionary of theological terms throughout history ... check

Dictionary of philosophical terms throughout history ... check

Where'd I put the popcorn though? be right back

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> Lots of theology and terms and thoughts from Aquinas, but when he shares the gospel with people how would he teach men are saved?



I have an upcoming review on Aquinas's theology of grace. It will answer some of your questions in detail.



retroGRAD3 said:


> One of Dr White's points was the gospel and evangelism. Be careful how much you get immersed in this stuff and then forget the "simple" nature of the gospel.



The "stuff" we are immersed in is the traditional doctrine of God. White, in rejecting divine simplicity, is hard-pressed to affirm this doctrine.



retroGRAD3 said:


> Also, when philosophy and pious thoughts and mysticism start to supercede all grammar and historical hermaneutics (not that this is all there is), Houston we have a problem.



I agree. No one in the "traditional doctrine of God" camp is doing this, though. Regarding superceding grammatical interpretation, as long as they aren't saying the Four Senses of Scripture, then they are fine.


retroGRAD3 said:


> To me, it truly does sound like Sola Scriptura is going away for this group.



Do you have any specific evidence? That sword cuts both ways. To me it truly sounds like James White is becoming a Socinian.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> I have an upcoming review on Aquinas's theology of grace. It will answer some of your questions in detail.


I look forward to this.


RamistThomist said:


> The "stuff" we are immersed in is the traditional doctrine of God. White, in rejecting divine simplicity, is hard-pressed to affirm this doctrine.


I would start by saying, I don't think you are part of the "we" I was addressing. The individuals he was addressing don't appear to be saying the same thing as you. Although you would know this better than me.

Also, Dr. White does not reject divine simplicity, he has made that clear over and over. He rejects the Aristotelian categories that have been applied to it as far as I understand it. I have heard him say numerous times that God is simple and he is not made of up parts. 

I think it is important to remember, all we can truly know about the nature of God is what he has revealed to us in his word. Beyond that, it is men doing their best to come up with further explanation based on the text. However, Aquinas did not write any books of the Bible, so he and his theology are to be judged by it. Aristotle did not write any books of the Bible, so he and his paganism are to be judged by it.


RamistThomist said:


> I agree. No one in the "traditional doctrine of God" camp is doing this, though. Regarding superceding grammatical interpretation, as long as they aren't saying the Four Senses of Scripture, then they are fine.


I disagree with your statement. Judging by the quotes I have heard yesterday in the presentation from these men, I would say they are going off in a "sacred tradition" direction. You are of course allowed your own opinion on this though and I could be wrong.


RamistThomist said:


> Do you have any specific evidence? That sword cuts both ways. To me it truly sounds like James White is becoming a Socinian.


The charge of Socinianism is ridiculous. So, basically, if White does not agree with Thomas, then he is a Socinian? Have you read his book "The Forgotten Trinity"? If yes, which of the sections would point to him being a Socinan? 

As for the evidence, I would recommend the video presentation he put together. If you have watched it and you don't think there are any issues. Then, it seems again, we have a difference of opinion.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> I would start by saying, I don't think you are part of the "we" I was addressing.



I am. I'm on the same page as Carter and Barrett, though instead of "Platonism" I wish they would just say "Augustinianism."


retroGRAD3 said:


> Also, Dr. White does not reject divine simplicity, he has made that clear over and over. He rejects the Aristotelian categories that have been applied to it as far as I understand it. I have heard him say numerous times that God is simple and he is not made of up parts.



Unless he has repudiated his use of William Lane Craig's view of divine simplicity, then he does reject the traditional doctrine.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I disagree with your statement. Judging by the quotes I have heard yesterday in the presentation from these men, I would say they are going off in a "sacred tradition" direction. You are of course allowed your own opinion on this though and I could be wrong.



I disagree with how "sacred tradition" is being bandied about. It poisons the well.


retroGRAD3 said:


> The charge of Socinianism is ridiculous. So, basically, if White does not agree with Thomas, then he is a Socinian?



If he holds to William Lane Craig's view on divine simplicity, then he holds to the standard Socinian criticisms of divine simplicity. He gets half of it correct, in that God isn't made up of parts. White just doesn't draw the logical deduction: God is his attributes. 





White doesn't really address simplicity in his book on the Trinity, as it is written for a popular audience and he probably wasn't aware of how the doctrine functions.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> White doesn't really address simplicity in his book on the Trinity, as it is written for a popular audience and he probably wasn't aware of how the doctrine functions.


I am not sure what you want me to see in the video. Are you upset that says on the human level, we can distinguish between God's attributes? As far as I can tell from this video and all the others I have seen that have followed over the months, White would affirm that God is without parts and that all of his attributes are part of that simplicity, meaning his Justice and Mercy are not two separate things in him (in God). However, to us experiencing it as humans, we understand those two things as two different things. When we experience Justice in this world it feels different than when we experience Mercy. God though is these things, he is Love, Mercy, Justice, etc (defines what they are). 

I would also agree with White that Aquinas ultimately has a compromised foundation (however this does not mean is he not right on some things, maybe many things).

Also, let me ask you one more thing. Is your issue with what White is saying coming from the Bible? Is it scripture that is causing you to reject what he is saying? If so, what are the chapters and verses? 

Or, is it based on something a philosopher/theologian said? 

Please understand, I am asking this question honestly and not in any way trying to mock or imply that you are doing the second only.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus

RamistThomist said:


> I am. I'm on the same page as Carter and Barrett, though instead of "Platonism" I wish they would just say "Augustinianism."


I wish you would watch the video if you get time. He was addressing hermeneutics and exegesis. I want to know where you think he is wrong.

So far I agree with all you've said of Thomism and divine simplicity. 

Also, he doesn't discuss divine simplicity at all. The thread is getting off topic.


----------



## RamistThomist

Tychicus said:


> I wish you would watch the video if you get time. He was addressing hermeneutics and exegesis. I want to know where you think he is wrong.
> 
> So far I agree with all you've said of Thomism and divine simplicity.
> 
> Also, he doesn't discuss divine simplicity at all. The thread is getting off topic.



I probably will.

Divine simplicity is in the background of Thomism.


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> Are you upset that says on the human level, we can distinguish between God's attributes?



No. I'm not upset that we can distinguish on the human level. That's notional distinction, which Thomas affirms.


retroGRAD3 said:


> White would affirm that God is without parts and that all of his attributes are part of that simplicity, meaning his Justice and Mercy are not two separate things in him (in God)



Then he needs to evaluate his earlier claim that God's omnipresence can't equal his omniscience.


retroGRAD3 said:


> I would also agree with White that Aquinas ultimately has a compromised foundation (however this does not mean is he not right on some things, maybe many things).



That gets into areas like presuppositionalism, and I believe White is wrong there.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Is your issue with what White is saying coming from the Bible? Is it scripture that is causing you to reject what he is saying? If so, what are the chapters and verses?



I reject a proof-text hermeneutic. I don't need to show chapter and verses. We all think we are biblical; the point is the logical deductions which flow from that (key example is baptism).

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist

I'm listening to it right now, but keep in mind it is a lot to ask of people to sit through a two hour podcast.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> I reject a proof-text hermeneutic. I don't need to show chapter and verses. We all think we are biblical; the point is the logical deductions which flow from that (key example is baptism).


I am not asking you to use proof-text hermeneutics. I don't think the assumption that "we all think biblical" means anything either if it is never shown. Scripture should enter into the discussion at some point, and that does include looking at what the Bible teaches, and this includes chapters and verses once and while. Also, if you are using a passage in context and drawing conclusions and applications, I would reject that is "proof-text hermeneutics".

And sometimes, yes you do need to show chapter and verses. For anyone to say they don't need to do this comes off as arrogant to me. It also sounds like a standard other than scripture is being used. You can say equating "the great tradition" and "sacred tradition" is poisoning the well, but from what I see being said, it seems to be looking more and more accurate based on what the ultimate authority and source of doctrine is being said to be.

Realistically, we are not likely to agree on this topic. And, that is not to say on specific points being mentioned. I mean on the topic overall.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> I am not asking you to use proof-text hermeneutics. I don't think the assumption that "we all think biblical" means anything either if it is never shown. Scripture should enter into the discussion at some point, and that does include looking at what the Bible teaches, and this includes chapters and verses once and while. Also, if you are using a passage in context and drawing conclusions and applications, I would reject that is "proof-text hermeneutics".
> 
> And sometimes, yes you do need to show chapter and verses. For anyone to say they don't need to do this comes off as arrogant to me. It also sounds like a standard other than scripture is being used. You can say equating "the great tradition" and "sacred tradition" is poisoning the well, but from what I see being said, it seems to be looking more and more accurate based on what the ultimate authority and source of doctrine is being said to be.
> 
> Realistically, we are not likely to agree on this topic. And, that is not to say on specific points being mentioned. I mean on the topic overall.



Proof texts are always preceded by ontology and worldview assumptions (this is the one area that Van Tillians actually get correct).


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> Proof texts are always preceded by ontology and worldview assumptions (this is the one area that Van Tillians actually get correct).


It seems like you just ignored everything I just said. In your opinion, what is the point in reading and studying the Bible then?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus

RamistThomist said:


> I'm listening to it right now, but keep in mind it is a lot to ask of people to sit through a two hour podcast.


Pro-tip: Play at 2× speed.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Observations on White's talk:
1) Poisons the well by linking the Great Tradition types with Scott Hahn on typology.
1.1) Points out that bizarre things RCC does with typology. Fair. But what does that have to do with legitimate uses of typology? Why bring it up at all? Can you prove that's what Carter is doing?
2) I'll concede that Carter could have been clearer on whether classical Reformed sources fit within the classical or modern ground. I should point out that the examples of good Reformed theologians white used were 20th century.
3) Platonism is pronounced "play-tuh-nism," not "platt-tuh-nism."
4) True, we should say Augustinian signs instead of Christian Platonism.

I think I listened to the first hour. That's all I can do for now.


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> It seems like you just ignored everything I just said. In your opinion, what is the point in reading and studying the Bible then?



As all hermeneutics manuals note, presuppositions are always at play and they often shape how we approach the text.


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> Observations on White's talk:
> 2) I'll concede that Carter could have been clearer on whether classical Reformed sources fit within the classical or modern ground. I should point out that the examples of good Reformed theologians white used were 20th century.


He quotes Calvin and Owen in the second hour.


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> As all hermeneutics manuals note, presuppositions are always at play and they often shape how we approach the text.


And no one is immune to this. We all have presuppositions. Hopefully we are all challenging them (presupps) and traditions by the word of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Tychicus said:


> Reformed Thomism doesn't come up until 1 hour and 40 mins into the video. He was dealing with hermeneutics, pre-modern exegesis and Christian Platonism. I was hoping for some engagement by anyone with that section because it would be helpful for some of us who are new to this. I couldn't find much here in the PB on pre-modern exegesis/Christian Platonism.



On pre-modern exegesis, David T. Steinmetz published an article in the journal _Theology Today_ in 1980 in which he writes about the superiority of pre-modern exegesis of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> And no one is immune to this. We all have presuppositions. Hopefully we are all challenging them (presupps) and traditions by the word of God.



Sure. My larger point was that guys like Aquinas and Chrysostom had the entire New Testament and Psalter memorized. Most monks, in fact, had the entire psalter memorized. If one were to debate them simply by bible verses, Aquinas and Chrysostom would win every time.


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> Sure. My larger point was that guys like Aquinas and Chrysostom had the entire New Testament and Psalter memorized. Most monks, in fact, had the entire psalter memorized. If one were to debate them simply by bible verses, Aquinas and Chrysostom would win every time.


I never advocated for just using verses. That is ignoring the nuance I put into my response.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

RamistThomist said:


> I'm listening to it right now, but keep in mind it is a lot to ask of people to sit through a two hour podcast.



Is it though?


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Is it though?



It's much easier to interact with a written piece. Sometimes White puts them in transcript form, and that is helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus

bookslover said:


> On pre-modern exegesis, David T. Steinmetz published an article in the journal _Theology Today_ in 1980 in which he writes about the superiority of pre-modern exegesis of Scripture.


Thank you, will read it. I found it here: https://www.walkingtogetherministri...tzs-the-superiority-of-pre-critical-exegesis/


RamistThomist said:


> 2) I'll concede that Carter could have been clearer on whether classical Reformed sources fit within the classical or modern ground. I should point out that the examples of good Reformed theologians white used were 20th century.



Are modern commentators like Carson, Moo, Beale, Murray, et al post-modern? I think that was one of Dr. White's question when he picked up some commentaries in the video.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Tychicus said:


> Thank you, will read it. I found it here: https://www.walkingtogetherministri...tzs-the-superiority-of-pre-critical-exegesis/
> 
> 
> Are modern commentators like Carson, Moo, Beale, Murray, et al post-modern? I think that was one of Dr. White's question when he picked up some commentaries in the video.



Depends on what you mean by "post-modern." In terms of how it is normally used, no they aren't post-modern.


----------



## Tychicus

RamistThomist said:


> Depends on what you mean by "post-modern." In terms of how it is normally used, no they aren't post-modern.


I mean by how Carter, Barrett use the word pre-modern. To phrase it better, are they pre-modern?


----------



## A.Joseph

retroGRAD3 said:


> I am not asking you to use proof-text hermeneutics. I don't think the assumption that "we all think biblical" means anything either if it is never shown. Scripture should enter into the discussion at some point, and that does include looking at what the Bible teaches, and this includes chapters and verses once and while. Also, if you are using a passage in context and drawing conclusions and applications, I would reject that is "proof-text hermeneutics".
> 
> And sometimes, yes you do need to show chapter and verses. For anyone to say they don't need to do this comes off as arrogant to me. It also sounds like a standard other than scripture is being used. You can say equating "the great tradition" and "sacred tradition" is poisoning the well, but from what I see being said, it seems to be looking more and more accurate based on what the ultimate authority and source of doctrine is being said to be.
> 
> Realistically, we are not likely to agree on this topic. And, that is not to say on specific points being mentioned. I mean on the topic overall.


I’m going to have to side with you on this.

Compare the wisdom and influence of Plato on Augustine to scriptures. When Augustine embraced Christianity, his other influences were exposed as rudimentary.

There are universal truths that find their real depth and meaning in scriptures. The things that Aquinas affirms that are rooted in biblical concepts and realities are all well and good. There are philosophers who even tapped into some vital aspects of universal truth and understanding. These are not so problematic. It is the doctrines that are confirmed as part of a misguided religious institution and the doctrines that are undermined by an improper comprehension and application of scripture that is too easily glossed over.

Concepts are only as true as they align with scripture. So I do think the hype over a philosophical *truth* is ‘much ado’ the way the hype of an otherwise sound expositor’s embrace of a biblical/theological falsehood is (in the grand scheme of things). Men think well sometimes and think poorly sometimes but true wisdom and illumination can only come from one source, in contrast to puffed up or lofty concepts that are trounced by a much greater reality that can be known and understood by even the unlearned. Thinking and writing is good and finding a true biblical home for concepts and applications is grand but let’s not make idols of anything or anyone in our current day or beyond the grave. A philosophical gauge that requires perfected language is an interesting game to play but it can a lead to a type of bondage with the need for exact precision in word and thought. We can believe right without expressing perfectly. And nobody is authentic or unique, it’s all derivative. The main question is what’s our source? A secondary consideration? …our motivation.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> The things that Aquinas affirms that are rooted in biblical concepts and realities are all well and good.



Here is the problem I'm trying to point out. Every single Christian affirms the above statement. We all believe we are rooted in biblical concepts and realities. Aquinas had most of the bible memorized. So saying we should be rooted in Scripture doesn't actually communicate all that much.

I'm rooted in Scripture. My Church of Christ friend believes he is rooted in Scripture. There must be something else going on. Metaphysics exposes and reveals that something else.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> A philosophical gauge that requires perfected language is an interesting game to play but it can a lead to a type of bondage with the need for exact precision in word and thought.



Try that on the floor of presbytery when you have to define justification or the Trinity. The Nicene debates were precisely over the shift in philosophical terms. Later on, a Nestorian could say he only believed in one hypostasis of the Son, as long as you allowed him two prosopa within the hypostasis. Terminology matters.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

RamistThomist said:


> Here is the problem I'm trying to point out. Every single Christian affirms the above statement. We all believe we are rooted in biblical concepts and realities. Aquinas had most of the bible memorized. So saying we should be rooted in Scripture doesn't actually communicate all that much.
> 
> I'm rooted in Scripture. My Church of Christ friend believes he is rooted in Scripture. There must be something else going on. Metaphysics exposes and reveals that something else.





RamistThomist said:


> Try that on the floor of presbytery when you have to define justification or the Trinity. The Nicene debates were precisely over the shift in philosophical terms. Later on, a Nestorian could say he only believed in one hypostasis of the Son, as long as you allowed him two prosopa within the hypostasis. Terminology matters.


Jacob, you said you had only listened to the first hour. I think James W gets to the point in the last 20 minutes. Note his quotes by Owen and Calvin. I don't think JW is denying a use of philosophy as such. But his emphasis in the last 20 minutes is, I think, where the nature of the debate lies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> Here is the problem I'm trying to point out. Every single Christian affirms the above statement. We all believe we are rooted in biblical concepts and realities. Aquinas had most of the bible memorized. So saying we should be rooted in Scripture doesn't actually communicate all that much.
> 
> I'm rooted in Scripture. My Church of Christ friend believes he is rooted in Scripture. There must be something else going on. Metaphysics exposes and reveals that something else.


I don't believe it's metaphysics primarily. I believe it is consistent exegesis using methods that White was laying out. It possible metaphysics can be part of the process, but I don't believe it can be primary.

For your church of Christ friend, you could point out areas where their theology directly contradicts the plain teaching of scripture, like having female pastors. And many other things could be pointed out with that particular denomination. 

Also, there is a difference between knowing scripture and being rooted in scripture in my opinion. Someone can memorize an entire book, but if they ignore the plan teachings of scripture to hold to a tradition, then what good did it do them? We all can fall pray to this as well, so I am not trying to single anyone out. I believe the scriptures for the most part can be understood. They can be understood by believers and non-believers alike. The difference will be one will reject what it is saying while the other accepts it. From my point of view, you appear to want to make everything so complicated, like it's just impossible to get anywhere in Christianity or bible interpretation without reading volumes and volumes of philosophy, lexicons, BDAGs, etc. Perhaps you think I am too simplistic.

Also, I can't help but continue to think on this verse. 

*2 Corinthians 2:8: *See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

If you want to call this proof texting then go ahead, but I think the warning is pretty clear. And, again, I am not trying to single you out. This is a warning for all Christians. As you mentioned, we all have our presuppositions and traditions. We need to challenge them and keep the ones that line up with Scripture.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> Try that on the floor of presbytery when you have to define justification or the Trinity. The Nicene debates were precisely over the shift in philosophical terms. Later on, a Nestorian could say he only believed in one hypostasis of the Son, as long as you allowed him two prosopa within the hypostasis. Terminology matters.


…. and intent. But I hear what you are saying.


----------



## Charles Johnson

Sometimes when I see Great Tradition tweets from Carter et al, they seem to imply that tradition is the rule for interpreting scripture, which is backwards if the Reformers are to be believed. Or the scripture for that matter. So I see why White might criticize their hermeneutics. Now on the other hand, he has failed to show a due respect for received doctrine with his social Trinitarianism and his opposition to the divine simplicity. It is entirely possible for both sides of a debate to be in error.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 1


----------



## earl40

I listened to this a while ago, and from what I heard Pastor White has a hard time with what anthropomorphisms are. It comes down to negative theology (Apophatic Theology) most Christians cannot imagine God without emotions in the divine essence. This entails how the word "anger" is anthropomorphic....

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Charles Johnson said:


> Sometimes when I see Great Tradition tweets from Carter et al, they seem to imply that tradition is the rule for interpreting scripture, which is backwards if the Reformers are to be believed. Or the scripture for that matter. So I see why White might criticize their hermeneutics. Now on the other hand, he has failed to show a due respect for received doctrine with his social Trinitarianism and his opposition to the divine simplicity. It is entirely possible for both sides of a debate to be in error.



Absolutely. I sometimes cringe on the Christian Platonism they are promoting. ON the other hand, White is completely out of his depth.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't believe it's metaphysics primarily. I believe it is consistent exegesis using methods that White was laying out. It possible metaphysics can be part of the process, but I don't believe it can be primary.



I disagree. White's discussion on typology at the beginning was pretty bad from a Reformed perspective. He simply linked typology with Scott Hahn's fanciful stuff.


retroGRAD3 said:


> Also, there is a difference between knowing scripture and being rooted in scripture in my opinion. Someone can memorize an entire book, but if they ignore the plan teachings of scripture to hold to a tradition, then what good did it do them?



No one really disagrees with that. It also begs the question on which tradition is rooted in Scripture, and those are worldview concerns. Hermeneutics involves worldview assumptions prior to ever getting to the text.


retroGRAD3 said:


> *2 Corinthians 2:8: *See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.



Does it refer to all philosophy? Surely it can't, since it would contradict Paul's own use of quasi-pantheistic philosophers. And if it referred to all philosophy, and here I engage in a reductio ad absurdum, then the following principles no longer apply (their from Aristotle)

1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence.
2. Being Is Being (B is B) = The Principle of Identity.
3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B) = The Principle of Noncontradiction.
4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle.
5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B) = The Principle of Causality.

Moreover, before we ever get to Scripture, we first encounter the basic laws of thought (some of which are outlined above). Metaphysics precedes epistemology.

Before we even get to Scripture, there is hermeneutics, and before hermeneutics, metaphysics. The order of being precedes the order of knowing.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> I listened to this a while ago, and from what I heard Pastor White has a hard time with what anthropomorphisms are. It comes down to negative theology (Apophatic Theology) most Christians cannot imagine God without emotions in the divine essence. This entails how the word "anger" is anthropomorphic....



Correct. He would probably think apophaticism is too Roman Catholicky. You and I actually agreed on doctrine of God stuff.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> *MThere must be something else going on*. Metaphysics exposes and reveals that something else.


Or you’re completely overthinking it….. sometimes shallow ground is merely shallow ground. I don’t think metaphysics broadens the way.

We shouldn’t be looking to shut the door on anyone and that’s a legitimate concern but metaphysics is no replacement for sound doctrine and conviction of sin. I’m not saying they are not linked, interconnected and referenced in precise, vital ways.

However, I have no doubt you believe these things as well. So I’m on board with an emphasis on universal, existential truths as part of our outreach, apologetic and natural scriptural emphasis as more than just a presupposition but a treasure that must be unearthed. I don’t think CVT would even be opposed to this as long as nothing is sacrificed.

I’ll look into this more. My pastor himself has some concerns probably unrelated to this JW-specific discussion. That might be another thread I can start although I think it’s been discussed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson

The point of 2 Corinthians 2:8 is that philosophy as a completing system to the gospel must be rejected. According to Paul, the Greeks reject the gospel because to them philosophy is wise and the gospel is foolish (God become a man? Doesn't make sense to them). And the Jews reject it because it is a stumbling block to them, according to their Jewish pretenses (salvation for the gentiles? No need to keep the ceremonies or be circumcized? That can't be). Anyone who has studied Greek philosophy knows that the philosophers promised blessedness to their followers if they kept to their system of doctrine and morals. In that way, philosophy is a kind of competing religion. In that sense, by all means reject philosophy. But the Bible never claims that we should forget everything we know about everything before picking it up. God assumed the original users would know Hebrew, for example, and have a basic understanding of local Geography. Without that Genesis is unintelligible. Logic and metaphysics are the same way. We shouldn't forget how to think when we open our bibles. Can philosophy be abused? Certainly. Can it be a competing system? Certainly. Is a practice of willful ignorance the solution? Certainly not.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> I disagree. White's discussion on typology at the beginning was pretty bad from a Reformed perspective. He simply linked typology with Scott Hahn's fanciful stuff.
> 
> 
> No one really disagrees with that. It also begs the question on which tradition is rooted in Scripture, and those are worldview concerns. Hermeneutics involves worldview assumptions prior to ever getting to the text.
> 
> 
> Does it refer to all philosophy? Surely it can't, since it would contradict Paul's own use of quasi-pantheistic philosophers. And if it referred to all philosophy, and here I engage in a reductio ad absurdum, then the following principles no longer apply (their from Aristotle)
> 
> 1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence.
> 2. Being Is Being (B is B) = The Principle of Identity.
> 3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B) = The Principle of Noncontradiction.
> 4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle.
> 5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B) = The Principle of Causality.
> 
> Moreover, before we ever get to Scripture, we first encounter the basic laws of thought (some of which are outlined above). Metaphysics precedes epistemology.
> 
> Before we even get to Scripture, there is hermeneutics, and before hermeneutics, metaphysics. The order of being precedes the order of knowing.


This is a lot of words. Still no usage of the Bible at all. All I see are reasons for why you don't want to use the Bible. It continues to look like you always have an excuse for why the Bible cannot be understood.


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> This is a lot of words. Still no usage of the Bible at all. All I see are reasons for why you don't want to use the Bible. It continues to look like you always have an excuse for why the Bible cannot be understood.



I never said the bible couldn't be understood. Only that trading proof texts won't work. Since I don't reject natural theology, I don't feel the need to have a proof-text concerning prolegomenal issues.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> but metaphysics is no replacement for sound doctrine and conviction of sin



I don't know why this keeps getting mentioned. No one has ever said that. I'm simply doing prolegomena the way Turretin and the Reformed Scholastics did it.


----------



## RamistThomist

I forgot. What was the initial issue for which I was supposed to provide a proof text?


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> I forgot. What was the initial issue for which I was supposed to provide a proof text?


I guess it doesn't really matter. You will just use a big word and make some philosophical statement and that will be that.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A.Joseph

retroGRAD3 said:


> I guess it doesn't really matter. You will just use a big word and make some philosophical statement and that will be that.


That’s one way to shut down an argument. In @RamistThomist ‘s defense, he obviously knows his stuff. These words are part of his lexicon. I have to google em.


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> I don't know why this keeps getting mentioned. No one has ever said that. I'm simply doing prolegomena the way Turretin and the Reformed Scholastics did it.


I did try to subtly backpedal on that. I’m certain this is the case. There are other concerns that rise up that may be completely unfounded. I guess we’ll see….


----------



## retroGRAD3

Based on what I am being told, apparently using scripture at all is proof texting. At this point, it seems all that needs to be said has been said. It seems like we are coming at this from different worldviews, but at the very last very different thought processes. I would rather not get frustrated and say something rude because of emotion. So, I am going to bow out. Let's do this again next week.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

@RamistThomist at 24:30 in this video onward a wee bit, you will hear things that Reformed types believe is a threat to our whole system of Theology & Grace which is why the resistance. Embrace in one area doesnt require wholesale acceptance but it does make some folk nervous…..














Defining Nature-Grace Dualism


In the ongoing dialogue regarding the relations between “Christ” and “Culture” one of the slogans that gets tossed about concerns a “nature/grace dualism.” I see…




heidelblog.net





By elevating Thomas, in a general sense, are we compromising the Reformed doctrine of the Creator-creature distinction and even worse diminishing Jesus as Redeemer? Reformed Forum has been doing a lot on this lately.

“The most important thing to observe here is that, in this conception, grace elevates nature. *Thomas (Aquinas) taught that grace “perfects” nature, that creation is inherently imperfect. It is not that, as the Reformed would say later, creation was created awaiting glorification. It was, rather, that creation was inherently corrupt. *As Bavinck wrote,

The world, the state, natural life, marriage and culture are not sinful in themselves; only *they are of a lower order, of a secular nature, and unless consecrated by the Church, easily become an occasion for sinning.*

Again, *the thing to notice is the hierarchical conception of existence. Gradually, through the medieval period, the Western church came to think of the relations between God and man as an ontologically hierarchy with man at the bottom and God at the top.*

The *whole hierarchical idea is built on* the sharp distinction between nature and grace.

This gets at the crux of the issue: *“the sharp distinction between nature and grace.” This distinction, according to Bavinck, was repudiated by the Reformation.*

…the Reformation of the sixteenth century differed from all these attempts in that* it not merely opposed the Roman system in its excresences but attacked it internally in the foundations on which it rested and in the principles out of which it had been developed. The Reformation rejected the entire system, and substituted for it a totally different conception of veritias, gratia, and bona opera.*

This is an *under appreciated element of the Reformation, the reassertion of the distinction between the Creator and the creature.* That distinction destroyed the hierarchy and asserted a strict analogy between God and man. *According to the Reformation, salvation was no longer to be considered deification, participating in the divine being, or “elevation” but deliverance from wrath, free acceptance by God on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed and received through faith (trusting in Christ).* Sanctification, conformity to Christ, became the consequence of justification.
*
This account of the difference between the medieval and Reformation is consistent with the way the Reformed saw the issue.*

Thus, for Bavinck, *the issue seems to have been two things: a hierarchical ontology (view of being) and the “sharp distinction” (dualism) between nature and grace.*” - by R. SCOTT CLARK on October 13, 2012

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Embrace in one area doesnt require wholesale acceptance but it does make some folk nervous


I agree. There is not a single Reformed Thomist who would say "wholesale acceptance." At this point that is a red herring. I mean, most Catholics today don't even accept Thomas to a large part (he was a monarchist, after all; and many of them are Biden-voters).


----------



## RamistThomist

As to the stuff on nature-grace, that's common knowledge. On one hand, if there really is a shard divorce between grace and nature that Thomas teaches, then it is really difficult to see how he downplays the Creator-creature distinction. If anything, he might overplay it.


----------



## RamistThomist

This is all I am doing in a nutshell.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529095099958710274

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## A.Joseph

RamistThomist said:


> As to the stuff on nature-grace, that's common knowledge. On one hand, if there really is a shard divorce between grace and nature that Thomas teaches, then it is really difficult to see how he downplays the Creator-creature distinction. If anything, he might overplay it.


Not with their hierarchical conception of existence….. I guess indirectly attributed to Thomas. Reread the quoted portion. Is it confusing? I’ll admit it very much is. But it’s a reliable source.

When we emphasize Thomas on metaphysics there is a concern that we are establishing an idea that man can be reasoned into faith. Is the mental faculties active in regeneration? I know our mind, heart and Soul are turned. But doesn’t scripture produce that change? Not unaided reason, even if God is the object of the argument….
(If accurate, portions of the second paragraph below are problematic when viewed via a Reformed lens.) …..

“ Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of God could be proven in five ways, mainly by: 1) observing movement in the world as proof of God, the "Immovable Mover"; 2) observing cause and effect and identifying God as the cause of everything; 3) concluding that the impermanent nature of beings proves the existence of a necessary being, God, who originates only from within himself; 4) noticing varying levels of human perfection and determining that a supreme, perfect being must therefore exist; and 5) knowing that natural beings could not have intelligence without it being granted to them it by God. Subsequent to defending people's ability to naturally perceive proof of God, Thomas also tackled the challenge of protecting God's image as an all-powerful being.

Saint Thomas Aquinas also uniquely addressed appropriate social behavior toward God. In so doing, he gave his ideas a contemporary—some would say timeless—everyday context. Thomas believed that the laws of the state were, in fact, a natural product of human nature, and were crucial to social welfare. By abiding by the social laws of the state, people could earn eternal salvation of their souls in the afterlife, he purported. Saint Thomas Aquinas identified three types of laws: natural, positive and eternal. According to his treatise, natural law prompts man to act in accordance with achieving his goals and governs man's sense of right and wrong; positive law is the law of the state, or government, and should always be a manifestation of natural law; and eternal law, in the case of rational beings, depends on reason and is put into action through free will, which also works toward the accomplishment of man's spiritual goals.” https://www.biography.com/religious-figure/saint-thomas-aquinas


----------



## A.Joseph

Stephen L Smith said:


> Jacob, you said you had only listened to the first hour. I think James W gets to the point in the last 20 minutes. Note his quotes by Owen and Calvin. I don't think JW is denying a use of philosophy as such. But his emphasis in the last 20 minutes is, I think, where the nature of the debate lies.


I love James White!!! Ha, is that really how you pronounce Platonism???? Ha, ha, ha…. Either way he’s great! Last 20 minutes he’s on fire!!!!


----------



## jwright82

Ok, that original post to that podcast made no sense. He can't pronounce platonism correctly. What exactly is the question? We're here to help each other so what is it that needs to be answered?
I appreciate you sharing this though Stephen, so I mean no offense.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo

jwright82 said:


> Ok, that original post to that podcast made no sense. He can't pronounce platonism correctly. What exactly is the question? We're here to help each other so what is it that needs to be answered?
> I appreciate you sharing this though Stephen, so I mean no offense.


I read through the transcript on youtube. No way could I to listening to a 2 hour podcast these days.

But, like you, I found a fair amount of it incoherent. I don't believe James White is generally incoherent, but he obviously assumes people are up on stuff that is unspoken. Insider language--like listening to comic geeks argue over some obscure plot twist in a publication most of us have never heard of.

Apparently, he is responding to a twitter controversy. How many here know the details and whether his characterizations are accurate? Or is there a book? I couldn't really tell. Are people really criticizing standard hermeneutics and calling for spiritualizing everything? If so, that is important information. It would be helpful to know how that is being presented so we can evaluate what might be wrong.

I can't say without reading more between the lines than I ought to, but I sense that he takes issue with some of the criticism directed toward him on aseity and the Trinity. If that is the case, why not deal with it directly?

Short version plea: what is going on among the Baptists he names?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561

Podcast Throwback: Thomas Aquinas: Friend or Foe? Michael Allen and Matthew Barrett - Credo Magazine


Why are evangelicals so unfamiliar with one of the greatest theologians in the history of the church, Thomas Aquinas? Is Thomas a friend or a foe to evangelicals today? Was Thomas first and foremost a philosopher or a theologian? Was Thomas a rationalist as some would suggest? What advantages...




credomag.com









Magazine - Credo Magazine


Past Issues Go to the Archive Share This Get Credo Delivered to Your Inbox




credomag.com





This would be relevant to the discussion. A podcast on the other side of the matter as well as the publication.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tychicus

Craig A. Carter, _Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis._


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tychicus said:


> Craig A. Carter, _Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis._


*Moderating*

Aaron, when you give a book reference like this please give an explanation of why you gave the reference. Explain how this links to the post. Thanks.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

John Yap said:


> Podcast Throwback: Thomas Aquinas: Friend or Foe? Michael Allen and Matthew Barrett - Credo Magazine
> 
> 
> Why are evangelicals so unfamiliar with one of the greatest theologians in the history of the church, Thomas Aquinas? Is Thomas a friend or a foe to evangelicals today? Was Thomas first and foremost a philosopher or a theologian? Was Thomas a rationalist as some would suggest? What advantages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> credomag.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magazine - Credo Magazine
> 
> 
> Past Issues Go to the Archive Share This Get Credo Delivered to Your Inbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> credomag.com


*Moderating*

John, Moderators prefer an explanation as to why you included these links. Explain how this links to the post. Thank you.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

A.Joseph said:


> is that really how you pronounce Platonism???? Ha, ha, ha





jwright82 said:


> He can't pronounce platonism correctly.


You guys made this Kiwi grin. New Zealanders say Americans pronounce a number of words incorrectly.  Some years ago I listened to a number of my countrymen bantering a visiting American theologian about his pronunciation of the word tomato 


jwright82 said:


> What exactly is the question? We're here to help each other so what is it that needs to be answered?


As was noted above listen to the last twenty minutes or so, and especially the quotes by Owen and Calvin. The question James White is raising is 'is the modern interest in “the Great Tradition,” “Reformed Thomism,” and “Christian Platonism" undermining the sufficiency of scripture', and 'should we be building our theology *primarily *on exegesis based on a Reformed hermeneutic rather than reading the Medieval philosophers'? Again, consider these questions with reference to the Owen and Calvin quotes. That's my best attempt at formulating the question.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Tychicus

Stephen L Smith said:


> *Moderating*
> 
> Aaron, when you give a book reference like this please give an explanation of why you gave the reference. Explain how this links to the post. Thanks.


Yes, sure. I was replying to @VictorBravo who wanted to know what was being presented and in what form. @John Yap mentioned the recent CredoMagazine edition on Christian Platonism and I mentioned the book which Dr. White was discussing on his show.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tychicus said:


> Yes, sure. I was replying to @VictorBravo who wanted to know what was being presented and in what form. @John Yap mentioned the recent CredoMagazine edition on Christian Platonism and I mentioned the book which Dr. White was discussing on his show.


That is good. Just include that explanation when you give reference to a book. It helps other readers make the important connection.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Not with their hierarchical conception of existence….. I guess indirectly attributed to Thomas. Reread the quoted portion. Is it confusing? I’ll admit it very much is. But it’s a reliable source.
> 
> When we emphasize Thomas on metaphysics there is a concern that we are establishing an idea that man can be reasoned into faith. Is the mental faculties active in regeneration? I know our mind, heart and Soul are turned. But doesn’t scripture produce that change? Not unaided reason, even if God is the object of the argument….
> (If accurate, portions of the second paragraph below are problematic when viewed via a Reformed lens.) …..
> 
> “ Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of God could be proven in five ways, mainly by: 1) observing movement in the world as proof of God, the "Immovable Mover"; 2) observing cause and effect and identifying God as the cause of everything; 3) concluding that the impermanent nature of beings proves the existence of a necessary being, God, who originates only from within himself; 4) noticing varying levels of human perfection and determining that a supreme, perfect being must therefore exist; and 5) knowing that natural beings could not have intelligence without it being granted to them it by God. Subsequent to defending people's ability to naturally perceive proof of God, Thomas also tackled the challenge of protecting God's image as an all-powerful being.
> 
> Saint Thomas Aquinas also uniquely addressed appropriate social behavior toward God. In so doing, he gave his ideas a contemporary—some would say timeless—everyday context. Thomas believed that the laws of the state were, in fact, a natural product of human nature, and were crucial to social welfare. By abiding by the social laws of the state, people could earn eternal salvation of their souls in the afterlife, he purported. Saint Thomas Aquinas identified three types of laws: natural, positive and eternal. According to his treatise, natural law prompts man to act in accordance with achieving his goals and governs man's sense of right and wrong; positive law is the law of the state, or government, and should always be a manifestation of natural law; and eternal law, in the case of rational beings, depends on reason and is put into action through free will, which also works toward the accomplishment of man's spiritual goals.” https://www.biography.com/religious-figure/saint-thomas-aquinas


That second paragraph is completely wrong. The stuff on the nature of law is okay, but that's not what Thomas meant by merit. 

Academic sources are more reliable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> I’m going to have to side with you on this.
> 
> Compare the wisdom and influence of Plato on Augustine to scriptures. When Augustine embraced Christianity, his other influences were exposed as rudimentary.
> 
> There are universal truths that find their real depth and meaning in scriptures. The things that Aquinas affirms that are rooted in biblical concepts and realities are all well and good. There are philosophers who even tapped into some vital aspects of universal truth and understanding. These are not so problematic. It is the doctrines that are confirmed as part of a misguided religious institution and the doctrines that are undermined by an improper comprehension and application of scripture that is too easily glossed over.
> 
> Concepts are only as true as they align with scripture. So I do think the hype over a philosophical *truth* is ‘much ado’ the way the hype of an otherwise sound expositor’s embrace of a biblical/theological falsehood is (in the grand scheme of things). Men think well sometimes and think poorly sometimes but true wisdom and illumination can only come from one source, in contrast to puffed up or lofty concepts that are trounced by a much greater reality that can be known and understood by even the unlearned. Thinking and writing is good and finding a true biblical home for concepts and applications is grand but let’s not make idols of anything or anyone in our current day or beyond the grave. A philosophical gauge that requires perfected language is an interesting game to play but it can a lead to a type of bondage with the need for exact precision in word and thought. We can believe right without expressing perfectly. And nobody is authentic or unique, it’s all derivative. The main question is what’s our source? A secondary consideration? …our motivation.



Excellently put. The best philosophers were men who, as it were, wandered through the cave of existence holding a little candle. They understood some things, to a limited degree, but they remained in the darkness. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are a magnificent illumination of the world and our experience. Scripture is the lamp to our feet and the light to our path and human philosophy is only useful so far as it, firstly, conforms to Scripture and, secondly, aids in our understanding of Scriptural teaching. This, I think, is how the church fathers used philosophy in the debates over the nature of God, the Trinity and the person of Christ. They used concepts from philosophy but they adapted them to Christian teaching. We must remember that these great classical philosophers died outside of Christ. All their learning and intellect did not save them.

As to the use of Aquinas. Yes the early Reformers and Puritans made much use of the scholastics who went before them. But they didn't have sober, orthodox Protestant theologians to refer to. We do. They also wanted to show how they were not innovators but were, primarily, returning to Scripture but also were following in the footsteps of great theologians of the past. They were in controversy with Rome which made much of her faithfulness to the historic Christian faith. The Reformers, therefore, wanted to illustrate how _they _were the faithful ones and Rome had deviated from the true faith.

All that is good in Aquinas is in the Reformers and Puritans, without the bad. It doesn't make sense to be jumping over the very best of our own tradition in order to immerse ourselves in Aquinas. We can all agree that Protestant theology has deteriorated over the generations to the nonsense we have today. But the answer is to return to _our_ roots, to _our_ theological fathers. The men who were raised up by God to uncover the glorious truths of the Gospel and to enact a truly miraculous reformation of the church. To prioritise the Reformation and Puritan divines, even to labour exclusively amongst them, is not to say there were no true Christians before them since the Apostolic age, or to say there is nothing of value in the writings of earlier men. It is, however, a recognition that before the Reformation, amongst those writers, there is often error mixed in with the truth; or it is very difficult to apply their writings to our context because they weren't dealing with the same doctrines in a way of controversy. Also because we know significant doctrinal error did come into the church which taints the writings of that period. Let us stick with those of our own writers who have been tried and tested and not found wanting.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Amen 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Stephen L Smith said:


> You guys made this Kiwi grin. New Zealanders say Americans pronounce a number of words incorrectly.  Some years ago I listened to a number of my countrymen bantering a visiting American theologian about his pronunciation of the word tomato
> 
> As was noted above listen to the last twenty minutes or so, and especially the quotes by Owen and Calvin. The question James White is raising is 'is the modern interest in “the Great Tradition,” “Reformed Thomism,” and “Christian Platonism" undermining the sufficiency of scripture', and 'should we be building our theology *primarily *on exegesis based on a Reformed hermeneutic rather than reading the Medieval philosophers'? Again, consider these questions with reference to the Owen and Calvin quotes. That's my best attempt at formulating the question.


I was cracking up when White kept repeating the word with his whiny, cracking voice. Again, I love the guy. And he’s well spoken and a ball of knowledge. Which made his faux pas all the more amusing. But I appreciate where he’s coming from.


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> All that is good in Aquinas is in the Reformers and Puritans, without the bad. It doesn't make sense to be jumping over the very best of our own tradition in order to immerse ourselves in Aquinas.



Normally I would agree, but that's not how the situation is playing out. The same people attacking Aquinas (i.e., the faculty at GBTS) are also jettisoning key aspects of the doctrine of God and Christ.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> Normally I would agree, but that's not how the situation is playing out. The same people attacking Aquinas (i.e., the faculty at GBTS) are also jettisoning key aspects of the doctrine of God and Christ.


One last comment. It has to be said. This is only true in so far as you are talking about Tradition, not the Bible. There is nothing they are denying that the Bible teaches that I can see. This distinction has to be made. I honestly have to ask how you can consider yourself sola scriptura anymore when you place so much emphasis on philosophy and tradition? You never answered the Bible quote about vain philosopher (although Charles Johnson did, and I believe you fall into that category). This was the whole reason for my comments in the first place. I saw what looks like wandering away from one of the reformation's key tenants that brought us out of absolute darkness. If I am missing something and this is just a difference of opinion, then I apologize.

The whole reason I spoke up is because I was concerned about the way I see you and some of these others going. I may be completely wrong in my observation, but please know, I am doing this out of concern, not to attack.


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> I honestly have to ask how you can consider yourself sola scriptura anymore when you place so much emphasis on philosophy and tradition?



I use the same definition as classical Protestantism did. Scripture is the norm that norms lesser norms. Nothing I have said contradicted that.


retroGRAD3 said:


> You never answered the Bible quote about vain philosopher (although Charles Johnson did, and I believe you fall into that category).



I answered it. I pointed out that by it Paul couldn't have meant all philosophy, otherwise he contradicted himself when he quoted pantheistic philosophers. You are welcome to believe I am enslaved by vain philosophy. I still refuse to give up Aristotelian ideas like A = A.


----------



## RamistThomist

Here are some Protestants using Thomism.





Louis Cappel on God’s knowledge as a pure act


But God being a pure Spirit, without any mixture of body or matter, is never weary in his thoughts, purposes, and designs, neither doth he discourse after the manner of men, drawing a conclusion from the Premises, neither doth he think of one thing, and then of another, for there is not in him...




puritanboard.com









Thomas Watson on God’s knowledge as a most pure act


[L]et us consider what the knowledge of God is; it is a most pure act by which he doth at one instant know himself in himself, and all things without himself, not only necessary, and contingent, but which shall never be, after a most perfect, exquisite, and infallible manner. Out of this...




puritanboard.com

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> I use the same definition as classical Protestantism did. Scripture is the norm that norms lesser norms. Nothing I have said contradicted that.


You use a classic definition, but it doesn't seem like you actually believe this in the way you defend the faith. It's the difference between memorizing scripture and having it in your heart.



RamistThomist said:


> I answered it. I pointed out that by it Paul couldn't have meant all philosophy, otherwise he contradicted himself when he quoted pantheistic philosophers. You are welcome to believe I am enslaved by vain philosophy. I still refuse to give up Aristotelian ideas like A = A.


Not saying you need to give it up, my point is it looks like it is above scripture for you.

Again, my heart is one of concern. You are saying I am incorrect in my estimation. I will take your word on it and drop it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> You use a classic definition, but it doesn't seem like you actually believe this in the way you defend the faith. It's the difference between memorizing scripture and having it in your heart.
> 
> 
> Not saying you need to give it up, my point is it looks like it is above scripture for you.
> 
> Again, my heart is one of concern. You are saying I am incorrect in my estimation. I will take your word on it and drop it.



My theological method is the same as Turretin's

Major Premise: Some axiom
Minor premise: Scripture or theological principle.
Conclusion

I didn't always give a scriptural verse in my minor premise because for the most part we were dealing with general revelation.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Thank you everyone for a thread that delivers like a summer blockbuster used to deliver in my non-converted days!



alexandermsmith said:


> All that is good in Aquinas is in the Reformers and Puritans, without the bad. It doesn't make sense to be jumping over the very best of our own tradition in order to immerse ourselves in Aquinas.



^ Completely agree.


RamistThomist said:


> Normally I would agree, but that's not how the situation is playing out. The same people attacking Aquinas (i.e., the faculty at GBTS) are also jettisoning key aspects of the doctrine of God and Christ.



And responding to these attacks on Aquinas from GBTS that do deviate from Reformed doctrines of God and Christ primarily *requires* appeals to philosophical and theological Thomist/Augustinian traditions throughout history and *cannot* be performed by Scripture itself or proper hermeneutics using Scripture to interpret itself?

Why? or why not? Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Tychicus said:


> Yes, sure. I was replying to @VictorBravo who wanted to know what was being presented and in what form. @John Yap mentioned the recent CredoMagazine edition on Christian Platonism and I mentioned the book which Dr. White was discussing on his show.



Your connections helped my further reading.

The connection I still struggle with here is the ever-frustrated Tom in your avatar with Tychicus. hahahaha


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> GBTS that do deviate from Reformed doctrines of God and Christ *requires* appeals to philosophical and theological Thomist/Augustinian traditions throughout history and *cannot* be performed by Scripture itself or proper hermeneutics using Scripture to interpret itself?
> 
> Why? or why not? Thanks in advance.



I've never actually said it *requires *an appeal to philosophical sources. Not in the sense that you have to first presuppose Aquinas, then you can read the Bible. Rather, I am saying that a philosophical grid is unavoidable. This is where Van Tillians are actually correct.

Here is an example:

Jesus: I and the Father are one.

We normally take this to mean, quite correctly, that the Son and the Father share the divine essence. I believe that is what the verse teaches. That's also my Nicene coming out in me. The deal is, by that sentence itself, it can just as easily mean "one in covenant" or "one in purpose." 

Or we can take Genesis 1. My Augustinianism says God created ex nihilo. I believe that is what the text teaches. I believe any deviation from that point spells disaster. The Hebrew, though, can also read, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth." 

Anyway, all Western Christians, Protestant or Catholic (I leave out generic evangelicalism), are Augustinians. There is no getting around it. Speaking of Augustinianism, let's take Jesus' claim that "The Spirit proceeds from the Father." Our EO friends will say, "See, that means the Filioque is wrong." We can respond that Jesus also sends the Spirit, to which they respond that send and proceed are two different words. How do we adjudicate this? That's where my Thomism can solve the problem: the missions reveal the processions. If you don't believe that, then it is hard to say EO is wrong on that point.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Tychicus

Anti-Babylon said:


> Your connections helped my further reading.
> 
> The connection I still struggle with here is the ever-frustrated Tom in your avatar with Tychicus. hahahaha


I haven't read Carter's work. But I did recently finish a book; Paul Tyson's _Returning to Reality._ I thought it gave a good overview of Christian Platonism. He is also one of the contributors to the CredoMag edition on the same topic. 

He is a Roman Catholic so he takes a not a few cheap shots at Protestants, the Reformed and even in one instance, the Puritans. Some stuff on church authority I was uncomfortable with and wasn't too sure of. Of course, this plays into Dr White's arguments against these folks with respect to authority and Scripture. But it serves the purpose of introducing someone to Christian Platonism or what Jacob here is referring to as Augustinianism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> Here is an example:
> 
> Jesus: I and the Father are one.
> 
> We normally take this to mean, quite correctly, that the Son and the Father share the divine essence. I believe that is what the verse teaches. That's also my Nicene coming out in me. The deal is, by that sentence itself, it can just as easily mean "one in covenant" or "one in purpose."



But this is why I specified "Scripture interpreting itself".

From the Greek word for one [Strong's 1520], it can indeed mean "one in essence" or "one in purpose" or "one in agreement".

Would it not be premature to jump away from Scripture and engage battle between Nicenes (vs. whomever) in history before one takes the whole of Scripture and uses logical analysis to discern that this usage here was unique. That it has deeper meaning here.

eg that when Paul says in Romans 7 that "in my innermost being, I delight in the law of God" and that this certainly distinct from "being one" as Christ proclaims in John 10 so that if anyone teaches that it merely means Jesus is "one in agreement" with the Father that the language implies Paul claims likewise "agreement with God" in Romans 7, and therefore Jesus is simply the "first Christian"?

What I mean to say is that if one incorrectly teaches Jesus meant "one in purpose", it is not necessary (helpful ok but not primarily necessary) to go into historical traditions of creedal interpretations before correcting that view in light of other Scriptures and a deep dive into the whole Word of God as a primary defense of correct doctrine.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> But this is why I specified "Scripture interpreting itself".
> 
> From the Greek word for one [Strong's 1520], it can indeed mean "one in essence" or "one in purpose" or "one in agreement".
> 
> Would it not be premature to jump away from Scripture and engage battle between Nicenes (vs. whomever) in history before one takes the whole of Scripture and uses logical analysis to discern that this usage here was unique. That it has deeper meaning here.
> 
> eg that when Paul says in Romans 7 that "in my innermost being, I delight in the law of God" and that this certainly distinct from "being one" as Christ proclaims in John 10 so that if anyone teaches that it merely means Jesus is "one in agreement" with the Father that the language implies Paul claims likewise "agreement with God" in Romans 7, and therefore Jesus is simply the "first Christian"?
> 
> What I mean to say is that if one incorrectly teaches Jesus meant "one in purpose", it is not necessary (helpful ok but not primarily necessary) to go into historical traditions of creedal interpretations before correcting that view in light of other Scriptures and a deep dive into the whole Word of God as a primary defense of correct doctrine.



Maybe, but our mindset is already Nicene and we can't pretend otherwise when we go to Scripture to interpret Scripture.


----------



## Tychicus

Anti-Babylon said:


> The connection I still struggle with here is the ever-frustrated Tom in your avatar with Tychicus. hahahaha


You see, that's a great way to build bridges and foster unity. Say I get into a heated disagreement. Folks would look at my avatar and go, "He can't be that bad, he likes Tom. There are worse people out there, like the ones who like Jerry. Worse still, the ones who don't like Tom and Jerry. They are the worst lot."

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Charles Johnson

retroGRAD3 said:


> One last comment. It has to be said. This is only true in so far as you are talking about Tradition, not the Bible. There is nothing they are denying that the Bible teaches that I can see. This distinction has to be made.


Do you mean what the bible teaches explicitly, or what it teaches in sum-total, including good and necessary consequence? The former is the baptist doctrine of Scripture; the latter is the Reformed doctrine.
WCF 1.6 reads, "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..."
Does the Scripture teach paedobaptism? Generally speaking, the Baptist, taking the former view of Scripture, answers "no". The Reformed man, taking the latter view, answers "yes".
Taking that latter view, James White is teaching plenty of things contrary to the Scripture. I don't follow him very closely, but at various points in the past couple years I've seen him deny paedobaptism, deny the usefulness of natural revelation and assert fideism, deny the doctrine of divine simplicity as understood by reformed theology, etc. Part of what Jacob means by denying the usefulness of proof-texting, if I understand him correctly, is that there are things that are part of the teaching of Scripture or a Scriptural worldview that are not explicitly stated by any one verse. This was the view of the Westminster Divines too, given their statement on good and necessary consequence. Did they believe in Sola Scriptura? I think we can agree they did. And quite a few of them had some interest in metaphysics, scholastic learning, etc. Rutherford and Twisse especially come to mind as revered Westminster Divines that dabbled in metaphysics.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## VictorBravo

Charles Johnson said:


> Do you mean what the bible teaches explicitly, or what it teaches in sum-total, including good and necessary consequence? The former is the baptist doctrine of Scripture; the latter is the Reformed doctrine.
> WCF 1.6 reads, "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..."
> Does the Scripture teach paedobaptism? Generally speaking, the Baptist, taking the former view of Scripture, answers "no". The Reformed man, taking the latter view, answers "yes".



A quibble: the 1689 LBCF at 1.6 says:

"1.6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture...."

It doesn't use "necessary consequence," just "necessarily." Nevertheless, I think a confessional Baptist doctrine of Scripture follows the "sum-total" approach in addition to the "explicit" approach.

Aside from that, I concur with your observations.

I've taken time to get a superficial grasp of the controversy. I'm surprised it has come up, but shouldn't be. From what I can tell, the "Great Tradition" (new term for me in this context, although I'm familiar with the term in secular literary criticism) operates as sort of a "super confession of faith." It is not as detailed as our confessions, but contains things well settled. 

So, like a confession, it is not the final authority. But also like a confession, it operates as a big caution sign. If one wants to venture beyond the bounds of it, recognize that one may fall into all sorts of traps.

So, when we start saying our personal exegesis of Scripture denies aseity, or the historical understanding of the Trinity, or the divinity and humanity of Christ, we ought to be very humble and sober. Many have gone there before to shipwreck.

In the course of looking into this, I came across various criticisms of James White getting sloppy or soft on God's simplicity, speaking confusedly about three consciousnesses in the Trinity, and, more recently, how the Son's divine nature temporarily forgot certain things in his incarnation. The response to these criticisms (by supporters of JW) often involved counter-attacks on Thomism and Platonism.

That makes me nervous. It's like burning down the first floor of your house when your newly, and poorly, constructed balcony is showing signs of falling away.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

alexandermsmith said:


> As to the use of Aquinas. Yes the early Reformers and Puritans made much use of the scholastics who went before them. But they didn't have sober, orthodox Protestant theologians to refer to. We do.



By the time of the seventeenth century (if not earlier), this observation simply is not true. They had literally hundreds of orthodox Reformed divines to which they could refer, yet they constantly referred to patristic and medieval sources. While I agree with the substance of your argument that we should not study Thomas Aquinas (or even Augustine) to the detriment of the Reformed orthodox, there is no good reason why it should be an either/or.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## retroGRAD3

Charles Johnson said:


> Do you mean what the bible teaches explicitly, or what it teaches in sum-total, including good and necessary consequence? The former is the baptist doctrine of Scripture; the latter is the Reformed doctrine.
> WCF 1.6 reads, "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..."
> Does the Scripture teach paedobaptism? Generally speaking, the Baptist, taking the former view of Scripture, answers "no". The Reformed man, taking the latter view, answers "yes".
> Taking that latter view, James White is teaching plenty of things contrary to the Scripture. I don't follow him very closely, but at various points in the past couple years I've seen him deny paedobaptism, deny the usefulness of natural revelation and assert fideism, deny the doctrine of divine simplicity as understood by reformed theology, etc. Part of what Jacob means by denying the usefulness of proof-texting, if I understand him correctly, is that there are things that are part of the teaching of Scripture or a Scriptural worldview that are not explicitly stated by any one verse. This was the view of the Westminster Divines too, given their statement on good and necessary consequence. Did they believe in Sola Scriptura? I think we can agree they did. And quite a few of them had some interest in metaphysics, scholastic learning, etc. Rutherford and Twisse especially come to mind as revered Westminster Divines that dabbled in metaphysics.


My intention was never to defend everything James White has said or taught. I have disagreements with him on several issues, baptism being one of the primary ones. I have no issues with good and necessary consequences either, or confessions. Also, there is a difference between wanting to avoid proof texting and wanting to avoid using scripture altogether because it just can't be understood without complex philosophy. I grant there are difficult parts of scripture, but there are also plain parts. Scripture says the gospel has been given to the simple and that there are those that are always seeking knowledge but never arrive at an answer. There are warnings and statements like that all across scripture. 

There are difficult parts to philosophy as well, who gets to interpret that? Isn't it that scripture and God is the lens in which everything is to be understood? There is nothing wrong with interest in scholastics, but there is a danger in making those things master over scripture or if they become the lens in which everything has to be read through. I believe we have discussed all these matters. I am not sure there is anything else I say as this point without repeating myself. I believe Jacob has made his position clear as well. We come to different conclusions. In the end, the gospel and Christ is what saves, not how many facts and philosophies we know, so thank God for that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Tychicus said:


> I haven't read Carter's work. But I did recently finish a book; Paul Tyson's _Returning to Reality._ I thought it gave a good overview of Christian Platonism. He is also one of the contributors to the CredoMag edition on the same topic.
> 
> He is a Roman Catholic so he takes a not a few cheap shots at Protestants, the Reformed and even in one instance, the Puritans. Some stuff on church authority I was uncomfortable with and wasn't too sure of. Of course, this plays into Dr White's arguments against these folks with respect to authority and Scripture. But it serves the purpose of introducing someone to Christian Platonism or what Jacob here is referring to as Augustinianism.


I’ve read and listened to a lot of Dr.Phillip Cary on Augustine as Christian Platonist. And while his lectures and commentaries are fascinating and enlightening. And although I don’t doubt that Plato had some significant impact on Augustine’s views and perception of things early on. I definitely think it’s overblown considering his many written works/scriptural expositions. I’ve read excerpts by others who essentially credit or discredit all of Augustine’s doctrines as rip-offs of all of his early philosophical influences. Again, it is a creative pigeon-hole, but the guy was deep into scriptures. It was his lens and authority to get alot of his prior beliefs straightened out and enabled him to expand on prior ECF’s…. Just look at how much he evolved on free-will. Calvin and Luther(who championed Justification by Faith) have highlighted and systematized his works to a certain degree. Augustine wrote and evolved dramatically. He always had Original Sin in view but he expanded drastically on Grace.

Cary claims that Augie eventually goes foul on Grace and that Plato is to blame. I think Cary, while making some worthwhile and interesting points, is off the mark…. But he’s no Calvinist.

Augustine wrote and evolved so much that to characterize him as a philosophical clone (with Christianity sprinkled in) is a lazy, over-stated take. I’m not saying Cary totally does that but others do.



> “with Outward Signs, a sequel to Phillip Cary's Augustine and the Invention of the Inner Self. In this work, Cary traces the development of Augustine's epochal doctrine of grace, arguing that it does not represent a rejection of Platonism in favor of a more purely Christian point of view DL a turning from Plato to Paul, as it is often portrayed. Instead, Augustine reads Paul and other Biblical texts in light of his Christian Platonist inwardness, producing a new concept of grace as an essentially inward gift. For Augustine, grace is needed first of all to heal the mind so it may see God, but then also to help the will turn away from lower goods to love God as its eternal Good. Eventually, over the course of Augustine's career, the scope of the soul's need for grace expands outward to include not only the inner vision of the intellect and the power of love but even the initial gift of faith. At every stage, Augustine insists that divine grace does not compromise or coerce the human will but frees, heals, and helps it, precisely because grace is not an external force but an inner gift of delight leading to true happiness. As his polemic against the Pelagians develops, however, he does attribute more to grace and less to the power of free will. In the end, it is God's choice which makes the ultimate difference between the saved and the damned, and we cannot know why he chooses to save one person and not another. From this Augustinian doctrine of divine choice or election stem the characteristic pastoral problems of predestination, especially in Protestantism. A more external, indeed Jewish, doctrine of election would be more Biblical, Cary suggests, and would result in a less anxious experience of grace. Along with its companion work, Outward Signs, this careful and insightful book breaks new ground in the study of Augustine's theology of grace and sacraments.” https://philpapers.org/rec/CARIGA-5


If anything I think an emphasis on certain cross sections of philosophy that happens to intersect with Christianity to a certain degree just breeds confusion and muddies the waters….

I mean, what will we do if the great intellectuals wont save us …. and help us understand and comprehend….?

I never found Augustine too confusing, at least not when he was expounding on and applying scripture, but here I’m getting confused.


----------



## A.Joseph

VictorBravo said:


> A quibble: the 1689 LBCF at 1.6 says:
> 
> "1.6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture...."
> 
> It doesn't use "necessary consequence," just "necessarily." Nevertheless, I think a confessional Baptist doctrine of Scripture follows the "sum-total" approach in addition to the "explicit" approach.
> 
> Aside from that, I concur with your observations.
> 
> I've taken time to get a superficial grasp of the controversy. I'm surprised it has come up, but shouldn't be. From what I can tell, the "Great Tradition" (new term for me in this context, although I'm familiar with the term in secular literary criticism) operates as sort of a "super confession of faith." It is not as detailed as our confessions, but contains things well settled.
> 
> So, like a confession, it is not the final authority. But also like a confession, it operates as a big caution sign. If one wants to venture beyond the bounds of it, recognize that one may fall into all sorts of traps.
> 
> So, when we start saying our personal exegesis of Scripture denies aseity, or the historical understanding of the Trinity, or the divinity and humanity of Christ, we ought to be very humble and sober. Many have gone there before to shipwreck.
> 
> In the course of looking into this, I came across various criticisms of James White getting sloppy or soft on God's simplicity, speaking confusedly about three consciousnesses in the Trinity, and, more recently, how the Son's divine nature temporarily forgot certain things in his incarnation. The response to these criticisms (by supporters of JW) often involved counter-attacks on Thomism and Platonism.
> 
> That makes me nervous. It's like burning down the first floor of your house when your newly, and poorly, constructed balcony is showing signs of falling away.


I could be way off but you are saying JW misspoke so now we have a crisis in which we have to rediscover or re-usher in the “Great Tradition”?

I don’t know…. Maybe a flimsy premise. Not sure I’m buying it.

Maybe these gatekeepers or Neo-GTs were waiting in the wings and JW just happened to set it off….. ?

The rest of your points and the spirit of your post is valid, for sure….


----------



## VictorBravo

A.Joseph said:


> I could be way off but you are saying JW misspoke so now we have a crisis in which we have to rediscover or re-usher in the “Great Tradition”?


Not at all.

JW's statements can stand on their own, be explained, changed, whatever. My observation related to how quickly criticism from the perspective of history has triggered something like, "you are a Platonist and therefore you are dangerous!"

It has been no secret that, in the past 20 years, a substantial segment of the "Reformed Baptist" community has taken issue with doctrines of God like aseity. It caused a great deal of strife back in the early 2000s and 2010s. The dynamics of that controversy are still splashing around.

Then throw in the abuses on the Trinity of the past 20 years. That prompted Barrett to write_ Simply Trinity_. Now I see he is being lumped in with the so-called dangerous Thomists and Platonists.

I read Barrett's book and found nothing at all controversial. So I am amazed at how suddenly there is controversy over what has been settled for more than 1500 years.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

What JW says at 1:20:30+ about the GT…*.1:30:20+*





But he may be referring to oranges rather than apples


----------



## A.Joseph

VictorBravo said:


> Not at all.
> 
> JW's statements can stand on their own, be explained, changed, whatever. My observation related to how quickly criticism from the perspective of history has triggered something like, "you are a Platonist and therefore you are dangerous!"
> 
> It has been no secret that, in the past 20 years, a substantial segment of the "Reformed Baptist" community has taken issue with doctrines of God like aseity. It caused a great deal of strife back in the early 2000s and 2010s. The dynamics of that controversy are still splashing around.
> 
> Then throw in the abuses on the Trinity of the past 20 years. That prompted Barrett to write_ Simply Trinity_. Now I see he is being lumped in with the so-called dangerous Thomists and Platonists.
> 
> I read Barrett's book and found nothing at all controversial. So I am amazed at how suddenly there is controversy over what has been settled for more than 1500 years.


Ok, thank you for correcting me on that. I understand the concern there.


----------



## VictorBravo

A.Joseph said:


> What JW says at 1:20:30 + about the GT….


I don't follow the point. I'm on board with what White said there: Scripture demonstrates a truth, that is where Nicea gets it. He even goes so far as to allow that we can call it a "tradition."

He didn't mention the "Great Tradition" in that segment.

Look, I really do not like the term "Great Tradition." It grates on my sensibilities. I don't really have a grasp on what it means to different factions. 

But in what I have seen from the people White points to, it does not mean "whatever we contemplatively can come up with using natural revelation and means." It seems to be used more along the lines of, "we've hashed this out long ago so we should pay attention to it."

I could be wrong. Right now I'm seeing defensiveness where it isn't needed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tychicus

Dr. White discussed this thread on his show from four hours ago. Hello Dr. White!






(The PB discussion starts at 40 mins)


----------



## A.Joseph

Tychicus said:


> Dr. White discussed this thread on his show from four hours ago. Hello Dr. White!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The PB discussion starts at 40 mins)



*Big Shoutout to Dr. White!!!*

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tychicus said:


> Dr. White discussed this thread on his show from four hours ago. Hello Dr. White!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The PB discussion starts at 40 mins)



Jacob clarified what he meant by Socianianism in a subsequent comment. Dr White did not address that point adequately in his response. Yes, it is true that Socianianism involved denying many doctrines that Dr White affirms. That point still does not address the concern being raised that the denial of a "Thomist" understanding of divine simplicity was another fundamental error of the Socinians that the Reformed orthodox stood against. 

To be fair, however, I am not joining in a pile-on of Dr White. One problem with many Reformed Thomists is that while they accurately discern Reformed orthodoxy's reliance on Thomism and scholasticism, they tend to ignore or downplay the pointed criticisms the Reformed orthodox sometimes directed towards both Thomas in particular and the Schoolmen more generally. Moreover, I am also not entirely convinced by the whole Christian Platonism argument.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Jacob clarified what he meant by Socianianism in a subsequent comment.


Regardless, to call a brother in Christ a Socianian (and by extension a damned heretic) is not appropriate. If you want to criticize and point out errors than do so, but do it without breaking the 9th commandment.


----------



## A.Joseph

I think, once again, Dr. White was very reasonable with his analysis following his expressed hurt in response to Jacob.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

retroGRAD3 said:


> Regardless, to call a brother in Christ a Socianian (and by extension a damned heretic) is not appropriate. If you want to criticize and point out errors than do so, but do it without breaking the 9th commandment.



Jacob said that he feared Dr White was _becoming_ a Socinian, not that he was a Socinian. I think that Jacob's point is that those who tinker with the confessional doctrine of simplicity are becoming Socinian on this specific point, which error he regards as very dangerous (and for good reason).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## retroGRAD3

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Jacob said that he feared Dr White was _becoming_ a Socinian, not that he was a Socinian. I think that Jacob's point is that those who tinker with the confessional doctrine of simplicity are becoming Socinian on this specific point, which error he regards as very dangerous (and for good reason).


And if I hear Dr. White's message correctly, there is also a danger of going too far the into "tradition" and eventually denying Sola Scriptura. Both are dangerous. At this point though, I think we need to be charitable to each other. As far as I can tell, no one has become a papist/eastern "orthodox" (or one of the other false forms of Christianity that upholds tradition as ultimate) and no one has become a Socinian.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> Regardless, to call a brother in Christ a Socianian (and by extension a damned heretic) is not appropriate. If you want to criticize and point out errors than do so, but do it without breaking the 9th commandment.



I might not have been as clear as I should have. His method is Socinian. He himself isn't.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> and no one has become a Socinian.



We aren't really encouraged to mention him on Puritanboard, but read the story about Drake Shelton and divine simplicity.


----------



## Tom Hart

Tychicus said:


> Dr. White discussed this thread on his show from four hours ago. Hello Dr. White!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The PB discussion starts at 40 mins)


Wonders Dr. White, How does anyone keep up with all that stuff [on the Puritan Board]?

Well, you don’t have to keep up with _all_ of it. Most of us are just here for @jw’s recipes.


----------



## A.Joseph

A.Joseph said:


> *Big Shoutout to Dr. White!!!*


Now he’s just being stubborn about it! He’s doubled down on his pronunciation!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Tom Hart said:


> Wonders Dr. White, How does anyone keep up with all that stuff [on the Puritan Board]?
> 
> Well, you don’t have to keep up with _all_ of it. Most of us are just here for @jw’s recipes.


Twitter sucks! (That was tweet worthy)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Tom Hart said:


> Most of us are just here for @jw’s recipes.



I must not be in the right places here. Or is that after I get graduated up a level from Puritan Board Freshman?


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> Maybe, but our mindset is already Nicene and we can't pretend otherwise when we go to Scripture to interpret Scripture.



Now it is me who can say I never meant we should pretend otherwise. Only that the foundations of mindsets are irrelevant to the point that if an apocalyptic device goes off and erases all creeds, commentaries, historio-theological texts, even the confessions themselves etc and leaves us only the Scriptures, we will in fact re-create - as a species - the interpretations and tools of exegesis because it is Scripture alone that is preserved by God and the illumination of the Spirit alone that reveals its meaning to those who remain faithful in their devotions and commitment to high view of Scripture.

Even that heresy that I mentioned: "Jesus was the first Christian" while it can be accidentally read by a superficial reading of the Greek - yet it cannot be consistently held throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and that can be known by Scripture alone without any awareness of the history and tradition of the Nicene Council.

Many doctrines would probably take us yet again many decades and centuries to re-refine (new word) but God is faithful.

Please note: I am not denigrating your well-read credentials into philosophy, theology and history. Not in the least. God forbid. Rather, pointing out the potential danger of overestimating the power of these endeavors.

If Bill Johnson in Bethel commits the error of a low view of Christ as the first Christian, I need not dust off my Church History textbook and delve into the primary sources from the Council of Nicene. That is how powerful the Scripture is in and of itself.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tallifer

RamistThomist said:


> 3) Platonism is pronounced "play-tuh-nism," not "platt-tuh-nism."


I have to quibble with this prescription, since 1. his name is Greek and in Greek the "a" is closer to the sound of "a cow" than "day"and 2. English is a transoceanic language with more variations than any other language. (Even though I do pronounce it Playto like Play-dough)

<chuckles> I wish I had something more meaningful to add to this thought provoking discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tychicus

Tallifer said:


> I have to quibble with this prescription, since 1. his name is Greek and in Greek the "a" is closer to the sound of "a cow" than "day"and 2. English is a transoceanic language with more variations than any other language. (Even though I do pronounce it Playto like Play-dough)
> 
> <chuckles> I wish I had something more meaningful to add to this thought provoking discussion.


Be careful there, Jacob is a high-school English teacher .


----------



## RamistThomist

Tallifer said:


> I have to quibble with this prescription, since 1. his name is Greek and in Greek the "a" is closer to the sound of "a cow" than "day"and 2. English is a transoceanic language with more variations than any other language. (Even though I do pronounce it Playto like Play-dough)
> 
> <chuckles> I wish I had something more meaningful to add to this thought provoking discussion.



I grant there is some fluidity in the a-sound. Yet, there is not a single living scholar or reader of Plato who pronounces it that way in lectures.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> Now it is me who can say I never meant we should pretend otherwise. Only that the foundations of mindsets are irrelevant to the point that if an apocalyptic device goes off and erases all creeds, commentaries, historio-theological texts, even the confessions themselves etc and leaves us only the Scriptures, we will in fact re-create - as a species - the interpretations and tools of exegesis because it is Scripture alone that is preserved by God and the illumination of the Spirit alone that reveals its meaning to those who remain faithful in their devotions and commitment to high view of Scripture.



I'm sure we could re-create the Nicene Creed if an EMP goes off. On the other hand, it's like looking at a finished puzzle and then reassembling it. Your mind already knows the interconnections and final product, so it isn't starting from scratch. Nicene Christology is inevitable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

This Twitter thread is worth checking out, looking at how Protestant scholasticism evaluated Mediaeval scholasticism:


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

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> This Twitter thread is worth checking out, looking at how Protestant scholasticism evaluated Mediaeval scholasticism:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530167225982029824



It's a great thread. I think I posted it on the Glossing thread. One should note that David is pro-Thomas.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've been extremely busy of late with work travelling to/from HI or Tampa, FL for a month and a half. I wondered if this would come up on the Puritan Board and then heard James talking about it.

As an admission, I've listened to James White for about 16 years. I think I've listened to very podcast as it's in my workout list. I obviously disagree with him on a lot of things (I'm no antipaedobaptist and think he's a little too focused on some things) but I also have the benefit of hearing a body of work and the assets and liabilities of a man's work.

It's for that reason that I agree with James White but don't agree with some of the ways he critiques the issue.

On the positive side of a "Christian tradition" I think the 20th Century especially saw a lot of departure from well-work Doctrines of God that defined the basic "catholic faith". Those departures include some Reformed Systematic Theologians.

When the Eternal Functional Subordination controversy reared its head I was on the side of the theology and metaphysics of the catholic faith. 

That said, I wasn't on its side simply because it is the "tradition". Vic pointed out that the LBCF decided to edit out the notion of GNC. In one sense, the Baptist tradition has less of a term to stand on confessionally than the Reformed notion of GNC. 

I do think that the problem that White is poor identifying is that men are essentially saying: "You need to either agree with Thomism or you are departing fro the catholic tradition." There may be some truth to that but that is a very poor way to preserve the catholic tradition.

Men have (and continue to) demonstrate both an exegetical AND a GNC derivation of these essential catholic truths. There is a lot of sloppiness and laziness of men enamored with Thomistic ideas who aren't willing to connect those ideas to the GNC logic of it all. It's just a lazy accusation that the men who wrote the LBCF adopted these categories and, if White doesn't adopt them, then he's departing from his Confession.

Now, White could maybe demand something more but he's also got men who have otherwise been his allies for many years suddenly mocking his call for Sola Scriptura.

White has even said: "Hey, I can get along with people who are saying let's be careful about what we say regarding ad intra versus ad extra ideas." Thus, he's willing to live with those who might see that certain things are more dangerous than others.

But the reality is that nobody is cutting either any slack on this. Either one accepts Thomism or you're just a yokel and White is asking men to put up some exegesis (and I imagine he might be willing to hear some GNC) but all he gets sort of an idea that you have to do hermeneutics according to the great tradition and that it demands Christian Platonism.

In one sense, one could argue that, until every critic of James White listens to everything he has ever said or written on theological matters then they have no business in criticizing him about what he says or refuses to say because, in the balance, he is not trying to put forward a systematic or dogmatic theology that denies essential Christian categories. He might be more sloppy than some prefer for a popularizer and Apologist but, in the main, he's trying to get men to agree with their own Confession that every doctrine needs to either be expressly or neceessarily derived from Scripture. That's not an unreasonable requirement.

Why do I say that a criticizer has to read everything James writes? Because getting your arms around the Christian tradition on these difficult metaphysical things is not any easier. Most of us operate with enough knowledge of theology and history to trust the fences as we see the consequences of those who have historically colored outside the lines. Few of us have studied Church history and how they derived principles from Scripture and used metaphysical language to preserve those ideas to box out those who denied the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit. It's "easy" to just quote something from Aquinas about God's attributes having no distinction ad intra but that ought to be a matter of sublime reflection rather than some sort of prideful bludgeon that we think we can use as if we understand it given our creaturely capacity.

And, for all his faults, White has great assets and he is correct in warning people not to become too enamored with someone and do the work of demonstrating that the "catholic tradition" they are extolling can be properly teased out so as not to embrace all the things that Thomas otherwise "proved" that we might rightly reject. That requires hard work and not Twitter threads from men too young and too inexperienced to have done all the hard work necessary. If they had then they'd be taking the time to explain how these ideas are GNC deductions rather than just mocking a man who has labored long without compromise. 

White, as we all do, has feet of clay. He's confident in things he sometimes should not be but so are many of us with strong convictions. He's just not willing to become a Thomist fan boy because it's the "obvious" catholic hermeneutic. If White were a systematic theologian writing books that systematized and memorailized a clear departure then I could understand a scholarly critique. But he is not. He is an apologist and is willing to affirm what his Confession states and is even willing to grant to others the idea that they think we need to include all the necessary cautions about what divine simplicity necessarily implies. So, to those who think they have it figured out, do the GNC work if you think he's missing something and show the necessary connections. If it requires that all of Thomas be read and sorted through then that's not much of a solution.

Sorry about any typos due to my vision.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Either one accepts Thomism or you're just a yokel and White is asking men to put up some exegesis (and I imagine he might be willing to hear some GNC) but all he gets sort of an idea that you have to do hermeneutics according to the great tradition and that it demands Christian Platonism.



I would place this in the realm of prolegomena, which is usually prior to exegesis. For example, I'm not sure I could give a persuasive exegesis that universals exist ante rem, but I believe it quite strongly.

On a similar point, the Bible says the soul exists. We all agree. Does exegesis say that the soul exist as a substance in the body or does it exist as the form of the body? Exegesis really can't answer that.


Semper Fidelis said:


> And, for all his faults, White has great assets and he is correct in warning people not to become too enamored with someone and do the work of demonstrating that the "catholic tradition" they are extolling can be properly teased out so as not to embrace all the things that Thomas otherwise "proved" that we might rightly reject. That requires hard work and not Twitter threads from men too young and too inexperienced to have done all the hard work necessary.



He would have stronger ground if some of his friends weren't flirting with heresy. In fact, some of his statements have been troubling as well. As to Twitter, White is far, far, far more active on Twitter than Barrett and Carter. In fact, he retweets them far more than they ever deal with him.


----------



## RamistThomist

And David Sytsema's twitter account is more of a warehouse of Reformed scholasticism (and he has been published by Brill).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

Semper Fidelis said:


> I've been extremely busy of late with work travelling to/from HI or Tampa, FL for a month and a half. I wondered if this would come up on the Puritan Board and then heard James talking about it.
> 
> As an admission, I've listened to James White for about 16 years. I think I've listened to very podcast as it's in my workout list. I obviously disagree with him on a lot of things (I'm no antipaedobaptist and think he's a little too focused on some things) but I also have the benefit of hearing a body of work and the assets and liabilities of a man's work.
> 
> It's for that reason that I agree with James White but don't agree with some of the ways he critiques the issue.
> 
> On the positive side of a "Christian tradition" I think the 20th Century especially saw a lot of departure from well-work Doctrines of God that defined the basic "catholic faith". Those departures include some Reformed Systematic Theologians.
> 
> When the Eternal Functional Subordination controversy reared its head I was on the side of the theology and metaphysics of the catholic faith.
> 
> That said, I wasn't on its side simply because it is the "tradition". Vic pointed out that the LBCF decided to edit out the notion of GNC. In one sense, the Baptist tradition has less of a term to stand on confessionally than the Reformed notion of GNC.
> 
> I do think that the problem that White is poor identifying is that men are essentially saying: "You need to either agree with Thomism or you are departing fro the catholic tradition." There may be some truth to that but that is a very poor way to preserve the catholic tradition.
> 
> Men have (and continue to) demonstrate both an exegetical AND a GNC derivation of these essential catholic truths. There is a lot of sloppiness and laziness of men enamored with Thomistic ideas who aren't willing to connect those ideas to the GNC logic of it all. It's just a lazy accusation that the men who wrote the LBCF adopted these categories and, if White doesn't adopt them, then he's departing from his Confession.
> 
> Now, White could maybe demand something more but he's also got men who have otherwise been his allies for many years suddenly mocking his call for Sola Scriptura.
> 
> White has even said: "Hey, I can get along with people who are saying let's be careful about what we say regarding ad intra versus ad extra ideas." Thus, he's willing to live with those who might see that certain things are more dangerous than others.
> 
> But the reality is that nobody is cutting either any slack on this. Either one accepts Thomism or you're just a yokel and White is asking men to put up some exegesis (and I imagine he might be willing to hear some GNC) but all he gets sort of an idea that you have to do hermeneutics according to the great tradition and that it demands Christian Platonism.
> 
> In one sense, one could argue that, until every critic of James White listens to everything he has ever said or written on theological matters then they have no business in criticizing him about what he says or refuses to say because, in the balance, he is not trying to put forward a systematic or dogmatic theology that denies essential Christian categories. He might be more sloppy than some prefer for a popularizer and Apologist but, in the main, he's trying to get men to agree with their own Confession that every doctrine needs to either be expressly or neceessarily derived from Scripture. That's not an unreasonable requirement.
> 
> Why do I say that a criticizer has to read everything James writes? Because getting your arms around the Christian tradition on these difficult metaphysical things is not any easier. Most of us operate with enough knowledge of theology and history to trust the fences as we see the consequences of those who have historically colored outside the lines. Few of us have studied Church history and how they derived principles from Scripture and used metaphysical language to preserve those ideas to box out those who denied the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit. It's "easy" to just quote something from Aquinas about God's attributes having no distinction ad intra but that ought to be a matter of sublime reflection rather than some sort of prideful bludgeon that we think we can use as if we understand it given our creaturely capacity.
> 
> And, for all his faults, White has great assets and he is correct in warning people not to become too enamored with someone and do the work of demonstrating that the "catholic tradition" they are extolling can be properly teased out so as not to embrace all the things that Thomas otherwise "proved" that we might rightly reject. That requires hard work and not Twitter threads from men too young and too inexperienced to have done all the hard work necessary. If they had then they'd be taking the time to explain how these ideas are GNC deductions rather than just mocking a man who has labored long without compromise.
> 
> White, as we all do, has feet of clay. He's confident in things he sometimes should not be but so are many of us with strong convictions. He's just not willing to become a Thomist fan boy because it's the "obvious" catholic hermeneutic. If White were a systematic theologian writing books that systematized and memorailized a clear departure then I could understand a scholarly critique. But he is not. He is an apologist and is willing to affirm what his Confession states and is even willing to grant to others the idea that they think we need to include all the necessary cautions about what divine simplicity necessarily implies. So, to those who think they have it figured out, do the GNC work if you think he's missing something and show the necessary connections. If it requires that all of Thomas be read and sorted through then that's not much of a solution.
> 
> Sorry about any typos due to my vision.


----------



## RamistThomist

I'll say some nice things about White, so it doesn't seem like I am a "young Turk" who is attacking his godly elders.

1) I've read his book on KJVonly and listened to most of his talks on it. Very good.
2) His stuff on Mormonism is good.

I just think he is understudied in other issues.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> I'll say some nice things about White, so it doesn't seem like I am a "young Turk" who is attacking his godly elders.
> 
> 1) I've read his book on KJVonly and listened to most of his talks on it. Very good.
> 2) His stuff on Mormonism is good.
> 
> I just think he is understudied in other issues.


That is a fair assessment. I think we all have our specialties and areas of focus. White is primarily an apologist speaking to members of false religions or no religions, so it would make sense that his main body of knowledge would be there. I recently just finished the King James Only controversy in preparation for my attending of the "Kept Pure in All Ages" conference this summer. I do not think the presenters will be able to overcome the case presented in that book, but at the same time, the conference is for TR people and not necessarily KJV onlyists. We shall see.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

RamistThomist said:


> I would place this in the realm of prolegomena, which is usually prior to exegesis. For example, I'm not sure I could give a persuasive exegesis that universals exist ante rem, but I believe it quite strongly.
> 
> On a similar point, the Bible says the soul exists. We all agree. Does exegesis say that the soul exist as a substance in the body or does it exist as the form of the body? Exegesis really can't answer that.
> 
> 
> He would have stronger ground if some of his friends weren't flirting with heresy. In fact, some of his statements have been troubling as well. As to Twitter, White is far, far, far more active on Twitter than Barrett and Carter. In fact, he retweets them far more than they ever deal with him.


I'm not aware of whom you speak as to those flirting with heresy.

I was not sure how coherent my post would come out. I don't disagree that there are issues that are under-studied among us all. My main point is that men who are flirting with the "great Tradition" might not have their prolegomena set well themselves.

I was musing about some of this today because one of the things that's difficult to sort out is how we exactly land on the right way of thinking about things. I believe it is a gift of grace that sort of sets us on the right path. One of the basic issues of prolegomena is the Creator/Creature distinction and respecting that our knowledge of God is analogical. William Lane Craig, for instance, errs at a basic level of assuming it is univocal and that he can "work upwards" from human philosophy to use philosophy to comprehend things we were meant to apprehend within creaturely limitations. This is why he works from philosophy as to what freedom or love would demand and then looks for theologically "fruitful" ideas like Molinism in which to box in Divine freedom.

It's hard to say how we land on these things because one could theoretically use GNC to come to WLC's conclusions if one thinks that God thinks and experiences reality as we do.

I think that one could argue that there is sort of a catholic prolegomena, but it is hard to argue and it is hard to "prove". When I read about the ante-Nicene Fathers I was struck at how much they had "received" in their conviction and that the metaphysical outworkings were force upon them. Something that was primarily to be adored (the Trinity and the Divine essence) had to be spoken of within the limits of human capacity in order to set catholic boundaries. They insisted upon "of the same essence" not because they had comprehended the Trinity but because they had apprehended enough to be able to force others either to confess that the Son and Spirit were fully God or they were not Christians at all.

If I could fault White for something it is that his instinct is correct o rely upon the sure Standards of Divine Revelation, but the issue of how God's people sort of settle upon a correct "prolegomena" is sort of overlooked. If I could fault some of his detractors, they are downplaying the role and interplay of the Scriptures in forming us into this prolegomena (since it is revealed that God's ways are not our ways) and that there is not enough humility in the idea that we don't come at this initial state simply because we "accept the great Tradition" and rely upon our brain power. That we "start well" and don't end up in damnable error is a gift of grace.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm not aware of whom you speak as to those flirting with heresy.


Owen Strachan and others at GBTS. 


Semper Fidelis said:


> My main point is that men who are flirting with the "great Tradition" might not have their prolegomena set well themselves.



Perhaps. When I first started on worldview stuff inn 2005, I ran my mouth but in reality I was a complete idiot who didn't know anything. It's different now. I've read through the entire Summa and all of Plato. And Richard Muller.



Semper Fidelis said:


> William Lane Craig, for instance, errs at a basic level of assuming it is univocal and that he can "work upwards" from human philosophy to use philosophy to comprehend things we were meant to apprehend within creaturely limitations. This is why he works from philosophy as to what freedom or love would demand and then looks for theologically "fruitful" ideas like Molinism in which to box in Divine freedom.



Very true.



Semper Fidelis said:


> I think that one could argue that there is sort of a catholic prolegomena, but it is hard to argue and it is hard to "prove".



It is hard to prove exegetically. It's not hard to prove from the terms of divine simplicity and foundationalism. I think I did that on page 2 of this thread.


Semper Fidelis said:


> They insisted upon "of the same essence" not because they had comprehended the Trinity but because they had apprehended enough to be able to force others either to confess that the Son and Spirit were fully God or they were not Christians at all.



Agreed. That's the Cappadocian Fathers and Thomas Aquinas in a nutshell.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

We give philosophy a ministerial authority. As Turretin and others have noted, theological reasoning moves like this:

Philosophy gives the major premise.
Scripture/Theology the minor premise, which is the specific example.
Conclusion.

Major premise: A human nature is not corporeally extended everywhere in space.
Minor Premise: EO and Lutherans extend it corporeally everywhere in the Eucharist.
Conclusion: They are wrong.

The GBTS crowd with their hostility to philosophy will often have difficulty in furnishing major premises.


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> We give philosophy a ministerial authority. As Turretin and others have noted, theological reasoning moves like this:
> 
> Philosophy gives the major premise.
> Scripture/Theology the minor premise, which is the specific example.
> Conclusion.
> 
> Major premise: A human nature is not corporeally extended everywhere in space.
> Minor Premise: EO and Lutherans extend it corporeally everywhere in the Eucharist.
> Conclusion: They are wrong.
> 
> The GBTS crowd with their hostility to philosophy will often have difficulty in furnishing major premises.


It seems like in this system, philosophy trumps scripture.



RamistThomist said:


> Perhaps. When I first started on worldview stuff inn 2005, I ran my mouth but in reality I was a complete idiot who didn't know anything. It's different now. I've read through the entire Summa and all of Plato. And Richard Muller.


So, Summa, Plato, and Muller = prolegomena? So, they are required reading if we are to understand the Bible? Again, does this not point to something being master over scripture? Does it not also imply that God is unable to communicate with us in terms we would understand? We can't understand without a proxy?

I ask the questions out of a desire to understand.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> It seems like in this system, philosophy trumps scripture.
> 
> 
> So, Summa, Plato, and Muller = prolegomena? So, they are required reading if we are to understand the Bible? Again, does this not point to something being master over scripture? Does it not also imply that God is unable to communicate with us in terms we would understand? We can't understand without a proxy?
> 
> I ask the questions out of a desire to understand.


My system is Turretin.

No, Plato isn’t prolegomena simpliciter , but it is background reading on issues like essence.


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> My system is Turretin.
> 
> No, Plato isn’t prolegomena simpliciter , but it is background reading on issues like essence.


I don't understand what this means, 
"My system is turretin". How do you determine if what Turretin says, is true? 

Maybe I can come at this another way. I believe myself to be a confessionalist, to the WCF. I agree with the things in that confession, but it is ultimately because of the scripture they use to back up the statements. They appear to be in harmony. However, there is a human element to that decision. Is your system similar in approach?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> We give philosophy a ministerial authority. As Turretin and others have noted, theological reasoning moves like this:
> 
> Philosophy gives the major premise.
> Scripture/Theology the minor premise, which is the specific example.
> Conclusion.
> 
> Major premise: A human nature is not corporeally extended everywhere in space.
> Minor Premise: EO and Lutherans extend it corporeally everywhere in the Eucharist.
> Conclusion: They are wrong.
> 
> The GBTS crowd with their hostility to philosophy will often have difficulty in furnishing major premises.



I am unfamiliar with these GBTS people you refer to. I for one, would not be hostile towards philosophy as it is a perfectly valid source of general revelation that has led many to find truth in the Lord over the centuries.

Is it possible that this structure is one of many ways theological reasoning moves?

According to their own testimonies, C. S. Lewis and John Warwick Montgomery came to faith (albeit not Reformed faith) through just such theological reasoning as you gave - philosophy - and then secondarily - the truths lining up with their philosophies revealed in Scripture and theology (again not Reformed for these particular two).

Yet would it not still be Scripture/theology that holds the truth of the major premises more securely than philosophy?

Major Premise from Scripture: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1

Minor Premise doing theology: There is a link between stubbornly seeing only randomness within order and one's desire to do what is good in their own eyes.

Conclusion: Atheism is an extension of the sin nature and must be addressed as part of the Great Commission (see previous premises in Matt. 28:18-20 the author may write here as a footnote)

Philosophy can eventually get there - I do not dispute that.

Major Premise: nature is uniformly fine-tuned for the sustenance of life
Minor Premise: atheists categorically and wholly deny the possibility of the evidence for a Creator prematurely and as an unwarranted inconsistent logical construct.
Conclusion: They are wrong.

Unless I am missing something, the first construct of major and minor premises is superior to the second because Scripture and theology emanates throughout the entirety of the construct and therefore leads to fuller truth.

If I recall correctly, you dismissed Scripture and theology being a good basis for the Major Premise because a Church of Christ friend and yourself would hold different philosophical worldviews that would relegate different interpretations leading to obviously different Conclusions.

What would be the difference between that scenario and the scenario of two people having different philosophies in the first place?

Is it a must that philosophy be the foundation for major premises a la Turretin etc? Thank you in advance for your reply and also, thank you for your patience with me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ethan

RamistThomist said:


> Philosophy gives the major premise.
> Scripture/Theology the minor premise, which is the specific example.
> Conclusion.


So are Craig's errors a result of neglecting the minor premise?


----------



## RamistThomist

Ethan said:


> So are Craig's errors a result of neglecting the minor premise?


Probably

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't understand what this means,
> "My system is turretin". How do you determine if what Turretin says, is true?
> 
> Maybe I can come at this another way. I believe myself to be a confessionalist, to the WCF. I agree with the things in that confession, but it is ultimately because of the scripture they use to back up the statements. They appear to be in harmony. However, there is a human element to that decision. Is your system similar in approach?


Same here. I disagree with Turretin on points. I do so with scripture and reason


----------



## retroGRAD3

RamistThomist said:


> Same here. I disagree with Turretin on points. I do so with scripture and reason


Alright, that makes sense. Thanks for the feedback.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Here is something that I just read, which may be of interest:

His [John Davenant’s] doctrine of the will of God, as well as his doctrine of predestination, is unmistakably Thomistic and Augustinian in language and general contours. To those familiar with Davenant’s published writings, this should hardly be surprising given that he cites Aquinas more than any other theologian except Augustine.

Michael J. Lynch, _John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), p. 149.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Phil D.

I'm thankful the Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions distill the timeless truths most necessary for simpleton believers, such as myself, to comprehend. I can read them, compare their teachings with a straightforward reading of Scripture, and it clicks. No further action needed. To the extent their authors debated and employed various philosophical principles in arriving at their codifications, I'm fine with that. From my perspective as a lay-person, however, it just seems that many contemporary discussions on philosophy, especially those carried out online, are effectively tempests in a teapot.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

When I put philosophy in the major premise, it had nothing to do with importance over Scripture. Rather, it's how logical judgments are made. Many syllogism go by Major (Universal)/Minor (Particular). Not all Scriptural propositions are universal in nature. It's as simple as that. In any case, metaphysics temporally precedes exegesis.

Let's return to our Lutheran friends. If all you have are bible verses, it will be difficult to refute them on the ubiquity of Christ's human nature. That's why philosophical and metaphysical judgments are important.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## DanSSwing

retroGRAD3 said:


> It seems like in this system, philosophy trumps scripture.


Precisely.

To give an illustration Dr. White will appreciate, in Scripture, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. But in Star Trek VI, Mr. Spock says that logic is the beginning of wisdom. Which is correct? 

The problem is that so much of philosophy (even metaphysics) brings with it epistemological baggage about what we are warranted in believing. This results in a man-centered approach and a belief framework created entirely outside of Biblical revelation. Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," when it should be, "I AM, therefore I think."

Dr. White's ministry is actually the main reason I am reformed today. He made me take seriously all of the warnings in the Scriptures about worldly philosophy and how it contrasts with Biblical revelation. Beginning with the entirety of Biblical revelation, not only did I accept reformed theology (I was formerly a Molinist/3-to-4-point Calvinist/eventual universalist), but my overall worldview became much more coherent.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

RamistThomist said:


> Let's return to our Lutheran friends. If all you have are bible verses, it will be difficult to refute them on the ubiquity of Christ's human nature. That's why philosophical and metaphysical judgments are important.


Bad news (to use your expression) for WCF 29.6 (and Acts 3:21 and Luke 24:6, which it cites in support).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> Let's return to our Lutheran friends. If all you have are bible verses, it will be difficult to refute them on the ubiquity of Christ's human nature. That's why philosophical and metaphysical judgments are important.



Again, I feel the need to preface what I am about to say with the caveat that I do believe philosophical and metaphysical judgments are important, but I wholly reject:

1) The claim that Lutheran friends are difficult to refute with Scripture and proper principles of application of Scripture.
2) That you have simply been operating here on defending the basic importance of philosophy and metaphysics.

Your claims have been far more reaching than merely establishing the importance of metaphysics and philosophy. I was going to quote some of the ones that stuck out to me, but your latest quote right here suffices, I think. 

How is it difficult to refute Lutheran error with just the Bible verses and proper hermeneutical principles? Are you sure you do not mean it is difficult to _*convince*_ a Lutheran friend of error? Because that is another whole category. That is contingent on his response and is a reflection on his cogent reasoning. 

But what you have just said is a reflection on the_* inability of *_*Scripture itself *in being *able to refute *the error our friend makes. Do you not see how people are confused with your stance as one that champions philosophy and metaphysics as more necessary and capable than Scripture? Even If that is not true here, then at least that you are implying that philosophy and metaphysics has more value in convincing power than Scripture?

This may not be what you mean or intend to say, but it - at the very least - is why so many are still quoting you trying to understand you.*

*Again, I do feel the need to add that if one is well versed in philosophy and can use it as a helping aid - a useful tool in addition to the Word of Truth, that's great. I am not arguing one *should only* use Bible verses, but that the Bible should be the basis and used plentifully before, during and after metaphysical points are used. I think R.C. Sproul did a great job of sprinkling philosophical and metaphysical concepts in amongst his obviously foundational reliance on Scripture.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tychicus

When one objects to a Lutheran by saying, "The human nature of Christ cannot be scattered in 100 different places at the same time", you're making a metaphysical and philosophical judgment. It's just inevitable.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Tychicus said:


> When one objects to a Lutheran by saying, "The human nature of Christ cannot be scattered in 100 different places at the same time", you're making a metaphysical and philosophical judgment. It's just inevitable.



That is inside the definition of the term "human" which Scripture itself uses. I am not sure it follows from your point that the takeaway then is that it is difficult to refute a Lutheran friend's error using only Scripture?


----------



## Tychicus

Anti-Babylon said:


> That is inside the definition of the term "human" which Scripture itself uses. I am not sure it follows from your point that the takeaway then is that it is difficult to refute a Lutheran friend's error using only Scripture?


I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying you will inevitably be using metaphysical categories when refuting them. Substance, accidents, etc.


----------



## Taylor

This is how I refute Lutherans:

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Tychicus said:


> I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying you will inevitably be using metaphysical categories when refuting them. Substance, accidents, etc.



Ok yeah that makes sense. But there is very limited truth value in metaphysical categories and concepts contained therein by themselves.

So if a Lutheran says "The human nature of Christ is scattered in [whatever great number] of different places at the same time", then their error is both in Scripture and concepts of metaphysical categories. 

However, as I see it, my point still stands and my questions for Jacob still remain. The fact that one zone of error may be temporally *before* the other does not dictate the primary mode of refutation. The primary means of refutation should lie in the zone of error that includes the highest truth value in its categories, namely Scripture.

Now, he has stated that he does not believe metaphysics trumps Scripture and I am not disputing him and am perfectly happy in accepting this as given.

But the question is still there. When he says that if a Lutheran says, "The human nature of Christ is scattered in [whatever great number] of different places at the same time" is difficult to refute using only Scripture is where I am missing the connection and still inferring an implication that general metaphysics needs to be applied.

But *no philosophical metaphysics external to Scripture needs applied*. Yes? Am I missing something there? <-- honest query.

Also, my other question regarding the starting point of discussion is still out there in my mind.

If I recall correctly, Jacob dismissed Scripture and theology being a good basis for the Major Premise because a Church of Christ friend and he would hold different philosophical worldviews that would relegate different interpretations leading to obviously different Conclusions.

What would be the difference between that scenario and the scenario of two people having different philosophies in the first place, eg my hypothetical atheist - whom I would agree would be very difficult to* convince* using Scripture alone but would not agree if anyone would claim it's difficult to *refute* using Scripture alone?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tychicus

Taylor said:


> This is how I refute Lutherans:
> 
> View attachment 9170


As someone who's not well read on this (or on anything Lutheran), that's how I would refute Lutherans.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> Again, I feel the need to preface what I am about to say with the caveat that I do believe philosophical and metaphysical judgments are important, but I wholly reject:
> 
> 1) The claim that Lutheran friends are difficult to refute with Scripture and proper principles of application of Scripture.
> 2) That you have simply been operating here on defending the basic importance of philosophy and metaphysics.
> 
> Your claims have been far more reaching than merely establishing the importance of metaphysics and philosophy. I was going to quote some of the ones that stuck out to me, but your latest quote right here suffices, I think.
> 
> How is it difficult to refute Lutheran error with just the Bible verses and proper hermeneutical principles? Are you sure you do not mean it is difficult to _*convince*_ a Lutheran friend of error? Because that is another whole category. That is contingent on his response and is a reflection on his cogent reasoning.
> 
> But what you have just said is a reflection on the_* inability of *_*Scripture itself *in being *able to refute *the error our friend makes. Do you not see how people are confused with your stance as one that champions philosophy and metaphysics as more necessary and capable than Scripture? Even If that is not true here, then at least that you are implying that philosophy and metaphysics has more value in convincing power than Scripture?
> 
> This may not be what you mean or intend to say, but it - at the very least - is why so many are still quoting you trying to understand you.*
> 
> *Again, I do feel the need to add that if one is well versed in philosophy and can use it as a helping aid - a useful tool in addition to the Word of Truth, that's great. I am not arguing one *should only* use Bible verses, but that the Bible should be the basis and used plentifully before, during and after metaphysical points are used. I think R.C. Sproul did a great job of sprinkling philosophical and metaphysical concepts in amongst his obviously foundational reliance on Scripture.



My point was this. The bible really doesn't lay out an exhaustive index of the properties which constitute a human nature. I've listened to Rod Rosenbladt's lectures on Christ. When it comes to bible verses, he brings his A game. I believe he is wrong because his Christology makes nonsense of human nature.

In any case, my example was almost word for word from Turretin.


----------



## RamistThomist

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Bad news (to use your expression) for WCF 29.6 (and Acts 3:21 and Luke 24:6, which it cites in support).



Lutherans are ready for that, since sophisticated Lutherans don't say that Christ's human nature is currently extended ubiquitously everywhere, but mainly as the Word makes him present in the Eucharist. I forgot which lesson it was. Probably closer to the beginning.








Dr. Rod Rosenbladt on "The Two Natures in Christ" Lesson # 15 in Christology: Lectures on the Two Natures in Christ


Dr. Rod Rosenbladt teaches on the book by Martin Chemnitz "The Two Natures in Christ" at the Faith Lutheran Church "Adult Bible Study Hour" Lesson…




vimeo.com


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> If I recall correctly, Jacob dismissed Scripture and theology being a good basis for the Major Premise because a Church of Christ friend and he would hold different philosophical worldviews that would relegate different interpretations leading to obviously different Conclusions.



I've clarified that. The major premise in a logical syllogism is usually a universal term, a universal affirmative in this case. The minor premise simply means a particular example of the universal term--and Scripture provides that example. Have ye not read your Turretin on this? I'm literally quoting Turretin word for word (almost).


----------



## RamistThomist

DanSSwing said:


> To give an illustration Dr. White will appreciate, in Scripture, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. But in Star Trek VI, Mr. Spock says that logic is the beginning of wisdom. Which is correct?



You used logic to make that statement. You presupposed a number of logical rules: A = A, A =/= ~A. Without logic, that sentence couldn't eve have made sense.


----------



## RamistThomist

DanSSwing said:


> Dr. White's ministry is actually the main reason I am reformed today. He made me take seriously all of the warnings in the Scriptures about worldly philosophy and how it contrasts with Biblical revelation. Beginning with the entirety of Biblical revelation, not only did I accept reformed theology (I was formerly a Molinist/3-to-4-point Calvinist/eventual universalist), but my overall worldview became much more coherent.



That would be a good warning if we were actually using vain philosophy. We aren't.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Tychicus said:


> As someone who's not well read on this (or on anything Lutheran), that's how I would refute Lutherans.



I don't understand why. "Limited in space and time" is directly derived from Scripture as part and parcel of a "human". And Christ's human nature is affirmed by Scripture. Why wouldn't you use this to refute a Lutheran friend if you met one?


RamistThomist said:


> I've listened to Rod Rosenbladt's lectures on Christ. When it comes to bible verses, he brings his A game. I believe he is wrong because his Christology makes nonsense of human nature.



I have no doubt he has a Biblical "A" game. I also have no doubt he is inconsistent within Scripture and what is explicitly stated with terms and meanings of terms used by the authors and what is directly and necessarily derived. You certainly can - and should feel free - to go into metaphysical concepts underpinning the plain reading of the text with definitions of terms used by Biblical authors, but it seems not necessary to claim too much difficulty in a purely Biblical refutation of his stance.

Again, whether he is convinced or not is beside the point.


RamistThomist said:


> The major premise in a logical syllogism is usually a universal term, a universal affirmative in this case. The minor premise simply means a particular example of the universal term--and Scripture provides that example. Have ye not read your Turretin on this? I'm literally quoting Turretin word for word (almost).



1) If you were Turretin himself, my questions would still be asked.
2) I understood that the major premise is the logical axiom that serves as a mutual starting point. I don't get why Scripture has no universal affirmatives that would also work as the basis for a logical argument? I would do it to refute my hypothetical atheist (and have done so in the past). It happens that a Lutheran has a higher view of Scripture than the atheist, so my question seems almost augmented: how does logical argumentation *necessitate* that the major premise be a non-Scriptural affirmative? Even if you say it isn't necessary, then why would it be more prudent/beneficial etc than Scripture itself?

eg, a Christian claims God is love and embraces homosexuality and trangenderism. Using Scripture that stance can be utterly refuted. They can dismiss the verses condemning homosexuality as "only for non-consensual age discrepancies" as many try to do, but they are demonstrably wrong by explicit statements of Scripture and direct derivations of accepted meanings by other Biblical authors.

If the Lutheran in question is more subtle and less overt in obvious sidestepping of plain reading of Scriptural truth than the hypothetical LGBT-friendly Christian, does that mean Scripture cannot and does not refute him on its own? 


RamistThomist said:


> You used logic to make that statement. You presupposed a number of logical rules: A = A, A =/= ~A. Without logic, that sentence couldn't eve have made sense.



No, no, I'm sorry, no. By implication of the post you are quoting, you are unintentionally undermining the Bible here. The fear of the LORD *is the beginning of wisdom.* That is Scripture. Logical rules are part and parcel of *general revelation*, but they are not in point of fact, the beginning of wisdom.

If a person goes into a logic class and does not fear the LORD, he will use any means necessary to approve of his own sin. It is no difficult task to create a syllogism that is internally consistent and logically coherent while not being true as defined by Scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> "Limited in space and time" is directly derived from Scripture as part and parcel of a "human". And Christ's human nature is affirmed by Scripture. Why wouldn't you use this to refute a Lutheran friend if you met one?



It's be no means self-evident from Scripture, for a Lutheran would point out discontinuities between pre and post-Resurrection bodies.


Anti-Babylon said:


> I don't get why Scripture has no universal affirmatives that would also work as the basis for a logical argument?



Scripture does contain universal (or categorical A propositions), but not always.


Anti-Babylon said:


> Even if you say it isn't necessary, then why would it be more prudent/beneficial etc than Scripture itself?



Depends on the issue at stake. Scripture sometimes uses particular propositions, in which case they couldn't always function as the major premise.


Anti-Babylon said:


> No, no, I'm sorry, no. By implication of the post you are quoting, you are unintentionally undermining the Bible here. The fear of the LORD *is the beginning of wisdom.* That is Scripture. Logical rules are part and parcel of *general revelation*, but they are not in point of fact, the beginning of wisdom.



I assume that you intend that statement to be non-contradictory? Should I read it in that sense?


Anti-Babylon said:


> If a person goes into a logic class and does not fear the LORD, he will use any means necessary to approve of his own sin. It is no difficult task to create a syllogism that is internally consistent and logically coherent while not being true as defined by Scripture.



I never said otherwise.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> It's be no means self-evident from Scripture, for a Lutheran would point out discontinuities between pre and post-Resurrection bodies.
> 
> 
> Scripture does contain universal (or categorical A propositions), but not always.
> 
> 
> Depends on the issue at stake. Scripture sometimes uses particular propositions, in which case they couldn't always function as the major premise.
> 
> 
> I assume that you intend that statement to be non-contradictory? Should I read it in that sense?
> 
> 
> I never said otherwise.



1)Humans being limited in time and space pre- and post-Resurrection bodies can be directly derived from Scripture. You seem to insist that if a Lutheran can possibly formulate a Biblical rejoinder of any kind then they have not been refuted by Scripture (as I read you here).

2) But particular propositions can logically be used as axioms with no inconsistency nor incoherence. Independent sure. But that is a given granting the special nature of the Scriptural revelation. eg, I have doubts Lewis and Montgomery came to a saving faith through logic alone. I suspect either they downplayed the spiritual component in their conversion while speaking publicly or they never truly converted.

3)Yeah I intended it to be non-contradictory.



DanSSwing said:


> To give an illustration Dr. White will appreciate, in Scripture, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. But in Star Trek VI, Mr. Spock says that logic is the beginning of wisdom. Which is correct?


My summary of the above:

Which statement is correct re: the beginning of wisdom? Spock claiming logic (L) is the beginning of wisdom (BW) or Scripture claiming the fear of the LORD (FOL) is the beginning of wisdom (BW)?

(BW)Spock = L
or (BW) Scripture = FOL

Your direct reply to this question:


RamistThomist said:


> You used logic to make that statement. You presupposed a number of logical rules: A = A, A =/= ~A. Without logic, that sentence couldn't eve have made sense.



Me interpreting your comment: "(BW) Spock = L because the very structure you are using was constructed using logic".

^But the definition of the "beginning of wisdom" in the Bible does not mean what sentences or structures are constructed by logic and which are not. Which syllogisms are using universal propositions vs. which ones use particular axioms that cannot be proven within the axiomatic system itself. That interpretation of the "beginning of wisdom" is not Scriptural. That is not what the authors of the Bible meant, and that is not the lesson learned in any Bible study or sermon on the fear of the LORD and the beginning and nature of Biblical wisdom.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> 1)Humans being limited in time and space pre- and post-Resurrection bodies can be directly derived from Scripture. You seem to insist that if a Lutheran can possibly formulate a Biblical rejoinder of any kind then they have not been refuted by Scripture (as I read you here).



Yes. In order to refute the Lutheran, you will have to use logical inferences. And even if we "derive" them from Scripture, we are still using logical and metaphysical categories.


Anti-Babylon said:


> 2) But particular propositions can logically be used as axioms with no inconsistency nor incoherence. Independent sure. But that is a given granting the special nature of the Scriptural revelation



That's what I have been saying.


Anti-Babylon said:


> 3)Yeah I intended it to be non-contradictory.



That was my point. You used logic not only before you used Scripture, but in order to formulate your use of Scripture. This was one of Sproul's criticisms of Van Til.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> And even if we "derive" them from Scripture, we are still using logical and metaphysical categories.



I never denied using the categories because Scripture does as well. I was saying Scripture can be used as an axiom and that it is not necessary that metaphysical statements are major premises.


RamistThomist said:


> That was my point. You used logic not only before you used Scripture, but in order to formulate your use of Scripture. This was one of Sproul's criticisms of Van Til.



I do not want to get into classical vs. presuppositional apologetics here, but Bahnsen wrote extensively about this as I am sure you know and would disagree with Sproul's take, however, there is no way Sproul would agree that "logic is the beginning of wisdom" against and over the Biblical truth that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

If Spock (or any other non-fictional soul) would argue that "logic is the beginning of wisdom" then it would be folly to answer him based on this as a given premise. You would be using his presuppositions and his worldview and prone to disputing Scripture. Now while I do not want to go down the rabbit trail of methods of apologetics, I do want to insist that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom per Scripture and objective truth.

As you agreed earlier, if a person goes into a logic class and does not fear the LORD, he will use any means necessary to approve of his own sin or worldview that allows him to sin. 

It is no difficult task to create a syllogism that is internally consistent and logically coherent while not being true as defined by Scripture. If he can fully use logic and never approach the truth of awe and wonder and terror of holiness, he will never even begin to be wise. And logic is not the beginning of wisdom.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> I never denied using the categories because Scripture does as well. I was saying Scripture can be used as an axiom and that it is not necessary that metaphysical statements are major premises.



I also agree.


Anti-Babylon said:


> I do not want to get into classical vs. presuppositional apologetics here, but Bahnsen wrote extensively about this as I am sure you know and would disagree with Sproul's take, however, there is no way Sproul would agree that "logic is the beginning of wisdom" against and over the Biblical truth that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.



I never said logic was the beginning of wisdom. Our older Reformed teachers made a distinction between the order of being and the order of knowing. God is first in the order of being; logic et al is first in the order of knowing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## DanSSwing

RamistThomist said:


> You used logic to make that statement. You presupposed a number of logical rules: A = A, A =/= ~A. Without logic, that sentence couldn't eve have made sense.


And without the LORD, we wouldn't have logic. It's only within the Christian worldview that we can even account for logic. Sure, everyone can use logic, but when they do so, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview because they find it useful, not because they can explain why it works within their set of beliefs.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

DanSSwing said:


> And without the LORD, we wouldn't have logic. It's only within the Christian worldview that we can even account for logic. Sure, everyone can use logic, but when they do so, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview because they find it useful, not because they can explain why it works within their set of beliefs.



Of course, without God we wouldn't have logic. That's what the older Reformed thinkers meant when they said that the order of being precedes the order of knowing in terms of God'd existence, yet logic is first for us in the temporal sphere. 

As for "accounting for logic," I don't buy any of the Van Tillian talking points. We might have to agree to disagree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DanSSwing

RamistThomist said:


> Of course, without God we wouldn't have logic. That's what the older Reformed thinkers meant when they said that the order of being precedes the order of knowing in terms of God'd existence, yet logic is first for us in the temporal sphere.


I think we can use either one first in the temporal sphere, even as believers. Being a monergist, I believe God called me to salvation, by graciously granting me the fear of the LORD apart from logic, though I do not deny that God can use logic as part of the process in some cases. But logic alone is not going to save anyone because, even if they come to believe through logic that Jesus is LORD and that everything in the Bible is true, they would still be stuck using a fallen will to try to submit to Him.

But apart from the soteriological issue, for many years as a believer, I tried to use logic first to expand my knowledge (merely trying to be consistent with the Bible rather than deriving from the Bible). Ironically, I actually considered myself a Calvinist even then just because I held to the majority of TULIP. It was John 6 that forced me (very much against my philosophy) to accept limited atonement, and that's probably what shifted my paradigm to beginning with God rather than man (or human logic) in EVERYTHING. Beginning with the fear of the LORD, I think I have arrived at far more accurate beliefs than those I held when I began with logic (even as a believer).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

DanSSwing said:


> I think we can use either one first in the temporal sphere, even as believers. Being a monergist, I believe God called me to salvation, by graciously granting me the fear of the LORD apart from logic, though I do not deny that God can use logic as part of the process in some cases. But logic alone is not going to save anyone because, even if they come to believe through logic that Jesus is LORD and that everything in the Bible is true, they would still be stuck using a fallen will to try to submit to Him.
> 
> But apart from the soteriological issue, for many years as a believer, I tried to use logic first to expand my knowledge (merely trying to be consistent with the Bible rather than deriving from the Bible). Ironically, I actually considered myself a Calvinist even then just because I held to the majority of TULIP. It was John 6 that forced me (very much against my philosophy) to accept limited atonement, and that's probably what shifted my paradigm to beginning with God rather than man (or human logic) in EVERYTHING. Beginning with the fear of the LORD, I think I have arrived at far more accurate beliefs than those I held when I began with logic (even as a believer).



That's not what the distinction means. 

In terms of being, God exists and upholds everything prior to me. But in terms of my ability to know and formulate thoughts, I use the laws of logic and rules of grammar in order to say something like, "God exists" or "I believe."

And no one said anything about "logic alone."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## DanSSwing

RamistThomist said:


> That's not what the distinction means.
> 
> In terms of being, God exists and upholds everything prior to me. But in terms of my ability to know and formulate thoughts, I use the laws of logic and rules of grammar in order to say something like, "God exists" or "I believe."
> 
> And no one said anything about "logic alone."


It sounds like you're just drawing the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology. But the original objection to Thomism is not that he used logic, but rather that he used a wider scope of Greek philosophy, as well as Romanist dogma, as the main framework for his worldview--Scripture coming in a distant third. I would argue that we must begin with a renewed mind, able to accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, and the truth as revealed in Scripture and construct our worldview on that basis. Logic is certainly involved, but we begin filling in the truth values of propositions based on divine revelation first as opposed to Cartesian, Humian, and other secular methods.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

DanSSwing said:


> It sounds like you're just drawing the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology. But the original objection to Thomism is not that he used logic, but rather that he used a wider scope of Greek philosophy, as well as Romanist dogma, as the main framework for his worldview--Scripture coming in a distant third. I would argue that we must begin with a renewed mind, able to accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, and the truth as revealed in Scripture and construct our worldview on that basis. Logic is certainly involved, but we begin filling in the truth values of propositions based on divine revelation first as opposed to Cartesian, Humian, and other secular methods.



I'm simply summarizing Richard Muller and RC Sproul Whether Aquinas used Romanist dogma or not is irrelevant to the distinction between the order of being and the order of knowing. I made some comments here in my review of Sproul's _Classical Apologetics_.









Classical Apologetics (RC Sproul)


I want to thank Tim Enloe for providing me with a copy. Please go by his site and check it out. He knows more about education and church history than I ever will. Sproul, R.C., Gerstner, John., Lin…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> I never said logic was the beginning of wisdom.



I am back. 

I have to disagree with this here. You technically never said it but implied it that it was so easily derived when @DanSSwing quoted the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and not logic as Spock said, you replied directly to him saying "You used logic to make that statement".

I want credit that I have consistently given you the benefit of the doubt in that exchange as a minor error in linking your viewpoints to statements made by us, but it is hard when you keep going into logic as the first order of knowing while seemingly disregarding the simultaneous role of the emotions that inevitably steer the logic that drives the truth behind why the fear of the LORD is where wisdom begins.

I must reiterate I am genuinely asking, not fighting.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> I have to disagree with this here. You technically never said it but implied it that it was so easily derived when @DanSSwing quoted the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and not logic as Spock said, you replied directly to him saying "You used logic to make that statement



And here I repeat the traditional Reformed distinction between the order of knowing and the order of being. 


Anti-Babylon said:


> but it is hard when you keep going into logic as the first order of knowing while seemingly disregarding the simultaneous role of the emotions that inevitably steer the logic that drives the truth behind why the fear of the LORD is where wisdom begins.



I don't know what about my use of the traditional Reformed distinction of knowing/being is remarkable. I'm simply saying, as RC Sproul said before me, that we experience logic and grammar prior to our use of statements like "I believe in God." Of course, in terms of "common notions" or innate ideas or whatever someone wants to call them, God comes first. That's all the distinction means.

As to emotions, I don't know what they have to do with it. Emotions are real and they come into play, but they are irrelevant concerning the truth or falsity of a position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ethan

RamistThomist said:


> And here I repeat the traditional Reformed distinction between the order of knowing and the order of being.


Sproul's Defending Your Faith lectures were what finally made this click for me. He said something along the lines of "to start with God in the order of knowing would mean that I would have to be God."

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tychicus

Ethan said:


> Sproul's Defending Your Faith lectures were what finally made this click for me. He said something along the lines of "to start with God in the order of knowing would mean that I would have to be God."


Sproul was way ahead of his time with respect to the classical theism, great tradition, Aquinas debates going on now. I've been listening to and reading his philosophy and doctrine of God stuff, just brilliant. I'm convinced Sproul's greatest influence, with time, would not be so much about resurgence of Calvinism but rather along the line of the classical doctrine of God, philosophy, Aquinas, etc.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tychicus said:


> Sproul was way ahead of his time with respect to the classical theism, great tradition, Aquinas debates going on now. I've been listening to and reading his philosophy and doctrine of God stuff, just brilliant. I'm convinced Sproul's greatest influence, with time, would not be so much about resurgence of Calvinism but rather along the line of the classical doctrine of God, philosophy, Aquinas, etc.



R. C. Sproul was the man most instrumental in getting me to leave presuppositionalism and embrace classical apologetics.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## kodos

Reformed Covenanter said:


> R. C. Sproul was the man most instrumental in getting me to leave presuppositionalism and embrace classical apologetics.



Sproul wasn't a great debater, but he was often a far better thinker than those he debated with.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

kodos said:


> Sproul wasn't a great debater, but he was often a far better thinker than those he debated with.



That's a good point. Bahnsen was a world-class speaker and debater and a professional philosopher. Sproul is a better teacher.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

kodos said:


> Sproul wasn't a great debater, but he was often a far better thinker than those he debated with.



That observation is an interesting one, Rom. It is often the case that the deeper the thinker a man is the slower he is on his feet. Whereas those who are quick in debates often have a superficial knowledge of their subjects.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> And here I repeat the traditional Reformed distinction between the order of knowing and the order of being.



I have asked for clarification regarding your choice to validate the statement "logic is the beginning of wisdom" vs. "fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" when it was posted here as contradictory positions.



RamistThomist said:


> Emotions are real and they come into play, but they are irrelevant concerning the truth or falsity of a position.



Emotions cloud the truth. When anyone considers the eternal, they will of course use logic framed with grammar in language but will do so *simultaneously* with a heart that desires sin. How can they be divorced? No matter what logical path the subject reasons from there, they will be unregenerated until God illuminates truth and begins regeneration.

I know I am on an island re: presuppositionalism and that's fine, but perhaps you could clarify beyond my position here and to your way of thinking: how emotions come into play yet are irrelevant all at the same time?


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> I have asked for clarification regarding your choice to validate the statement "logic is the beginning of wisdom" vs. "fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" when it was posted here as contradictory positions.


Did I actually say "logic was the beginning of wisdom"? I might have but if I did, what I meant was that you have to use logical and grammatical categories before you even get to propositions like "I believe." In any case, wisdom isn't the same thing as facts. Wisdom implies, among other things, obedience. That's a different thing than knowing a fact in the ordinary sense.


Anti-Babylon said:


> Emotions cloud the truth. When anyone considers the eternal, they will of course use logic framed with grammar in language but will do so *simultaneously* with a heart that desires sin. How can they be divorced? No matter what logical path the subject reasons from there, they will be unregenerated until God illuminates truth and begins regeneration.



No classical Reformed thinker disagrees with that.


Anti-Babylon said:


> how emotions come into play yet are irrelevant all at the same time?



2+2 =4 regardless of how I emotionally feel about it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> Did I actually say "logic was the beginning of wisdom"? I might have but if I did, what I meant was that you have to use logical and grammatical categories before you even get to propositions like "I believe." In any case, wisdom isn't the same thing as facts. Wisdom implies, among other things, obedience. That's a different thing than knowing a fact in the ordinary sense.
> 
> 
> No classical Reformed thinker disagrees with that.
> 
> 
> 2+2 =4 regardless of how I emotionally feel about it.



Ahhh now I get you. Thank you. 

Hopefully you will be complimented on my unwillingness to shrug my shoulders and say "whatever". I almost did a couple times. But I knew you were a real Reformed thinker and I felt like I had to keep going until I understood. One never knows when God will use this interaction to develop a sermon or teaching.

Thanks for helping make disciples, Jacob. God bless you and your family

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Therefore I admonish you, young men, to convince yourselves that you first need to know the elements of philosophy, before you advance to the higher disciplines, and that you diligently devote zeal and effort to them. The beginning, they said, is half of the whole. Who makes a good start, has obtained half the result [Horace, _Letters_ 1.2.40]. Everything will be easier in the other disciplines for those who have started in the right way, who bring to the other arts the knowledge of those arts, without which these can neither be perceived nor considered nor understood.

Philip Melanchthon, ‘On the Order of Learning’ (1531) in _Orations on Philosophy and Education_, ed. Sachiko Kusukawa, trans. Christine F. Salazar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 8.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> Ahhh now I get you. Thank you.
> 
> Hopefully you will be complimented on my unwillingness to shrug my shoulders and say "whatever". I almost did a couple times. But I knew you were a real Reformed thinker and I felt like I had to keep going until I understood. One never knows when God will use this interaction to develop a sermon or teaching.
> 
> Thanks for helping make disciples, Jacob. God bless you and your family



Thank you for the kind words. I realize I might come across as a trial lawyer in cross examination. At my best, I try to simply be what Plato wanted to be in _Thaetatus_, a midwife for ideas.

For what it's worth, I have problems with the two leading methods in philosophy today, analytic and continental. (I have some memes on them somewhere). So I am by no means trying to promote philosophy qua philosophy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Reformed Covenanter said:


> That observation is an interesting one, Rom. It is often the case that the deeper the thinker a man is the slower he is on his feet. Whereas those who are quick in debates often have a superficial knowledge of their subjects.


I dont know Bahnsen was very well educated even though you didn't mention him by name, he knew his stuff.


----------



## jwright82

RamistThomist said:


> Did I actually say "logic was the beginning of wisdom"? I might have but if I did, what I meant was that you have to use logical and grammatical categories before you even get to propositions like "I believe." In any case, wisdom isn't the same thing as facts. Wisdom implies, among other things, obedience. That's a different thing than knowing a fact in the ordinary sense.
> 
> 
> No classical Reformed thinker disagrees with that.
> 
> 
> 2+2 =4 regardless of how I emotionally feel about it.


I don't know I love your statements. But I wonder if order of knowing or order of being qua Sproul really makes a difference in the end. They're two different ways of approaching the problem both equally true and valid. Just as much as an ethical approach al la Frame. It all seems the same to me.


----------



## jwright82

RamistThomist said:


> Thank you for the kind words. I realize I might come across as a trial lawyer in cross examination. At my best, I try to simply be what Plato wanted to be in _Thaetatus_, a midwife for ideas.
> 
> For what it's worth, I have problems with the two leading methods in philosophy today, analytic and continental. (I have some memes on them somewhere). So I am by no means trying to promote philosophy qua philosophy.


Continental and analytic are two different methods to the same end.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Continental and analytic are two different methods to the same end.



What do you mean "same end?" Most of the continental people I know view the end of life as to getting Marxists elected. Okay, that might have been snarky. Sorry. An analytic philosopher spends all day making truth tables.

In any case, those are the two extremes.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> I don't know I love your statements. But I wonder if order of knowing or order of being qua Sproul really makes a difference in the end. They're two different ways of approaching the problem both equally true and valid. Just as much as an ethical approach al la Frame. It all seems the same to me.



Here is what Sproul meant by it.

Mediate general revelation is God’s revelation of himself through a medium, such as nature. Immediate general revelation is what comes to us directly, such as the works of the law on our hearts. This leads to the charge against classical apologetics that by beginning with themselves and not God, they are autonomous. Sproul gives an insightful answer: only God can begin with God. We begin with self-consciousness and in doing so, we are immediately met with finitude and that we aren’t God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> I dont know Bahnsen was very well educated even though you didn't mention him by name, he knew his stuff.



He was very sharp on issues from Kant onwards. His stuff on patristic and medieval philosophy is surface-level. His stuff on 20th century philosophy is quite good.


----------



## jwright82

RamistThomist said:


> What do you mean "same end?" Most of the continental people I know view the end of life as to getting Marxists elected. Okay, that might have been snarky. Sorry. An analytic philosopher spends all day making truth tables.
> 
> In any case, those are the two extremes.


To the ends of philosophy, rational (or logical) examination of reality. As I said two different methods, which I would include questions to be answered as well as emphasis. But thats neither here nor there for me so I'll leave that alone.


----------



## jwright82

RamistThomist said:


> He was very sharp on issues from Kant onwards. His stuff on patristic and medieval philosophy is surface-level. His stuff on 20th century philosophy is quite good.


I completely agree but I'd push it back to Descartes and Locke. But again I'm not really concerned about it. I was simply pointing out his credentials (which I know you don't dispute, and we would agree doesn't make him automatically right).


----------



## jwright82

RamistThomist said:


> Here is what Sproul meant by it.
> 
> Mediate general revelation is God’s revelation of himself through a medium, such as nature. Immediate general revelation is what comes to us directly, such as the works of the law on our hearts. This leads to the charge against classical apologetics that by beginning with themselves and not God, they are autonomous. Sproul gives an insightful answer: only God can begin with God. We begin with self-consciousness and in doing so, we are immediately met with finitude and that we aren’t God.


Van Til made a distinction between ultimate and proximate starting points. Ultimately of course we can't start with God, we're not Him. But proximately we can in a transcendental analysis of reality. In fact Van Til does start with us in his TA, take any element of experience or reality and ask what must be presupposed in order for it to be as it is? 
Autonomy is only about ultimate authority. What has ultimate authority man's reason or God's self revelation in Scripture? If man is knowingly or unknowingly "assuming" man's "reason" (not proximate) as ultimate than that is Autonomy. Its been some time since I read Sproul's book so I won't comment on whether he is guilty of anything. Ill go find it and Bahnsen to comment on that.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

jwright82 said:


> Van Til made a distinction between ultimate and proximate starting points. Ultimately of course we can't start with God, we're not Him. But proximately we can in a transcendental analysis of reality. In fact Van Til does start with us in his TA, take any element of experience or reality and ask what must be presupposed in order for it to be as it is?



Except for the part about transcendental analysis, Van Til agrees with the Reformed tradition.


jwright82 said:


> Autonomy is only about ultimate authority. What has ultimate authority man's reason or God's self revelation in Scripture? If man is knowingly or unknowingly "assuming" man's "reason" (not proximate) as ultimate than that is Autonomy. Its been some time since I read Sproul's book so I won't comment on whether he is guilty of anything. Ill go find it and Bahnsen to comment on that.



That's true. I've tried to show for the past six pages of this thread that the order of knowing is only a proximate starting point. Even Aquinas said the arguments for God were merely a preambula fidei.

Probably best to stick with Sproul on what Sproul meant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Santiago DO

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Therefore I admonish you, young men, to convince yourselves that you first need to know the elements of philosophy, before you advance to the higher disciplines, and that you diligently devote zeal and effort to them. The beginning, they said, is half of the whole. Who makes a good start, has obtained half the result [Horace, _Letters_ 1.2.40]. Everything will be easier in the other disciplines for those who have started in the right way, who bring to the other arts the knowledge of those arts, without which these can neither be perceived nor considered nor understood.
> 
> Philip Melanchthon, ‘On the Order of Learning’ (1531) in _Orations on Philosophy and Education_, ed. Sachiko Kusukawa, trans. Christine F. Salazar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 8


Is his advice being addressed to young _theologians_, young _ministers_ or _whoever_ young in the body of Christ?


----------



## RamistThomist

Santiago DO said:


> Is his advice being addressed to young _theologians_, young _ministers_ or _whoever_ young in the body of Christ?



Probably to whoever is studying theology. If approached rightly, philosophy offers a way of clarifying one's expression. In any case, the history of the church used philosophical terms that do not have a univocal meaning in the Bible (nature, hypostasis, form, etc). Philosophy is unavoidable. 

The "vain philosophy" against which Paul warned was either Epicureanism or Gnostic sex magick.


----------



## Santiago DO

@RamistThomist 
I. How can you teach the most unlearned believer to identify vain philosophy?

II. How can you teach him to use philosophy in a biblical way?

III. Does every believer need basic philosophy to fall not into heresy?


----------



## danekristjan

Santiago DO said:


> @RamistThomist
> I. How can you teach the most unlearned believer to identify vain philosophy?
> 
> II. How can you teach him to use philosophy in a biblical way?
> 
> III. Does every believer need basic philosophy to fall not into heresy?


Christians don't *need* philosophy to be saved, to be faithful, or to grow in faith. We also don't *need* a lot of other helpful things. We don't *need* to have a confession of faith. We don't *need* to read through the whole Bible. We don't *need* a great forum where we discuss theology. Without these things we can still be happy, healthy, and whole Christians. But I hope we all also see this is a hyper minimalistic view of christian faith. While we don't need to hold to and study the Westminster Confession (or the other reformed standards), who among us does not rejoice and thank God that we have them and use them? While we don't *need* to read through the Bible every year, who among us doesn't see this as a great blessing and helpful spiritual discipline that richly rewards? So, while the study and use of philosophical terminology and categories are not necessary for us, and they can be misused (like any good thing) who among us does not see their great benefit?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## alexanderjames

Not meaning to hijack the thread..
How would you guys recommend approaching the study of required philosophy in the right way?

I’ve seen threads here which say start with Plato and Aristotle (which I began whilst reading Kenny’s history of western philosophy), and then I was planning to work through the popularised “western canon” (again alongside history of philosophy books).

(Sorry, please postpone for the remainder of the Lord’s day).


----------



## RamistThomist

Santiago DO said:


> How can you teach the most unlearned believer to identify vain philosophy?



Make sure he understands basic first principles. I hesitate to offer a silver bullet argument. Different vain philosophies are going to be different. Stoicism and Epicureanism are both vain, but they are fundamentally at odds.


Santiago DO said:


> II. How can you teach him to use philosophy in a biblical way?



Again, first principles. Also he should develop listening and speaking skills. This will help him identify the key points.


Santiago DO said:


> III. Does every believer need basic philosophy to fall not into heresy?



No. On the other hand, it is more honoring to God to have clearer thinking than sloppier thinking. It is better to have and use a good tool than to not have it. Christians don't need theology books, but no one here is burning their libraries (I actually challenged some people on that in the past).


----------



## RamistThomist

alexanderjames said:


> Not meaning to hijack the thread..
> How would you guys recommend approaching the study of required philosophy in the right way?
> 
> I’ve seen threads here which say start with Plato and Aristotle (which I began whilst reading Kenny’s history of western philosophy), and then I was planning to work through the popularised “western canon” (again alongside history of philosophy books).








On Beginning to Read Philosophy Sources


The goal here is to read the actual sources, not secondary ones. This is a fly-over view of approaching philosophy. It is overly simplistic. On the other hand, it is a useful handout in seeing different philosophical movements. The first part are basic texts that every educated Westerner...




puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Santiago DO

RamistThomist said:


> Make sure he understands basic first principles


Biblical principles? Or philosophical ones?


----------



## Santiago DO

alexanderjames said:


> Sorry, please postpone for the remainder of the Lord’s day


Does this mean we can't talk about these topics on the Lord's day?


----------



## RamistThomist

Santiago DO said:


> Biblical principles? Or philosophical ones?


Both/And. The most important principle is the doctrine of God, yet speaking about God demands we speak about "being," which necessitates speaking about philosophical principles. The following is a bit overkill, but it covers all the basics.

1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence.
2. Being Is Being (B is B) = The Principle of Identity.
3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B) = The Principle of Noncontradiction.
4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle.
5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B) = The Principle of Causality.
6. Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being (Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
7. Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn → Bc) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
8. Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being (Bn > Bn) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
9. Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn → Bc) = The Principle of Existential Causality.
10. Necessary Being exists = Principle of Existential Necessity (Bn exists).
11. Contingent being exists = Principle of Existential Contingency (Bc exists).
12. Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = Principle of Analogy (Bn — similar → Bc)

Given these principles of being, one can know many things about reality; they relate thought and thing. Knowing is based in being. By these principles, one can even prove the existence of God as follows:

1. Something exists (e.g., I do) (no. 1).
2. I am a contingent being (no. 11).
3. Nothing cannot cause something (no. 5).
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being (no. 7).
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being (follows from nos. 1–4).
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities).
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy (no. 12).
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction (no. 3).
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

Sources: Geisler, N. L. (1999). BECA: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## jwright82

danekristjan said:


> Christians don't *need* philosophy to be saved, to be faithful, or to grow in faith. We also don't *need* a lot of other helpful things. We don't *need* to have a confession of faith. We don't *need* to read through the whole Bible. We don't *need* a great forum where we discuss theology. Without these things we can still be happy, healthy, and whole Christians. But I hope we all also see this is a hyper minimalistic view of christian faith. While we don't need to hold to and study the Westminster Confession (or the other reformed standards), who among us does not rejoice and thank God that we have them and use them? While we don't *need* to read through the Bible every year, who among us doesn't see this as a great blessing and helpful spiritual discipline that richly rewards? So, while the study and use of philosophical terminology and categories are not necessary for us, and they can be misused (like any good thing) who among us does not see their great benefit?


But you do need philosophy, as Jacob has pointed out, to describe the great mysteries of the faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan

jwright82 said:


> But you do need philosophy, as Jacob has pointed out, to describe the great mysteries of the faith.


I do not agree. I think the Bible does a pretty good job describing the great mysteries as it is. While these other categories can be helpful, they don't really make them any more clear, hence, great mysteries.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## danekristjan

jwright82 said:


> But you do need philosophy, as Jacob has pointed out, to describe the great mysteries of the faith.


It is no more comprehensible to read from the Bible that three different persons are called God: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that there is only one God; than it is to use philosophical terminology and say that there is only one God, one substance, who exists in three distinct persons, subsistences. Both get to the same level of understanding and leave me in doxological awe of the same great mystery.

It is a helpful categorization that should not be jettisoned, but it doesn't actually clear anything up as far as the mystery is concerned. I no more grasp God's triune nature than if I simply read the words of the Bible. So while helpful, we still do not NEED philosophical categories. Unless we are going to say the triune nature of God is not clearly taught in scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

danekristjan said:


> Unless we are going to say the triune nature of God is not clearly taught in scripture.


What does nature mean?


----------



## RamistThomist

When I ask, "What is nature?", my point is this: there is no such thing as "Holy Ghost Greek." The Biblical writers did use philosophical terms from time to time, and these terms didn't pre-exist in some realm in heaven untainted by vain philosophy (Ironically, that view is Platonism). The Greek lexicons list the philosopihcal sources in which a term is used:


----------



## Santiago DO

RamistThomist said:


> What does nature mean?


In a simplistic way, I would say that this kind of background knowledge needed to logically try to understand divine things have been providentially provided by God to His Church in its development (from Adam).

Therefore, we always depend on God's grace. Even If some men try to understand better —what God had given graciously— through philosophy, they also depend on God's power in order to do it rightly.


----------



## danekristjan

RamistThomist said:


> What does nature mean?


Is that your answer? Can the doctrine of the Trinity be taught from scripture alone?


----------



## jwright82

danekristjan said:


> It is no more comprehensible to read from the Bible that three different persons are called God: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that there is only one God; than it is to use philosophical terminology and say that there is only one God, one substance, who exists in three distinct persons, subsistences. Both get to the same level of understanding and leave me in doxological awe of the same great mystery.
> 
> It is a helpful categorization that should not be jettisoned, but it doesn't actually clear anything up as far as the mystery is concerned. I no more grasp God's triune nature than if I simply read the words of the Bible. So while helpful, we still do not NEED philosophical categories. Unless we are going to say the triune nature of God is not clearly taught in scripture.


Your first description is probably a contradiction although it is biblical. Your second is using philosophical categories to alleviate the contradiction and show that the Bible in fact has no actual contradictions in it. What else should we use if not philosophical categories to do that?


----------



## jwright82

danekristjan said:


> I do not agree. I think the Bible does a pretty good job describing the great mysteries as it is. While these other categories can be helpful, they don't really make them any more clear, hence, great mysteries.


Than why did the church catholic (little c) see the need for this for like 2000 years? Is it possible that 2000 years of intelligent people are all wrong and finally a certain subsection of the American church gets the truth? That prima facia seems wrong to me. 
The same could be said for all theological distinctions. Why have endless distinctions when the word is "clear" enough on all matters?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwright82

danekristjan said:


> Is that your answer? Can the doctrine of the Trinity be taught from scripture alone?


Taught yes, explained as well as our finite creaturely minds can, without exhaustive understanding of the mysteries for doctrinal explanation, no. God gave us reason and general revelation for a "reason".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

danekristjan said:


> Is that your answer? Can the doctrine of the Trinity be taught from scripture alone?



Can it be? Yes. Does the Holy Spirit intend for us to use the gifts he gave the church, such as teachers who expounded metaphysics in the service of the Trinity? Yes.

And you didn't answer my question. I can show that there is one nature in the Godhead (though why are we using the term "nature?"). What does nature mean?
Even more problematic, what does person mean? In the ancient world it meant a mode of the divine essence. Today many are tempted to see it as a center of self-consciousness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan

RamistThomist said:


> Can it be? Yes. Does the Holy Spirit intend for us to use the gifts he gave the church, such as teachers who expounded metaphysics in the service of the Trinity? Yes.
> 
> And you didn't answer my question. I can show that there is one nature in the Godhead (though why are we using the term "nature?"). What does nature mean?
> Even more problematic, what does person mean? In the ancient world it meant a mode of the divine essence. Today many are tempted to see it as a center of self-consciousness.


I agree with your premise don't get me wrong. I'm not at all opposed to reformed scholasticism. And I of course agree that we SHOULD use these terms/categories. I was just attempting to affirm that while on the one hand we don't NEED philosophy to understand the Bible in a saving and sanctifying way, that on the other hand I affirm that we have no reason NOT to use the work of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of the church before us, and in fact, do a great dishonor to God and ourselves if we neglect/reject it.

Good point on the Latin "persona" and Greek "hypostasis". Moderns understand those terms much different than they were intended, which highlights our need to return to the study of these things. Hence Karl Barth's use of "mode of being" over the Latin term "person". Three modes of being in the one being. That doesnt help much either, obviously, but he was highlighting how shallow our understanding of the terms is today.


----------



## danekristjan

jwright82 said:


> Taught yes, explained as well as our finite creaturely minds can, without exhaustive understanding of the mysteries for doctrinal explanation, no. God gave us reason and general revelation for a "reason".


Agree with the majority of that statement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan

jwright82 said:


> Than why did the church catholic (little c) see the need for this for like 2000 years? Is it possible that 2000 years of intelligent people are all wrong and finally a certain subsection of the American church gets the truth? That prima facia seems wrong to me.
> The same could be said for all theological distinctions. Why have endless distinctions when the word is "clear" enough on all matters?


Again, I'm not arguing we shouldn't use them. So I agree for the most part. Any good thing can be abused. Therefore let's not abuse it, nor, in over reaction, reject it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## danekristjan

jwright82 said:


> Your first description is probably a contradiction although it is biblical. Your second is using philosophical categories to alleviate the contradiction and show that the Bible in fact has no actual contradictions in it. What else should we use if not philosophical categories to do that?


You have misunderstood my intention or I have not been clear. My apologies. I do not take a position remotely like that of what is being attributed to White et al. I was simply trying to balance. If that is not helpful, my apologies and disregard. Give us again Turretins and Van Mastrichts etc.


----------



## danekristjan

jwright82 said:


> What else should we use if not philosophical categories to do that?


I think we should use philosophical categories. Let's not reinvent the wheel.


----------



## RamistThomist

danekristjan said:


> I agree with your premise don't get me wrong. I'm not at all opposed to reformed scholasticism. And I of course agree that we SHOULD use these terms/categories. I was just attempting to affirm that while on the one hand we don't NEED philosophy to understand the Bible in a saving and sanctifying way, that on the other hand I affirm that we have no reason NOT to use the work of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of the church before us, and in fact, do a great dishonor to God and ourselves if we neglect/reject it.
> 
> Good point on the Latin "persona" and Greek "hypostasis". Moderns understand those terms much different than they were intended, which highlights our need to return to the study of these things. Hence Karl Barth's use of "mode of being" over the Latin term "person". Three modes of being in the one being. That doesnt help much either, obviously, but he was highlighting how shallow our understanding of the terms is today.



That's fine. It's just that when we use the word "need," we exclude almost everything. Outside of eating and sleeping, for instance, I don't _need _to do all that much. Same for theology.


----------



## jwright82

danekristjan said:


> You have misunderstood my intention or I have not been clear. My apologies. I do not take a position remotely like that of what is being attributed to White et al. I was simply trying to balance. If that is not helpful, my apologies and disregard. Give us again Turretins and Van Mastrichts etc.


I agree, my apologies if I misunderstood you. I think you're right that we must balance it (sola scriptura still means something).


----------



## jwright82

danekristjan said:


> I think we should use philosophical categories. Let's not reinvent the wheel.


I agree and I'm also worried about the Frame's and White's out there trying to "reinvent the wheel" on issues of Classical Theism. I have in the past, and still do, defend Oliphant's proposal because I think its different. But I have no desire to defend it publicly on this website because I have more important things to do. The creeds of Christiandomn used ancient philosophical categories in their pronouncements, the scholastics used these same sort of categories in their work (both Reformed and Lutheran). So should we.
But you're right, we should balance it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

