RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In order not to derail the Ukraine thread, I thought to answer some questions here.
Perhaps, but Feser's analysis was more or less air tight. Johnson was saying things like Plotinus didn't leave behind any writings. That was one of the bloodiest reviews I've ever read.
That's not entirely true. Strachan, Johnson, and White have done zero critical analysis of Thomas and his leading interpreters. White even mentioned me on the dividing line on historical theology. I said the reason we are more favorable to Thomas today is that Richard Muller has done serious work showing how much the Reformed orthodox received Thomas. Not surprisingly, White completely misunderstood what I said.
The thing is, White and Co., have not shown they understand the Reformation sources after Calvin.
Fair, but it should be stated that Feser is a Roman Catholic, so I wouldn't necessarily think his explanation is going to be the right answer either.
Perhaps, but Feser's analysis was more or less air tight. Johnson was saying things like Plotinus didn't leave behind any writings. That was one of the bloodiest reviews I've ever read.
Yes. He had a defective view of justification, but so do most Wesleyans. If we say that he is going to hell (or already in hell) because of that, then we need to say that everyone in the middle ages went to hell. I'm not ready to go that far.This is interesting to hear. Can I ask an honest question here since I am not nearly as well read as you are (no sarcasm implied at all, I mean this completely). Do you believe Aquinas was saved? Did he believe the true gospel? Perhaps that is too simplistic?
I honestly will appreciate it. I am trying to get a better handle on this whole controversy and unfortunately as you mentioned, there has not really been true interaction between the two sides. This would actually be a debate worth having between White and someone from the other side, or any two others that hold the appropriate viewpoints. If there is stuff I should go read, I can do that too.
That's not entirely true. Strachan, Johnson, and White have done zero critical analysis of Thomas and his leading interpreters. White even mentioned me on the dividing line on historical theology. I said the reason we are more favorable to Thomas today is that Richard Muller has done serious work showing how much the Reformed orthodox received Thomas. Not surprisingly, White completely misunderstood what I said.
The thing is, White and Co., have not shown they understand the Reformation sources after Calvin.