Aquinas Disagreement

[jwright82]

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Eyedoc84]

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

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

Certainly he could do other than he does if he so chooses.

 

[RamistThomist]

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

No

Certainly he could do other than he does if he so chooses.

Correct.

 

[Eyedoc84]

No

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

 

[J.L. Allen]

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

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

It's bananas.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

McGuckin, 138-139.

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

McGuckin, 139-140.

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

McGuckin, 144.

 

[jwright82]

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

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

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

 

[alexanderjames]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

If Aristotle Ran General Motors

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

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[iainduguid]

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

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

Could not agree more, thank you.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

Undoubtedly.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

 

[alexanderjames]

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

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

If Aristotle Ran General Motors

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

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

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

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

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

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

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

I’m curious, are you married with children?

 

[jwright82]

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

Getting a

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

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

 

[jwright82]

I’m curious, are you married with children?

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

 

[Taylor]

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

I think you mean Al Bundy. lol

 

[jwright82]

I think you mean Al Bundy. lol

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

 

[Polanus1561]

Credomag’s issue on Aquinas

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Credomag’s issue on Aquinas

Good articles there.

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Good articles there.

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

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

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

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

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