Glossing the Great Tradition

[A.Joseph]

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

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

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

 

[A.Joseph]

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

Yes you did. Does he? I don’t know.

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[A.Joseph]

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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


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


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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

 

[AT]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[AT]

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

But he's not a realist, is he?

 

[arapahoepark]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

 

[retroGRAD3]

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

On my phone now, but several quick thoughts.

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

 

[retroGRAD3]

On my phone now, but several quick thoughts.

1) Numerous people have offered to dialogue with white on this subject. He ignores them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[retroGRAD3]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, what do you mean by conversation?

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

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

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

 

[retroGRAD3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Charles Johnson]

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

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

 

[retroGRAD3]

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

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

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

Ok.

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

I second that definition.

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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