James White on Reformed Thomism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
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."

 
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.
 
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!
 
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?
 
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 supersede 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.
 
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.
 
Dictionary of theological terms throughout history ... check

Dictionary of philosophical terms throughout history ... check

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

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.

Also, when philosophy and pious thoughts and mysticism start to supersede 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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
 
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."
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.
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
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.
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).
 
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.
 
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).
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top