James White on Reformed Thomism

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
I'm not aware of whom you speak as to those flirting with heresy.
Owen Strachan and others at GBTS.
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.

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.

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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

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?
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.
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?
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.
 
Last edited:
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top