On the reception of Aquinas, doctrine of God, etc.

[greenbaggins]

Yes, and it was supposed to deal with the Divine Will. I don't think it will materialize as such. Muller has released three books on the will/predestination theme in the past few years, though

Muller said at a conference at MARS a couple of years ago that volume five was on natural law, not the divine will, which he has already done, and then some.

 

[RamistThomist]

Muller said at a conference at MARS a couple of years ago that volume five was on natural law, not the divine will, which he has already done, and then some.

That’s hopeful

 

[retroGRAD3]

Maybe Baker is waiting on that to reprint them again

 

[Taylor]

Was Muller intending to cover all the loci eventually, but just got bogged down?

 

[greenbaggins]

Baker has reprinted them fairly recently. Up until a few weeks ago, they were still available at wtsbooks.com. However, they are gone now. Glad I got my set back in '07 or so, when they were still reasonable.

 

[RamistThomist]

Was Muller intending to cover all the loci eventually, but just got bogged down?

Close. His original focus was Perkins and grace, yet that kept bringing other issues in

 

[retroGRAD3]

Baker has reprinted them fairly recently. Up until a few weeks ago, they were still available at wtsbooks.com. However, they are gone now. Glad I got my set back in '07 or so, when they were still reasonable.

I ended up buying on logos because print would have cost $1500. How do you define "recent" because 2007 was 15 years ago (man I'm getting old).

 

[RamistThomist]

I remember when it was reprinted in 2007. And I remember that it has stayed out of print since then.

 

[greenbaggins]

I remember when it was reprinted in 2007. And I remember that it has stayed out of print since then.

It was reprinted quite recently, but the print run has already run out.

 

[RamistThomist]

Fair enough but I may say if there is no model than isn't the method itself called into question because of instability in agreement?

I don't see why. There isn't a method like the one you would find in apologetics, for example. They all agreed that God was pure act, yet they agreed with Scotus over Thomas when it came to ectypal knowledge. They saw themselves as Reforming Catholics, so they didn't feel the need to correct what wasn't broken.

If there is no model than that could imply no method. No agreed upon method than no reason to rule out other methods.

I really don't understand what you mean by model. The only real differences within medieval thought would have been the breakdown between Bonaventure, Anselm, Thomas, and Scotus, and then only on a few specific points.

only restricting, which I don't have you in mind here, our metaphysics to them without taking into consideration the complexity of the situation into view.

No one is doing that. On the other hand, where Aristotle gets things correct, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

I've tried to find Jared Oliphint's review of Dr. Dolezal's book on divine simplicity but I can't. He slams Dolezal's book for the same things I'm bringing up here.

Slamming a book isn't the same as refuting it. Dolezal's thesis is air-tight. All that is in God is God, otherwise God would have to rely on not-God in order to be God.

 

[jwright82]

I don't see why. There isn't a method like the one you would find in apologetics, for example. They all agreed that God was pure act, yet they agreed with Scotus over Thomas when it came to ectypal knowledge. They saw themselves as Reforming Catholics, so they didn't feel the need to correct what wasn't broken.


I really don't understand what you mean by model. The only real differences within medieval thought would have been the breakdown between Bonaventure, Anselm, Thomas, and Scotus, and then only on a few specific points.


No one is doing that. On the other hand, where Aristotle gets things correct, there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.


Slamming a book isn't the same as refuting it. Dolezal's thesis is air-tight. All that is in God is God, otherwise God would have to rely on not-God in order to be God.

Sorry it took so long to respond but I agree with so much that I had to think about it. If I understand you correctly you're saying that they used Aristotle where he was useful. So there was no "model" per se. Were they aware of the differences that contemporary scholarship has talked about or was that irrelevant to what they were doing? And we should only "tie" ourselves to Aristotle where they did? Again I have no problem with doing that. But it does beg the question of whether or not new insights can be used to better understand things? Or new criticisms, whatever that might be, of Aristotle and Aquinas?

 

[RamistThomist]

Sorry it took so long to respond but I agree with so much that I had to think about it. If I understand you correctly you're saying that they used Aristotle where he was useful. So there was no "model" per se. Were they aware of the differences that contemporary scholarship has talked about or was that irrelevant to what they were doing? And we should only "tie" ourselves to Aristotle where they did? Again I have no problem with doing that. But it does beg the question of whether or not new insights can be used to better understand things? Or new criticisms, whatever that might be, of Aristotle and Aquinas?

A number of guys like Ramus offered criticisms of Aristotle and new insights.

 

[A.Joseph]

I simply acknowledge that's how everyone for over a thousand years believed. Aquinas isn't unique in that regard. And whether he is saved or not is irrelevant to the fact that White is rejecting the standard Christian view of divine simplicity.


His views are fairly standard from Augustine until Luther, and I have outlined them here. When he would read the word iustificare, he would see it as "make righteous." In Latin that is literally what it means. He could then turn the tables on us and ask how we reject the clear meaning of the word. We would respond with arguments from the Greek, but that's a moot point since view had access to Greek until Constantinople fell.


It's pretty easy to verify. Are Owen and White and them interacting with Muller, Steinmetz, Trueman, and Oberman on these issues? The answer is clear. They aren't. White deliberately punted on that when he brought up my name.

Hi, if I follow your blog post correctly it appears you are in agreement with this author on this vital point, yet, come to drastically different conclusions otherwise….

You write:
“Thesis: The work of God in us was being made the basis of God’s forgiveness (90).

And this is what the Reformers rejected and what is at stake. If imputation holds, then the hierarchical mediations of Rome are unnecessary. And this is precisely what is glossed over in many “ecumenical” discussions.”

But this blog, while in agreement with this most important point, goes in a totally different direction in their analysis. Are you familiar with this ?…..

Thomas Aquinas was the Problem; the Reformation was the Solution

“Where was your Church before Aquinas” Ever since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have been fond of asking, “Where was your Church before ...

triablogue.blogspot.com

The hierarchical mediations of Rome is a very big deal, no? The middle man can only be effective if man maintains a disposition of grace (intrinsic righteousness).

 

[RamistThomist]

Hi, if I follow your blog post correctly it ppears you are in agreement with this author on this vital point, yet, come to drastically different conclusions otherwise….

You write:
“Thesis: The work of God in us was being made the basis of God’s forgiveness (90).

And this is what the Reformers rejected and what is at stake. If imputation holds, then the hierarchical mediations of Rome are unnecessary. And this is precisely what is glossed over in many “ecumenical” discussions.”

But this blog, while in agreement with this most important point, goes in a totally different direction in their analysis. Are you familiar with this ?…..

Thomas Aquinas was the Problem; the Reformation was the Solution

“Where was your Church before Aquinas” Ever since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have been fond of asking, “Where was your Church before ...

triablogue.blogspot.com

The hierarchical mediations of Rome is a very big deal, no? The middle man can only be effective if man maintains a disposition of grace.

I'm familiar with the blog post. John is a friend of mine. He knows I disagree with his analysis of post-medieval theology. I do take issue with a number of his claims:
1) It's a bit simplistic to say that Thomas introduced Aristotle to the West. Boethius was analyzing Aristotle almost a thousand years earlier. What Thomas did was use some of Aristotle's categories.
2) I really don't see Luther as agreeing with Lombard. In any case, if Luther wrote his commentary on Lombard when he did, it was long before Luther accepted justification by faith alone.
2.1) Lombard might have said that the love by which we love God is the Holy Spirit in us, but he still held to the Roman merit system.
3) Scotus disagreed with Thomas on a few points, but I would be cautious about accepting Scotus as an ally. He did invent the immaculate conception, after all.

 

[RamistThomist]

The anti-Thomists sort of miss the point. No one disputes that Thomas is wrong on grace. We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God. Moreover, to overreact to "substance" categories will probably lead one to Socinianism.

 

[A.Joseph]

The anti-Thomists sort of miss the point. No one disputes that Thomas is wrong on grace. We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God. Moreover, to overreact to "substance" categories will probably lead one to Socinianism.

That’s probably on account of the whole Classical-Presuppositional Apologetic divide which is probably overblown anyway. There is much more overlap in those schools of thought than anyone is giving credit. I do believe the doctrine of grace is the true distinction between the two coincidentally.

 

[A.Joseph]

@RamistThomist off topic a bit, but would your average secularist and practical atheist find Aquinas persuasive? What part of their brain is so dysfunctional to be hardened against the most vital, universal and eternal truths? I think if you accept Aquinas got grace wrong in the theological realm you may accept that others in the Reformed camp got the repercussions of grace (and lack thereof) in all areas (of God’s domain of course) pretty right.
…. You could say they are blind to reason? Why would that be? They are essentially (metaphysical) materialists.

 

[Charles Johnson]

@RamistThomist off topic a bit, but would your average secularist and practical atheist find Aquinas persuasive? What part of their brain is so dysfunctional to be hardened against the most vital, universal and eternal truths? I think if you accept Aquinas got grace wrong in the theological realm you may accept that others in the Reformed camp got the repercussions of grace (and lack thereof) in all areas (of God’s domain of course) pretty right.

I have never met an ex-atheist that was converted by reading Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles and I've never met one that was converted by reading Van Til's Reformed Apologetics. I don't know that that means much of anything. Now, if we just regard the forms of reasoning presented therein, I have personally used classical arguments like Anselm's ontological argument (which Aquinas repeats) to confound atheists and it was very effective.

 

[A.Joseph]

I have never met an ex-atheist that was converted by reading Aquinas's Summa Contra Gentiles and I've never met one that was converted by reading Van Til's Reformed Apologetics. I don't know that that means much of anything. Now, if we just regard the forms of reasoning presented therein, I have personally used classical arguments like Anselm's ontological argument (which Aquinas repeats) to confound atheists and it was very effective.

And a presuppositionalist couldn’t do that? One conversation does not necessarily illuminate the mind but a dead end is essentially a DEAD end….. You may confound the atheist by presenting reasonable options and variables but can you undarken their spiritual eyes? … Spiritual eyes see ‘everything’ in its proper place (albeit not perfectly) relative to finite understanding.

The presuppositionist should use ontological arguments without sacrificing anything from their end. Why speak as if our truth is only “our” truth. It’s everybody’s truth.

I would invite that atheist to church after winning them over with kindness (a friendship or a relationship built on trust is what I have in mind). I think the Word and the Gospel is the best apologetic.

 

[Charles Johnson]

And a presuppositionalist couldn’t do that?

I didn't say that.

You may confound the atheist by presenting reasonable options and variables but can you undarken their spiritual eyes? … Spiritual eyes see ‘everything’ in its proper place (albeit not perfectly) relative to finite understanding.

No one can open someone's eyes by any method at all, apologetic or otherwise. This strikes me as something of a red herring.

The presuppositionist should use ontological arguments without sacrificing anything from their end. Why speak as if our truth is only “our” truth. It’s everybody’s truth.

I don't know what you mean by this.

I would invite that atheist to church after winning them over with kindness (a friendship or a relationship built on trust is what I have in mind). I think the Word and the Gospel is the best apologetic.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here. I don't think anyone is against kindness.

 

[RamistThomist]

but would your average secularist and practical atheist find Aquinas persuasive?

Until the Holy Spirit opens their eyes, the secularist won't find Aquinas, Van Til, or James White persuasive.

I have gotten secularists to concede the points on the cosmological argument.

I think if you accept Aquinas got grace wrong in the theological realm you may accept that others in the Reformed camp got the repercussions of grace (and lack thereof) in all areas (of God’s domain of course) pretty right.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

What part of their brain is so dysfunctional to be hardened against the most vital, universal and eternal truths?

The brain isn't the same thing as the mind. Unless they have head trauma, their brains are probably functioning properly (cf Plantinga, Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford, 2003).

 

[RamistThomist]

And a presuppositionalist couldn’t do that? One conversation does not necessarily illuminate the mind but a dead end is essentially a DEAD end….. You may confound the atheist by presenting reasonable options and variables but can you undarken their spiritual eyes? … Spiritual eyes see ‘everything’ in its proper place (albeit not perfectly) relative to finite understanding.

I'm not sure anyone disagrees.

 

[A.Joseph]

I didn't say that.

No one can open someone's eyes by any method at all, apologetic or otherwise. This strikes me as something of a red herring.

I don't know what you mean by this.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here. I don't think anyone is against kindness.

Ok, forgive me.

Before you responded I was reacting to a previous comment….
“We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God.”

Which is probably true. But I struggle with this distinction (of the quoted portion). I’m not sure we can split up thought and belief this way. I think Calvin and Luther’s (and others throughout church history) view of the depravity of man and the doctrines of grace could have been expanded on in a more philosophical and practical sense as far as one’s understanding of the world, reality and the purpose/meaning of all things.

Wouldn’t the reformers theological views (the doctrine of grace in particular) eventually spill into other areas of thought? Which I’m sure it did….

I know they weren’t dealing with the same philosophical and theological attacks/threats as in more recent times.

 

[A.Joseph]

I know CVT gets plenty of criticism for being sloppy in some areas (or lacking context, etc.). And maybe this author is not as precise as he should be with all of his information and presentation of historical facts (although I’m assuming he is). Regardless, I think he makes some good points…..

“In my mind, Van Til’s interaction with absolute idealism’s search for a concrete universal is a wonderful example of how to address philosophical questions with Reformed theological answers.”

Van Til's Concrete Universal

Laurence O’Donnell, III, a Cornelius Van Til scholar and critic, has labeled Van Til’s trinitarian theology “idiosyncratic.” He made this remark with respect to Van Til’s conception of the trinity as a concrete universal. In response to O’Donnell’s ascription of idiosyncrasy, I would like to briefly

reformedforum.org

From Absolute Idealism to Analytic Philosophy, Part 2

In a previous post, I gave a brief historical sketch of the movement from nineteenth century absolute idealism to twentieth century analytic philosophy. In this post, I will survey the response Cornelius Van Til gave to absolute idealism, and then examine the analytic tradition in light of Van Til’s

reformedforum.org

 

[A.Joseph]

I’m just conveying how theology and the doctrines of grace could influence how you do apologetics, etc. The long standing issue for the presuppositionalist is conceding too much to the secularist, atheist, skeptics. These are the dots I’m trying to connect, in conjunction with the related areas of discussion.

…. Sorry, if I got things too off topic.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wouldn’t the reformers theological views (the doctrine of grace in particular) eventually spill into other areas of thought? Which I’m sure it did….

They did reject Thomas on one crucial point: instead of Thomas's habit of grace, they changed habit to imputation. That's huge.

The metaphysical stuff really didn't need to be changed. I'm not sure how one can operate without a term like substance. Moreover, if God's simplicity means he is Pure Act, then I really don't see how we could improve or change that. In fact, it would be dangerous to do so.

 

[jwright82]

The anti-Thomists sort of miss the point. No one disputes that Thomas is wrong on grace. We are simply pointing out that the Reformers were largely Thomist in metaphysics and doctrine of God. Moreover, to overreact to "substance" categories will probably lead one to Socinianism.

Well based on my last response can we not use "substance categories" where they are useful and other categories where they aren't? I think my big question would be this: can I accept substance categories to explain the incarnation and the Trinity and yet be skeptical of its use describing everyday things (in theory)? Or am I a slave to Aristotle, not saying thats what you're saying, in all metaphysics because the church used him?

 

[jwright82]

I’m just conveying how theology and the doctrines of grace could influence how you do apologetics, etc. The long standing issue for the presuppositionalist is conceding too much to the secularist, atheist, skeptics. These are the dots I’m trying to connect, in conjunction with the related areas of discussion.

…. Sorry, if I got things too off topic.

Only if it dictates where you must go intellectually despite theology and the Bible. So if someone were to say you can't be a Christian unless you hold to this or that philosophy they are wrong. People don't say that but reading some responses to the emerging church you get the impression that certain theory of truth is the Christian theory of truth. It may or may not be.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well based on my last response can we not use "substance categories" where they are useful and other categories where they aren't? I think my big question would be this: can I accept substance categories to explain the incarnation and the Trinity and yet be skeptical of its use describing everyday things (in theory)? Or am I a slave to Aristotle, not saying thats what you're saying, in all metaphysics because the church used him?

Can you give an illustration where we are currently using substance categories where other categories would be better?

 

[Eyedoc84]

I think the Word and the Gospel is the best apologetic.

Indeed!