Who do they have in mind?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guardian of the Mill

Puritan Board Freshman

In the link above, James White and Doug Wilson are addressing some issues they have about a group who seem to be advocating a return to classical theism and sources such as Thomas Aquinas. At no point, if I recall correctly, do they name names. As an aside, I am right now becoming increasingly interested in the continuity of the reformation with Medieval Catholicism. As such I am looking forward to Matthew Barrett's upcoming title: Reformation as Renewal. Becoming aware of Matthew Barrett I have stumbled upon his other material including the digital magazine. I enjoy his material and will continue to refer to it at times. I am just wondering are Matthew Barrett and his affiliates who White and Wilson have in mind during their discussion or are there more extreme groups that their crosshairs are aimed at?
 
I’m almost certain they have Barrett and others like him in mind. White seems to understand these guys as the extreme.
 
I read the term 'Reformed Catholic' for the very first time recently on Puritan Board and recoiled in my spirit. Whatever I am, I am not that.
The point of that term is to emphasize our connection to the church catholic before us. In other words, the church did not die between Augustine and Luther.

Did the medieval period have a host of issues? Yes, hence the reformation. But, lest the objection of Rome be accurate, we must maintain that we are indeed connected to the historic catholic Church, not a cultish start-up.

While I would not go around using the term in situations where it cannot be explained, I think it is a valid one. We ought to appropriate the terms catholic and orthodox, even though Rome and the East have tried to keep them to themselves. Hence the oft-made distinction (sometimes in a redundant manner) between Catholic and catholic or Orthodox and orthodox.

The reason people feel the need to emphasize the fact that they are using a little c or o is because Protestants often have an overinflated view of our disconnect from the past catholic Church, and lest they seems to be promoting Rome, they emphasize the difference of the one letter.

I for one make an effort to say Roman Catholic instead of just Catholic and Eastern Orthodox instead of just Orthodox.

I’ll do you one better: we are orthodox evangelical catholics :stirpot::cheers:

This is spirit with which I believe @RamistThomist wrote ‘Reformed catholic’
 
The point of that term is to emphasize our connection to the church catholic before us. In other words, the church did not die between Augustine and Luther.

Did the medieval period have a host of issues? Yes, hence the reformation. But, lest the objection of Rome be accurate, we must maintain that we are indeed connected to the historic catholic Church, not a cultish start-up.

While I would not go around using the term in situations where it cannot be explained, I think it is a valid one. We ought to appropriate the terms catholic and orthodox, even though Rome and the East have tried to keep them to themselves. Hence the oft-made distinction (sometimes in a redundant manner) between Catholic and catholic or Orthodox and orthodox.

The reason people feel the need to emphasize the fact that they are using a little c or o is because Protestants often have an overinflated view of our disconnect from the past catholic Church, and lest they seems to be promoting Rome, they emphasize the difference of the one letter.

I for one make an effort to say Roman Catholic instead of just Catholic and Eastern Orthodox instead of just Orthodox.

I’ll do you one better: we are orthodox evangelical catholics :stirpot::cheers:

This is spirit with which I believe @RamistThomist wrote ‘Reformed catholic’
The little c is less scary to me. Big C is a bridge too far for me. That goes for o's, too. I'm a bit partial to Spurgeon on this topic, though.

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men". (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225).

"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II to those of Elizabeth we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied; and Newington sees other scenes from Sabbath to Sabbath.

As I think of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder - what a growth! As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I may well say, What hath God wrought! Our history forbids discouragement." (From the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1881, Vol. 27, page 249.)

:spurgeon:
 
The little c is less scary to me. Big C is a bridge too far for me. That goes for o's, too. I'm a bit partial to Spurgeon on this topic, though.



:spurgeon:
I understand that, but I think it is more favorable to say that Rome didn’t become Rome until Trent, when it codified a false gospel. And as a Baptist, I would prefer to see my connection to the Reformers rather than the Anabaptists, but i must admit I am rather ignorant of anabaptist history/theology other than the obvious stuff
 
Last edited:
I am just wondering are Matthew Barrett and his affiliates who White and Wilson have in mind during their discussion or are there more extreme groups that their crosshairs are aimed at?

He's talking about Barrett and Carter, and White and Wilson are completely wrong. White has problems with the traditional formulation of simplicity and inseparable operations. The historic Reformed tradition had no problem using Thomas when they wanted to. That is all Barrett is doing.
 
The point of that term is to emphasize our connection to the church catholic before us. In other words, the church did not die between Augustine and Luther.

Did the medieval period have a host of issues? Yes, hence the reformation. But, lest the objection of Rome be accurate, we must maintain that we are indeed connected to the historic catholic Church, not a cultish start-up.

While I would not go around using the term in situations where it cannot be explained, I think it is a valid one. We ought to appropriate the terms catholic and orthodox, even though Rome and the East have tried to keep them to themselves. Hence the oft-made distinction (sometimes in a redundant manner) between Catholic and catholic or Orthodox and orthodox.

The reason people feel the need to emphasize the fact that they are using a little c or o is because Protestants often have an overinflated view of our disconnect from the past catholic Church, and lest they seems to be promoting Rome, they emphasize the difference of the one letter.

I for one make an effort to say Roman Catholic instead of just Catholic and Eastern Orthodox instead of just Orthodox.

I’ll do you one better: we are orthodox evangelical catholics :stirpot::cheers:

This is spirit with which I believe @RamistThomist wrote ‘Reformed catholic’

Yes. We are heirs to those that sought to reform, not replace, the Western medieval catholic church. To be otherwise is to be a Campbellite.
 
I haven't watched the video, but I'm guessing they're aiming at the so-called Reformed Catholics. Davenant Institute would be a part of that. But also the guys who wrote all these articles for Credo magazine.

And this is where the Wilson/White line of thought completely derails. If we are saying guys like Sproul and Gerstner are getting too close to Rome because they like Aquinas, the show is officially over.
1683896342110.png
 
Should give it a read.
I am finding that Catholics have a lot of good things on virtue, in general, for instance, especially, Aquinas.

David Sytsma on Twitter posted a link to around 150 volumes that Reformed Protestants wrote on Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.
 
And this is where the Wilson/White line of thought completely derails. If we are saying guys like Sproul and Gerstner are getting too close to Rome because they like Aquinas, the show is officially over.
View attachment 10289
I am all in for good retrieval, but I think the focus or emphasis of late by some Reformed has wrongly centered around Aquinas. Reformed catholic should not be synonymous with Reformed thomist.
 
I am all in for good retrieval, but I think the focus or emphasis of late by some Reformed has wrongly centered around Aquinas. Reformed catholic should not be synonymous with Reformed thomist.

Sure, but I do not think it has been centered on Thomas. Thomas will automatically receive the largest share of discussion simply because he was the most important thinker from Augustine to Calvin, and in terms of intellect, at least on one level, surpassed both.

Other guys have focused more on Scotus, but I remain unconvinced of his importance.

Here is what it comes down to:

All sides should agree with Turretin's discussion in Topic 1, questions 8-10. If White and Wilson cannot agree with Turretin on that point, the problem is with them, not us.
 
Sure, but I do not think it has been centered on Thomas. Thomas will automatically receive the largest share of discussion simply because he was the most important thinker from Augustine to Calvin, and in terms of intellect, at least on one level, surpassed both.

Other guys have focused more on Scotus, but I remain unconvinced of his importance.

Here is what it comes down to:

All sides should agree with Turretin's discussion in Topic 1, questions 8-10. If White and Wilson cannot agree with Turretin on that point, the problem is with them, not us.

From your summation of Voetius:

"2) In eternity there is an indifference to objects to be chosen, A, B, C. God removes A and C from the eligible objects to be chosen.

3) In time my will freely chooses B. While I might have limited choice, there is nothing forcing that choice."

But if God removes choices A and C from eternity, then how is it not true God "forced" B? Or that A and C exist only illusory as "choices"? Is the subtlety in the given definition of "force" or "choice" or some other term in his work?

EDIT: I know the Reformed reasoning on this. I am curious as to what and how Voetius structured this.

EDIT II: Never mind. I had to read further. His "re-framing of structural moments" cleared my question up. I just need to read fully before I comment.
 
Last edited:
From your summation of Voetius:

"2) In eternity there is an indifference to objects to be chosen, A, B, C. God removes A and C from the eligible objects to be chosen.

3) In time my will freely chooses B. While I might have limited choice, there is nothing forcing that choice."

But if God removes choices A and C from eternity, then how is it not true God "forced" B? Or that A and C exist only illusory as "choices"? Is the subtlety in the given definition of "force" or "choice" or some other term in his work?

EDIT: I know the Reformed reasoning on this. I am curious as to what and how Voetius structured this.

Generally, Christian thinkers early on, with a few exceptions, said the will follows the intellect. The intellect chooses a good from among goods. The will acts on it. Voetius says God removes certain goods from the unbeliever's range of choice until conversion.
 
Generally, Christian thinkers early on, with a few exceptions, said the will follows the intellect. The intellect chooses a good from among goods. The will acts on it. Voetius says God removes certain goods from the unbeliever's range of choice until conversion.

Got it. I edited my question saying that his "re-framing of the structural moments" cleared it up and it seems obvious he is one of? - the primary? - scholars to form Reformed logic on free will.
 
I comment the same thing as in another place. Are there any other Reformed institutions that are doing the same push back? In contrast I am seeing people like Beeke, Mcgraw, RSC, Trueman Fesko Swain all showing support one way or another by Credo article contributions, endorsements etc.

Does that mean White is necessarily wrong here? No.
 
And this is where the Wilson/White line of thought completely derails. If we are saying guys like Sproul and Gerstner are getting too close to Rome because they like Aquinas, the show is officially over.
I haven't listened to this, but I would be surprised if Wilson was saying this. He is much more nuanced about things like this, in a good way, than White who's issues with Catholics past or present seem personal.
 
I comment the same thing as in another place. Are there any other Reformed institutions that are doing the same push back? In contrast I am seeing people like Beeke, Mcgraw, RSC, Trueman Fesko Swain all showing support one way or another by Credo article contributions, endorsements etc.

Does that mean White is necessarily wrong here? No.
Wrong to be weary of Aquinas in some of his theology? No. Wrong to reject his doctrine of God, especially simplicity and inseparable operations? Yes
 
I haven't listened to this, but I would be surprised if Wilson was saying this. He is much more nuanced about things like this, in a good way, than White who's issues with Catholics past or present seem personal.

Wilson is not nuanced. He just says yes and no at the same time. I get that some people went to Rome and that worried White. At the same time, our Reformed fathers had no problem using Aquinas. Moreover, the overreaction to Aquinas, as seen in some's questioning divine simplicity and inseprable operations, is just as dangerous.
 
Wilson is not nuanced. He just says yes and no at the same time. I get that some people went to Rome and that worried White. At the same time, our Reformed fathers had no problem using Aquinas. Moreover, the overreaction to Aquinas, as seen in some's questioning divine simplicity and inseprable operations, is just as dangerous.
Not to mention the fact that Wilson has a history with Federal Visionism, which is as dangerously similar to Romish sacramentalism as anything out there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top