Glossing the Great Tradition

Status
Not open for further replies.
VictorBravo said:
Brother, I am mystified at your mocking. You quote two twitter posts that seem fairly unremarkable and uncontroversial. To what end?

Dr. Craig is open about his "stubbornness." So it goes. The "improved" Intro to Christian Anthropology demonstrates he does not live under a rock, because he added "including my sex." That's an obvious reaction to our current confusion.

The thread began with a general outline about what is meant by the Great Tradition. It started as a mere statement of facts concerning the topic. Jacob added that he didn't like the term "Christian Platonism." But some people use it.

As far as I can tell, Dr. Craig is a scholar with a particular interest. He may have his idiosyncrasies, most people immersed in a topic do. But I get from your comments that you impute a motive to him and his studies that is not obvious to me. Do you have any evidence that his scholarship is a threat to the church?

There are scholars who devote their professional lives to studying the early church fathers. If they publish something, should we mock their efforts as pointless? Others study philosophy, church history, or a particular passage in 1 Corinthians. Are such efforts something to cause us distress?

To be clear, I know very little about Craig's work. I probably will not look much into it. My question is, why should he be singled out for attacks when, as far as I can tell, he is not promoting anything radical?
Click to expand...
Thank you for that gentle admonishment. Noted!
 
Last edited:
RamistThomist said:
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.
Click to expand...
How, exactly is White using an ANTI-metaphysical stance to attack the Great Tradition?
 
A.Joseph said:
I also don’t get how if we rediscover Plato we all of a sudden advance these truths that I agree with 100% by the way ….

https://twitter.com/x/status/1529912079628521499
Click to expand...
I know Dr. White wouldn’t disagree with any of this. So at the end of the day what are we talking about? Seems more like projections on all sides and nobody actually taking peoples statements at face value. Is JW not qualified in his presuppositions to even be part of the conversation in good faith? Is JW not enough of an academic to be part of this discussion? Or is he just coming at this from the wrong camp?
 
Last edited:
A.Joseph said:
I know Dr. White wouldn’t disagree with any of this. So at the end of the day what are we talking about? Seems more like projections on all sides and nobody actually taking peoples statements at face value. Is JW not qualified in his presuppositions to even be part of the conversation in good faith? Is JW not enough of an academic to be part of this discussion? Or is he just coming at this from the wrong camp?
Click to expand...

As a general rule White has not tried to engage constructively with Protestant Thomists and those in the Great Tradition. He has been offered to debate/dialogue with Southern Evangelical Seminary on this topic.
 
A.Joseph said:
JW really off on some heretical path with his metaphysics (or cause he can’t pronounce Platonism- joking!)?
Click to expand...

More likely because he adopted the standard Socinian critique of divine simplicity, the same one that Apollinarians like Craig use.
A.Joseph said:
Does Reformed theology need a makeover or a radical reforming transformation or is this just a hat tip to those who saw clearly in various areas of thought and study and contributed very vitally in many ways….
Click to expand...

I am part of the group that is trying to promote magisterial Reformers like Zanchi and Vermigli. I'm not the radical.
 
RamistThomist said:
As a general rule White has not tried to engage constructively with Protestant Thomists and those in the Great Tradition. He has been offered to debate/dialogue with Southern Evangelical Seminary on this topic.
Click to expand...
Who are some of the Protestant Thomists in the Great Tradition? Could you link to them?
 
RamistThomist said:
More likely because he adopted the standard Socinian critique of divine simplicity, the same one that Apollinarians like Craig use.


I am part of the group that is trying to promote magisterial Reformers like Zanchi and Vermigli. I'm not the radical.
Click to expand...
Craig the Christian apologist?

How does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology?
 
A.Joseph said:
Ok, how does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology specifically? What is White’s doctrine of God?
Click to expand...

His formal rejection of traditional classical theism on this point is still quite new, so the acid drip hasn't done that much. It will be interesting (in a bad sort of way) to see what happens.

If you can find it, read the sad story of Drake Shelton. He's actually hard to find now on the internet as he has been blocked and banned on every social media platform.
 
Seems to all check out. So what aspects of Thomism and Tradition are we on board with. Metaphysics- yes! And more specifically, what areas does Thomism not cover. What are the limitations of his philosophical/theological school (as far as what’s not covered/or at least not in a satisfactory way?) If we get that straight, we should be good!
 
Last edited:
RamistThomist said:
This thread has all the source material.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1466746058722406401
Click to expand...
That's a good thread. Another way to come to some similar conclusions is to read John Davenant's commentary on Colossians. He cites an immense array of scholastic sources, and since the editor helpfully footnoted it with some care, the notes serve as quite an introduction to the main figures of scholasticism.
 
….. a follow up question would be:
how was Aquinas aligned with the Catholic Church of his day? how was he unique or distinctive?

@RamistThomist This is not a gotcha, I’m not saying Aquinas has to be perfect. Just as long as we are distinguishing good from bad and that it’s not inherently linked too deeply.
 
A.Joseph said:
….. a follow up question would be:
how was Aquinas aligned with the Catholic Church of his day? how was he unique or distinctive?
Click to expand...
Probably somewhat innovative in ways, since the Church was still nervous about Aristotle after the Condemnations of 1277 in Paris. On the other hand, Aquinas would say he was just teaching Lombard's Sentences, which was standard and normal.
 
We agree with Thomas (and Augustine, Tertullian, Anselm, etc) on what the attributes of God are and the doctrine of the Trinity (with some qualifications regarding analogies for the Trinity.) We disagree with Thomas (but agree with Augustine) on the sacraments and the authority of Scripture (Thomas elevated traditions). On metaphysics and logic we agree with Augustine, and for the most part with Thomas, except where his metaphysics becomes implausible in order to support transubstantiation. On justification both are flawed and Thomas is worse.
 
RamistThomist said:
Probably somewhat innovative in ways, since the Church was still nervous about Aristotle after the Condemnations of 1277 in Paris. On the other hand, Aquinas would say he was just teaching Lombard's Sentences, which was standard and normal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw that on wiki. That’s good.
 
Anyone read Theophilus Gale?

His work The Court of Gentiles apparently puts forward a reformed Platonism:

www.academia.edu

Jae-Eun Park, "Theophilus Gale's Reformed Platonism: Focusing on His Discourse of 'Creation' and 'Providence' in The Court of the Gentiles." Mid-America Journal of Theology, 24 (2013): 121-142.

Jae-Eun Park, "Theophilus Gale's Reformed Platonism: Focusing on His Discourse of 'Creation' and 'Providence' in The Court of the Gentiles." Mid-America Journal of Theology, 24 (2013): 121-142.
www.academia.edu
 
Charles Johnson said:
We agree with Thomas (and Augustine, Tertullian, Anselm, etc) on what the attributes of God are and the doctrine of the Trinity (with some qualifications regarding analogies for the Trinity.) We disagree with Thomas (but agree with Augustine) on the sacraments and the authority of Scripture (Thomas elevated traditions). On metaphysics and logic we agree with Augustine, and for the most part with Thomas, except where his metaphysics becomes implausible in order to support transubstantiation. On justification both are flawed and Thomas is worse.
Click to expand...
Ok, perfect. As long as we keep those differences/distinctions in view and that one teaching of an ECF doesn’t by necessity lead into something heretical. (Which you pointed out with transubstantiation). As long as those areas, if required for distinctive clarification purposes, are laid out as well, this will be a good refresher for many. I don’t think your average evangelical will care too much, but it’s worth a shot. Again, I think most us are aware of these realities. I was somewhat aware (superficially, not the specifics) and never had a problem with Aquinas’ influence in these areas. I just didn’t know if the the Great Tradition was going to be too innovative and possibly get us off track, but it looks like it’s just giving us an accurate history of these matters. Which is no threat at all!
 
A.Joseph said:
Ok, how does White’s adoption of this critique mess up the rest of his theology specifically?
Click to expand...
This is not specific to James White because I really don't know his position. He has said things publicly that are consistent with an incipient denial of divine simplicity of God.

But, to address your question, it can be stated simply, although the more you look into the historic doctrine of God, the more overwhelmed you will become at God's transcendent majesty.

I'll try to set out the simple point: As the Confessions assert, God is without parts, passions; he is transcendent, sovereign, etc. In essence, he is not subject to his creation.

If we deviate from that, we end up with a God who is surprised, who is bound by time, who is in some sense out of control because he can be influenced by the random events in his creation.

This impacts the Trinity, too. If the Son and the Spirit are said to have separate consciousnesses, then triune God is composed of parts. If God is of parts, he is dependent in some way on those parts and is no longer transcendent.

It can impact the two natures of Christ. If we hold that Christ's divine nature is in some sense different from the Father's, then, again, God is dependent and not transcendent. (I bring this up because of a recent assertion that Christ's divine nature could temporarily not know things that the Father's divine nature does--e.g., the time of Christ's return). "I and the Father are not always one."

Waffling on divine simplicity affects everything because it diminishes the transcendent sovereignty of God.

Now, quick note on Plato (I'm no expert but I read him a lot in my youth): The remarkable thing he grasped, by natural revelation (as Paul notes in Romans 1), is that God must be totally other and not subject to creation.

Scripture confirms that. We can learn it without Plato, but the fact that a fundamental truth of God can be discerned by thinking about Creation itself confirms what Scripture teaches. We are truly without excuse.
 
VictorBravo said:
This is not specific to James White because I really don't know his position. He has said things publicly that are consistent with an incipient denial of divine simplicity of God.

But, to address your question, it can be stated simply, although the more you look into the historic doctrine of God, the more overwhelmed you will become at God's transcendent majesty.

I'll try to set out the simple point: As the Confessions assert, God is without parts, passions; he is transcendent, sovereign, etc. In essence, he is not subject to his creation.

If we deviate from that, we end up with a God who is surprised, who is bound by time, who is in some sense out of control because he can be influenced by the random events in his creation.

This impacts the Trinity, too. If the Son and the Spirit are said to have separate consciousnesses, then triune God is composed of parts. If God is of parts, he is dependent in some way on those parts and is no longer transcendent.

It can impact the two natures of Christ. If we hold that Christ's divine nature is in some sense different from the Father's, then, again, God is dependent and not transcendent. (I bring this up because of a recent assertion that Christ's divine nature could temporarily not know things that the Father's divine nature does--e.g., the time of Christ's return). "I and the Father are not always one."

Waffling on divine simplicity affects everything because it diminishes the transcendent sovereignty of God.

Now, quick note on Plato (I'm no expert but I read him a lot in my youth): The remarkable thing he grasped, by natural revelation (as Paul notes in Romans 1), is that God must be totally other and not subject to creation.

Scripture confirms that. We can learn it without Plato, but the fact that a fundamental truth of God can be discerned by thinking about Creation itself confirms what Scripture teaches. We are truly without excuse.
Click to expand...
Awesome! Yeah, I followed that one philosopher I referenced, Phillip Cary, and he touched on some of this. Early philosophers were definitely vitally thoughtful in these areas. They were not hostile to greater spiritual realities or atheistic in their perception of things. So, yes, thank you for that!
 
Last edited:
Charles Johnson said:
We agree with Thomas (and Augustine, Tertullian, Anselm, etc) on what the attributes of God are and the doctrine of the Trinity (with some qualifications regarding analogies for the Trinity.) We disagree with Thomas (but agree with Augustine) on the sacraments and the authority of Scripture (Thomas elevated traditions). On metaphysics and logic we agree with Augustine, and for the most part with Thomas, except where his metaphysics becomes implausible in order to support transubstantiation. On justification both are flawed and Thomas is worse.
Click to expand...

What he said.
 
VictorBravo said:
It can impact the two natures of Christ. If we hold that Christ's divine nature is in some sense different from the Father's, then, again, God is dependent and not transcendent. (I bring this up because of a recent assertion that Christ's divine nature could temporarily not know things that the Father's divine nature does--e.g., the time of Christ's return). "I and the Father are not always one."
Click to expand...

Now, I cannot keep up with all the things being said, but who (today) asserts that the divine nature of Christ had something akin to temporary amnesia?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ChristianTrader
  • Locked
Why the Great Books Aren't the Answer
Replies
13
Views
3K
cih1355
C
Hamalas
  • Locked
All Hail the Great Gordon H. Clark!!!
Replies
11
Views
3K
yeutter
Y
Reformed Covenanter
On imitating great men (Niccolò Machiavelli)
Replies
0
Views
612
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
The greater of different goods (Richard Capel)
Replies
0
Views
510
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
RamistThomist
  • Locked
The True, the Good, and the Beautiful
Replies
3
Views
3K
RamistThomist
RamistThomist
Back
Top