Glossing the Great Tradition

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

I don't like doing this, but controversy brews from James White in a recent video saying something like that. He later adamantly renounces holding to kenosis heresy.


Text of the video excerpt that has caused commotion:

"you then have the very difficult challenging text where Jesus says that only the Father — not the Son, nor the angels in heaven — no man knows the day or the hour, only the Father in heaven… you could understand that as some people have understood that, as being only in reference to the human nature, I suppose. But I think it follows very much along the lines of what we just discussed; there are certain aspects of the glory of the Son that are veiled during the incarnation, and so at that point in time, in the incarnate state (it’s not that the Son did not know before the incarnation and would not know at His exaltation or anything like that)… there was some reason why at that point in time it was profitable for the Messiah the Son to not know. Those are His words, you’ve got to deal with them… if you have to look at the words written by Matthew and come up with an interpretation that could not have possibly been what Matthew intended or anyone Matthew wrote to intended and could not have been known for centuries, millennia after the point of writing… we’re no longer dealing with with the Scripture being any kind of meaningful foundation of our beliefs."
 
I don't like doing this, but controversy brews from James White in a recent video saying something like that. He later adamantly renounces holding to kenosis heresy.


Text of the video excerpt that has caused commotion:

"you then have the very difficult challenging text where Jesus says that only the Father — not the Son, nor the angels in heaven — no man knows the day or the hour, only the Father in heaven… you could understand that as some people have understood that, as being only in reference to the human nature, I suppose. But I think it follows very much along the lines of what we just discussed; there are certain aspects of the glory of the Son that are veiled during the incarnation, and so at that point in time, in the incarnate state (it’s not that the Son did not know before the incarnation and would not know at His exaltation or anything like that)… there was some reason why at that point in time it was profitable for the Messiah the Son to not know. Those are His words, you’ve got to deal with them… if you have to look at the words written by Matthew and come up with an interpretation that could not have possibly been what Matthew intended or anyone Matthew wrote to intended and could not have been known for centuries, millennia after the point of writing… we’re no longer dealing with with the Scripture being any kind of meaningful foundation of our beliefs."
Wow. That's a pretty stark example of heresy. If at any point the Father is said to be omniscient and the Son not, or the Father said to possess any divine attribute and the Son not, that's Arianism, plain and simple. Unfortunately many are stuck with the misconception that Arianism teaches "Jesus isn't divine", and so as long as the speaker affirms that Jesus is divine, he is thought not to be Arian, but that simply isn't true. Sabellianism, not Arianism, refuses to attribute pre-existence and divinity to the Son. Arianism teaches that he is divine and pre-existent, but not to the same degree as the Father, which is exactly what this is saying.
 
I don't like doing this, but controversy brews from James White in a recent video saying something like that. He later adamantly renounces holding to kenosis heresy.


Text of the video excerpt that has caused commotion:

"you then have the very difficult challenging text where Jesus says that only the Father — not the Son, nor the angels in heaven — no man knows the day or the hour, only the Father in heaven… you could understand that as some people have understood that, as being only in reference to the human nature, I suppose. But I think it follows very much along the lines of what we just discussed; there are certain aspects of the glory of the Son that are veiled during the incarnation, and so at that point in time, in the incarnate state (it’s not that the Son did not know before the incarnation and would not know at His exaltation or anything like that)… there was some reason why at that point in time it was profitable for the Messiah the Son to not know. Those are His words, you’ve got to deal with them… if you have to look at the words written by Matthew and come up with an interpretation that could not have possibly been what Matthew intended or anyone Matthew wrote to intended and could not have been known for centuries, millennia after the point of writing… we’re no longer dealing with with the Scripture being any kind of meaningful foundation of our beliefs."
Well, that's distressing...
 
Wow. This is very troubling (caveat: I have not watched the video). This is the kind of stuff you (should) learn in your Doctrine of God class at Seminary.
 
Wow. This is very troubling (caveat: I have not watched the video). This is the kind of stuff you (should) learn in your Doctrine of God class at Seminary.
The video link I posted begins at 57:09. The relevant segment is not very long.

I felt a "tilt" moment listening to it (for those who have played pinball). It is quite troubling. But, on reflection, I've seen similar stuff from others who kick against the classic doctrine of God.

I suspect like you, I do not spend much time on podcasts, and zero time on things like Twitter, so these discussions fly right by me. But I'm sensing now that tension regarding Thomistic/Great Tradition/Platonism etc. arises from a bigger struggle over the doctrine of God.
 
The video link I posted begins at 57:09. The relevant segment is not very long.

I felt a "tilt" moment listening to it (for those who have played pinball). It is quite troubling. But, on reflection, I've seen similar stuff from others who kick against the classic doctrine of God.

I suspect like you, I do not spend much time on podcasts, and zero time on things like Twitter, so these discussions fly right by me. But I'm sensing now that tension regarding Thomistic/Great Tradition/Platonism etc. arises from a bigger struggle over the doctrine of God.
I suppose time will tell if that is truly what the root is for White. I know it's not for me personally. My concern was more for Sola Scriptura. Charles' post though cleared up a lot of the details for me.
 
Maybe someone can charitably reach out to Dr. White and help him get on track with his Doctrine of God, rather than take a dismissive tone with him (not directing this to anyone here!). I think he’s conflating issues. I know I was. It shouldn’t be too hard to straighten him out. We should be trying to come together if possible. I don’t care for some of his recent associations but taken alone I think he’s been fairly solid and useful throughout his time on the scene.
 
Last edited:
Maybe someone can charitably reach out to Dr. White and help him get on track with his Doctrine of God, rather than take a dismissive tone with him (not directing this to anyone here!). I think he’s conflating issues. I know I was. It shouldn’t be too hard to straighten him out. We should be trying to come together if possible. I don’t care for some of his recent associations but taken alone I think he’s been fairly solid and useful throughout his time on the scene.

It's been done numerous times, though if someone thinks there will be more success this time around, then go ahead. His acolyte, Turretinfan, actually engaged these issues and was willing to concede that Turretin did not hold the same views that Aomin holds.
 
So I guess I’m not ready to theologically cancel White yet, but if he’s just being stubborn on this issue I’m a little disappointing in him.

Going back to the GT, at the 7 minute mark here Cary discusses Plato’s influence on Augustine. He notes that one area Plato’s influence on him that would differ from (or be in contrast to) the Reformers would be with regards to the Beatific Vision. ….

I love Augustine as much as anyone, but I’m wondering if the Reformers were not too quick to point out any potential areas of disagreement with him due to the many vital areas in which they were aligned.
 
Last edited:
Interesting dialogue. It appears early Platonic thought influenced the Gnostics and dualism. Also discusses how Aristotle had a positive influence on Plato.

Just a heads up, these guys aren’t Reformed.
Cary is Lutheran, but I like him. He’s a good listen….

 
Last edited:
Interesting dialogue. It appears early Platonic thought influenced the Gnostics and dualism. Also discusses how Aristotle had a positive influence on Plato.

Just a heads up, these guys aren’t Reformed.
Cary is Lutheran, but I like him. He’s a good listen….


Augustine explains the Platonic influence on the Gnostics in City of God books 8 and 10. I doubt Aristotle had much of an influence on Plato, seeing that he came after Plato.
 
Last edited:
Here are some reviews I did of Plato. He's actually a very good writer and some of the dialogues are fun to read.
 
Augustine explains the Platonic influence on the Gnostics in City of God books 8 and 10. I doubt Aristotle had much of an influence on Plato, seeing that he came after Plato.
They mention that he was a brilliant student at (around 18 years of age) at Plato’s academy then (possibly?) his assistant.
“At the age of seventeen or eighteen, Aristotle went to study at Plato's Academy in Athens, where he stayed for twenty years until Plato died in 347 BCE. The Academy trained students in mathematics and rhetoric.”

I don’t know how I could misplace a book that big but I have to search for my copy of City of God.
 
Last edited:
They mention that he was a brilliant student at (around 18 years of age) at Plato’s academy then (possibly?) his assistant.
“At the age of seventeen or eighteen, Aristotle went to study at Plato's Academy in Athens, where he stayed for twenty years until Plato died in 347 BCE. The Academy trained students in mathematics and rhetoric.”
….After his father's death in 367, Aristotle migrated to Athens, where he joined the Academy of Plato (c. 428–c. 348 bce). He remained there for 20 years as Plato's pupil and colleague.
 
….After his father's death in 367, Aristotle migrated to Athens, where he joined the Academy of Plato (c. 428–c. 348 bce). He remained there for 20 years as Plato's pupil and colleague.

Did you originally mean to say that Plato influenced Aristotle, and not the other way around? The latter is difficult to prove.
 
Did you originally mean to say that Plato influenced Aristotle, and not the other way around? The latter is difficult to prove.
Nope, from the description of the video:
“How did Socrates influence Plato at the beginning of his career, and Aristotle towards the end of his career?”
Might be difficult to prove, true….
 
Last edited:
Nope, from the description of the video:
“How did Socrates influence Plato at the beginning of his career, and Aristotle towards the end of his career?”
Might be difficult to prove, true….

That sentence isn't clear. It could mean that Socrates influenced Aristotle (via Plato) or it could mean that Aristotle influenced Plato. It's hard to imagine how Aristotle might have influenced Plato.
 
“Aristotle is the godless bulwark of the papists. He is to theology what darkness is to light. His ethics is the worst enemy of grace”… “rank philosopher”… “urchin who must be put in the pig-sty or donkey’s stable” … “a shameless slanderer, a comedian, the most artful corrupter of minds. If he had not lived in flesh and bones, I should not scruple to take him for a devil.”

Who Said It?
 
“Aristotle is the godless bulwark of the papists. He is to theology what darkness is to light. His ethics is the worst enemy of grace”… “rank philosopher”… “urchin who must be put in the pig-sty or donkey’s stable” … “a shameless slanderer, a comedian, the most artful corrupter of minds. If he had not lived in flesh and bones, I should not scruple to take him for a devil.”

Who Said It?

I got bad news for chapter 5 of the Westminster Confession of Faith...
 
I know this is the GBTS guys but this is an interesting read…. I think everything is fair game at this point. We can appreciate one thing while appreciating the other… and Vice versa. Maybe Aquinas is above all this but it appears when the Roman Catholic institution was losing credibility they held onto Thomism for dear life.
 
Last edited:
I know this is the GBTS guys but this is an interesting read…. I think everything is fair game at this point. We can appreciate one thing while appreciating the other… and Vice versa. Maybe Aquinas is above all this but it appears when the Roman Catholic institution was losing credibility they held onto Thomism for dear life.

With all due respect to him, Johnson got most these issues wrong. Feser's review of him was one of the more embarrassing things to happen in the scholarly world.

Half of that article was simply how bad he thought the Dominicans were. Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the issues.
 
I know this is the GBTS guys but this is an interesting read…. I think everything is fair game at this point. We can appreciate one thing while appreciating the other… and Vice versa. Maybe Aquinas is above all this but it appears when the Roman Catholic institution was losing credibility they held onto Thomism for dear life.
The issue with Johnson's article is not that everything he says is incorrect, but that, like MSNBC in an op-ed on Ted Cruz, he takes up a rankly partisan position and refuses to acknowledge any evidence contrary to his narrative. For example, he mentions Melanchthon as another reformer who hated those scholastics, with no mention of Melanchthon's Commentaries on the works of Aristotle, which were extremely popular. And he neglects to mention that whole-sale anathematization of all things Aquinas and scholastic, rather than his more problematic points, is mostly limited to first-generation Reformers.
 
That’s pretty vague, but ok. ….

I don't need to be that specific. It goes like this:

1) Feser refuted Johnson.
2) We've established that the Reformed have always used Thomas, albeit with modifications.
3) Those who are overreacting to Thomas have their own heresies to deal with.
4) I think I have stated what is good and bad about the Great Tradition, with the bad mainly with terminology.
 
The issue with Johnson's article is not that everything he says is incorrect, but that, like MSNBC in an op-ed on Ted Cruz, he takes up a rankly partisan position and refuses to acknowledge any evidence contrary to his narrative. For example, he mentions Melanchthon as another reformer who hated those scholastics, with no mention of Melanchthon's Commentaries on the works of Aristotle, which were extremely popular. And he neglects to mention that whole-sale anathematization of all things Aquinas and scholastic, rather than his more problematic points, is mostly limited to first-generation Reformers.
True but are the Great Traditionalists engaging in similar tactics? I know he’s trying to sell books, but he’s not overstating his case? Plato was a big influence on Gnosticism too. There’s no nuance in these tweets. Almost a type of virtue signaling.

 
True but are the Great Traditionalists engaging in similar tactics? I know he’s trying to sell books, but he’s not overstating his case? Plato was a big influence on Gnosticism too. There’s no nuance in these tweets. Almost a type of virtue signaling.

Does he fail to acknowledge Thomas's demerits? Having not read him, I don't know, and it doesn't particularly matter to this discussion, because those in this thread certainly have acknowledged Thomas has shortcomings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top