RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Carter, Craig. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
Even though I fully endorse Craig Carter’s Great Tradition project, there have been some areas I was hesitant about. One such area was the use of premodern exegesis. Not having yet read his book on that subject, I thought he meant something like allegorical interpretation and a disregard for the Bible’s Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. I was pleased to discover that he is quite attuned to the ANE context. Indeed, he is able to do something similar to what the Greek Fathers did at Nicea: he takes the pictures and language of the ANE and shows how prophecy corrects them.
In other words, in terms of his argument about Isaiah 40-48, we view the Bible’s relationship to the ANE, not as one of dependence, but as a polemical corrective, challenging both the pantheistic metaphysics of then and the naturalistic metaphysics of today.
I would normally in the course of a review analyze topics as they emerged from the book. I cannot do that with this book, as Carter is insistent on the phrase “Christian Platonism.” Since his phrase is prone to misinterpretation, we should define it. Carter explains: “Christian Platonism is a label that can be applied to the theological metaphysics that grows out of fourth-century pro-Nicene theology and becomes integral to classical Christian orthodoxy” (Carter 7). Because of late modernity’s captivity to philosophical naturalism and its erasure of a transcendent God, Carter feels the need to shock readers with something like Platonism.
What Went Wrong?
The Enlightenment did not give us knowledge; it gave us a new mythology. To be specific, it dressed ancient Babylonian cosmology in more scientific and mechanistic terms. That is bad enough. It is even worse when you take that mythology and rewrite the doctrine of God. Liberals are guilty of this, to be sure, but as Craig Carter makes clear, conservatives are not much better.
Mythological thought sees a continuity between god (or gods), man, and nature. There is an immanent “force” in nature that explains change. The Enlightenment never rejected this idea. In the 18th century, it understood the universe as a machine with the power of self-motion. In the nineteenth century, it exchanged the model of machine for that of organism. What it never rejected with the idea of a “power” in nature that does not need a transcendent God.
Pagan metaphysics, whether ancient or modern, viewed all of reality as part of one cosmic order. The attributes of God are then applied to the cosmos. This worldview is, in fact, quite consistent. Only the present is real in mythological thinking. Also emphasized is fertility and potency, forms of sympathetic magic. And if all reality is one and connected, then it is wrong to introduce boundaries within reality (e.g., male/female; creator/creation).
Even if modern-day conservatives rejected the more pantheistic aspects of mythological thinking, they never rejected the Enlightenment’s view of God, particularly in the pitting of God’s actions vs. God’s being. In other words, we can only know God by his actions, not by speculating into his being. Worse yet, this god can be found only in the historical process.
Trinitarian Classical Theism
Against this mythological view of God, Carter champions the historic doctrine of Trinitarian classical theism (hereafter TCT). Carter’s argument demands that we affirm both Trinitarianism and classical theism in one model. Classical theism without the Trinity will give you Deism. Trinitarianism without classical theism will give you only a god (or three gods) among other gods.
TCT is necessary for Christian orthodoxy as it generated key metaphysical doctrines: simplicity, aseity, and creation ex nihilo (Carter 49). TCT is also relevant for pastoral ministry: by focusing on God’s being, one can confidently claim that God is x (e.g., love) in his being. His being is trustworthy. Yes, this God acts in history, but if we have no assurance that he is steadfast and unchanging in his being, then we can never be quite sure he will always be for us.
TCT begins with God as the First Cause. Correlative with this claim is the one that God is Pure Act. Existence is part of his essence, otherwise God would need to receive his existence from something other than his essence. Everything in the universe is a mixture of act and potency. God has no potency; if he did he would have to be fully actualized from someone (something?) else. Even worse, if God was not pure act, then the hierarchical chain of motion could never begin, for anything with potency needs an unactualized Actualizer. Furthermore, since there is no change in God’s being, he must be eternal (as all things in time are subject to change). And since there is no potency, he must be immutable. Similar deductions would follow from these reflections.
Hermeneutics and Exegesis
The immediate rejoinder to any such project of “Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition” is the charge that said Christian Platonists will start reading allegories out of the text, which is fatal to any good hermeneutics. That is a real problem, but it is not a problem with Carter’s proposal. He says the Bible has its own metaphysical assumptions, and when we read naturalistic metaphysics into the text (e.g., any liberal commentary), we are just as guilty of mishandling the text. Does the Bible prove the metaphysics of the Great Tradition? It is not obvious that it does, but that should raise another question: which is closer to the metaphysics of the Bible: a view that holds that universals are real or a view that believes the cosmos is an organism that evolves?
It is true that one might reject both options, but if the reader is relatively conservative and holds to some form of the ecumenical creeds, then the Great Tradition metaphysics is inevitable. It is easy to “reject all things Platonic;” it is much more difficult to invent a brand new metaphysics on the spot.
The heart of this book is a sustained reflection on Isaiah 40-48. Isaiah is arguing for a certain view of God. Carter makes two specific claims: Yahweh is not a being among other beings, and the invisible realm is filled with countless beings (129). Some might bristle at Carter’s view that there are elohim besides Yahweh. If that makes one uncomfortable, we can just use Paul’s language in Ephesians 6: ἀρχάς, τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. As any good ANE writer knows, this implies some sort of hierarchy in the spiritual world. Yahweh, however, is not part of this hierarchy.
If classical theism should never be divorced from Trinitarianism, neither should it be divorced from Isaiah 40-48. Carter notes: “God is both the metaphysically absolute First Cause of all things and also the One who speaks and acts in history in order to judge the world and save his people” (139).
This underscores how radical a doctrine of creation ex nihilo is. Unlike ANE myths, in the bible creation is not rebellious. God does destroy Rahab (more on that later, perhaps), but not in the process of creation. Rahab in Psalm 74 refers back to the Exodus and the opening of the Red Sea (143).
Platonism Revisited
Carter notes that the fathers “accepted the Platonic concept of universals as the basis for the logical order discernible in creation, but through scholastic realism, they relocated them from a hard-to-define Platonic ‘third realm’ into the mind of God” (206). In a similar manner, the Fathers, following the Gospel, championed the Logos, not as a demiurge, but as a Creator; not as a mere structuring principle, but as someone who acted in history.
Carter summarizes his Christian Platonism with a discussion of Lloyd Gerson’s “Ur-Platonism.” For Gerson, all Platonic models incorporate five propositions: 1) antimaterialism, 2) antinominalism, 3) antimechanism, 4) antiskepticism, and 5) antirelativism (Gerson, 9-19, quoted in Carter, 290). Gerson’s criteria seem overly broad and ignore some of the more objectionable points of Plato’s worldview. Nonetheless, it does communicate what the Great Tradition is trying to say and can be appreciated for that.
Evaluation and Analysis
Carter’s most contentious point is his deliberate use of the term “Christian Platonism.” It is unlikely biblicists would reject his larger project, at least at the basic level. One might reject Thomism, but few can reject the idea that God is a First Cause without embracing some form of finite godism. It is Platonism, and specifically Carter’s emphasis on Platonism as such, that draws the most ire. I will admit I do not particularly like the term, but I understand his point. He wants to “shock” the reader, a reader perhaps long stuck in the mud of philosophical naturalism and materialism. I get it. I would have said it another way, but I will not quibble over terminology.
In any case, there is very little of Plato in the book. In fact, for those who have read all of Plato, there is not as much discussion on the realm of Forms as one might expect. Far more important for Carter’s project, on the other hand, is the prophet Isaiah. Carter devotes four chapters with a sustained analysis and exegesis of Isaiah 40-48. By contrast, Plato is mentioned on fourteen or so pages. By Christian Platonism, Carter clearly means a transcendent God who acts on his world without being reduced to the world. Could he have chosen a better term? Probably. Does his reasoning make sense? Yes.
More important than quibbles of terminology is Carter’s heroic defense of the historic doctrine of God. As he notes, the Christian world “recovered” the doctrine of the Trinity in the 20th century. That might not have been a good thing. Without simultaneously recovering classical theism, it gave us figures like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, Jurgen Moltmann, and others. Without a robust classical theism, God gets moved to history and the historical process. We are not saying one must champion a view of God as First Cause to avoid this problem, but it is hard to imagine what one would do, otherwise.
Works Cited
Carter, Craig A. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
Gerson, Lloyd P. From Plato to Platonism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013.
Even though I fully endorse Craig Carter’s Great Tradition project, there have been some areas I was hesitant about. One such area was the use of premodern exegesis. Not having yet read his book on that subject, I thought he meant something like allegorical interpretation and a disregard for the Bible’s Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. I was pleased to discover that he is quite attuned to the ANE context. Indeed, he is able to do something similar to what the Greek Fathers did at Nicea: he takes the pictures and language of the ANE and shows how prophecy corrects them.
In other words, in terms of his argument about Isaiah 40-48, we view the Bible’s relationship to the ANE, not as one of dependence, but as a polemical corrective, challenging both the pantheistic metaphysics of then and the naturalistic metaphysics of today.
I would normally in the course of a review analyze topics as they emerged from the book. I cannot do that with this book, as Carter is insistent on the phrase “Christian Platonism.” Since his phrase is prone to misinterpretation, we should define it. Carter explains: “Christian Platonism is a label that can be applied to the theological metaphysics that grows out of fourth-century pro-Nicene theology and becomes integral to classical Christian orthodoxy” (Carter 7). Because of late modernity’s captivity to philosophical naturalism and its erasure of a transcendent God, Carter feels the need to shock readers with something like Platonism.
What Went Wrong?
The Enlightenment did not give us knowledge; it gave us a new mythology. To be specific, it dressed ancient Babylonian cosmology in more scientific and mechanistic terms. That is bad enough. It is even worse when you take that mythology and rewrite the doctrine of God. Liberals are guilty of this, to be sure, but as Craig Carter makes clear, conservatives are not much better.
Mythological thought sees a continuity between god (or gods), man, and nature. There is an immanent “force” in nature that explains change. The Enlightenment never rejected this idea. In the 18th century, it understood the universe as a machine with the power of self-motion. In the nineteenth century, it exchanged the model of machine for that of organism. What it never rejected with the idea of a “power” in nature that does not need a transcendent God.
Pagan metaphysics, whether ancient or modern, viewed all of reality as part of one cosmic order. The attributes of God are then applied to the cosmos. This worldview is, in fact, quite consistent. Only the present is real in mythological thinking. Also emphasized is fertility and potency, forms of sympathetic magic. And if all reality is one and connected, then it is wrong to introduce boundaries within reality (e.g., male/female; creator/creation).
Even if modern-day conservatives rejected the more pantheistic aspects of mythological thinking, they never rejected the Enlightenment’s view of God, particularly in the pitting of God’s actions vs. God’s being. In other words, we can only know God by his actions, not by speculating into his being. Worse yet, this god can be found only in the historical process.
Trinitarian Classical Theism
Against this mythological view of God, Carter champions the historic doctrine of Trinitarian classical theism (hereafter TCT). Carter’s argument demands that we affirm both Trinitarianism and classical theism in one model. Classical theism without the Trinity will give you Deism. Trinitarianism without classical theism will give you only a god (or three gods) among other gods.
TCT is necessary for Christian orthodoxy as it generated key metaphysical doctrines: simplicity, aseity, and creation ex nihilo (Carter 49). TCT is also relevant for pastoral ministry: by focusing on God’s being, one can confidently claim that God is x (e.g., love) in his being. His being is trustworthy. Yes, this God acts in history, but if we have no assurance that he is steadfast and unchanging in his being, then we can never be quite sure he will always be for us.
TCT begins with God as the First Cause. Correlative with this claim is the one that God is Pure Act. Existence is part of his essence, otherwise God would need to receive his existence from something other than his essence. Everything in the universe is a mixture of act and potency. God has no potency; if he did he would have to be fully actualized from someone (something?) else. Even worse, if God was not pure act, then the hierarchical chain of motion could never begin, for anything with potency needs an unactualized Actualizer. Furthermore, since there is no change in God’s being, he must be eternal (as all things in time are subject to change). And since there is no potency, he must be immutable. Similar deductions would follow from these reflections.
Hermeneutics and Exegesis
The immediate rejoinder to any such project of “Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition” is the charge that said Christian Platonists will start reading allegories out of the text, which is fatal to any good hermeneutics. That is a real problem, but it is not a problem with Carter’s proposal. He says the Bible has its own metaphysical assumptions, and when we read naturalistic metaphysics into the text (e.g., any liberal commentary), we are just as guilty of mishandling the text. Does the Bible prove the metaphysics of the Great Tradition? It is not obvious that it does, but that should raise another question: which is closer to the metaphysics of the Bible: a view that holds that universals are real or a view that believes the cosmos is an organism that evolves?
It is true that one might reject both options, but if the reader is relatively conservative and holds to some form of the ecumenical creeds, then the Great Tradition metaphysics is inevitable. It is easy to “reject all things Platonic;” it is much more difficult to invent a brand new metaphysics on the spot.
The heart of this book is a sustained reflection on Isaiah 40-48. Isaiah is arguing for a certain view of God. Carter makes two specific claims: Yahweh is not a being among other beings, and the invisible realm is filled with countless beings (129). Some might bristle at Carter’s view that there are elohim besides Yahweh. If that makes one uncomfortable, we can just use Paul’s language in Ephesians 6: ἀρχάς, τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. As any good ANE writer knows, this implies some sort of hierarchy in the spiritual world. Yahweh, however, is not part of this hierarchy.
If classical theism should never be divorced from Trinitarianism, neither should it be divorced from Isaiah 40-48. Carter notes: “God is both the metaphysically absolute First Cause of all things and also the One who speaks and acts in history in order to judge the world and save his people” (139).
This underscores how radical a doctrine of creation ex nihilo is. Unlike ANE myths, in the bible creation is not rebellious. God does destroy Rahab (more on that later, perhaps), but not in the process of creation. Rahab in Psalm 74 refers back to the Exodus and the opening of the Red Sea (143).
Platonism Revisited
Carter notes that the fathers “accepted the Platonic concept of universals as the basis for the logical order discernible in creation, but through scholastic realism, they relocated them from a hard-to-define Platonic ‘third realm’ into the mind of God” (206). In a similar manner, the Fathers, following the Gospel, championed the Logos, not as a demiurge, but as a Creator; not as a mere structuring principle, but as someone who acted in history.
Carter summarizes his Christian Platonism with a discussion of Lloyd Gerson’s “Ur-Platonism.” For Gerson, all Platonic models incorporate five propositions: 1) antimaterialism, 2) antinominalism, 3) antimechanism, 4) antiskepticism, and 5) antirelativism (Gerson, 9-19, quoted in Carter, 290). Gerson’s criteria seem overly broad and ignore some of the more objectionable points of Plato’s worldview. Nonetheless, it does communicate what the Great Tradition is trying to say and can be appreciated for that.
Evaluation and Analysis
Carter’s most contentious point is his deliberate use of the term “Christian Platonism.” It is unlikely biblicists would reject his larger project, at least at the basic level. One might reject Thomism, but few can reject the idea that God is a First Cause without embracing some form of finite godism. It is Platonism, and specifically Carter’s emphasis on Platonism as such, that draws the most ire. I will admit I do not particularly like the term, but I understand his point. He wants to “shock” the reader, a reader perhaps long stuck in the mud of philosophical naturalism and materialism. I get it. I would have said it another way, but I will not quibble over terminology.
In any case, there is very little of Plato in the book. In fact, for those who have read all of Plato, there is not as much discussion on the realm of Forms as one might expect. Far more important for Carter’s project, on the other hand, is the prophet Isaiah. Carter devotes four chapters with a sustained analysis and exegesis of Isaiah 40-48. By contrast, Plato is mentioned on fourteen or so pages. By Christian Platonism, Carter clearly means a transcendent God who acts on his world without being reduced to the world. Could he have chosen a better term? Probably. Does his reasoning make sense? Yes.
More important than quibbles of terminology is Carter’s heroic defense of the historic doctrine of God. As he notes, the Christian world “recovered” the doctrine of the Trinity in the 20th century. That might not have been a good thing. Without simultaneously recovering classical theism, it gave us figures like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, Jurgen Moltmann, and others. Without a robust classical theism, God gets moved to history and the historical process. We are not saying one must champion a view of God as First Cause to avoid this problem, but it is hard to imagine what one would do, otherwise.
Works Cited
Carter, Craig A. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
Gerson, Lloyd P. From Plato to Platonism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013.
