Glossing the Great Tradition

[RamistThomist]

In light of recent comments on James White and the Great Tradition, I thought it might be helpful to clear the ground on what it might mean.

1. I agree, Christian Platonism is a terrible moniker. I've read all of Plato's writings and though it is fun to watch Socrates troll people, Plato qua Plato has problems.
2. What Carter and others mean, though, is simply metaphysical Augustinianism. If you are a historically-minded Western Christian, this is you. You might not like it, but this is probably what you default to.
3. That means things like Truth and Goodness really exist and aren't simply names.
4. I don't like allegory, but I have not yet seen them say they affirm the fourfold method. I could be wrong, though. Typology, by contrast, is the answer. Typology is rooted in historical realities.
5. It is possible to give too much credence to tradition. That's not really what modern Americans are guilty of. The opposite error is also likely.
6. Even though I believe metaphysical realism is true, not all of them are the same. Plato's view of the soul is not the same as Aquinas's.
7. The Great Tradition is probably more amenable to Augustine's view of "Signs/Things" as discussed in On Christian Doctrine.

 

[A.Joseph]

Or you could just call it Thomism…. no? Are you sure this is not some kind of repackaging? What about the Great Distinction? Only semi-serious. Listen, I’m down with all these metaphysical arguments. Which of us wouldn’t be??? And the realities that support the legitimacy of the Bible. We have to find our purpose and what ever shows us these deeper realities are very good endeavors.

Although, this sounds like a presupposition….
“Pope Pius X cautioned that the teachings of the Church cannot be understood without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Aquinas' major theses:

The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.

Thomism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[A.Joseph]

“Few Christians today have ever heard about the church fathers. Those that have heard about the fathers have been warned that they are Roman Catholic or untrustworthy exegetes, or both! However, there is a retrieval underfoot that is not so easily overcome by ignorance or lax acceptance of sloppy caricatures. Christians are now rediscovering the fathers for the first time. They are also noticing that many of the doctrinal missteps today could have been avoided if we had only paid attention to the insights the fathers offer.”

The Great Tradition: Patristic Edition - Credo Magazine

Few Christians today have ever heard about the church fathers. Those that have heard about the fathers have been warned that they are Roman Catholic or untrustworthy exegetes, or both! However, there is a retrieval underfoot that is not so easily overcome by ignorance or lax acceptance of sloppy...

credomag.com

See, this is such a broad statement. What are the examples? I am completely on board with the ECFs but they were incomplete in many areas as well. Who are your targets here? Could the PC(USA) been salvaged? They denied all these things - were they not aware of the Great History? I know Aquinas is rock solid on the metaphysics (and he was a child of Augustine) so lots of good there. Most Reformed types I know love harkening to the ECFs as part of their apologetics as far as that goes…. Many of these guys were giants and are in many ways foundational. This should be acknowledged and referenced often!

Maybe this movement will get Baptists and others away from the culture wars and politics and back on first things. I, personally, don’t think this is really a problem but if it can unify the masses, have at it….. as long as it doesn’t somehow go wrong.

A moderate Lutheran on Augustine’s influence on Western Christianity (its undeniable- we all know this, no?)…

I used to always debate my Catholic friends with Augustine as my main ammo. He’s a hero to the Reformed camp. I don’t really see the issue, but I don’t think it’s a threat. I just think it’s overstated and overshooting… and being oversold as the antidote. Folks who are not receptive to sound doctrine and true faith will probably be just as resistant to these possibly under emphasized realities. I just think too many are comfortable in their lukewarm, surface faith. Politics and culture is where they want to remain. Regardless of the side to which they identify. We are totally depraved don’t forget… Godspeed nonetheless!

 

[RamistThomist]

Or you could just call it Thomism…. no? Are you sure this is not some kind of repackaging? What about the Great Distinction? Only semi-serious. Listen, I’m down with all these metaphysical arguments. Which of us wouldn’t be??? And the realities that support the legitimacy of the Bible. We have to find our purpose and what ever shows us these deeper realities are very good endeavors.

There are similarities between Thomas and the Great Tradition. Thomas would not accept Plato's view of the soul, for one. And while Anselm was also in the Great Tradition, Thomas rejected Anselm's ontological argument.

 

[A.Joseph]

There are similarities between Thomas and the Great Tradition. Thomas would not accept Plato's view of the soul, for one. And while Anselm was also in the Great Tradition, Thomas rejected Anselm's ontological argument.

ok, which Augustine did. So what role did that have on Reformed theology? Was that a major point of emphasis in the development of our theology? Plato’s influence on Augustine regarding his view of the soul, etc. …. I know Cary touched on that in his lectures.

 

[RamistThomist]

ok, which Augustine did. So what role did that have on Reformed theology? Was that a major point of emphasis in the development of our theology? Plato’s influence on Augustine regarding his view of the soul, etc. …. I know Cary touched on that in his lectures.

I'm not 100% sure what your question is. Are you asking about Augustine's view of the soul or Aquinas?

 

[AT]

6. Even though I believe metaphysical realism is true, not all of them are the same. Plato's view of the soul is not the same as Aquinas's.

I came across a video by Thomistic institute on realism. They contrasted "moderate realism"; the realism of Aristotle and Aquinas, with the extreme view of "Platonic realism". (

)

Then in what sense are we Christian "Platonists", when even the great Doctor wasn't one? What's this Platonism that is being talked about by them?

(I know you've said you prefer Augustiniaism, but CP seems to be more than a moniker. A recent Cambridge University press volume was titled " Christian Platonism: A History". )

 

[A.Joseph]

I came across a video by Thomistic institute on realism. They contrasted "moderate realism"; the realism of Aristotle and Aquinas, with the extreme view of "Platonic realism". (

)

Then in what sense are we Christian "Platonists", when even the great Doctor wasn't one? What's this Platonism that is being talked about by them?

(I know you've said you prefer Augustiniaism, but CP seems to be more than a moniker. A recent Cambridge University press volume was titled " Christian Platonism: A History". )

Good question. I’m also trying to figure out, what, if any, influence Plato had in shaping Reformed Theology via Augustine.

If we are just talking Grace and Original Sin. Of course Augustine is a Giant. He’s Leviathan, no doubt! We know this! Nothing to rediscover there but shout it out just in case somebody didn’t get the memo!

But we are Calvinists, not Thomists. Let’s get the distinctions out of the way first before we start harping on the Great Tradition. … whatever that may be….?

 

[RamistThomist]

But we are Calvinists, not Thomists. Let’s get the distinctions out of the way first before we start harping on the Great Tradition. … whatever that may be….?

Clarification: I am *not* a Calvinist. I am Reformed, and the Reformed used Thomistic distinctions.

 

[RamistThomist]

I came across a video by Thomistic institute on realism. They contrasted "moderate realism"; the realism of Aristotle and Aquinas, with the extreme view of "Platonic realism". (

Platonic realism sees universals floating in some abstract realm. A universal is what you predicate of something else. The problem is that many Platonists also want to see the universal as some kind of substance itself, and it is hard to have both. Aristotle and Aquinas, by contrast, said the universal is in the thing iteself. A substance is form + something else (usually matter).

For example, Plato (and probably Augustine) believed the soul was a substance in the body. A ghost in the machine. Aquinas, on the other hand, believed the soul was the form of the body. It in-formed the body. That's closer to the biblical position of a more holistic person.

 

[A.Joseph]

Clarification: I am *not* a Calvinist. I am Reformed, and the Reformed used Thomistic distinctions.

But you’re a Thomist? I don’t think we’re in the same club. I’m ex-RCC so I draw lines too…. I guess I’ll meet you at Augustinian. But by way of Calvin & Luther for me!

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Clarification: I am *not* a Calvinist. I am Reformed, and the Reformed used Thomistic distinctions.

If you're not Calvinist then you're not Reformed. Calvinism isn't the whole sum of being Reformed, but it's essential to it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If you're not Calvinist then you're not Reformed. Calvinism isn't the whole sum of being Reformed, but it's essential to it.

That is not what Jacon means; obviously, he holds to "Calvinistic" soteriology. What he means is that Reformed is the proper label for those who confess the Reformed faith, not Calvinist.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

That is not what Jacon means; obviously, he holds to "Calvinistic" soteriology. What he means is that Reformed is the proper label for those who confess the Reformed faith, not Calvinist.

It's not that obvious, Calvinism has an accepted usage, by which everyone on this board should confess to being a Calvinist. What you say he means is both known to everyone on this board, and completely irrelevant to the thread, so it's by no means obvious that he means that. He can't spend a whole thread leaning on the importance of precision in terminology, then emphatically (I assume that's what the asterisks were for) say he's nor a Calvinist and expect it to slide.

 

[RamistThomist]

If you're not Calvinist then you're not Reformed. Calvinism isn't the whole sum of being Reformed, but it's essential to it.

I subscribe to the WCF. That is much better than saying "Calvinist." Calvinist could mean John Piper or Wayne Grudem. Confessional Christian, by contrast, clarifies that.

 

[RamistThomist]

He can't spend a whole thread leaning on the importance of precision in terminology, then emphatically (I assume that's what the asterisks were for) say he's nor a Calvinist and expect it to slide.

Exactly. Calvinism isn't precise. That's why I don't use the phrase Calvinism. Reformed Christian rules out credobaptists. Calvinism does not.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I subscribe to the WCF. That is much better than saying "Calvinist." Calvinist could mean John Piper or Wayne Grudem. Confessional Christian, by contrast, clarifies that.

In that case you are a Calvinist. We can make a long list of people who are Calvinist but not Reformed (relevant to this discussion, James White would be a prime example). The fact that there are Calvinsts with whom we strongly disagree on certain points (since they're not Reformed and we are), does not justify us in saying we are not Calvinist.

 

[RamistThomist]

But you’re a Thomist? I don’t think we’re in the same club. I’m ex-RCC so I draw lines too…. I guess I’ll meet you at Augustinian. But by way of Calvin & Luther for me!

I accept the same Thomist distinctions that Owen did in volume 10. I accept the same Thomist outline that Zanchi did. I hold to a more Scotist view, howeer, ala Franciscus Junius, when it comes to the ectypal distinction.

 

[RamistThomist]

In that case you are a Calvinist. We can make a long list of people who are Calvinist but not Reformed (relevant to this discussion, James White would be a prime example). The fact that there are Calvinsts with who we strongly disagree on certain points (since they're not Reformed and we are), does not justify us in saying we are not Calvinist.

You originally said I wasn't being precise, but then you choose to use a very imprecise term, Calvinism, whereas a rich term like WCF/Confessional is far better.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I accept the same Thomist distinctions that Owen did in volume 10. I accept the same Thomist outline that Zanchi did. I hold to a more Scotist view, howeer, ala Franciscus Junius, when it comes to the ectypal distinction.

The majority of people don't know what this means. It seems like you just want to name drop. I am interested after all this, how do you say, in your own words, is a man saved?

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

You originally said I wasn't being precise, but then you choose to use a very imprecise term, Calvinism, whereas a rich term like WCF/Confessional is far better.

It's not imprecise, it's just broader. I have no issue with you being more specific by claiming the label "Reformed", I just dont understand why you would want to disown the label "Calvinist", which is a broader label, and includes everyone who is Reformed.

 

[RamistThomist]

The majority of people don't know what this means. It seems like you just want to name drop. I am interested after all this, how do you say, in your own words, is a man saved?

Jesus' blood and righteousness.

Ectypal distinction is huge in Reformed theology. I will not apologize for using Reformed terms.

A Primer on Ectypal Theology

I first discovered ectypal theology from Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Rather than being an academic topic, ectypal theology unites theological method with Christology. I’ve done pieces on ectypal theology in the past, but the following from Willem Van Asselt’s...

www.puritanboard.com

categorical distinction - The Heidelblog

heidelblog.net

This is why I say "Reformed" and not "Calvinist." Reformed demands a use of the categorical distinction. Calvinist just demands five points.

I stand with Junius on this terminology. I won't back down from that point.

Junius: There Are Two Kinds Of Theology - The Heidelblog

Now indeed these two kinds of theology are so different that they cannot truthfully be related to some one, definite head and shared genus. Of course the first kind of theology, which we have named divine and a prototype, does not belong to the one genus nor indeed to the…

heidelblog.net

 

[retroGRAD3]

Jesus' blood and righteousness.

Amen brother.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Jesus' blood and righteousness.

Ectypal distinction is huge in Reformed theology. I will not apologize for using Reformed terms.

A Primer on Ectypal Theology

I first discovered ectypal theology from Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Rather than being an academic topic, ectypal theology unites theological method with Christology. I’ve done pieces on ectypal theology in the past, but the following from Willem Van Asselt’s...

www.puritanboard.com

categorical distinction - The Heidelblog

heidelblog.net

This is why I say "Reformed" and not "Calvinist." Reformed demands a use of the categorical distinction. Calvinist just demands five points.

I stand with Junius on this terminology. I won't back down from that point.

Junius: There Are Two Kinds Of Theology - The Heidelblog

Now indeed these two kinds of theology are so different that they cannot truthfully be related to some one, definite head and shared genus. Of course the first kind of theology, which we have named divine and a prototype, does not belong to the one genus nor indeed to the…

heidelblog.net

Again, that's fine, Calvinism doesn't sufficiently narrow down your position. But you said (emphatically) that you are not a Calvinist. So which of the 5 points do you disagree with?

 

[RamistThomist]

Again, that's fine, Calvinism doesn't sufficiently narrow down your position. But you said (emphatically) that you are not a Calvinist. So which of the 5 points do you disagree with?

I do not take any exceptions to the American Westminster Confession. I do take exception to narrowing the Reformed faith down to a bullet list.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I do not take any exceptions to the American Westminster Confession. I do take exception to narrowing the Reformed faith down to a bullet list.

Ok, that suggests that you're a Calvinist, but not Reformed. Can of worms though.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I do not take any exceptions to the American Westminster Confession. I do take exception to narrowing the Reformed faith down to a bullet list.

This is a less serious comment now, trying to lighten the mood. Isn't your Twitter name rogue Tory? And, you subscribe to the American wcf and not the original?

 

[A.Joseph]

I accept the same Thomist distinctions that Owen did in volume 10. I accept the same Thomist outline that Zanchi did. I hold to a more Scotist view, howeer, ala Franciscus Junius, when it comes to the ectypal distinction.

yeah, yeah....we know. You're waving the flag for Thomism. But without Calvin and Luther where would you be?

 

[RamistThomist]

This is a less serious comment now, trying to lighten the mood. Isn't your Twitter name rogue Tory? And, you subscribe to the American wcf and not the original?

Yes

 

[RamistThomist]

yeah, yeah....we know. You're waving the flag for Thomism. But without Calvin and Luther where would you be?

Zwingli or Hooker, probably