James White on Reformed Thomism

[No Other Name]

It's be no means self-evident from Scripture, for a Lutheran would point out discontinuities between pre and post-Resurrection bodies.


Scripture does contain universal (or categorical A propositions), but not always.


Depends on the issue at stake. Scripture sometimes uses particular propositions, in which case they couldn't always function as the major premise.


I assume that you intend that statement to be non-contradictory? Should I read it in that sense?


I never said otherwise.

1)Humans being limited in time and space pre- and post-Resurrection bodies can be directly derived from Scripture. You seem to insist that if a Lutheran can possibly formulate a Biblical rejoinder of any kind then they have not been refuted by Scripture (as I read you here).

2) But particular propositions can logically be used as axioms with no inconsistency nor incoherence. Independent sure. But that is a given granting the special nature of the Scriptural revelation. eg, I have doubts Lewis and Montgomery came to a saving faith through logic alone. I suspect either they downplayed the spiritual component in their conversion while speaking publicly or they never truly converted.

3)Yeah I intended it to be non-contradictory.

To give an illustration Dr. White will appreciate, in Scripture, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. But in Star Trek VI, Mr. Spock says that logic is the beginning of wisdom. Which is correct?

My summary of the above:

Which statement is correct re: the beginning of wisdom? Spock claiming logic (L) is the beginning of wisdom (BW) or Scripture claiming the fear of the LORD (FOL) is the beginning of wisdom (BW)?

(BW)Spock = L
or (BW) Scripture = FOL

Your direct reply to this question:

You used logic to make that statement. You presupposed a number of logical rules: A = A, A =/= ~A. Without logic, that sentence couldn't eve have made sense.

Me interpreting your comment: "(BW) Spock = L because the very structure you are using was constructed using logic".

^But the definition of the "beginning of wisdom" in the Bible does not mean what sentences or structures are constructed by logic and which are not. Which syllogisms are using universal propositions vs. which ones use particular axioms that cannot be proven within the axiomatic system itself. That interpretation of the "beginning of wisdom" is not Scriptural. That is not what the authors of the Bible meant, and that is not the lesson learned in any Bible study or sermon on the fear of the LORD and the beginning and nature of Biblical wisdom.

 

[RamistThomist]

1)Humans being limited in time and space pre- and post-Resurrection bodies can be directly derived from Scripture. You seem to insist that if a Lutheran can possibly formulate a Biblical rejoinder of any kind then they have not been refuted by Scripture (as I read you here).

Yes. In order to refute the Lutheran, you will have to use logical inferences. And even if we "derive" them from Scripture, we are still using logical and metaphysical categories.

2) But particular propositions can logically be used as axioms with no inconsistency nor incoherence. Independent sure. But that is a given granting the special nature of the Scriptural revelation

That's what I have been saying.

3)Yeah I intended it to be non-contradictory.

That was my point. You used logic not only before you used Scripture, but in order to formulate your use of Scripture. This was one of Sproul's criticisms of Van Til.

 

[No Other Name]

And even if we "derive" them from Scripture, we are still using logical and metaphysical categories.

I never denied using the categories because Scripture does as well. I was saying Scripture can be used as an axiom and that it is not necessary that metaphysical statements are major premises.

That was my point. You used logic not only before you used Scripture, but in order to formulate your use of Scripture. This was one of Sproul's criticisms of Van Til.

I do not want to get into classical vs. presuppositional apologetics here, but Bahnsen wrote extensively about this as I am sure you know and would disagree with Sproul's take, however, there is no way Sproul would agree that "logic is the beginning of wisdom" against and over the Biblical truth that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

If Spock (or any other non-fictional soul) would argue that "logic is the beginning of wisdom" then it would be folly to answer him based on this as a given premise. You would be using his presuppositions and his worldview and prone to disputing Scripture. Now while I do not want to go down the rabbit trail of methods of apologetics, I do want to insist that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom per Scripture and objective truth.

As you agreed earlier, if a person goes into a logic class and does not fear the LORD, he will use any means necessary to approve of his own sin or worldview that allows him to sin.

It is no difficult task to create a syllogism that is internally consistent and logically coherent while not being true as defined by Scripture. If he can fully use logic and never approach the truth of awe and wonder and terror of holiness, he will never even begin to be wise. And logic is not the beginning of wisdom.

 

[RamistThomist]

I never denied using the categories because Scripture does as well. I was saying Scripture can be used as an axiom and that it is not necessary that metaphysical statements are major premises.

I also agree.

I do not want to get into classical vs. presuppositional apologetics here, but Bahnsen wrote extensively about this as I am sure you know and would disagree with Sproul's take, however, there is no way Sproul would agree that "logic is the beginning of wisdom" against and over the Biblical truth that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

I never said logic was the beginning of wisdom. Our older Reformed teachers made a distinction between the order of being and the order of knowing. God is first in the order of being; logic et al is first in the order of knowing.

 

[DanSSwing]

You used logic to make that statement. You presupposed a number of logical rules: A = A, A =/= ~A. Without logic, that sentence couldn't eve have made sense.

And without the LORD, we wouldn't have logic. It's only within the Christian worldview that we can even account for logic. Sure, everyone can use logic, but when they do so, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview because they find it useful, not because they can explain why it works within their set of beliefs.

 

[RamistThomist]

And without the LORD, we wouldn't have logic. It's only within the Christian worldview that we can even account for logic. Sure, everyone can use logic, but when they do so, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview because they find it useful, not because they can explain why it works within their set of beliefs.

Of course, without God we wouldn't have logic. That's what the older Reformed thinkers meant when they said that the order of being precedes the order of knowing in terms of God'd existence, yet logic is first for us in the temporal sphere.

As for "accounting for logic," I don't buy any of the Van Tillian talking points. We might have to agree to disagree.

 

[DanSSwing]

Of course, without God we wouldn't have logic. That's what the older Reformed thinkers meant when they said that the order of being precedes the order of knowing in terms of God'd existence, yet logic is first for us in the temporal sphere.

I think we can use either one first in the temporal sphere, even as believers. Being a monergist, I believe God called me to salvation, by graciously granting me the fear of the LORD apart from logic, though I do not deny that God can use logic as part of the process in some cases. But logic alone is not going to save anyone because, even if they come to believe through logic that Jesus is LORD and that everything in the Bible is true, they would still be stuck using a fallen will to try to submit to Him.

But apart from the soteriological issue, for many years as a believer, I tried to use logic first to expand my knowledge (merely trying to be consistent with the Bible rather than deriving from the Bible). Ironically, I actually considered myself a Calvinist even then just because I held to the majority of TULIP. It was John 6 that forced me (very much against my philosophy) to accept limited atonement, and that's probably what shifted my paradigm to beginning with God rather than man (or human logic) in EVERYTHING. Beginning with the fear of the LORD, I think I have arrived at far more accurate beliefs than those I held when I began with logic (even as a believer).

 

[RamistThomist]

I think we can use either one first in the temporal sphere, even as believers. Being a monergist, I believe God called me to salvation, by graciously granting me the fear of the LORD apart from logic, though I do not deny that God can use logic as part of the process in some cases. But logic alone is not going to save anyone because, even if they come to believe through logic that Jesus is LORD and that everything in the Bible is true, they would still be stuck using a fallen will to try to submit to Him.

But apart from the soteriological issue, for many years as a believer, I tried to use logic first to expand my knowledge (merely trying to be consistent with the Bible rather than deriving from the Bible). Ironically, I actually considered myself a Calvinist even then just because I held to the majority of TULIP. It was John 6 that forced me (very much against my philosophy) to accept limited atonement, and that's probably what shifted my paradigm to beginning with God rather than man (or human logic) in EVERYTHING. Beginning with the fear of the LORD, I think I have arrived at far more accurate beliefs than those I held when I began with logic (even as a believer).

That's not what the distinction means.

In terms of being, God exists and upholds everything prior to me. But in terms of my ability to know and formulate thoughts, I use the laws of logic and rules of grammar in order to say something like, "God exists" or "I believe."

And no one said anything about "logic alone."

 

[DanSSwing]

That's not what the distinction means.

In terms of being, God exists and upholds everything prior to me. But in terms of my ability to know and formulate thoughts, I use the laws of logic and rules of grammar in order to say something like, "God exists" or "I believe."

And no one said anything about "logic alone."

It sounds like you're just drawing the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology. But the original objection to Thomism is not that he used logic, but rather that he used a wider scope of Greek philosophy, as well as Romanist dogma, as the main framework for his worldview--Scripture coming in a distant third. I would argue that we must begin with a renewed mind, able to accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, and the truth as revealed in Scripture and construct our worldview on that basis. Logic is certainly involved, but we begin filling in the truth values of propositions based on divine revelation first as opposed to Cartesian, Humian, and other secular methods.

 

[RamistThomist]

It sounds like you're just drawing the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology. But the original objection to Thomism is not that he used logic, but rather that he used a wider scope of Greek philosophy, as well as Romanist dogma, as the main framework for his worldview--Scripture coming in a distant third. I would argue that we must begin with a renewed mind, able to accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, and the truth as revealed in Scripture and construct our worldview on that basis. Logic is certainly involved, but we begin filling in the truth values of propositions based on divine revelation first as opposed to Cartesian, Humian, and other secular methods.

I'm simply summarizing Richard Muller and RC Sproul Whether Aquinas used Romanist dogma or not is irrelevant to the distinction between the order of being and the order of knowing. I made some comments here in my review of Sproul's Classical Apologetics.

Classical Apologetics (RC Sproul)

I want to thank Tim Enloe for providing me with a copy. Please go by his site and check it out. He knows more about education and church history than I ever will. Sproul, R.C., Gerstner, John., Lin…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[No Other Name]

I never said logic was the beginning of wisdom.

I am back.

I have to disagree with this here. You technically never said it but implied it that it was so easily derived when @DanSSwing quoted the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and not logic as Spock said, you replied directly to him saying "You used logic to make that statement".

I want credit that I have consistently given you the benefit of the doubt in that exchange as a minor error in linking your viewpoints to statements made by us, but it is hard when you keep going into logic as the first order of knowing while seemingly disregarding the simultaneous role of the emotions that inevitably steer the logic that drives the truth behind why the fear of the LORD is where wisdom begins.

I must reiterate I am genuinely asking, not fighting.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have to disagree with this here. You technically never said it but implied it that it was so easily derived when @DanSSwing quoted the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and not logic as Spock said, you replied directly to him saying "You used logic to make that statement

And here I repeat the traditional Reformed distinction between the order of knowing and the order of being.

but it is hard when you keep going into logic as the first order of knowing while seemingly disregarding the simultaneous role of the emotions that inevitably steer the logic that drives the truth behind why the fear of the LORD is where wisdom begins.

I don't know what about my use of the traditional Reformed distinction of knowing/being is remarkable. I'm simply saying, as RC Sproul said before me, that we experience logic and grammar prior to our use of statements like "I believe in God." Of course, in terms of "common notions" or innate ideas or whatever someone wants to call them, God comes first. That's all the distinction means.

As to emotions, I don't know what they have to do with it. Emotions are real and they come into play, but they are irrelevant concerning the truth or falsity of a position.

 

[Ethan]

And here I repeat the traditional Reformed distinction between the order of knowing and the order of being.

Sproul's Defending Your Faith lectures were what finally made this click for me. He said something along the lines of "to start with God in the order of knowing would mean that I would have to be God."

 

[AT]

Sproul's Defending Your Faith lectures were what finally made this click for me. He said something along the lines of "to start with God in the order of knowing would mean that I would have to be God."

Sproul was way ahead of his time with respect to the classical theism, great tradition, Aquinas debates going on now. I've been listening to and reading his philosophy and doctrine of God stuff, just brilliant. I'm convinced Sproul's greatest influence, with time, would not be so much about resurgence of Calvinism but rather along the line of the classical doctrine of God, philosophy, Aquinas, etc.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sproul was way ahead of his time with respect to the classical theism, great tradition, Aquinas debates going on now. I've been listening to and reading his philosophy and doctrine of God stuff, just brilliant. I'm convinced Sproul's greatest influence, with time, would not be so much about resurgence of Calvinism but rather along the line of the classical doctrine of God, philosophy, Aquinas, etc.

R. C. Sproul was the man most instrumental in getting me to leave presuppositionalism and embrace classical apologetics.

 

[Rom]

R. C. Sproul was the man most instrumental in getting me to leave presuppositionalism and embrace classical apologetics.

Sproul wasn't a great debater, but he was often a far better thinker than those he debated with.

 

[RamistThomist]

Sproul wasn't a great debater, but he was often a far better thinker than those he debated with.

That's a good point. Bahnsen was a world-class speaker and debater and a professional philosopher. Sproul is a better teacher.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sproul wasn't a great debater, but he was often a far better thinker than those he debated with.

That observation is an interesting one, Rom. It is often the case that the deeper the thinker a man is the slower he is on his feet. Whereas those who are quick in debates often have a superficial knowledge of their subjects.

 

[No Other Name]

And here I repeat the traditional Reformed distinction between the order of knowing and the order of being.

I have asked for clarification regarding your choice to validate the statement "logic is the beginning of wisdom" vs. "fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" when it was posted here as contradictory positions.

Emotions are real and they come into play, but they are irrelevant concerning the truth or falsity of a position.

Emotions cloud the truth. When anyone considers the eternal, they will of course use logic framed with grammar in language but will do so simultaneously with a heart that desires sin. How can they be divorced? No matter what logical path the subject reasons from there, they will be unregenerated until God illuminates truth and begins regeneration.

I know I am on an island re: presuppositionalism and that's fine, but perhaps you could clarify beyond my position here and to your way of thinking: how emotions come into play yet are irrelevant all at the same time?

 

[RamistThomist]

I have asked for clarification regarding your choice to validate the statement "logic is the beginning of wisdom" vs. "fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" when it was posted here as contradictory positions.

Did I actually say "logic was the beginning of wisdom"? I might have but if I did, what I meant was that you have to use logical and grammatical categories before you even get to propositions like "I believe." In any case, wisdom isn't the same thing as facts. Wisdom implies, among other things, obedience. That's a different thing than knowing a fact in the ordinary sense.

Emotions cloud the truth. When anyone considers the eternal, they will of course use logic framed with grammar in language but will do so simultaneously with a heart that desires sin. How can they be divorced? No matter what logical path the subject reasons from there, they will be unregenerated until God illuminates truth and begins regeneration.

No classical Reformed thinker disagrees with that.

how emotions come into play yet are irrelevant all at the same time?

2+2 =4 regardless of how I emotionally feel about it.

 

[No Other Name]

Did I actually say "logic was the beginning of wisdom"? I might have but if I did, what I meant was that you have to use logical and grammatical categories before you even get to propositions like "I believe." In any case, wisdom isn't the same thing as facts. Wisdom implies, among other things, obedience. That's a different thing than knowing a fact in the ordinary sense.


No classical Reformed thinker disagrees with that.


2+2 =4 regardless of how I emotionally feel about it.

Ahhh now I get you. Thank you.

Hopefully you will be complimented on my unwillingness to shrug my shoulders and say "whatever". I almost did a couple times. But I knew you were a real Reformed thinker and I felt like I had to keep going until I understood. One never knows when God will use this interaction to develop a sermon or teaching.

Thanks for helping make disciples, Jacob. God bless you and your family

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Therefore I admonish you, young men, to convince yourselves that you first need to know the elements of philosophy, before you advance to the higher disciplines, and that you diligently devote zeal and effort to them. The beginning, they said, is half of the whole. Who makes a good start, has obtained half the result [Horace, Letters 1.2.40]. Everything will be easier in the other disciplines for those who have started in the right way, who bring to the other arts the knowledge of those arts, without which these can neither be perceived nor considered nor understood.

Philip Melanchthon, ‘On the Order of Learning’ (1531) in Orations on Philosophy and Education, ed. Sachiko Kusukawa, trans. Christine F. Salazar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 8.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ahhh now I get you. Thank you.

Hopefully you will be complimented on my unwillingness to shrug my shoulders and say "whatever". I almost did a couple times. But I knew you were a real Reformed thinker and I felt like I had to keep going until I understood. One never knows when God will use this interaction to develop a sermon or teaching.

Thanks for helping make disciples, Jacob. God bless you and your family

Thank you for the kind words. I realize I might come across as a trial lawyer in cross examination. At my best, I try to simply be what Plato wanted to be in Thaetatus, a midwife for ideas.

For what it's worth, I have problems with the two leading methods in philosophy today, analytic and continental. (I have some memes on them somewhere). So I am by no means trying to promote philosophy qua philosophy.

 

[jwright82]

That observation is an interesting one, Rom. It is often the case that the deeper the thinker a man is the slower he is on his feet. Whereas those who are quick in debates often have a superficial knowledge of their subjects.

I dont know Bahnsen was very well educated even though you didn't mention him by name, he knew his stuff.

 

[jwright82]

Did I actually say "logic was the beginning of wisdom"? I might have but if I did, what I meant was that you have to use logical and grammatical categories before you even get to propositions like "I believe." In any case, wisdom isn't the same thing as facts. Wisdom implies, among other things, obedience. That's a different thing than knowing a fact in the ordinary sense.


No classical Reformed thinker disagrees with that.


2+2 =4 regardless of how I emotionally feel about it.

I don't know I love your statements. But I wonder if order of knowing or order of being qua Sproul really makes a difference in the end. They're two different ways of approaching the problem both equally true and valid. Just as much as an ethical approach al la Frame. It all seems the same to me.

 

[jwright82]

Thank you for the kind words. I realize I might come across as a trial lawyer in cross examination. At my best, I try to simply be what Plato wanted to be in Thaetatus, a midwife for ideas.

For what it's worth, I have problems with the two leading methods in philosophy today, analytic and continental. (I have some memes on them somewhere). So I am by no means trying to promote philosophy qua philosophy.

Continental and analytic are two different methods to the same end.

 

[RamistThomist]

Continental and analytic are two different methods to the same end.

What do you mean "same end?" Most of the continental people I know view the end of life as to getting Marxists elected. Okay, that might have been snarky. Sorry. An analytic philosopher spends all day making truth tables.

In any case, those are the two extremes.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't know I love your statements. But I wonder if order of knowing or order of being qua Sproul really makes a difference in the end. They're two different ways of approaching the problem both equally true and valid. Just as much as an ethical approach al la Frame. It all seems the same to me.

Here is what Sproul meant by it.

Mediate general revelation is God’s revelation of himself through a medium, such as nature. Immediate general revelation is what comes to us directly, such as the works of the law on our hearts. This leads to the charge against classical apologetics that by beginning with themselves and not God, they are autonomous. Sproul gives an insightful answer: only God can begin with God. We begin with self-consciousness and in doing so, we are immediately met with finitude and that we aren’t God.

 

[RamistThomist]

I dont know Bahnsen was very well educated even though you didn't mention him by name, he knew his stuff.

He was very sharp on issues from Kant onwards. His stuff on patristic and medieval philosophy is surface-level. His stuff on 20th century philosophy is quite good.

 

[jwright82]

What do you mean "same end?" Most of the continental people I know view the end of life as to getting Marxists elected. Okay, that might have been snarky. Sorry. An analytic philosopher spends all day making truth tables.

In any case, those are the two extremes.

To the ends of philosophy, rational (or logical) examination of reality. As I said two different methods, which I would include questions to be answered as well as emphasis. But thats neither here nor there for me so I'll leave that alone.