James White on Reformed Thomism

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I completely agree but I'd push it back to Descartes and Locke. But again I'm not really concerned about it. I was simply pointing out his credentials (which I know you don't dispute, and we would agree doesn't make him automatically right).
 
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.
Van Til made a distinction between ultimate and proximate starting points. Ultimately of course we can't start with God, we're not Him. But proximately we can in a transcendental analysis of reality. In fact Van Til does start with us in his TA, take any element of experience or reality and ask what must be presupposed in order for it to be as it is?
Autonomy is only about ultimate authority. What has ultimate authority man's reason or God's self revelation in Scripture? If man is knowingly or unknowingly "assuming" man's "reason" (not proximate) as ultimate than that is Autonomy. Its been some time since I read Sproul's book so I won't comment on whether he is guilty of anything. Ill go find it and Bahnsen to comment on that.
 
Van Til made a distinction between ultimate and proximate starting points. Ultimately of course we can't start with God, we're not Him. But proximately we can in a transcendental analysis of reality. In fact Van Til does start with us in his TA, take any element of experience or reality and ask what must be presupposed in order for it to be as it is?

Except for the part about transcendental analysis, Van Til agrees with the Reformed tradition.
Autonomy is only about ultimate authority. What has ultimate authority man's reason or God's self revelation in Scripture? If man is knowingly or unknowingly "assuming" man's "reason" (not proximate) as ultimate than that is Autonomy. Its been some time since I read Sproul's book so I won't comment on whether he is guilty of anything. Ill go find it and Bahnsen to comment on that.

That's true. I've tried to show for the past six pages of this thread that the order of knowing is only a proximate starting point. Even Aquinas said the arguments for God were merely a preambula fidei.

Probably best to stick with Sproul on what Sproul meant.
 
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
Is his advice being addressed to young theologians, young ministers or whoever young in the body of Christ?
 
Is his advice being addressed to young theologians, young ministers or whoever young in the body of Christ?

Probably to whoever is studying theology. If approached rightly, philosophy offers a way of clarifying one's expression. In any case, the history of the church used philosophical terms that do not have a univocal meaning in the Bible (nature, hypostasis, form, etc). Philosophy is unavoidable.

The "vain philosophy" against which Paul warned was either Epicureanism or Gnostic sex magick.
 
@RamistThomist
I. How can you teach the most unlearned believer to identify vain philosophy?

II. How can you teach him to use philosophy in a biblical way?

III. Does every believer need basic philosophy to fall not into heresy?
 
@RamistThomist
I. How can you teach the most unlearned believer to identify vain philosophy?

II. How can you teach him to use philosophy in a biblical way?

III. Does every believer need basic philosophy to fall not into heresy?
Christians don't *need* philosophy to be saved, to be faithful, or to grow in faith. We also don't *need* a lot of other helpful things. We don't *need* to have a confession of faith. We don't *need* to read through the whole Bible. We don't *need* a great forum where we discuss theology. Without these things we can still be happy, healthy, and whole Christians. But I hope we all also see this is a hyper minimalistic view of christian faith. While we don't need to hold to and study the Westminster Confession (or the other reformed standards), who among us does not rejoice and thank God that we have them and use them? While we don't *need* to read through the Bible every year, who among us doesn't see this as a great blessing and helpful spiritual discipline that richly rewards? So, while the study and use of philosophical terminology and categories are not necessary for us, and they can be misused (like any good thing) who among us does not see their great benefit?
 
Not meaning to hijack the thread..
How would you guys recommend approaching the study of required philosophy in the right way?

I’ve seen threads here which say start with Plato and Aristotle (which I began whilst reading Kenny’s history of western philosophy), and then I was planning to work through the popularised “western canon” (again alongside history of philosophy books).

(Sorry, please postpone for the remainder of the Lord’s day).
 
Last edited:
How can you teach the most unlearned believer to identify vain philosophy?

Make sure he understands basic first principles. I hesitate to offer a silver bullet argument. Different vain philosophies are going to be different. Stoicism and Epicureanism are both vain, but they are fundamentally at odds.
II. How can you teach him to use philosophy in a biblical way?

Again, first principles. Also he should develop listening and speaking skills. This will help him identify the key points.
III. Does every believer need basic philosophy to fall not into heresy?

No. On the other hand, it is more honoring to God to have clearer thinking than sloppier thinking. It is better to have and use a good tool than to not have it. Christians don't need theology books, but no one here is burning their libraries (I actually challenged some people on that in the past).
 
Not meaning to hijack the thread..
How would you guys recommend approaching the study of required philosophy in the right way?

I’ve seen threads here which say start with Plato and Aristotle (which I began whilst reading Kenny’s history of western philosophy), and then I was planning to work through the popularised “western canon” (again alongside history of philosophy books).
 
Biblical principles? Or philosophical ones?
Both/And. The most important principle is the doctrine of God, yet speaking about God demands we speak about "being," which necessitates speaking about philosophical principles. The following is a bit overkill, but it covers all the basics.

1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence.
2. Being Is Being (B is B) = The Principle of Identity.
3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B) = The Principle of Noncontradiction.
4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle.
5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B) = The Principle of Causality.
6. Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being (Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
7. Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn → Bc) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
8. Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being (Bn > Bn) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
9. Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn → Bc) = The Principle of Existential Causality.
10. Necessary Being exists = Principle of Existential Necessity (Bn exists).
11. Contingent being exists = Principle of Existential Contingency (Bc exists).
12. Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = Principle of Analogy (Bn — similar → Bc)

Given these principles of being, one can know many things about reality; they relate thought and thing. Knowing is based in being. By these principles, one can even prove the existence of God as follows:

1. Something exists (e.g., I do) (no. 1).
2. I am a contingent being (no. 11).
3. Nothing cannot cause something (no. 5).
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being (no. 7).
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being (follows from nos. 1–4).
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of activities).
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy (no. 12).
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction (no. 3).
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (= infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.

Sources: Geisler, N. L. (1999). BECA: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
 
Christians don't *need* philosophy to be saved, to be faithful, or to grow in faith. We also don't *need* a lot of other helpful things. We don't *need* to have a confession of faith. We don't *need* to read through the whole Bible. We don't *need* a great forum where we discuss theology. Without these things we can still be happy, healthy, and whole Christians. But I hope we all also see this is a hyper minimalistic view of christian faith. While we don't need to hold to and study the Westminster Confession (or the other reformed standards), who among us does not rejoice and thank God that we have them and use them? While we don't *need* to read through the Bible every year, who among us doesn't see this as a great blessing and helpful spiritual discipline that richly rewards? So, while the study and use of philosophical terminology and categories are not necessary for us, and they can be misused (like any good thing) who among us does not see their great benefit?
But you do need philosophy, as Jacob has pointed out, to describe the great mysteries of the faith.
 
But you do need philosophy, as Jacob has pointed out, to describe the great mysteries of the faith.
I do not agree. I think the Bible does a pretty good job describing the great mysteries as it is. While these other categories can be helpful, they don't really make them any more clear, hence, great mysteries.
 
Last edited:
But you do need philosophy, as Jacob has pointed out, to describe the great mysteries of the faith.
It is no more comprehensible to read from the Bible that three different persons are called God: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that there is only one God; than it is to use philosophical terminology and say that there is only one God, one substance, who exists in three distinct persons, subsistences. Both get to the same level of understanding and leave me in doxological awe of the same great mystery.

It is a helpful categorization that should not be jettisoned, but it doesn't actually clear anything up as far as the mystery is concerned. I no more grasp God's triune nature than if I simply read the words of the Bible. So while helpful, we still do not NEED philosophical categories. Unless we are going to say the triune nature of God is not clearly taught in scripture.
 
Last edited:
When I ask, "What is nature?", my point is this: there is no such thing as "Holy Ghost Greek." The Biblical writers did use philosophical terms from time to time, and these terms didn't pre-exist in some realm in heaven untainted by vain philosophy (Ironically, that view is Platonism). The Greek lexicons list the philosopihcal sources in which a term is used:

1656334375856.png
 
What does nature mean?
In a simplistic way, I would say that this kind of background knowledge needed to logically try to understand divine things have been providentially provided by God to His Church in its development (from Adam).

Therefore, we always depend on God's grace. Even If some men try to understand better —what God had given graciously— through philosophy, they also depend on God's power in order to do it rightly.
 
It is no more comprehensible to read from the Bible that three different persons are called God: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that there is only one God; than it is to use philosophical terminology and say that there is only one God, one substance, who exists in three distinct persons, subsistences. Both get to the same level of understanding and leave me in doxological awe of the same great mystery.

It is a helpful categorization that should not be jettisoned, but it doesn't actually clear anything up as far as the mystery is concerned. I no more grasp God's triune nature than if I simply read the words of the Bible. So while helpful, we still do not NEED philosophical categories. Unless we are going to say the triune nature of God is not clearly taught in scripture.
Your first description is probably a contradiction although it is biblical. Your second is using philosophical categories to alleviate the contradiction and show that the Bible in fact has no actual contradictions in it. What else should we use if not philosophical categories to do that?
 
I do not agree. I think the Bible does a pretty good job describing the great mysteries as it is. While these other categories can be helpful, they don't really make them any more clear, hence, great mysteries.
Than why did the church catholic (little c) see the need for this for like 2000 years? Is it possible that 2000 years of intelligent people are all wrong and finally a certain subsection of the American church gets the truth? That prima facia seems wrong to me.
The same could be said for all theological distinctions. Why have endless distinctions when the word is "clear" enough on all matters?
 
Is that your answer? Can the doctrine of the Trinity be taught from scripture alone?
Taught yes, explained as well as our finite creaturely minds can, without exhaustive understanding of the mysteries for doctrinal explanation, no. God gave us reason and general revelation for a "reason".
 
Is that your answer? Can the doctrine of the Trinity be taught from scripture alone?

Can it be? Yes. Does the Holy Spirit intend for us to use the gifts he gave the church, such as teachers who expounded metaphysics in the service of the Trinity? Yes.

And you didn't answer my question. I can show that there is one nature in the Godhead (though why are we using the term "nature?"). What does nature mean?
Even more problematic, what does person mean? In the ancient world it meant a mode of the divine essence. Today many are tempted to see it as a center of self-consciousness.
 
Can it be? Yes. Does the Holy Spirit intend for us to use the gifts he gave the church, such as teachers who expounded metaphysics in the service of the Trinity? Yes.

And you didn't answer my question. I can show that there is one nature in the Godhead (though why are we using the term "nature?"). What does nature mean?
Even more problematic, what does person mean? In the ancient world it meant a mode of the divine essence. Today many are tempted to see it as a center of self-consciousness.
I agree with your premise don't get me wrong. I'm not at all opposed to reformed scholasticism. And I of course agree that we SHOULD use these terms/categories. I was just attempting to affirm that while on the one hand we don't NEED philosophy to understand the Bible in a saving and sanctifying way, that on the other hand I affirm that we have no reason NOT to use the work of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of the church before us, and in fact, do a great dishonor to God and ourselves if we neglect/reject it.

Good point on the Latin "persona" and Greek "hypostasis". Moderns understand those terms much different than they were intended, which highlights our need to return to the study of these things. Hence Karl Barth's use of "mode of being" over the Latin term "person". Three modes of being in the one being. That doesnt help much either, obviously, but he was highlighting how shallow our understanding of the terms is today.
 
Than why did the church catholic (little c) see the need for this for like 2000 years? Is it possible that 2000 years of intelligent people are all wrong and finally a certain subsection of the American church gets the truth? That prima facia seems wrong to me.
The same could be said for all theological distinctions. Why have endless distinctions when the word is "clear" enough on all matters?
Again, I'm not arguing we shouldn't use them. So I agree for the most part. Any good thing can be abused. Therefore let's not abuse it, nor, in over reaction, reject it.
 
Your first description is probably a contradiction although it is biblical. Your second is using philosophical categories to alleviate the contradiction and show that the Bible in fact has no actual contradictions in it. What else should we use if not philosophical categories to do that?
You have misunderstood my intention or I have not been clear. My apologies. I do not take a position remotely like that of what is being attributed to White et al. I was simply trying to balance. If that is not helpful, my apologies and disregard. Give us again Turretins and Van Mastrichts etc.
 
I agree with your premise don't get me wrong. I'm not at all opposed to reformed scholasticism. And I of course agree that we SHOULD use these terms/categories. I was just attempting to affirm that while on the one hand we don't NEED philosophy to understand the Bible in a saving and sanctifying way, that on the other hand I affirm that we have no reason NOT to use the work of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of the church before us, and in fact, do a great dishonor to God and ourselves if we neglect/reject it.

Good point on the Latin "persona" and Greek "hypostasis". Moderns understand those terms much different than they were intended, which highlights our need to return to the study of these things. Hence Karl Barth's use of "mode of being" over the Latin term "person". Three modes of being in the one being. That doesnt help much either, obviously, but he was highlighting how shallow our understanding of the terms is today.

That's fine. It's just that when we use the word "need," we exclude almost everything. Outside of eating and sleeping, for instance, I don't need to do all that much. Same for theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top