The "Great Tradition" and Post Reformation Orthodoxy

[RamistThomist]

Last thing I'll say, for sure, and then I'm out, and you can decide whether you still want to ban me, as I've more than said my piece (for those accusing me of being unclear, of course I could always be clearer than I am and I am trying my best, but the obvious reason why the likes of @Knight knows what I'm talking about is because he's clearly done some research in the relevant areas and I actually recognise him from interactions with Ed Feser on his blog if it's the same person).

Anyway, according to your completely unrealistic standard, of course I'm not in line with the WCF, because according to you confessionalism requires me to not only adopt the doctrines, but the underlying metaphysics of the Divines as they formulated such doctrines. This is a ridiculous standard and would probably disqualify half the board, many of whom probably have no interest in philosophy. You are requiring that people subscribe to Aristotelian metaphysics which is foreign to most people today. This seems to me to be the kind of poison the likes of Luther and later Owen was warning against.

Please read this, scroll down to section 4.1, 'The Relationship between Philosophy and Theology', and tell me how you are not doing exactly the thing Owens is warning against here (I would link to the original work itself but don't have access):

The Nature and Task of Theology in John Owen’s Forgotten Work - The Gospel Coalition

John Owen was one of the most prolific and theologically sophisticated writers of Puritanism. The great Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, called Owen the “prince of divines” and said that anyone who mastered his works was a “profound theologian.”1 Contemporary pastors and theologians may be...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

I remember being quite disturbed as a Christian Platonist/Thomist reading that and quickly moved on. The attempts to explain it away are unconvincing to say the least.

To take one clear cut example, you're forcing me to adopt the same metaphysical view on 'parts' that people in the 1600s did. If you care, read the standard contemporary book on the topic, Peter Simons' Parts, and/or the free to read Stanford article on mereology (study of parts) if you want to see just how much the metaphysics has changed. Obviously being contemporary doesn't equate to being correct, but neither does being antiquated either.

What this comes down to is that you are putting an unnecessary yoke on people. You don't need Plato/Aristotle/Aquinas to know Christ (says probably one of the few people here who actually teaches/does research in philosophy at university level).

Edit: Just to be absolutely clear, because I don't want it to come across that way at all, I don't say that last line to blow my own trumpet, but to emphasize that the main culprits I see pushing this kind of nonsense (like 'No Plato, no Scripture') are theologians, not philosophers.

Even though I disagree with you on metaphysics, I have utmost respect for you, and you have hit the nail on the head concerning what the divines meant. It is tempting to approach the divines and Puritans as though they were just giving pure and simple Bible, and that since we believe the 5 Points, too, that means we have the same views as the divines. That is clearly not the case.

 

[Northern Crofter]

"Simple" and "without parts" are pretty much the same thing.

Do you deny that God is "without parts"? In this thread, Church Fathers confess that God is simple - some pointing out He is not corporeal and composed of parts. Given that, the WCF prooftexts make perfect sense.

6 DEU 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female. JOH 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. LUK 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The proof texts you quote from WCF 2.1 are given to support the words in bold: " There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute...."

Considering the fact that the proof texts refer to physical images and body parts, I believe someone (like Ulster Fry Phil) can claim to be confessional on the grounds that WCF 2.1 can be interpreted as not saying anything about DDS and is simply stating that God has no physical body or physical parts, as you seem to suggest can be a valid definition of "simple":

Church Fathers confess that God is simple - some pointing out He is not corporeal and composed of parts.

He (Ulster Fry Phil) has pretty much said this in #103 and #151:

It entirely depends on how you define 'parts' for a start...as an exercise, look at the proof texts provided for it in the WCF).

The WCF proof texts for 'without...parts' are, well, not convincing (please tell me if you disagree)

If part of the issue is understanding what the Divines intended in the Confession, one must consider how they used the term "parts" elsewhere. For example, "By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. (WCF 6.2)

Consider that a fairly standard and well-regarded treatment of the Confession (Robert Shaw's Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1845) sees the "without body, parts" in WCF 2.1 in the context of affirming "opposition to the Polytheism of heathen nations, and to the heresy of the Tritheists, who hold that there are three distinct Godheads, or that one Godhead is divided into three distinct parts." (II.1) and that "God is a most pure Spirit,– that is, he is an incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and immortal Being, without bodily parts..." (II.3). You do not come away from Shaw thinking WCF 2.1 was written to enshrine DDS but rather that it was simply (groan) teaching that God (1) does not have a body or body parts and (2) that the Trinity is 3 persons not three parts of 1 person.

Adding a specific (narrow, metaphysical) interpretation to WCF 2.1 and what is meant by "parts" in order to accuse someone of not being confessional is not something I can support. In other words, you can believe WCF 2.1 is referring to DDS or not, and you can even debate it (for the good of all, mind you), and your particular church may require a specific interpretation for ordination, but that should not become a shibboleth for fellowship, online or otherwise.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The proof texts you quote from WCF 2.1 are given to support the words in bold: " There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute...."

Considering the fact that the proof texts refer to physical images and body parts, I believe someone (like Ulster Fry Phil) can claim to be confessional on the grounds that WCF 2.1 can be interpreted as not saying anything about DDS and is simply stating that God has no physical body or physical parts, as you seem to suggest can be a valid definition of "simple":

He (Ulster Fry Phil) has pretty much said this in #103 and #151:



If part of the issue is understanding what the Divines intended in the Confession, one must consider how they used the term "parts" elsewhere. For example, "By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. (WCF 6.2)

Consider that a fairly standard and well-regarded treatment of the Confession (Robert Shaw's Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1845) sees the "without body, parts" in WCF 2.1 in the context of affirming "opposition to the Polytheism of heathen nations, and to the heresy of the Tritheists, who hold that there are three distinct Godheads, or that one Godhead is divided into three distinct parts." (II.1) and that "God is a most pure Spirit,– that is, he is an incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and immortal Being, without bodily parts..." (II.3). You do not come away from Shaw thinking WCF 2.1 was written to enshrine DDS but rather that it was simply (groan) teaching that God (1) does not have a body or body parts and (2) that the Trinity is 3 persons not three parts of 1 person.

Adding a specific (narrow, metaphysical) interpretation to WCF 2.1 and what is meant by "parts" in order to accuse someone of not being confessional is not something I can support. In other words, you can believe WCF 2.1 is referring to DDS or not, and you can even debate it (for the good of all, mind you), and your particular church may require a specific interpretation for ordination, but that should not become a shibboleth for fellowship, online or otherwise.

It doesn't say God is "without body parts," but "without parts." That is, any parts.
Your comparison of WCF 6.2 backs that up, because it mentions parts of the soul, which are not body parts, but things like an intellect and will.
Applying the same to God, his intellect and will are not "separate parts," as it were.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, @Ulster Fry has explicitly affirmed here that the will must be a separate part from the other faculties of the Deity, or it leads to modal collapse (which I'm still not convinced is a bad outcome, since even Turretin talked about the (hypothetical) necessity of what is decreed).

 

[Northern Crofter]

It doesn't say God is "without body parts," but "without parts." That is, any parts.

It also does not say "any parts." My point was that the proof texts you quoted are for the phrase "without body, parts," and those texts only mention physical manifestations, therefore it seems acceptable to me (without saying that this is my interpretation) to interpret that phrase in WCF 2.1 as referring only to God not having physical parts thus making the holding of DDS not a confessional requirement.

Your comparison of WCF 6.2 backs that up, because it mentions parts of the soul, which are not body parts, but things like an intellect and will.

I think you missed my point - WCF 6.2 is referring to humans, not God, so any comparison made should focus on differences, not similarities, between God and us. God does not have "the parts and faculties of soul and body" like we do, so you cannot also transfer things "things like an intellect and will" to Him on this basis alone.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Last thing I'll say, for sure, and then I'm out, and you can decide whether you still want to ban me, as I've more than said my piece (for those accusing me of being unclear, of course I could always be clearer than I am and I am trying my best, but the obvious reason why the likes of @Knight knows what I'm talking about is because he's clearly done some research in the relevant areas and I actually recognise him from interactions with Ed Feser on his blog if it's the same person).

Anyway, according to your completely unrealistic standard, of course I'm not in line with the WCF, because according to you confessionalism requires me to not only adopt the doctrines, but the underlying metaphysics of the Divines as they formulated such doctrines. This is a ridiculous standard and would probably disqualify half the board, many of whom probably have no interest in philosophy. You are requiring that people subscribe to Aristotelian metaphysics which is foreign to most people today. This seems to me to be the kind of poison the likes of Luther and later Owen was warning against.

Please read this, scroll down to section 4.1, 'The Relationship between Philosophy and Theology', and tell me how you are not doing exactly the thing Owens is warning against here (I would link to the original work itself but don't have access):

The Nature and Task of Theology in John Owen’s Forgotten Work - The Gospel Coalition

John Owen was one of the most prolific and theologically sophisticated writers of Puritanism. The great Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, called Owen the “prince of divines” and said that anyone who mastered his works was a “profound theologian.”1 Contemporary pastors and theologians may be...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

I remember being quite disturbed as a Christian Platonist/Thomist reading that and quickly moved on. The attempts to explain it away are unconvincing to say the least.

To take one clear cut example, you're forcing me to adopt the same metaphysical view on 'parts' that people in the 1600s did. If you care, read the standard contemporary book on the topic, Peter Simons' Parts, and/or the free to read Stanford article on mereology (study of parts) if you want to see just how much the metaphysics has changed. Obviously being contemporary doesn't equate to being correct, but neither does being antiquated either.

What this comes down to is that you are putting an unnecessary yoke on people. You don't need Plato/Aristotle/Aquinas to know Christ (says probably one of the few people here who actually teaches/does research in philosophy at university level).

Edit: Just to be absolutely clear, because I don't want it to come across that way at all, I don't say that last line to blow my own trumpet, but to emphasize that the main culprits I see pushing this kind of nonsense (like 'No Plato, no Scripture') are theologians, not philosophers.

I suppose we could all speak as fools. I have three Master’s Degrees and over 35 years of leading and interacting with people. I’ve also been an Elder and a Churchman for quite some time.

I’m going to make a few observations in reply:

1. The irony of the article you quoted about Owen is that it was a look at the shape of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics that was the occasion of this thread. If you read the OP (and more importantly the first volume on Prolegomena) then you’ll find some of the same themes addressed. One of the things you’ll find is that the author of that article over-reaches with respect to Scholasticism as it was not a commitment to a particular metaphysic but primarily a method to organize theological reflection. If you read the OP, you’d note the priority given to the Scriptures and not philosophy.

So, how did this end up as a Simplicity thread? In part, you took it there (among others) and it even ended up getting steered into the so-called proposition that one is committed to a certain Philosophical school (which was the exact opposite of what the OP suggested).


2. Given my years of interacting with people, I can say that I find you intelligent and interesting but, in part, insufferable. The latter owes to you reading in the worst possible motives and ascribing things to Ruben that are patently false. You seem to hard started the thread with an axe to grind against a particular form of Divine Simplicity (a metaphysical one). Most of us, including Ruben, care little about find metaphysical distinctions. In fact, I find that many who are focused on philosophy first are those who are most apt to adopt a theological method that prioritizes philosophical rigor. I’m not saying you are one, but this is the reason why the Socinians ran into so many problems – because they couldn’t square theology with their reason. Your problem is entirely different, but my point is that Ruben was not coming in as an Admin to make sure you were an Aristotelian but to ultimately arrive at whether or not we shared the same idea of God, which is important.

I wasn’t the only one who was confused. Some still may be. You may think this is all about some silly thing we have going on here to provide a Confessional Board but we’ve been doing it for almost 20 years now and have had to deal with a lot of churlish and immature persons. Maybe we’ve made the wrong calls. I know I have. But, this isn’t our job. This is a board. We have work, parental, and Church responsibilities and to have someone repeatedly puff out his chest, call us a Banana Republic, daring us to ban him, etc is something none of us have time for. The bottom line is that you could be “right” on paper but none of us has the time to deal with you as a person if you’re not willing to read us correctly and extend a small fraction of the patience we extended to you when we could have just cut you loose on the grounds that you were repeatedly rude to Moderation when we were doing the job we told you we’d do when you agreed to the rules for this board (which you probably didn’t read).


3. Just to be crystal clear, this isn’t about metaphysical precision or forcing anyone to have to hold in their mind some Thomistic or Aristotelian concept of Simplicity. That was your brain virus and never mine nor Ruben’s. I learn, in part, by talking things out. It’s part of my style. I can come in hot too so I understand how misconceptions can ensue. At the end of the day, some take theology to be more “science” and tack to lengthy philosophical defenses of certain things while there is also the tradition of theology as wisdom (apientia). Theological language about Simplicity has historically tried to get at the idea that God is God. Believe it or not, many of us are sympathetic to the idea that focusing too much on the philosophical language (or even insisting on it) is not necessary to get at the basic message. A friend of mine was lurking and wrote this to me:

Maybe simplicity is not a complex doctrine, and is so simple that we can understand it from the Bible -- "one God." No schoolmen, no fathers, no philosophers. We might actually owe the Bible more than we realise.

It seems to me that philosophers and scholastics are used to explain "how" God is simple, or "how" the simplicity of God works on a rational level. But they are only brought in to begin with because there is something to be explained, and the thing to be explained is the simple affirmation of the Bible. All this talk of philosophers, scholastics, and fathers is rather fruitless if one does not affirm the simplicity taught by the Bible. The Bible is the battleground, not all these uninspired, fallible folk.

This is how I think as well, but I’m also willing to not merely dismiss some dogmaticians who may point out that some pint being denied unravels what we ought to be holding in our hearts that is being denied by some philosophical commitment.

Thus, if I could wrap up what I’m trying to say is:

1. We don’t require a philosophical school or even the idea that to be Confessional is to adopt a certain metaphysic or priority given to philosophy. This would be contrary even to the history of the formation of Reformed dogmatics.

2. We do require that when the Moderator hat is on, those being asked to clarify not be churlish and accusatory. Take the time to read what they are asking and not read into their words the things you think they are accusing.

3. We unapologetically are Confessional. By that I mean that it’s on the “front door” of our rules that this is what grants and keeps participatory membership here. There is incredible latitude within Confessional boundaries. That said, accusations of being a “banana Republic” or denying Reformed principles just because we’re trying to figure out if someone is dumping on the Confessions is unwarranted. I can provide you with years and reams of emails from angry people casting me and other Admins into outer darkness because we’re Pharisees or Godless folk who are slaves to our theology. Sticks and stones. Of all the Mods and Admins, I’m the chief of sinners because the group I manage to convince to moderate here are all Godly men and women and patient. I don’t need your help dumping on the Board from within. We get enough of it from without.

That all said, in all the “daring us” to ban you, we weren’t trying to do that but to seek clarification. You made it much harder than you needed to.

 

[Charles Johnson]

It also does not say "any parts."

Nor does it say "some."
But not having "any" parts is implicit in saying "without parts," because if it has any, it's not "without," it's "with." "Any" would just make it emphatic.
If you think I'm mistaken, I'd be interested in seeing historical evidence that anything but the absolute simplicity of God was considered an acceptable position among the Reformed of the 17th century. The only figures I can think of who contradicted that would be the arminian-remonstrants (Episcopius, Vorstius, etc), and the Synod of Dort condemned them.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Nor does it say "some."

Agreed.

But not having "any" parts is implicit in saying "without parts," because if it has any, it's not "without," it's "with." "Any" would just make it emphatic.
If you think I'm mistaken, I'd be interested in seeing historical evidence that anything but the absolute simplicity of God was considered an acceptable position among the Reformed of the 17th century. The only figures I can think of who contradicted that would be the arminian-remonstrants (Episcopius, Vorstius, etc), and the Synod of Dort condemned them.

I don't believe I said you were mistaken about anything - I don't deny that DDS was the historic position among the Reformed majority in the 17th century. What I cannot support is the position that WCF 2.1 cannot be interpreted as simply stating that God has no physical body or physical parts and that it instead requires subscription to DDS. I'm not saying you hold that position (or don't) - I'm just saying the language of the Confession is sufficiently broad (as I believe was often and wisely intended in many areas) to allow those with reservations about certain aspects of DDS as it is historically (and presently) argued to be considered "within the pale" of Westminsterial confessionalism.

 

[RamistThomist]

What I cannot support is the position that WCF 2.1 cannot be interpreted as simply stating that God has no physical body or physical parts and that it instead requires subscription to DDS.

The Confession does deny that God has body parts. But the actual phrase has a comma between body and parts, signifying it has two different things in mind.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The Confession does deny that God has body parts. But the actual phrase has a comma between body and parts, signifying it has two different things in mind.

Agreed. I was responding to someone referring to the proof texts in WCF 2.1 by noting that there is just one set for the combined words "without body, parts."

If the proofs were just intended for "body" (since the verses referenced only deal with physical images and body parts) why are they not inserted after that word instead of where they are, after "parts." In other words, what do Deut. 4:15-16 and John 4.24 have to do with proving God exists with/without "parts"?

I think this is all Ulster Fry Phil was trying to get across in #103 and #151, and no one really answered him. He asked for Scriptural proof of DDS and he was referred to the WC proofs. My point is that these proofs deal with God having no body, not Him not having parts, and yet they are placed after the word "parts," not "body."

So now there are 2 questions: (1) What Scripture supports God not having parts, and (2) Why didn't the Divines place such references after the word "parts"?

 

[py3ak]

Anyway, according to your completely unrealistic standard, of course I'm not in line with the WCF, because according to you confessionalism requires me to not only adopt the doctrines, but the underlying metaphysics of the Divines as they formulated such doctrines. This is a ridiculous standard and would probably disqualify half the board, many of whom probably have no interest in philosophy. You are requiring that people subscribe to Aristotelian metaphysics which is foreign to most people today. This seems to me to be the kind of poison the likes of Luther and later Owen was warning against.

Are you in line with the WCF according to your own realistic and sober standard?

I hesitate to say more, because your ability to extract from my words things I haven't said seems greater than my ability to clarify, but at least for the sake of those reading along I would like to disclaim the interpretations you make of my words and intentions.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Agreed.

I don't believe I said you were mistaken about anything - I don't deny that DDS was the historic position among the Reformed majority in the 17th century. What I cannot support is the position that WCF 2.1 cannot be interpreted as simply stating that God has no physical body or physical parts and that it instead requires subscription to DDS. I'm not saying you hold that position (or don't) - I'm just saying the language of the Confession is sufficiently broad (as I believe was often and wisely intended in many areas) to allow those with reservations about certain aspects of DDS as it is historically (and presently) argued to be considered "within the pale" of Westminsterial confessionalism.

This is where imprecision of language is repeated. DDS has become a stand-in for Thomism or Artistotaleanism in this thread. Simplicity, however, is non-negotiable and entails more than just the idea that God has no "body parts".

The Divines clearly meant more than "without body parts" as it is redundant to note that He is a spirit and without body parts. If you look at the quotes provided by Charles Johnson in another thread you'll see the sort of minimalist idea that is trying to be communicated by the simplicity of God. God is distinguished as God from His creatures by the idea that He is not composed of parts (and they don't just mean that He dodn't have a body like men).

What this does not entail, however, is that one adopt a complicated philosophical framework or has to agree with every metaphysical definition that has come before.

As an example, the fact that God is simple also entails that He is not "part Father, part Son, and part Spirit" to make up the "whole God". God, as a Spirit, does not have parts. This also entails that if one conceives of Him as just, loving, holy, etc that does not conceive of these as "building blocks" of God. That's clearly not the problem that is being debated here but there are many very basic Biblical ideas contained in God's simplicity that don't deny a complex metaphysical description that still need to be affirmed - not merely that God lacks arms and legs.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Put another way by Joel Beek and Mark Jones in "A Puritan Theology"

The simplicity of God is an elusive concept, but one way of understanding what Reformed theologians mean by it is by negation and affirmation. Negatively, simplicity denies that there is one thing and another in God. Positively, simplicity affirms that whatever is in God is God. Simplicity, then, is God’s “incommunicable attribute by which the divine nature is conceived by us not only as free from all composition and division, but also as incapable of composition and divisibility.

One does not have to adopt a philosophical framework to affirm this. One merely needs to avoid the errors of either dividing God up or composing Him of lesser parts. It doesn't do to say: "I affirm God has no body parts" and then talk about the Trinity in a way that divides Him up (e.g. God is like a three leaf clover).

 

[ZackF]

It is possible to believe that Thomism can be unnecessary while at same time useful and not necessarily irradiating everything touched by it?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Simplicity... entails more than just the idea that God has no "body parts".

I don't disagree.

The Divines clearly meant more than "without body parts" as it is redundant to note that He is a spirit and without body parts.

I'm afraid I am not seeing your point here. I agree that this is why they wrote "...without body, parts, or passions..." but this, too, could be said to redundant to note since they had already just stated that God is "...a most pure spirit, invisible..." and thus would not have a body, parts, or passions (it would also be redundant to say "without body parts" because not having a body necessarily means you can't have body parts which is why they only said "body."). That "body" includes "body parts" is testified to in the Shaw quote I posted above on WCF 2.1 "God is a most pure Spirit,– that is, he is an incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and immortal Being, without bodily parts..." (II.3).

So just to be clear, I am not saying "parts" in WCF 2.1 = "bodily parts." I believe with Shaw that the denial of "parts" was largely to refute Polytheism and Tritheism, not necessarily to enshrine what we now refer to as DDS (which I believed has evolved and become more particular since the 17th century). Again, that does not mean the Divines did not hold to DDS, I just don't believe it is clear, given the proof texts, that that is specifically what they were intending to refer to in 2.1.

One merely needs to avoid the errors of either dividing God up or composing Him of lesser parts.

Agreed.

It doesn't do to say: "I affirm God has no body parts" and then talk about the Trinity in a way that divides Him up (e.g. God is like a three leaf clover).

Also agreed - but I don't think anyone on here is doing that.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

It is possible to believe that Thomism can be unnecessary while at same time useful and not necessarily irradiating everything touched by it?

Speaking as one who is relatively conversant in philosophy and church history, I affirm that not only is it possible, but that it has been done successfully in times past. This is what I gather to be the point of Charles's citation of patristic sources as well as Rich's extensive quotation of Muller and Beeke; namely, that the Reformed orthodox appropriated certain Thomistic language and categories as teaching tools in order to explain and defend a doctrine that has always been the confession of the church, even from the earliest of times.

The issue under contention lies in whether our subscription to the WCF requires that we import the same metaphysical commitment (i.e. ontic perspective as regards to language) that the divines likewise held to, if indeed we can discern that view to which they held! Even bigger is the fact that, as Muller shows, there was a healthy diversity of views as to whether metaphysics was as useful as the schoolmen opined or whether it distracted from or obscured basic truths. Voetius, for example, cautioned the young seminarian on over-esteeming scholastic resources.

From my point of view, I find that the Thomistic formulation of absolute DDS is fraught with problems, especially when it is used to deny distinctions in God's dispositive will, such as statements like "His justice is the same as His mercy", as well as the unique properties of the divine persons ad intra. However, I think @Ulster Fry likewise forces himself into an unnecessary conundrum when He posits the unavoidable outcome of modal collapse. Reverend Winzer, when he still frequented the board, gave excellent insight when discussing this particular issue. I'll try and track down some of his posts.

 

[Afterthought]

Seems relevant to the confessional discussion.

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

Seems relevant to the confessional discussion.

The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

But are we speaking of the "is" of ontology or of predication? If the former, then God somehow instantiates or exhausts the abstract property of Truth in His own substance/nature, alongside the other attributes in an undivided, simple fashion, such that they are all indicative of the self-same essence. If the latter, then we are speaking analogically. God is said to be 'truth itself' in that He is the sole, ultimate, and necessary reality; the source of all other beings. In virtue of that, all that He says or reveals concerning Himself or the Creation conforms to fact or reality; in other words, His testimony is in exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be, because He is the author of it all.

Despite the seeming sameness of the conclusion, the road by which one arrives at the statement "God is truth itself" will shape a lot of one's metaphysical commitments, at least as regards theology. The fact of the matter is that much of the WCF and other Reformed confessions employ what might be called an Aristotelian vocabulary. This is perfectly acceptable, so long as one can explain what is meant by the use of such language to the neophyte catechumen. Nevertheless, modern Christians probably do not subscribe to, let alone understand, the competing 17th century varieties of Scholastic metaphysics, nor do they read such assumptions into their doctrinal statements. The question, then, is how to communicate the doctrines of Scripture authentically in a contemporary setting?

Certainly, some acquaintance with late Hellenic philosophy and Scholastic terminology is a prerequisite for the serious theology student, especially if they wish to mine the depths of Puritan authors. But equally as important, I would argue, is a willingness to clarify language and give context as to why such a doctrine is and continues to be formulated in such as way, rather than letting the Larger or Shorter Catechism do the heavy lifting for you.

 

[Afterthought]

But are we speaking of the "is" of ontology or of predication? If the former, then God somehow instantiates or exhausts the abstract property of Truth in His own substance/nature, alongside the other attributes in an undivided, simple fashion, such that they are all indicative of the self-same essence. If the latter, then we are speaking analogically. God is said to be 'truth itself' in that He is the sole, ultimate, and necessary reality; the source of all other beings. In virtue of that, all that He says or reveals concerning Himself or the Creation conforms to fact or reality; in other words, His testimony is in exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be, because He is the author of it all.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. It shows that there is an abstraction "truth," and God is it itself. The WCF is not intended to be a philosophical treatise and such questions are not appropriate in determining its meaning. Its meaning being determined though, philosophy can then be helpful in explaining how it can be so and applying it. The language of the WCF and its background and use of the phrase in their writings shows the meaning pretty well that they are pointing to the former: they are not merely using the language but the metaphysics to the extent that it agrees with Scripture. However, what you describe in the latter is a helpful application and explication of what that means: truth in the abstract is a Personal being and its meaning is that the ontology and acts of this being grounds our abstract idea of truth. God being one with truth itself then means not only will he not lie but that he cannot; and that all lies do not correspond to reality. How does that work in one's philosophical system? I do not know: that's what philosophers will have to figure out. It seems to me though with the limited (undergraduate) philosophical training that I have had that the two options you present are not truly different options or at least do not need to be.

I think we aren't giving the man in the pew enough credit. These ideas are not hard to understand except when philosophers make them more difficult than they need to be (by all means, let the philosophers sort out the difficulties but not at the price of making the obvious more difficult than it needs to be or by denying the obvious). As Charles Johnson helpfully pointed out, an essence is "what something is." These things are pretty basic.

If I were to explain this part of the confession, I would say something like, "Our idea of truth is what God is. God is faithful and reliable. He is the ultimate reality and the source of what exists and so his being is what is ultimately real, what is created is real since he made it and so it is derived from him, and what he says corresponds to reality also. He cannot ever speak or reveal something false because of what he is, what his nature is: only truth can flow from him." That's the gist in a nutshell (I liked your explanation too; maybe better even, since it distinguishes between created and eternal beings better) and could be elaborated upon further and applied in a way that would do good for their souls, e.g., "He is all that he is for his people, so his being truth is for us to take comfort in his promsies and heed his warnings. Truth is beautiful ultimately because the Lord is beautiful; reality is likewise therefore beautiful, and whatever enjoyment we have in gazing upon the creation's beauty pales in comparison to the enjoyment we will have in seeing God. For those who have studied some philosophy, we find that truth in the abstract is not an impersonal entity but is the personal God: his being and person instantiates and gives meaning to our abstract idea and grounds our abstract idea in reality."

 

[RamistThomist]

One takeaway is that metaphysical considerations are inescapable. The divines employed metaphysics. They weren't doing "pure and simple Bahbul" and just came up with the Confession.

Some of these problems are difficult. I like a lot of a modified Aristotelianism, and I generally like Feser. I am aware of the difficulties, but I don't find them overwhelming at the moment, if only because I am not smart enough.

 

[RamistThomist]

One takeaway is that metaphysical considerations are inescapable. The divines employed metaphysics. They weren't doing "pure and simple Bahbul" and just came up with the Confession.

Some of these problems are difficult. I like a lot of a modified Aristotelianism, and I generally like Feser. I am aware of the difficulties, but I don't find them overwhelming at the moment, if only because I am not smart enough.

Or to make it worse. It's easy to beat up on Aquinas because Aristotle is bad or something. Many of these same people, though, like Augustine for some reason, when Augustine's structure is clearly Platonic. And when it comes to hermeneutics, we are much closer to Aristotle than Plato.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

The WCF is not intended to be a philosophical treatise and such questions are not appropriate in determining its meaning. Its meaning being determined though, philosophy can then be helpful in explaining how it can be so and applying it. The language of the WCF and its background and use of the phrase in their writings shows the meaning pretty well that they are pointing to the former: they are not merely using the language but the metaphysics to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.

I don't doubt the sincerity of your response, but in the course of your argumentation you end up advocating two divergent perspectives. On the one hand, you say that the WCF is not a philosophical treatise, and that it does not demand adherence to a particular view of metaphysics. At the same time, however, the body of supporting evidence, as you understand it, leads towards a view that the majority of assembly divines did have a realist/Aristotelian view of 'universals', and that such a metaphysical commitment is intrinsically bound up in the language employed in the confession. As a result of this, some Christians feel that they are under obligation to accept a view of metaphysics that, while comporting with confessional language, they feel does not do justice to how the divine nature is communicated in Scripture.

What has increasingly impressed me in recent years is the unabashedly personal manner in which the Scriptures communicate God's attributes, always with man in view as a referent, either in the positive (analogical) or negative (apophatic) sense. For instance, one learns of the LORD's unfailing truthfulness over the course of progressive revelation not as a consequence of His ontic identity with an abstract concept, but as a result of His omnipotence and steadfastness of character being juxtaposed to man's fragility and double-mindedness (cf. Numbers 23:19). It is owing to God's own moral perfection, His righteousness, and the redemptive purpose to which He has resolutely committed Himself, that makes Him incapable of lying; as lying and all forms of deceit are marks of sin. The underlying unity of the attributes arises from an understanding that many of the things that we ascribe to God (i.e. His power, His wisdom, His wrath, His mercy, His patience, etc.) are in fact particular manifestations of His 'goodness'; they are specific, relational applications of that all-encompassing aspect of Himself that He identifies as His most basic substance (cf. Exodus 33:18-23).

Again, I'm not trying to bash the use of philosophical language in systematic theology, nor does it represent my own opinion on the topic of metaphysics. The intent of these posts is to give voice to an underrepresented viewpoint on this board, and to show how a more Biblical theology approach to doctrine can still yield formulations that are consonant with the Reformed standards. As far as DDS is concerned, I think that it is as close to an ineffable truth as we are ever likely to encounter in the Scriptures.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm afraid I am not seeing your point here. I agree that this is why they wrote "...without body, parts, or passions..." but this, too, could be said to redundant to note since they had already just stated that God is "...a most pure spirit, invisible..." and thus would not have a body, parts, or passions (it would also be redundant to say "without body parts" because not having a body necessarily means you can't have body parts which is why they only said "body."). That "body" includes "body parts" is testified to in the Shaw quote I posted above on WCF 2.1 "God is a most pure Spirit,– that is, he is an incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and immortal Being, without bodily parts..." (II.3).

I was attempting to respond to your comments (below and elsewhere) that seem to imply that all that the WCF language implies by "parts" are phuical body parts. You wrote:

Agreed. I was responding to someone referring to the proof texts in WCF 2.1 by noting that there is just one set for the combined words "without body, parts."

If the proofs were just intended for "body" (since the verses referenced only deal with physical images and body parts) why are they not inserted after that word instead of where they are, after "parts." In other words, what do Deut. 4:15-16 and John 4.24 have to do with proving God exists with/without "parts"?

I think this is all Ulster Fry Phil was trying to get across in #103 and #151, and no one really answered him. He asked for Scriptural proof of DDS and he was referred to the WC proofs. My point is that these proofs deal with God having no body, not Him not having parts, and yet they are placed after the word "parts," not "body."

So now there are 2 questions: (1) What Scripture supports God not having parts, and (2) Why didn't the Divines place such references after the word "parts"?

Something that I may have thought goes without saying, but needs to be said, is that the Divines were not "prooftexters". It's quite common for the Scripture references (not proofs) to be looked at by those unfamiliar with their method and say: "There's no way that that verse "proves" the doctrine that they are asserting. Remember, the Divines were directed to provide Scriptural references after they had already completed the confession.

In other words, get used to being disappointed if you are looking for a 1:1 correspondence to what you expect to find in a reference given in the WCF.

The WCF doesn't say that God is just a spirit but a pure spirit. They are already differentiating. Is God the only spirit? No. Angels and demons are also spirits. They are also without body but they are not without parts and passions. God is. That God is without parts distinguishes from all other created beings including other spirits. As has been noted, it is an incommunicable attribute and the Divines are not merely redundantly saying He has no "parts" of a body He laks.

 

[Afterthought]

I don't doubt the sincerity of your response, but in the course of your argumentation you end up advocating two divergent perspectives. On the one hand, you say that the WCF is not a philosophical treatise, and that it does not demand adherence to a particular view of metaphysics.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. My point was 1) the meaning of the WCF should be determined in a particular way that one normally does, not examining it as a philosophical treatise with all these fine distinctions in mind and hoping the document will answer them but simply using standard ways to figure out what they were saying, 2) what they are saying does commit us to some metaphysics., and 3) the metaphysics is pretty simple and to my common sense realist mind, inescapable in any system of philosophy--the different systems will just use different language they think is better to convey the concepts or will seek to find the meaning of the concepts in different ways or try to pretend that those metaphysical elements are not there.

My explanation of that statement in the WCF that I gave is likely similar to what the divines would give, but I did also add a bit later philosophical insight (at least so far as I'm aware; I grabbed it from 19th and 20th century reflections on the common sense school of thought and the debates between Van Til and Clark; there's plenty that I haven't read of the divines) when seeking to explain the meaning in a more fine-grained way. They are actually very much related to the "personal" elements that you noted in your post and with which I have no disagreement, and they are related to the Puritan view that theology is the art or science of living to God.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't normally do this but it was requested that I let you know that I decided to issue a warning to @Ulster Fry for his repeatedly churlish comments specifically directed against one of the Admins.

At first, I was going to let the thread just end the way it did until the cumulative "bad faith" reading and accusations against the Admin were stacked up.

I just can't let things like that go.

Look, everyone contributes to the tone. I know I can contribute to things getting too hot. The bottom line, however, is that we can't have people repeatedly calling down curses on the Admins in the middle of a thread.

I'm just going to go ahead and close the thread because it's become more of a thread on simplicity and that wasn't really the point of the thread. If you want to continue the discussion on simplicity then start a new thread.