Simplicity, Dolezal, and Dr. Cooper

We went into theology and talked a bit about the discussion on divine simplicity, the role of natural theology, etc., going on in conservative Reformed circles right now.

#Simple #natural #fraction #wisdom #book #inspired #aquinas

[DrJordanBCooper]

Well, now I know that if I'm ever in Phoenix, I'm going to ask Dr. White to get a burger.

[Athabrose]

A dialogue with White and Cooper would be awesome.

[davidcoleman]

Okay, I listened to White's entire presentation here. He clearly states that he doesn't understand classical theism, so that really renders him incapable of warning others of its dangers. If you really don't understand something (e.g., why the properties of God are identical in Him under classical theism), then you lack the warrant to criticize it. Moreover, if it's something that White is really wondering about, then why doesn't he invite Dolezal into his studio for an interview (or even a virtual interview)?

White claims that he'd get blistered in a debate if he tried to defend what Dolezal and others are arguing, but that is only due to his admitted ignorance of the topic. Of course you'd get blistered if you don't have a sweet clue what you're talking about! Ed Feser (a Catholic philosopher) routinely defends his views in debate, and though I'm not nearly on the same level as Feser or Dolezal, I too have found classical theism easy to defend from a scriptural and philosophical perspective.

And whether one likes it or not, if what you're promulgating from the Scriptures is logically incoherent, then what you're promulgating is false. The problem's locus is not in the Bible; it is in your interpretation of the Bible. A composite God is by definition not God because that renders Him a contingent being. We're supposed to sweep that under the rug in the name of unity and because we'll all be in the "gulag" anyways? Christians who notice the 800-lb. gorilla in the room are supposed to keep their traps shut because persecution is just around the corner?

Again, if you want to know the biblical basis for the views in question or why classical theists argue the way they do, why not pick up the phone? If you've got the time to debate Mormon kids about monotheism, surely you can sit the likes of Feser or Dolezal down for an hour or two, no?

[Jondoe_]

A lot of Van Till's family goes to PCA church I attend, I see them every Sunday, and while they don't hate Aquinas, (in fact one of them encouraged me to read him, though he did think he was wrong), they are surprised at how much people hate them, though they never talked to each other once before. They are some of the nicest people, but half of their family is burned out on studying theology because of how people respond to them.

P.s. I technical have met Cornelius Van Til. The young man is still struggling to say papa last I checked, but is a healthy baby. 😂

[velcrow]

Need to see a conversation between White and Dolezal!

[cynthiahunter]

My small reformed Baptist church just gave this four-part series discussing this very topic by James Dolezal to us to study before we begin Sunday lessons on this topic. Initially, it went over my head. Secondly, I was amazed. Then I listened to James White on the matter. Even though this is out of context, the scripture came to mind, “The first to state his case seems right until the second comes to question him.” I have to say at this point I’m siding with James White.

[BrandonCorley]

James, this isn't something "forced upon Scripture". If God is the first cause, it follows He is pure actuality (and the Bible itself says He is "I AM"), therefore there can be no change in God (as the Bible itself says) and He must be absolutely simple and not composed of parts (otherwise you end up dividing the essence into parts, which is the definition of polytheism), which would end up making God reliant on that which is not God in order to be God. If God's love is not fully equivalent to God, then it follows that it is a part of God. Therefore, all of what we call "God's attributes", must be one in God. He is not like us, so the fullness of God's Being is only known to Himself and is known simply to Him, but to us, since we cannot fully comprehend God, we must know His absolutely simple Being through a multiplicity of ad extra "attributes", which all reveal something true about that one simple incomprehensible Being.

I like Van Til, too, James, but you haven't kept up on Van Tilians' analysis of Aquinas. John Frame is even more positive towards Aquinas in his book on Van Til's thought, which isn't exactly a newer book. Look at guys like Chris Bolt and James Anderson on this.

[hjc]

3:03 couldn’t this same argument be made by say modalists or anyone who says the Trinity is confusing and unhelpful?

[classicchristianliterature]

…Good and necessary consequence…???
I don’t see why a highly developed theology of God proper is any different from discussing total depravity or limited atonement. The ladder of “good and necessary consequence” may be short to get from John 6 or Romans 3 to the doctrine of total depravity (but the ladder is still there, as is the case in any theological categorization of things not directly quoted from Scripture).

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”

[secundemscripturas]

classical metaphysics are simply better

[jacobcarne]

Well, even some Van Tillians now are recognizing Van Til’s poor historical theology, especially of Aquinas. The modern downplay and utter dismissal of the metaphysic and theology that the Reformed Orthodox were operating with shows why so many “reformed” people today are unable to confess unequivocally eternal generation, impassibility, simplicity, etc. in their reformed confessions.

[urbanpuritano]

“Consistent with” vs derived from Scripture.

[jkdbuck]

Oh. I was thinking of Rachel Dolezal. Sorry.

[fndrr]

Love you Dr White but Divine Simplicity is not an external idea being forced upon scripture. We have a limited capacity to fully grasp God so we have to draw distinctions in our minds, just as Joshua and Moses are said to have “changed” Gods mind and God “walked” in the Garden to cool off. There are things that will always remain mystery but by Grace our knowledge can grow through Christ. Seems like there are some pretty basic misunderstandings of each others positions here and then we all start throwing stones.

[Parks-h]

I think mr. White has missed it here. Our understanding of God must be analogical. It is not equivocal or univocal. To deny this is to be inconsistent with how the reformed have historically used theological and philosophy together.

In fact, the reason White didn’t plainly win his debate with Craig is because he ignored simplicity and impassability. Which is accepted in the 1689 LBCF and Westminster confessions.

[larrycdalton]

Generally good, but I've heard him (JW) flounder before - but never this badly.
Our brothers have always believed it - it is enshrined in the Confessions and is clearly biblical. He didn't approach this topic with the requisite humility methinks.

[brentonstanfield]

I also think it is important to highlight that any healthy doctrine of Sola Scriptura must include not only the text of Scripture and the concepts communicated thereby, but also all immediate inferences therefrom. What separates divine simplicity from middle knowledge is that one is drawn from the immediate inference from scripture (theology proper) while the other is speculation drawn from no Biblical text but is pure philosophical speculation. They are not on equal footing. Yes, simplicity may be the conclusion of the end of logical thinking… but it is a line of logical thinking that is started by Scripture. Middle knowledge is not. It is speculated (ie “well, maybe this”) and then jammed into the text.

[ZBO]

Although, I am sympathetic to the notion that some of these theological and philosophical definitions/categories need not be the basis for fellowship since the vast majority of Christians simply don’t have the time or resources to evaluate and really understand them. I am nevertheless exceedingly suspicious of James White’s criterion for evaluating simplicity, among other doctrines since A) He, himself holds to a relatively high level of theological understanding, which he has regularly used to draw lines between himself and other Christians or similar traditions who he has characteristically looked down upon on this basis (especially evident in his Calvinist/Arminian debates) and B) his apologetic vocation forms the backdrop for his accommodation of certain viewpoints rather than others. Concerning these two points, I am making specific reference to the comments he makes at @5:00 & @9:00. Neither of which are valid, since they would by extension nullify theological discourse in general if the standard we used for our doctrines was based upon 1) whether the majority of Christians understood them (White is very inconsistent on this as noted above) and 2) whether they can be used in a debate. On the latter, I may well point out that these things have been debated at a much higher level than is possible today, viz., medieval disputations, where people possessed better exegetical skills, language skills, and arguably had a better knowledge of the tradition (church history). To be honest, White just comes off as really opinionated and biased in his attitude towards areas of study that he is otherwise dismissive of, such as philosophy and alternative theologies to his own, i.e., Thomism. Anyone who has spent time engaging classical philosophy, patristic and medieval Christianity, alongside Reformational scholasticism can readily dismiss his opinions as shallow knee-jerk reactions to positions he really doesn’t understand as his custom of misrepresenting Aquinas. On a final point, I think classical philosophy is the perfect remedy against the philosophical ills of our age, involving rampant relativism and intellectual decadence, it should therefore not be so casually dismissed by any apologist worth his salt.

[Catholic-Perennialist]

On a similar note, an impassible God is completely passive being totally content within himself and in himself.

An impassible God cannot even be moved to create, much less punish the wicked.

[TheCrusaderPub]

He claims he wants to only get his beliefs from the Bible, but then defends a biblically inconsistent worldview, while also taking for granted things given to us by the Church that aren’t in the Bible.