This is in response to Phil Johnson of Pyromaniac fame. He recently posted an article, at his blog, on Robert George [Princeton Lawyer, and champion of conservative ethics, also devout Roman Catholic] (one of the signers of the “Manhattan Declaration”); he was offering a scathing critique of George’s usage of “Natural Law.” You can read his “critique” here.
I ended up making a comment on Phil’s article, I said:
Phil,
I agree with your critique of George’s use of reason; but where do you think that comes from? He is, and Rome is, pure and simple Thomist. This dichotomy between Faith and Reason fountain-heads from there.
What I find ironic about your critique is that your sword cuts both ways. I wish the TULIP and its history was as pure and biblical as we are lead to believe; but unfortunately it is not. It’s informing doctrine of God is as thoroughly “Thomist” as George’s ethics and natural law are. So either the “Calvinist” can simply reject what I just said; or accept it, and just remain internally inconsistent when critiques are made of natural law theory.
Just my 2 cents . . .
After a series of comments (of which one of the “Pyros” deleted two of mine), Phil says to me, in a summarizing kind of way:
. . . Moreover, the threads of similarity and realationship between Thomist soteriology and Calvinism are a lot less clear-cut than you imply. That’s only one of several reasons your argument is simplistic and jejune.
But for the umpteenth time, this is not the place to have that discussion. Not only does the above post have nothing to do with Calvinism; it makes no reference to Thomas Aquinas, either. You’re the one that brought him up. I realize he stressed “natural law,” but he didn’t invent the idea, and this post was not making any argument about Aquinas per se.
Incidentally, one of Thomas’s central beliefs, and something he wrote tons of material in defense of, is the doctrine of divine omniscience. Would you suggest that everyone who argues against Open Theism is a “Thomist”? Do you think everyone who accepts the doctrine of divine omniscience is so indebted to Thomas that it would be inconsistent to accept omniscience and yet reject Aquinas’s stress on natural law? Are we obliged to entertain a debate about Thomism in our meta every time a post makes reference to divine omniscience?
That’s essentially the argument you’ve tried to make about Calvinism. It’s silly.
Period.
I’ll clarify one more time: because this post made no reference to either Thomas Aquinas or Calvinism, the debate you want to have is off topic here, and any further reference to it, by anyone–for ANY reason–will result in a ban. (And it will be a permanent ban if the culprit is a repeat offender.)
I want to provide more feedback to this kind of thinking by Phil, but if I do it over there, It will either be deleted and/or I will be banned or both; so I’ll do it from the safety of my own little cyber-space.
It is severly naive to think that the TULIP and the ethics of Robert George have nothing to do with eachother; and yet this is exactly what Phil believes. It is naive because both start, methodologically, with a Doctrine of God that is Thomist (viz. a doctrine of God that construes God as the ‘unmoved mover’ or a ‘Monadic singularity’ from whence the persons of the Trinity ‘subsist’). It is this vision of God that strings reality together in a series of analogical connections; so that all of reality finally finds its cause in the “First cause” God (we can analogically work our way, through ‘reason’ by ‘perfecting grace’ through a series of links that ultimately get us to this God — i.e. start with man, move to Angels, move to God). It is this doctrine of God that allows for the appeal to “Natural Law” that George makes (an inseparably related dichotomy between ‘faith and reason’); and at the same time allows for a TULIP’ist to appeal to the notion that God died for a limited amount of people known as the elect.
Let me explain: Both the “natural lawist” and the “TULIP’ist” assume on this split between “nature and grace;” so that nature predicates grace (or man somehow predicates who God is), at least this is the unwanted implication. The Thomist sees this dilemma, so they appeal to Aristotle’s causation, which allows them to speak of primary and secondary causation; more popularly known as “decrees.”
When applied to George’s Thomist ethics, this means that he can appeal to “Natural Law” because it is something that fits within a Thomist world of “secondary causation.” God is the primary cause, but He has so created that nature has the ability to act “freely” within itself — according to itself — because of this man has the appitude within himself to know right from wrong by simply looking at nature. What this does, though, is assume on a split between nature and grace so that God is seen as the primary cause, and ethics are seen as the result of man reflecting upon observations of nature (which is a result of secondary causation, not directly associated with God — God remains untouched by nature).
Similarly, the TULIP’ist, like Phil Johnson represents, when thinking through the logic of the TULIP also appeals to this aforementioned split between nature and grace. For him, he believes that God ‘unconditionally elected’ a particular group of people to ‘save’ and die for (limited atonement); and that this choice is based within God’s decree (secondary cause). This belief places a wedge between nature and grace by assuming the Aristotelian notion that ‘God’ is an unmoved mover who cannot be touched by His creation (if so He has been moved by someone/thing other than Himself). The problem is, is that in this framework, God in Christ, then becomes subserviant to His decrees when He becomes man in the Incarnation. This means that something/one other than Himself (nature — secondary cause) has dictated how or who He should be; and that is apart from His own self-determined person.
The similarity between both George and Johnson’s approaches is in their respective ‘Doctrine of God’. They both work out of the notion that God is the ‘unmoved mover’ (even if Phil denies it, this is the history and framework that has given birth to the TULIP). They both assume that God works through ‘secondary causes’. Thus they both assume that God is predicated to be who He is by nature — thus they make God ‘contingent’ upon His creation; whether that be in the realm of ethics (George), or in the realm of soteriology (Johnson).
For Phil to say that my points on his critique of George were simple and jejune is simply to admit that he is either unaware of the facts; or he is aware, and simply chooses to ignore them in order to maintain a modicum of ‘biblicism’ when in fact what is really being maintained is a ‘Thomist’ doctrine of God in the name of ‘biblicism’ (which is even worse).
Good grief! Robert George isn't trying to make catholics out of calvinists or orthodox christians. He's trying to turn up the heat on secular rationalists and turn their arguments on their head. But because he comes from a Thomist point of view and is Catholic, many evangelical Christians from the Protestant tradition disparage his efforts as misguided and tainted by "bad religion", unecessarily worried, in my view, that he is trying to convert them (or society at large) to Catholicism. The discussions about Thomas Aquinas, etc. are interesting. But it's not what George is hoping to accomplish. He's trying to ignite a brilliant fight in the public square against the erosion of marriage, life, and conscience. And one that we all have a part to play in.
Hello Paul,I realize George isn't trying to "convert" anyone; and to me that's part of the problem. This post though was in response to folks who are also Thomist and don't admit it.As far as George, I realize that he may accomplish "good;" but what does that mean, if we only reinforce how "good" man is in himself — which is what "natural theology or law" is grounded in — it makes man feel "good" about himself (because he is doing good) all the way to heal. So no, I don't follow a "consquentialist" ethic; which is what George's ethic seems to be rooted in.
I'm a little lost on the logic of how God-in-Christ becomes subservient to His decrees etc. Although I do agree that when the focus spirals in at any point on "man", the purity of the Gospel message is in danger of being compromised.I guess I don't need to understand Thomism or it's history to be concerned about what appears to be inconsistency in the protest against Mr. George's Catholicism. There appears to be suspicion in some protestant circles that individual Catholics who attempt friendly communication across previously distinct doctrinal "battle lines" are somehow attempting to help the Pope reel in stray sheep in order to get them back under the direct control of the papacy. Some protestant sects seem to be pretty convinced that the office of the Pope is that of "the" Antichrist. Maybe it is…I don't have my eschatology that well nailed down. But, with that belief hovering in the background,those of certain protestant traditions will most likely find fault with anything "ecumenical" a practicing Catholic might do (regardless of whether the protest is a logical one). Certainly, official Roman Catholic teaching is messed up, and I could never place myself under the oversight of that particular organization. But, while his religion's official stance my be very wrong, is it not still possible that George's personal intellectual understanding of the gospel is no more fatally flawed than that of most born again Protestants? From what I understand, the Catholic church does have the core correct but has created terrible confusion with a bunch of tacked on human teaching–not unlike what goes on in much of the protestant sphere. I'm kind of thinking that anyone who has met the real Jesus is able to (through Him) overcome the deceptive religious wrapping that surrounded that meeting. But, the drawing out from the religious mess doesn't always happen instantaneously. I dunno. Maybe I'm overlooking something really obvious and of significant impact to the issue.
Heather,I tend to agree with you on the confusion on "both sides" even in re. to salvation.I also agree that there is an element of fear, not discernment, that pushes folks away from someone like George. But, whatever his motives, his theological paradigm is open for critique — as is all of ours — and when we look at the history of George's there are real problems, IMO, relative to his understanding of faith and reason; because it flows from a misunderstanding of God (because it forces God into a mold that He doesn't fit, categorically).I'll have to try and flesh out the point on Christ and the decrees later.
"his theological paradigm is open for critique — as is all of ours — and when we look at the history of George's there are real problems, IMO,"I know next to nothing about Robert George, but I gotcha. Believe me, I understand your point all too well.If any aspect of scripture has been drilled home to me it is that "all men are liars and only God can truly be trusted" (paraphrase). Our hearts can so easily deceive ourselves and be deceived by others–we dare not accept anything at "face value" but take everything to the feet of Christ and humbly ask Him for wisdom. There really is no other way.
Amen!I really don't know much of Robert George either, except that he is Roman C.; and his appeal to 'natural law' is directly related to how Thomas Aquinas thought of the relationship between faith and reason. Classic Calvinism operates out of many of the same categories. That was my point with Phil, but alas he doesn't want to really engage; instead he wants to try and pooh-pooh me away (and on his blog, with his audience that is pretty easy to do).I want to say, though, that I still appreciate Phil; I just want to challenge him to be more self-critical, and if he is, to be more public about it — this would benefit a huge swath of his readership. The Pyros seem to be the teachers, there is often/always an "unteachable" attitude over there; but that obviously does not stop me from trying.
:)I've had Phil misunderstand my comments a couple times. That's okay. I usually say way more than I need to and probably lose my meaning halfway through. I appreciate him also. Considering the way I tend to take over comment sections (like a noxious weed?) , he and the other Pyros have been incredibly tolerant. I haven't been troll-sprayed yet. They deserve kudos on that count.The Pyros seem to be the teachers, there is often/always an "unteachable" attitude over there;I was going to mention something that might be helpful to keep in mind as you interact. I believe Phil (and maybe Dan) is closely connected with John MacArthur's ministry. While I respect all of them as teachers and men of the Word, there seems to be a forward-leaning aggressiveness that is a common trait in those who operate according to the "MacArthur method". I'm not trying to be mean. Craig and I know two men personally who have had close association with Master's Seminary, Grace Community and/or Shepherd's Conference. And Craig recently met another MacArthur-trained gentleman who moved to our area not too long ago. And all of those men also display this tendency to be combative and somewhat unbendable in their stance on teaching, church structure, doctrine, etc. They're godly men. They love the Lord and His truth. And they take VERY seriously their roles as leaders in the church. That is tremendously admirable in this day. But, sometimes there is a harsh edge on the way they handle people who don't see eye to eye–or are willing to learn but slow on the uptake. Sometimes, this intense drive to purge the church of substandard teaching/apathetic pew sitters cuts more deeply than is necessary. Pray for them, Bobby. Proper balance between Godly passion for truth and compassion for human frailty is not an easy thing to maintain. They are under a lot of pressure and are human, just like us.Heather
Heather,I appreciate your points. I have plenty personal experience with MaCarthurites — being from Southern California and all — in fact one of MaCarthurs' understudies became the pastor at our church, brought in all his strident zeal and attitude; and split the church (and this was on purpose, i.e. to weed out the 'non-saved', those who can't handle the "hard teaching"). My best friend also went to the shepherds' conf (the last one), he is a pastor of a church in Idaho, and he came away unimpressed (much of it attitudinal, bust also doctrinal, the two are related). I have many other examples of people I know who have attended Masters (and either buy into it, or don't); in general they come out with the attitude you say . . . there is a predisposition for some that way.I would connect their "harsh attitude" to a faulty anthropology wherein "what one knows" trumps all else. There anthropology comes to them, and is uncritically accepted by them, through what is known as Thomist Intellectualism wherein the "mind" (the rationale) is the defining feature of what makes man, man (this sees the affections/heart and will as week). This is where an attitude of what one knows becomes prominent over/against of 'who we know' . . . by way of emphasis. I've tried to make this known to these guys, but their too ensconced in their "biblicism" to think that in fact they might hold onto certain presuppositions that aren't so biblical. In my experience the Pyros, in general, are horribly unaware of the history of ideas; they seem to have a hard time thinking synthetically, or theo-logically (unless their in own internal system, which is where they stay). This is why they come off so harsh, IMO, they think they "know," they've been around the block — the problem is that there is more than one block, and they keep circling the same one. So it's kind of a vicious circle; they think they know as they ought, but there is more to it than they think — and they aren't humble enough to admit it. Plus their following only reinforces their attitude in general; thus their is the temptation to simply mute any voices that might question "what they know" — in fact the existence of their blog pivots on "what THEY know," their credibility stands or falls, they aren't out to "learn" anything. But that's fine . . . btw, I used to come off alot harder myself, Heather, with the Pyros that is, I have a history with them — which is usually why they ignore me, or just try to marginalize and blow me off. But it's kind of fun . . . π
Bobby Grow, the blogger who changes his site look as frequently as some people change their socks. πin fact one of MaCarthurs' understudies became the pastor at our church, brought in all his strident zeal and attitude;Actually, our experience with the MacArthur mindset was in our former church. I can identify with the description you offer, as we watched the pastor and elders butt heads (one of the elders is the other MacArthur guy I mentioned). The pastor really took seriously his position as "shepherd"–and was a great expository preacher…but there was an element of control and he seemed to press undue emphasis on uniform agreement concerning his Scriptural understanding. The elders all ended up leaving and the church body split, too, over some differences that I still don't quite understand. We left on good terms (I saw the pastor at the supermarket a couple months ago and we chatted a bit), but were part of the mass Exodus because we came to a place where we realized that we experienced heart-level fellowship with the "exiles" rather than with the retained pastor and those who thought like him.I still hope for healing of whatever the original rift was. The former elders seem willing, and are waiting for a cue from the pastor. One thing we learned for sure. There is a huge difference between deep-rooted Holy Spirit directed unity and a surfacy, intellectual conformity concerning doctrinal statements and the like. The 3rd MacArthur guy that Craig recently met is a younger fellow who heard good things about our small fellowship but was concerned bout us being pastorless and said he was interested in being our pastor. We haven't been looking for a pastor as we have a plurality of recognized elders who rotate teaching. He didn't really seem to understand how we can have a "together" group without a good, strong leader……But, we DO have a Leader. He's a Good Shepherd Who has spiritually grown me more in the last 3 years of being "loose" than the previous 20-some years of going to a church with a paid pastor (not to say that it is an evil thing to sit under a paid pastor).I had gotten way too comfy with sitting in the cruise ship of "Churchianity" and am thankful that it hit the ice-burg it did. After being thrown overboard, I was finally ready to get serious about knowing Jesus.heather
Oh, and I was aware you guys have a history…It was that trail that led me to your site. I'm happy to let guys like you engage in the theological battles. I tend to be more of a Rodney King-ish sort that whines from the sidelines "Guys, can't we all just get along?" π
Yeah, I get borred easily (esp. now-a-days); sorry, in fact I might change it again ;-).Oh, so we've had a similar circumstance in re. to Macarthur styled pastors; I know others in different churches with the same story. I think the mentality is, that Macarthur and crew have it all figured out — that there is one message of scripture (and there is), and they've got it nailed down — so the intentional method is to give the "hard sayings of Jesus," and if certain church members can't hack it; they were simply the "chaff" that needed to blow away. I would agree that we need to give the hard teaching, but there is a "way" to do it. I'm afraid that the flesh often gets in the way; esp. if coupled with the attitude that "we" (as a Macarthurite trained pastor[s]) have it all figured out! I think we need to let God's work speak, which always points to Jesus; and let that, Him, divide; not our approaches and or attitudes — and I've seen the latter with almost all the Master's guys (although I've come across some exceptions too).I'm glad you were prompted to go deep with the LORD as a result of the breakdown at your church. Btw, I also find it ironic that some of these young Mac. guys somewhat, functionally, see themselves as the "cardinals" (if you look close enough you might almost see an episcopal church gvt. and model at play in the Mac. ecclesiology — this is the case with many Prot. pulpits and ministries [personality cults, but more than that] . . . we haven't fallen that far from our "Catholic" tree or heritage, esp. not as far as the certain Calvinists would have us think, ironically).Well I'm glad that trail led you and Craig here, I'm glad for the thoughtful interaction!
Yeah, I get borred easily (esp. now-a-days); sorry, in fact I might change it again ;-). Hey, your site, your right.I was just teasing. It is kind of fun to just stop in to see what you've done with the place.I would agree that we need to give the hard teaching, but there is a "way" to do it.I'm not so sure the "hard teachings" are quite as hard as they've been made to be. It seems to me that a recurring message throughout scripture is that of repentance–which essentially looks like a humble acceptance that *I* am not God and need to submit myself to the loving Father as a child–ready for a relationship and any discipline that needs to occur in order to properly grow me up. I agree that God can certainly speak for Himself. That is, if we shut up long enough to give Him a chance.The thought has crossed my mind that some forms of protestant church structure looks very Catholic to me. Lately, I keep thinking of Jesus words in Matthew But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and you are all brothers. And call no one your father on the earth, for One is your Father in Heaven. Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, even Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. Incredibly sobering, considering the fact that most churches that I've ever attended have some form of hierarchical structure. Obviously, there are those who fill the position of teachers and elders and so on. But I'm thinking we weren't supposed to be passing out name tags with titles like DR. or Professor So and So.I'm also glad for the interaction. Let me know if I get too yakkitive. I expect your supposed to be resting.
Heather,I mean hard like Jn 6. I agree there is a "way" to do it, and not. There are things that repulse the flesh; teachings that convict the heart! I'm afraid though that some have made the "hard" their approach, not couching it in the love of Christ by way of tone. I think your critique on this, over at the Pyros, is right on!There's no doubt that the LORD speaks, I've been hearing Him more clearly these last few weeks that I have ever heard Him in my whole life. I think we have to want to listen, and shutup enough to listen . . . He's always present like He said!Nothing comes from a vacuum, inclusing church structures.I don't have problems with Dr Prof pastor, etc. The Bible uses the "titles" to identify. Now the question is if these are "good" drs, profs, pastors or bad.No, I'm not really supposed to resting; I'm just bored, I basically wait all day for my chemo (until 8pm), it only goes for about an 1.5hr — then done. They only have me in the hospital to make sure I didn't halluciante, and by God's grace I haven't. So I'm just bored.
Interesting you would mention John 6. I just bumped heads with a Lutheran over our different understandings of the sacraments of baptism and communion. Not bad, but I think I offended him unintentionally. He wants to discuss the different perspectives, but I'm a little hesitant because I don't want to end up arguing.Really, when I was thinking "hard", I think more along the lines of the sermon on the mount. Not so much the intellectual understanding or the "do" stuff but the "be" stuff. Be humbled (that is literally everywhere throughout scripture and I think a main theme from the beginning), be transformed by the renewing of the mind, submit to discipline as a son does to a loving father…that sort of thing. Human pride likes to try to worm around the stuff about attitude and the need to admit that we are all idiots compared to God and desperately need Him.I think your critique on this, over at the Pyros, is right on! I think I'm mostly tolerated like a mosquito in a pup tent. If I ever actually draw blood, I expect to get smacked :)But really, it isn't my place to change hearts–just share what is on mine.Yes. I don't mind the use of titles–I just am afraid that often we tend to place more emphasis on them than we are supposed to…I mean, we do call our dad's "father", and He gave us the family picture so we can get a better idea of what God is like. But when we focus mainly on human father–or human marriage–or human brotherly love–we've skewed the picture and risk engaging in idolatry.That's great that your not hallucinating. I hear it is really awful. A pastor we had once had some back problems and was put on morphine or something…he was hallucinating and seeing terrifying–demonic stuff. Very un-fun.I'm just bored That's too bad. You're welcome to go play in my sandbox–God's been showing me some amazing things about Proverbs and how there is a relevant connection to Jesus' life. I'd love to get your input.heather
Heather,Interesting on Jn 6. The thing is, Lutherans are just wrong. Bring a little Greek into it, and I think its over with ;-).I suppose all the teaching in scripture is "Hard," that's why we need Jesus, eh :-).Yeah, we definitely overemphasize things, esp. ourselves; it's just impossible not to use titles, in fact if you don't use titles, then you're title becomes "someone who doesn't use titles" (and their can be an arrogance tied to that) :-).It's a blessing to not be hallucinating, thank you LORD; just two more days and I'm out of here, yes! I'll have to come over and check out your thoughts on Prov. I'm not surprised you're finding stuff related to Jesus' life given passages like Jn 5:39; and the fact that the wisdom of the Proverbs is the reiteration of the moral wisdom embedded in the 'Law' which is a reflection of Yahweh's holiness.
The thing is, Lutherans are just wrong. Bring a little Greek into it, and I think its over with ;-).Thanks for the advice, I apparently won't need to go there. I made a huge mistake when saying that I'm non-denominational and prefer to stay that way because of the potential for distraction of needing to defend certain doctrinal statements and creeds. I've noticed it can be a problem for people and a temptation to focus on that instead of just searching Scripture. Knowing me, I would get stuck studying up on what so and so taught about this or that passage–and never get around to actually asking God.As you said, titles (labels or definitions) can be good. They do give us "handles" that we can use to sort our concepts and figure out what is true. I can (and do) happily learn from teachers that hold to different traditions. I didn't accuse the guy of having wrong priorities and never said that being a Lutheran is equivalent to committing the unpardonable sin. It's just not something I'm drawn to at this time. But, as you said, there is apparently an arrogance tied to that perspective because it really set the guy off about how I am supposedly reveling in some imagined sense of superiority. I don't think I am. But maybe it's a subtle thing.I didn't realize it would be such a serious problem to him that I don't have the assurance he does that Martin Luther had everything right. I guess it's a sin to tell the truth and admit that I am sure of some things but am trying to be cautious about grabbing hold of whole doctrinal statements without first measuring them against what the Bible says. Oh yeah, and I had to open my big mouth and request that another commenter please use caution when speculating that non-Lutherans are stubbornly clinging to false doctrine. That went up like a lead balloon.So, now I've been informed that I'm postmodern?, willfully ignorant, judgmental, confused, arrogant, a hater of Truth and am calling Jesus a liar :(That's rather humbling, as I'm not well-versed in Lutheran thought and really felt as though I was making an honest effort to discuss and give him a chance to explain his perspective. I guess, though,that since I announced that I hold a different view of the sacraments, it automatically puts me on "the other side". The open hostility kind of took me by surprise.I don't have a clue why I'm bothering you with this as you've got plenty on your plate already.There's no pressure to read stuff on my blog, either. When I read my Bible, I see "pictures" and think in concepts. Craig told me that is fine as long as what I think I see matches with what the text actually says. I'm no scholar, so was just hoping that since you have obviously had training I might get either verification or correction. Still praying that your treatments go well and that the Lord continues to hold you all close during this time.Take care, Heather
Heather,Thank you for the prayers, today is my last day in the hospital for this cycle, amen!If you wouldn't mind giving me the url to your Lutheran exchange, I would like to take a look at that. :-)I'll have to look further at your post on Proverbs, I did look at it; just didn't comment yet. I would say Jesus is all over the Proverbs, the Pentateuch, etc. It's exciting stuff.
Last day…Wonderful! And no side effects?Here you go…http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/another-methodist-attempts-to-murder-hundreds-for-his-faith/#comment-7915Remember to play nice π
Yes, can't wait, thanks for the prayers, Heather and Craig!Oh, me and Adam had a little falling out in the past over a doctrine of scripture; I think I'll pass on the dialogue ;-).
Still hoping God wants to wipe out that mass without any need for surgery.Uh-oh! So far, he doesn't seem to mind me hanging around. I actually keep thinking I'm just being disruptive and he says I'm welcome to stay…. Well, I'll just have to come over here and whine about how misunderstood I am. :DHonestly, it seems as though the Lutheran fellow really is trying to have a conversation but we're just not connecting well. Note to self: It's really a bad idea to jump into a conversation with a potentially inflammatory remark. Maybe we should back away from the sacraments and dig into the non-denom issue. That seems to be a bigger problem for him right now anyway.H
Heather,Me too!! Thanks for praying.Give it a shot, it seems that we kind of parted ways.
Give it a shot, it seems that we kind of parted ways.Is OA Lutheran? I saw links on the site but didn't know for sure.I'm actually not discussing with him, but another guest.I assumed you had peeked in. Your welcome to read along and kick me under the table if I say something dumb.