Carl Trueman, Church historian, and faculty at Westminster Seminary (Penn.) just penned a post on the role that historians should provide in 
providing perspective on the intellectual history of our past. He believes that over theΒ last 1,000 years there has only been 2 major paradigm shifts that have actually been intellectual (even spiritual) paradigm shifts; one of which is the following:
Enter the church historians. Β Any intellectual historian of any merit will tell you that the last 1,000 years in the West have only produced two moments of paradigm shifting significance, and neither of them was the Reformation. Β The first was the impact of the translation into Latin of Aristotle’s metaphysical works. Β This demanded a response from the thirteenth century church. Β The response, most brilliantly represented by Thomas Aquinas, revolutionized education, transformed the philosophical landscape, opened up fruitful new avenues for theological synthesis, and set the basic shape of university education until the early eighteenth century. Β Within this intellectual context, the Reformation was to represent a critical development of Augustinian anti-Pelagianism in terms of the understanding of the church and of salvation . . . . (whole post here)
This is pivotal. This is something that I don’t think most Calvinists/Arminians grasp (or want to acknowledge). I’m not talking about folks like Trueman, Muller, Clark et. al.; I’m talking about folks involved with The Gospel Coalition, folks who follow John MacArthur, folks who follow John Piper et. al. Most folks who follow these groups and teachers and pastors believe that they don’t have an apparatus in place when they read Scripture through their Calvinist (and also Arminian) categories. Most people who are in this camp believe that they “just” read Scripture. But the reality is, is that they (by-and-large) interpret Scripture through the synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology provided by Thomas Aquinas (even if Thomas and Aristotle get “Protestantized”). The moral is, is that we all read Scripture through interpretive traditions; shouldn’t we acknowledge that, and then strive to appropriate modes of inquiry that are most proximate with the categories of Scripture? Do Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas provide the best grammar to articulate the implications and teaching of Scripture? Does Aristotle’s God, the Monad, the Unmoved Mover, the Singular Substance provide the best apparatus for articulating the Christian God who is Triune, Relational, and Love in His inner-life? If not, then why would you appeal to this interpretive tradition to do the heavy-lifting for Christian thought that it clearly cannot do? Is it because you have sentimental attachment to teachers of the “old paths” that did; is it because your pastor says this is so; is it because this is the only way you think it possible to talk about God’s sovereignty; is it because you think it’s the “Orthodox” way, and any other way is heterodox or Neo-orthodox; is it because you like a God who is static, and so you’re comfortable with a static view π ?
Evangelical Calvinism eschews this approach (the one that Trueman identifies as a major paradigm shift for Christian intellectual history). Not because we (I) think being different is cool, but because we think being different in this case is sound and reflects a more orthodox way to think about God. We think that if you start (methodologically) with a wrong approach to God, then you’ll end up with a wrong approach in living to and for God. This is why I am so motivated to continue to write about this stuff! It’s not a political power play, it’s not to impress people with intellectual acuity, it’s not because I want to win an argument, it’s not because I want to polarize the body of Christ, it’s not because I’m noble; it’s because “I” have become convinced that following Thomas (in general, methodologically) leads to a spirituality that reflects the god thatΒ provides an “Unmoved spirituality!”
Hi Bobby. First time commenter and enjoyer (is that a word) of your blog. This is a very critical post. Thank you my brother. One of my favorite parts – “…itβs because βIβ have become convinced that following Thomas (in general, methodologically) leads to a spirituality that reflects the god that provides an βUnmoved spirituality!β This is so true my friend! Thank you.
*Standing O!*
@Michael,
Glad to have another lurker revealed π . Comment anytime, brother; glad this post struck a cord with you. If you don’t mind sharing, what’s your ecclesial background? Where do you line up theologically? Glad to have you here!
@Brian,
π .
Yes, yes. Right on Bobby. So, you seem to have adapted a softer view on Augustine, but from what I’ve read, Aquinas builds his Theology largely off of Augustine, especially Aristotle’s unmoved mover. Please set me straight.
Duane,
Augustine was neo-Platonic, Thomas was Aristotelian. Thomas often appealed to Augustine, but he synthesized him through his Aristotelian lens.
Hi Bobby. Sorry it took so long to answer. My family and I are in limbo right now when it comes to a fellowship. We went from Presbyterian to Reformed Baptist to a home fellowship. Theologically, I just came out of the rigorous Fedaral Calvinism that you describe and am just enjoying your writings, the writings of T.F.Torrance, C. Baxter Kruger, Martin M. Davis, James A. Fowler of Christinyou.net, the Grace Communion Int. guys, Robin Parry, etc. I wouldn’t label myself anything soteriologically. I do however bounce back and forth between Evangelical Universalism and Annihlationism. Thank you so much for your blog brother and I am so glad that you are doing well and healthy.
Hey Michael,
Great to hear back. “Thinking” is a dangerous and uncomfortable prospect, not for the faint of heart. But I take it as ‘eternal life’, i.e. growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus. This does not mean rationalist certainty about everything (as much of Christianity desires), but to walk by faith; which means to trust and depend on and in our loving God. This clearly leads us into rough waters sometimes (times of angst), but it is good to know that the Lord never leaves or forsakes us (even if some in his body do at points). Keep the faith, brother . . . glad to know you’re reading; and glad to know that my fragmented meager attempts are producing some fruit (even if its only raisin-like π ). I appreciate the good words, Michael! God bless.
@Bobby Grow
Ah!!! St. Plato! I hope the wisdom of the greeks does not strip the gospel stark naked of its power ;).
Seriously, I know this isn’t the time, because you like to keep your posts on topic, but we need a debate on Augustine. I just don’t see salvation by faith. I also see a whole lot of toxins in his teaching. I don’t read Augustine either. So maybe those who write about him are wrong.
Duane,
The whole Western Church to one degree or another is sprinkled through and through with Augustine. Augustine like anyone else in Church History (esp. like Calvin for some) is a wax-nose. I think the debate you want may end up being more of a diatribe with yourself than you might want to admit π .
No, really, I’m a plebe. I have no ground to question such a heavy weight, but Torrance seems to lean heavy against him, and some “biblicists” don’t care for him. I know that wiki is not theology central, but even wikipedia on Augustine, when weighed in the balance, looks like a protein and vitamin fortified septic tank milkshake (election, mariology, transubstantiation, salvation by water baptism). I don’t know what a waxnose is, but if it is what I think it is, I couldn’t hold a candle to Aquinas’ nose either, yet you spend considerable time melting his off.
Again, this is not the time, I would simply like to be educated why Aquinas gets the pie in the face while Augustine remains enshrined.