In light of my last post, and to help set up some of my next posts (which will be to review an interview that John Piper did with Matt Chandler on Chandler’s appropriation of 5 Point Calvinism, and how he now preaches it in every sermon he gives) I want to provide some clarification on where 
Calvinism came from. I have blown this trumpet for years, and this has become common fare in the theological literature (in other words this is not news to the theologian); but I don’t think I can sound this alarm enough, nor do I intend on necessarily speaking to the theologian. I want to speak to folk who don’t have exposure to this kind of stuff on a daily basis; I want you, the lay or even pastoral Christian to get a better grasp on the history of Christian ideas, as it has bequeathed what we know as Calvinism and Arminianism today.
My personal chapter for mine and Myk Habet’s forthcoming edited book has to do with an aspect that involves the particular issue that I am addressing in this post. The issue is what has been called classical theism. Classical theism is basically what happened when Thomas Aquinas (medieval theologian par excellence) synthesized Aristotle’s philosophical categories with Christian doctrine. This, in general, is what has given shape to most of Western Christianity in the centuries following; and what has given us the ongoing battle between Calvinism and Arminianism (which is an interesting battle because they are just two different sides of the same doctrinal coin). To help clarify and establish what classical theism is; and my assertion to what effect classical theism has had on ‘your’ Christianity today, I am going to appeal to Kevin Vanhoozer’s comments on the same subject. Vanhoozer writes:
“Evangelical theologians live in the house that Thomas built.” While this is too simplistic, it is true that most evangelical theologians embrace some form of classical theism of which Thomas Aquinas was the leading medieval exponent. Classical theism began when Christian apologists of the second century somewhat necessarily used then dominant concepts of Greek philosophy to commend the faith, and the Scriptures, to the cultured despisers of religion. Theists define God as being of infinite perfection.: all-holy, all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present.
Classical theism refers to what has long been presumed as a synthesis worked out in the ancient and medieval church between biblical Christianity and Greek philosophy, and in particular between “God” and Aristotle’s notion of the “Unmoved Mover” (or Uncaused Cause). The Unmoved Mover is a perfect being: self-sufficient, eternal, and pure actuality (actus purus). From the latter — that God has no unrealized potential — Aristotle deduced that the Unmoved Mover must be immutable, because any change would be either for better or worse, and a perfect being is already as good as it can, and will for ever, be. God must not therefore have a body, because all bodies can be moved, so God is not material but immaterial. So: God sets the world into motion yet nothing moves God.
Thomas Aquians did not appropriate Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover wholesale. He realized that philosophy (a.k.a. “natural theology”) takes us only so far. Reason yields knowledge concerning the world of nature and, by extension, its Creator, but only revelation gives knowledge of the realm of grace and hence of the Son and Spirit. Nevertheless, by employing Aristotelian categories (e.g. substance, form, essence) and by conceding some knowledge of God to reason alone, the die of classical theism was arguably cast.
The first part of Aquinas’s Summa discusses the “one God (de Deo Uno) and treats themes accessible to natural reason — doctrines that would be held in common by Christians, Jews, and Arabs alike. Here we find discussions of God’s existence, unity, nature, and attributes. Aquinas treats the “three persons” (de Deo Trino) second, when he turns to the truths of revelation. He consequently presents the divine attributes before he even begins referring to the Incarnation and passion of the Son; in brief, he has been read as thinking about God apart from the gospel.
Seven hundred years later Charles Hodge would define theism in a way that seems to recall Aquinas: God is the ens perfectissimum (“most perfect being”) and theism is “the doctrine of an extra-mundane, personal God, the creator, preserver, and governor of the world.” Hodge also cites the Westminster Catechism, which gives what is “[p]robably the best definition of God ever penned by man”: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The triune God of the Gospel, in The Cambridge Companion To Evangelical Theology, edited by Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier, p. 19-20)
My personal chapter for our book, interestingly, develops some of what Vanhoozer here sketches in his own chapter (I hadn’t read this until after I had already submitted my chapter, I probably would’ve at least footnoted Vanhoozer here). Anyway, What I would like you to see is that there is a history; and there is also a linkage between Thomas Aquinas, and then through a post-Reformation theologian named Francis Turretin, and then to Charles Hodge who translated Turretin’s Latin ‘Elenctic Theology’ which became what he taught from, and the ground for most Reformed and Evangelical theologies following through even into the present. Classical Theism’s reach is deep and wide, and whether you know it or not; you most likely have been and/or are being affected by its reach right now.
There is no doubt that the so called Young, Restless, & Reformed like Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Kevin DeYoung, Justin Taylor and their mentors like Tim Keller, John Piper, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, et al. have all been heavily influenced by—in fact are steeped in it—by classical theism. This is the philosophical basis that has been given both academic and popular expression in what we know as Calvinism and Arminianism today. It will not be until someone grasps this, that there will be the ability present for pastors, theologians, and lay folk alike to disentangle the actual gospel from the captivity the Gospel has been in, in the clutches of classical theism.
Stay tuned for a brief engagement with Matt Chandler’s Calvinism as we watch a video interview of him with Piper on his appropriation of Calvinism; in the days to come. Not only will I use what we just described here as classical theism to understand what informs Chandler’s (et al.) Calvinism, but I will also expand the discussion out to critique something else that Chandler just barely mentions (I’ve heard him give a whole sermon on it in the past); that is, what he believes are ‘the two wills of God’—something Chandler feels he must have to deal with what he perceives as two mutually exclusive movements of God that cannot be reconciled without appealing to two wills. I will show how this comes from not only classical theism, but from an even more focused perspective; how it flows from the nominalist understanding of God’s ‘absolute power’ V. his ‘ordained power’. It would be great if Chandler and other guys in his movement would read along, but I doubt that! I hope you’ll read it though!!
When you speak of D.A. Carson are you saying C.T. is prior to his exegesis, and in fact would constrain it? I’m moving away from C.T. and the 5 point Calvinism contained therein, but it is hard, I must confess, to think the great work in biblical exegesis that D.A. Carson does is tainted with C.T. and therefore a project of Idol construction ( I think this is the real issue in these discussions).
Bobby, I may have missed it somewhere else, but what is your ultimate beef with classical theism? It sounds like it somehow corrupts the gospel, but maybe that’s stronger than what you’re saying. Also, if classical theism is so problematic, then how should we read and use historical theology since the vast majority would fall under the framework of classical theism is some sense? (this isn’t a rhetorical move, I’m genuinely asking)
I have a similar question. Based on part three of that Piper interview, Chandler clearly thinks that it is by wrestling with the Scriptures that he has come to the conclusions he has reached. I guess you might want to argue that classic theism is informing his exegesis somehow, or at least that there are parallels between Chandler’s moves and the Aristotelian ones?
I suppose the danger with responding to the Piper/Chandler interview is that it is more of an autobiographical rah-rah-rah interview than a declaration of methodology. In any case, I look forward to tracking with you, as I found myself surprised at a lot of the things Piper and Chandler said (and I was already a skeptic going in).
@Kenny,
I’m sure at some level CT has impact on all of us, but I don’t see folk like Carson (from what I know of him) trying to disentangle himself from that, critically; in fact what I’ve observed (through his foundership of The Gospel Coalition and associations within that) is an embracing of the ‘kind of theology’ that CT has and continues to produce. I don’t think that this also means that we still can’t benefit from some of what he has to say and write, but I usually don’t agree with the ethos or mood from which Carson does indeed write.
@Jordan,
I do believe that classical theism has tainted the Gospel, and of course I speak in generalities. I realize, even as Vanhoozer’s quote identifies, that CT has been around almost from the beginning; so I am looking at how it took shape, specifically through Thomas Aquinas, and how that has found even more pointed expression in post-Reformed orthodoxy (which would include the Remonstrants-Arminian development); and then further down the line, how that is impacting folks daily spirituality as they seek to know and please God. I don’t think this should have a negating impact on the way we do theologies of retrieval; you’re right, CT is all that’s there (almost). So I suppose that the way we handle this in historical theology is to do what we would always do; engage in good descriptive historical work so that we can indeed engage in retrieval that is constructive and edifying for our present situation today.
So I am going to appropriate CT, as I can through blog posts, that is very applied to particular American (or Western) ‘popular’ expressions through high profile pulpits wherein most folk (who care) are impacted, and are being impacted. I want there to be an awareness to what folk are ingesting when they listen to someone like John Piper or Matt Chandler (which many do). My existence as the Evangelical Calvinist has made it common practice to engage in the kind of practice that will alert folks to what I perceive as unhealthy theological trajectory; I see a better way, provided through folks like TFT, and to some extent, Barth. And so I am going to try and make a case for why popular American Christianity has been drinking from the substance metaphysical well with traces of un-Christianity in it. Or to borrow a phrase from Leithart; I want to engage in the practice of ‘evangelizing metaphysics’. But I want to do so in ways that the common man can appreciate it and understand it.
@Jon,
Yeah, I think we could even apply CT to that last part of the interview with Piper and Chandler; which I know for you is just as serious of an issue as is the 5 points for me. How I want to make the connections between CT and 5 points etc. will be an interesting challenge in this venue (at least in the space I have to do that … so I can probably only at most, start conversation and thinking, and hope that that is enough to get people moving on their own to developing a fuller understanding about how CT has impacted their own spiritual plight for better or worse in some cases).
I really don’t know of any other resources other than videos like this, and sermons provided by these guys to cull from. But I feel comfortable pointing folks to the video because it is both Piper and Chandler in their words, and quite up front. I know of guys have done whole PhD dissertations with only the ability to appeal to sermons from their chosen theologian/pastor of research 🙂 .
Thank you for the shout out on FB too!
Very interesting Bobby. Appreciate the VanHoozer quote. Curious what his recommendations are? I’m working on a similar line in an upcoming post but more focused on the differences between theology and exegesis.
Hey Rob, I look forward to your post then; that should be enlightening. When you wonder what Vanhoozer’s recommendations are, what do you mean? Do you mean his recommended reading or biblio at the end of his chapter?
@ Bobby, If C.T. is informing our Exegesis how do we get out of the power of it’s grasp? Do we have a whole new paradigm for GOD, which then shapes our Exegesis, and if so, where does this paradigm come from? I know you will say something about Christology as a starting point, but what type of Exegesis is this Christology shaped by?
@Kenny, Yes, I think we do have a whole new paradigm for God; which is why I think what folk like TFT and Barth (and I like Webster too, from what I’ve read) articulate is so radical (which ironically is itself becoming de-radicalized by so much talk of them and their respective theologies … but I think we need to keep their radicalness in the forefront when it comes to the most important aspect of theology ‘the doctrine of God’).
You’re right about what I would say; ‘Revealed Theology’, in principle not just fact. So this kind of exegesis comes from a theological exegesis that is dialectic, meaning; that that the depth of the text (and thus meaning) only finds its purpose as it moves us beyond itself to its reality in Christ. And this reality is the ‘depth’ of the text insofar as the implications of what it means for God to become human in Christ impinges upon what the text bears witness to as the Apostolic/Prophetic Deposit of recorded salvation history. So the dialectic would be between the outer clarity of the text with its inner clarity and reality as what ultimately gives the text (syntax etc) its shape and telos (much like creation in general).
I don’t know if that helps, Kenny?
@Kenny,
Of course, the ‘whole new paradigm for God’ does not leave the past behind; it constructively builds upon the riches that God has provided for us in that past, which leads us, hopefully to a present that is more proximate with God who is ineffable.
@Bobby, where does Leithart speak of ‘evangelical metaphysics’?
@Bobby, when Webster was at Wheaton last year he mentioned how he has moved beyond Barth to Aquinas. That certainly does not mean he’s left Barth behind, but he wanted to get out from beneath his shadow and Aquinas has now become a key influence for him. It will be interesting to see how this shapes his forthcoming work in light of your comments on CT
@James, I found a PDF of the chapter here http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5265I.pdf
@James,
Hello. I was referencing that phrase that he uses more than once in his new little (very awesome) book; Athanasius. I’ll look up the page numbers for you, and let you know exactly (hang on). He is speaking of the work that some of the Patristics (i.e. Athanasius) did when they ‘evangelized metaphysics’ which I thought was a sweet turn of the phrase; and its not any different than what I’ve read from TFT on working constructively with the ‘metaphysics’ that the Patristics have left us (like in his ‘Trinitarian Faith’ etc).
Why do you ask?
@Jordan,
I heard that too; about Webster turning to Thomas. I will be very interested to see where he goes with that. There is also a move by some, to relate Thomas’ impact on Barth. To use an analogy from my Fundy background; dispensationalists have had movement in their ranks. Somebody as unlikely as Charles Ryrie has helped to produce what today is known as Progressive Dispensationalism; to his chagrin. He did this by softening the hard and fast distinction that was/is present in classic Dispy between Israel and the Church. I mention this, what must seem random analogy to illustrate what I think what Thomas has done, even for Barth. It is his moves of emphasizing the relation of grace/nature and persons (as inadequate as those are IMO) that even created the constructive space for someone like Barth or TFT to come on the seen and reify or ‘evangelize’ (from my perspective) that kind of metaphysic. I know, in reality there is a thin line between the various kinds of metaphysics I’ve mentioned; but I think it is real, and it is in this reality that I want to offer a bloggy critique of CT, and really how that is playing out for the masses in the popular church world.
Thanks for that link. I will also be emailing you.
@Kenny,
You’ll also want to check Adam Nigh’s chapter 3: The Depth Dimension of Scripture: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Calvinism. in our book; which will be available, I am pleased to report in about a month and a half 🙂 .
@ Bobby, I get what you are saying about theological exegesis in theory, but could you give a concrete example of you doing what you explained. I would like to see it in operation. Or if you find it a bit much at this point, let me know of a work where it is being done in someone else. I don’t want to read hundreds of pages just something short. Thanks
You need to get your book up on kindle!
@Kenny,
That’s a strike against TFT; he doesn’t do a lot of exegesis. I think the best I have come across are his Edinburgh Lectures— his recent posthumously published books “Incarnation” & “Atonement.” I think looking at Barth’s commentaries is probably the best example that I can think of off the top. So there is work to be done. Maybe I’ll try to do some of my own TFT or Evangelical Calvinist exegesis here at the blog some time.
Once our book is out in March, I’ll see what can be done with the kindle. I’m not sure how Wipf & Stock supports something like that, if they do—I hope they do!
Thanks Bobby. I have both of the TFT Books you mentioned and will soon start them.
Good, Kenny. I only mentioned Barth, not because he exactly exemplifies how I think TFT would’ve exegeted, but because he is the closest and maybe only theologian I can think of who would be similar (who has done actual exegesis).
@Jordan, thanks.
@Bobby, the reason that I ask is my dissertation is aiming to do something similar to Leithart’s ‘evangelizing metaphysics.’ As I think I’ve mentioned to you before, I am far from convinced that ‘classical metaphysics’ (I hesitate to use that, given the diversity among even like-minded philosophical theologians on universals, properties, and the nature of language) is actually the problem contemporary theology has made it out to be. Yet, in one sense, I’m not wanting to ‘evangelize’ metaphysics, for I am of the impression that they are already of the household of faith. Strands of metaphysics, are, perhaps, merely backsliding. Exactly what this means, however, remains (even to myself) to be seen. Look forward to seeing what you have to say about contemporary Calvinism.
@James,
Sounds good! Yes, I am obviously not against metaphysics, per se; but I am also obviously prone to a certain articulation or form of metaphysics—what TFT calls onto-relational—that I think best and most closely is proximate to what the Gospel reality entails. I look forward to reading your dissertation someday!
I find this discussion quite interesting – even if I’m not so opposed to classical theism as it seems you are, and lean fairly Eastern Orthodox in a lot of my own theology (with a fair amount of Barth/Bonhoeffer/Wesley/Wright/ Heschel/Brennan Manning thrown in 😉 ).
WH,
You’ll quickly find that I’m not a fan of classical theism; I find it surprising that you lean EO and are still a fan of classical theism.