Category Archives: Critiquing Classic Calvinism

‘The Faith of Christ’ in Contradiction to the gods of the Metaphysicians

Posted on by

What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens? A question from the days of Tertullian, and now down through the centuries. I would vociferously argue that Jerusalem must condition Athens in such a way that Athens becomes nothing more than a pretext to be used by the textuality of Godā€™s life Self-revealed for the church and world in Jesus Christ. This question of ā€œfaith and reasonā€ has been given many iterations and treatments throughout the halls of history, whether that be from someone as boisterous as Martin Luther, or someone as methodologically skeptical as Rene Descartes. Indeed, the reformational scholastics themselves, and their progeny, even into the repristinate of today, ostensibly maintain that the metaphysics of the classical Greek philosophers is in fact univocal towards thinking and speaking the Christian God.

I protest, and so does Eberhard JĆ¼ngel:

The faith which interposes such questions is a disturbance. But should not faith be seen as a disturber of the metaphysical thought of God, as even its greatest menace? Was it not necessary that a study of religion within the boundaries of pure reason would have to come to the aid of the metaphysical concept of God in order to reduce the all too human discourse about a God who reveals himself in history to a rational level? Did not faith have to be subordinated to that morality which was established without faith, if it were not to become irrational in and of itself and thus be dead?

But then faith will reply with the question whether it really is such a rational capacity that a theoretical or practical use of reason, separate from the event of faith, can prescribe reasonā€™s function. What becomes of God when an abstract ā€œI thinkā€ or an abstract ā€œthou shaltā€ sets the context from the outset within which one then may and must decide what merits being called God? Although the intention to maintain the strictest possible distinction between God and man cannot be supported too strongly by theology, does not this approach lead to a result which is totally opposed to that intention? And finally, if God has been established as the securing factor for man, has not then the decision been already made that from now on the securing must become the god of man? Is not ultimately the categorical imperative the grand attempt to establish the morally understood security of the human race as its highest good? If ā€œnothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will,ā€ then does not the good will which secures the welfare of the human race become the god of man?[1]

Prior to the above passage Juengal has been discussing how certainty and non-certainty might work within a theological and philosophical frame vis-Ć -vis God. Without getting into the details, for our purposes, the questions Juengal puts to the God constructed from classical and modern metaphysical premises are sufficient. Sufficient, for drawing attention to the fact that faith itself, if indeed it has to do with a genuine knowledge of the genuine and triune God of the Christians, has its starting point insofar as God starts with us first; that is, rather than us starting with God first. Is Christian faith intended to provide a provision of self-security in a seemingly insecure world for its own sake (something like a ā€˜god-of-the-gapsā€™)? Or is Christian faith purely focused upon knowledge of God that is focused on God as God, as God is in Himself as the reality who indeed is to be worshipped simply because He is, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Well of course, the Christian should want to say the latter rather than the former. But methodologically so much of Christian theology, one way or the other, no matter how much piety and piousness is on display, has given way to thinking God only after God has first been thought by the profane mind. Indeed, the mind that is ultimately seeking a huge scratch for the itch of uncertainties, for the chaos that this world presents each and everyone of us with upon our respective arrivals on planet earth.

I think the moral here is that Godā€™s Self-revelation is categorically distinct, in a sui generis type of way, from the metaphysics. That is, knowledge of God for the Christian entails a vulnerability. But the vulnerability isnā€™t about assuaging our own anxieties about the ostensible disorder of the world, and our place in it. The vulnerability is that we donā€™t have the capacity to disentangle ourselves from the chaos of this world order; no matter what type of metaphysical structures we might build in that very attempt. The genuine vulnerability we have is that without being rightly positioned within the order that God has set about, we indeed will seek to create our own veritable towers of Babel; reaching up to a certainty of reality that ultimately has to do with ensuring a salvation for ourselves rather than being reliant upon the One who can actually provide us with a true and rightly ordered salvation, as that obtains in Godself for us in Jesus Christ. And it is this, this faith of Christ, that confronts the metaphysically construed gods, who seek a faith built upon its own internal premises, rather than the alien premises of faith provided for, truly, by the living God for us in Jesus Christ.

[1] Eberhard JĆ¼ngel,Ā God as the Mystery of the World,Ā trans. by Darrell L. Guder (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf&Stock [reprint], 1983), 195ā€“96.

Contra the Tradition Produced God of Natural Theology

Posted on by

Natural theology separates God from his Word, and in the Reformed context this separation requires that another mechanism be constructed in order for God to enact relationship with the world; i.e. through the š‘‘š‘’š‘š‘Ÿš‘’š‘”š‘¢š‘š š‘Žš‘š‘ š‘œš‘™š‘¢š‘”š‘¢š‘š, or through a determining decretal system that inter-links Godā€™s power and being to the rest of the world all along keeping God untouched by the world or the creatures who inhabit it (all in an attempt to sustain the philosophically developed loci known as simplicity, immutability, impassibility, infinity, etc.). The problem, if not recognizable, is that in this ā€˜classicalā€™ system of theology proper God is taken captive by a set of conditions and categories that have nothing to do with God encountering us in his Word, Jesus Christ. How could it?! If the God produced by natural theology is necessarily uncoupled from his Word for us, the Son, Jesus Christ then how can we ever really say that we have encountered the living God? This is a serious dilemma. Why would I entrust my eternal well-being to a God that history or tradition has produced; wouldnā€™t this mean that I am really entrusting myself to the producers of the history and the tradition instead?

Unlimited Atonement in a Reformed Theology as Told by James Torrance and John McLeod Campbell

Posted on by

James B. Torrance, brother of Thomas F. Torrance, offers a very nice and concise synopsis of the entailments of what me and Myk Habets (along with our various authors) have identified as an Evangelical Calvinism. JBTā€™s synopsis comes as he wrote the foreword for a book titled, So Rich a Soil: John McLeod Campbell on Christian Atonement by George M. Tuttle. Here, JBT is explicitly referring to the themes of John McLeod Campbellā€™s theology, particularly as that developed as an alternative to the juridically/forensically framed understanding of the Calvinism that we find in Federal (Covenantal) theology; indeed, as that gets codified in the Westminster Confession of Faith, among other confessions and catechisms. As JBT notes, Campbellā€™s theology, as an alternative iteration of Reformed theology, indeed, a Scottish Theology, challenges the assumption that God primarily relates to humanity through a covenant of works, rather than a relation based on triune love, thus leading to an ostensible Christian spirituality that leaves the would-be saint always wondering about their standing before the Lawgiving God. With further pinpointed clarity, JBT, also shines a light on the implications of thinking of Godā€™s relation to humanity through a Love-giving God, as that is resplendent in Campbellā€™s theology, and how that rightly alters the way the seeking person might approach God; indeed, as an adopted child in the loving and caring arms of the Father of Life who freely gave His life for the world, in His dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ. If you are looking for an alternative theology, Reformed even, that first sees God as Father, before Creator and Lawgiver, then what you will find in an Evangelical Calvinism might be just what you have been longing for.

Here is JB Torrance at some length:

A few years ago, while teaching for an academic year in the Vancouver School of Theology, I came across Dr. Tuttleā€™s doctoral dissertation in the library of the University of British Columbia, on ā€˜The Place of John McLeod Campbell in British Thought Covering the Atonement,ā€™ and was so impressed by it that I encouraged him to have it published. McLeod Campbell was a remarkable Scottish theologian ā€“ thought by many to Scotlandā€™s greatest ā€“ whose theology was hammered out on the anvil of his pastoral experience. Here was an invaluable study, not only of McLeod Campbellā€™s theology of atonement, but also of his influence on subsequent thought, not least on nineteenth century Anglican theology. Now Dr. Tuttle, from his own rich experience as a pastor and teacher in the training of men and women for the Christian ministry, has written this splendid study showing how McLeod Campbellā€™s theology is such fertile soil and so relevant for us today.

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  As a young minister in Row in Dunbartonshire, Campbell was aware of a strong ā€˜legalistic strainā€™ in the religion of Scotland, coupled with an introspective lack of joy and assurance which he believed derived from the high Calvinism of his day, with its doctrine of a ā€˜limited atonement,ā€™ that Christ did not die for all but only for an elect number. Generations of Scots had been taught to ā€˜examine themselvesā€™ for ā€˜evidencesā€™ of election. But this had produced an inward looking, too often guilt-ridden, attitude which contrasted so sharply with the joyful triumphant faith and assurance of the New Testament church. So he tells us he made it his early concern to give to his people ā€˜a ground for rejoicing in Godā€™ by directing their minds away from themselves to the love of God the Father is revealed in the whole life of Christ, and supremely on the Cross.

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  He soon came to see that our answer to the question of the extent of the atonement depends on our view of the nature of the atonement. The doctrine of a limited atonement, in the federal Calvinist tradition, especially taught by John Owen, the English Puritan, and Jonathan Edwards in North America, flowed from two convictions about the nature of God. The first that justice is the essential attribute of God, but the love of God is arbitrary, seen in his will to elect some individuals and send Christ to die for them. John Owen had taught that love is not Godā€™s nature, but his will. This, Campbell saw, was not true to the New Testament and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, that God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Love in his innermost Being, and has created us and redeemed us in love and for love ā€“ for ā€˜sonship.ā€™ With the ancient fathers, in their negation of Sabellianism, he saw that what God is towards the world in love, in creation and redemption, he is in his eternal nature, as the Triune God.

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  The second was that in the federal (covenant) scheme, law is thus prior to grace. God is related to all humankind by ā€˜the covenant of works (law)ā€™ and only to some by ā€˜the covenant of graceā€™ in redemption. Hence atonement was construed in terms of the view that God would only be gracious if law was satisfied and sin punished, that is, by Christ fulfilling for the elect the conditions of the covenant of works (law). McLeod Campbell saw that this inverted the Biblical order, that grace is prior to law, that ā€˜the filial is prior to the judicial.ā€™ Both creation and redemption flow from grace, and law is ā€˜Godā€™s heart coming out in the form of law.ā€™ Law is the gift of grace, reveals our need of grace and leads to grace. The Incarnation and the Atonement, which must be held together, are the Fatherā€™s act of sending his Son to fulfill for humankind the filial and judicial purposes of creation. Atonement is Godā€™s act of grace in which he takes to himself for us his own divine judgments ā€˜in order that we might receive the adoption of sons.ā€™ The filial purposes of creation and incarnation are secured by atonement. Hence atonement must be interpreted in terms of both the Trinity and the Incarnation, ā€˜retrospectivelyā€™ removing condemnation on past sin and ā€˜prospectivelyā€™ leading to sonship.

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  In our own day, theologians like Barth, Rahner, Moltmann, JĆ¼ngel and von Balthasar have seen how Western theology has too often operated with concepts of God which owe more to Aristotle and the Stoic Lawgiver, than the New Testament, and has consequently drifted away from seeing the centrality of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. McLeod Campbell discerned this long ago, and saw its implication, both for the pastoral ministry and for our understanding of the doctrine of God, that the sufferings of Christ the Son on the Cross reveal the suffering Love of the Father. ā€˜He who has seen me, has seen the Father.ā€™

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā  Dr. Tuttleā€™s book is profoundly relevant for the contemporary situation both theologically and pastorally in its concern to show that the Gospel is the Good News of God coming to restore to us our lost humanity, ā€˜to bring many sons to gloryā€™ ā€“ and therefore good news for every creature.

James Torrance[1]

There isnā€™t much to add to this. Only that, to my chagrin, as I have been sitting with this above reality since around 2002, and more pointedly since in and around 2007, when I first started reading TF Torrance et al., becoming aware of this development within a Reformed theology, I can really only continue to shake my head. I see so many young and old alike continuously running full speed ahead into a Reformed theology that is indeed shaped by the juridical/legal parameters that Campbell, JBT, TFT, Karl Barth et al., in their own respective ways, have presciently offered a more biblically based alternative to. Whether this be at the scholarly level or popular level, no matter, theologians and laymen/women, continue to harp and joust back in forth; as if the Calvinist/non-Calvinist binary, black and white as it apparently is, in regard to sides, is the only way through this theological malaise. I continue to see the masses in evangelical and Protestant christianities hem and haw, as if they have found the golden scepter of theological truth; and this within, again, their respective binary of Calvinism/non-Calvinismā€”to boot, with all the theological imagination of a dodo bird (sorry, too harsh? . . .). May the Lord give more eyes to see and ears to hear that in fact God is Father of the Son first, before He is ever Creator. With this realization there is a theological hope that outstrips much of the pablum being fed to the people today. Kyrie eleison

[1] George M. Tuttle, So Rich a Soil: John McLeod Campbell on Christian Atonement (Edinburgh, The Handsel Press, 1986), 6ā€“7.

Just Be a Philosopher Already: On Being a Thomistic Theologian

Posted on by

For me I only have the capacity to follow a Dogmatic or Systematic theology insofar that I believe it is sticking to the theo-logic inherent to the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. This is what keeps it Biblical. This is what keeps it from adulterating and going beyond the š‘”š‘’š‘„š‘”; that is, by going to its inner and upward reality in the Godman (Theanthropos), Jesus Christ. In other words, speculative theologies, ones that reason from the being of humanity to the being of God; ones that reason discursively about nature vis-Ć -vis God, as if nature holds vestiges of God; are balderdash to me! If that is all I had to go with theologically I would fully walk away from the theological endeavor. The Biblical witness, the Biblical attestation to its triune reality in the God revealed (Deus revelatus), can be the only line of theological reasoning the Christian can really take. Not in assertion, as if just claiming loudly, over and over again, ā€œthat we follow the Scripture Principle,ā€ but in concrete fact; i.e., that Scripture indeed is the only source and ground of the theological engagement.

These theologians constantly touting Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle as the bee’s-knees of theological performance might as well do it right. They might as well become professional philosophers of religion, and at least learn how to think philosophically in nuanced and correct ways if they are going to elevate a philosopher-king as their theologian, rather than the actual Biblical witness. Instead, they lazily lay claim to the whole of church history, as if the Patristics, for example, were simply doing what Thomas Aquinas was doing with Aristotle in mediaeval times. Indeed, they sublate their bad philosophical takes as theology takes, as if they are ultimately takes provided for by Biblical exegesis.

John MacArthur, Near Death and the Parousia of Christ

Posted on by

Longtime pastor and seminary Dean, John MacArthur, is currently on his way to be with the Lord. It was announced at his church, Grace Community Church, in Sun Valley, CA, that JMac has come down with a pneumonia that he isnā€™t expected to survive (like only days left). This is sad news, but also points-up, once again, that this life truly is but a vapor. May we hold his family and close friends up in prayer at this time.

Relatedly, I have been a longtime critic of JMacā€™s, online in particular. I started out my blogging career in 2005 bantering back and forth with JMacā€™s editor, executive director of Grace to You radio ministry, Phil Johnson, at his personal and then team blog, Pyromaniacs. My critique of JMacā€™s theology, like manyā€™s, has to do with what he famously identified as Lordship Salvation in his book The Gospel According to Jesus. In reduction, so-called ā€˜Lordship Salvation,ā€™ really, is just a Baptistic form of 5 Point Calvinist soteriology. For MacArthurā€™s version though, he presented this schema with a pointed emphasis on perseverance of the saints (the ā€œPā€). In other words, JMacā€™s soteriology presses the notion of ā€œgood worksā€ in salvation as the proof of salvation in very Puritanical types of ways. To the point, I have argued, that instead of causing the person to be assured of their salvation before God in Christ, they are constantly ā€˜thrown back upon themselvesā€™ (to riff, TF Torranceā€™s phrase) as the source and ground of knowledge of their salvation. As far as a Christian spirituality goes, this is terrible doctrine, which causes the person, ironically, to ā€˜turn to the subject,ā€™ to the point that ultimately, if sensitive to such introspection (many arenā€™t), a person can only despair and hope that they are indeed one of the elect for whom Christ died. But when the basis of the personā€™s assurance of salvation is their own good works (whatever those are, and however that is supposed to look), the person is really just thrown into the winds of a black abyss.

The aforementioned was the nub of what I have been critical of with reference to JMacā€™s soteriology. It is no small matter, and I have made many arguments and critiques against it; both directly, and more generally, as I have critiqued its more critical grounds as found in Federal (Covenantal) theology. Indeed, JMac is not a Covenantal theology proponent, but the mercantilist/transactional nature of the doctrine of salvation he propounds, finds its historic rootage within the broader framework provided for its themes, within Federal theology. In fact, I wrote a whole book chapter on these matters, which you can read via Google Books, here.

This has been part of my long connection with the ministry of John MacArthur. Beyond that, I grew up in Southern California (LA county), where JMacā€™s presence is rather ubiquitous in the evangelical environs therein. It has been a critical relationship for sure. Even so, JMac is representative of a nearly bygone era of evangelical church ministry and ministers that is grievously leaving us right now (just because of lifespan). I donā€™t like that aspect of this at all.

May John MacArthur repose in the bounties of Godā€™s triune life in Christ, as he pierces the bonds of his body of death (Rm 7), and enters into the banqueting table of the LORD.

On the Thomistic Captivity of the Protestantisms: Knowledge of the triune God

Posted on by

Human agency is lost in the fall (which remains an inexplicable thing). The only hope for human agency to be reestablished before God is for God to re-create it as He has for us in the human agency of the Second and Greater Adam, who is the Christ. This is one reason people of a certain ilk reject the notion of a natural theology, and its subset in the anologis entis (analogy of being). Hence, knowledge of God is a purely Graced reality, and not a natural one in any way. I am, in fact, of said ilk (shocking!) I will always find it shocking the self-professed Reformed orthodox and Lutheran orthodox folks affirm natural theology as the fundamentum of their theological projects. Donā€™t you see why? These forlorn Protestantisms claim to hold to a radical form of Total Depravity, wherein what it means to be human, in a fallen sense, is to be so polluted by and riddled with sin, that ostensibly the ontic capacity, along with its noetic counterpart, cannot and will not come to know the true and the living God.

And yet I would suggest these Protestantisms are held within a Thomistic Captivity. That is, for them, as with Aquinas, what it means to be God, and then as corollary, what it means to be human, is to constantly have a resident and active intellect at play. And for the creature, even postlapsarian, this entails that the intellect, at the very least, retains its spark of being. That is, in order for the integrity of Godā€™s being to be upheld, for those in the Thomist Captivity, human beingā€™s intellect must be upheld even post-fall. As Steven Ozment so eloquently describes this chain of being for Thomas and his children:

The assumption that real relations existed between God, man, and the world made possible Aquinasā€™s confidence inĀ a posterioriĀ proofs of Godā€™s existence; finite effects led necessarily to their origin, because they were really connected with it. The same assumption underlay Aquinasā€™s distinctive views on the ā€œanalogicalā€ character of human knowledge and discourse about God. According to Aquinas, one could speak meaningfully of oneā€™s relationship to God by analogy with oneā€™s relationship with oneā€™s fellow man because a real relationship existed between the values of people shared and those God had prescribed.[1]

With Thomas, for me, it isnā€™t the idea ā€œthat real relations existed between God, man . . . ,ā€ I am a critical/theological realist after all. The problem in the Thomistic frame is that the ā€˜point of contactā€™ between God and man, the point of relation, is predicated by a chain-like continuity between Godā€™s intellect and humanityā€™s (intact, at whatever level postlapse). But the Bible teaches otherwise in regard to the effects of the fall, on both the world simpliciter, and humanity.

I submit, that in order for humanity to come to have a genuine knowledge of the triune God, that the triune God must become us that we might become Him by grace. Without this participatio Christi all the human can do, even in the name of Christ, is construct monuments of their own intellects and worship them as God. This is why I reject the premises of a natural theology; and this is why I would recommend that you do the same.

[1] Ā Steven Ozment,Ā The Age of Reform 1250ā€“1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation EuropeĀ (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980),Ā 49.

A Rejoinder to Grok on a God of the Decree

Posted on by

I asked Grok to describe what a decree is in theological parlance. Below is its answer. I will briefly offer rejoinder to this from my Athanasian Reformed perspective.

In theology, a decree refers to God’s eternal and sovereign plan or purpose, through which He ordains everything that happens in the universe. This concept is particularly prominent in Reformed theology (Calvinism) and emphasizes God’s absolute authority and control over all events, including creation, providence, and salvation.

Key Points:

    • Eternal and Unchangeable: God’s decrees are made in eternity, before the foundation of the world, and are immutable, meaning they cannot be altered (Ephesians 1:11).
    • Comprehensive: They encompass all thingsā€”every event, action, and outcome in history, from the grandest to the smallest (Romans 11:36).
    • Sovereign: God’s decrees reflect His supreme will, and nothing happens outside of His divine plan (Isaiah 46:10).
    • Types of Decrees:
      • Decree of Creation: God’s decision to create the world and all that exists.
      • Decree of Providence: God’s ongoing governance and preservation of the world, directing all events toward His purposes.
      • Decree of Election: In soteriology (the study of salvation), this refers to God’s predetermination of who will be saved (elect) and who will not, often tied to doctrines like predestination (Romans 8:29-30).

Theological Context:

    • Reformed Tradition: The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 3) defines God’s decrees as His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.
    • Catholic Theology: While less emphasis is placed on “decrees” as a term, the concept aligns with God’s divine providence and omnipotent will, as seen in teachings on divine foreknowledge and predestination (e.g., Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica).
    • Arminian Perspective: Arminians may view God’s decrees as less deterministic, emphasizing human free will in cooperation with divine grace, though still acknowledging God’s overarching plan.

Scriptural Basis:

    • Ephesians 1:11: “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
    • Acts 2:23: Refers to Jesus’ crucifixion as part of God’s “definite plan and foreknowledge.”
    • Psalm 33:11: “The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.”

Practical Implications:

The doctrine of divine decrees underscores God’s sovereignty, providing comfort to believers that nothing happens by chance and all things work together for God’s glory and the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28). However, it also raises complex questions about human responsibility, free will, and the problem of evil, which theologians have debated for centuries.

It is clear, even from this cursory overview by Grok, that a decree of God presupposes a certain notion of Godness. It emphasizes a God of decision, of intellection. A God who would fit the intellectualist tradition offered by the categories and syntheses of various Latin theologians in particular. Some might see decrees as a function of a voluntaristic action of God; that is, purely will-based like we see in the nominalist potentia de absoluta–potentia ordinata. Either way, the Godness presumed upon in a decretal understanding of a God-world relation is to think of God acting in rather impersonal, rationalist, ad hoc, even capricious ways. The person of God as triune, as genuine Christian thought understands Godself, is not corollary with a God of the decree.

The genuinely Christian understanding (GCU) of God doesnā€™t think God as an intellectual actor way up there who only relates to us, His creation, through a mechanistic means known as decrees. The GCU of God only knows God as Son of the Father (as Athanasius has taught us so well in Contra Arianos). The GCU thinks of the Christian who abides in the bosom of the Father, as co-participants within the Sonā€™s vicarious humanity. There is nothing abstract or removed in the GCU, in regard to thinking a relationship between God and humanity; there is only a concretized knowledge of God through a relation (analogia relationis) of faith (analogia fidei), that is simply in correspondence with the relation and faith of Christ that Christ has always already had for us with His Father in and through the bondage of the Holy Spirit.

Always more to say on this front, but I must cut this short . . ..

Problematizing a Development of Sacra Doctrina within the Church: With Reference to Peter of John Olivi

Posted on by

Bernard McGinn writes the following with reference to the apocalyptic-theology-of-history present in the mediaeval theologian, Peter of John Oliviā€™s (c. 1248ā€”1298) thought:

The invective Olivi directs against the evidences of the carnal Church is concerned not only with the ecclesiastical abuses of the day, especially with avarice and simony, but also, like Bonaventure before him, with the use of Aristotle in theology. The ProvenƧal Franciscan also expressed belief in a double Antichristā€”the Mystical Antichrist, a coming false pope who would attack the Franciscan Rule, and the Great, or Open Antichrist, whose defeat would usher in the final period of history. Characteristic of Franciscan apocalyptic is his emphasis on the role of Francis as the initiator of the period of renewal and his hope for the conversion of all peoples in the course of the final events.[1]

Olivi was a student of the infamous mediaeval theologian, Bonaventure. But I thought this treatment by McGinn on Olivi was telling. Telling in regard to the patterns and thematics of theological development. Telling, in regard to how theologies and emphases often repeat themselves in various and all periods of theological development throughout history. As McGinn highlights, Olivi was concerned with a ā€œcarnal Churchā€; he was concerned with the imposition of Aristotleā€™s categories upon Christian theology (which of course Thomas Aquians was famous for doing). We also observe, that for Olivi, according to McGinn, he saw that the Catholic church itself had corruption riddling it throughout; he saw the Antichrist coming from within the Church, not without. This latter development is interesting to me because it reminds me of Martin Lutherā€™s view that the office of the Pope would finally produce the Antichrist (the Lutheran Church Wisconsin Synod still holds to this position in their confession). And then, we see in Olivi, a belief in something like a postmillennial understanding of the very end of history. He believes, according to McGinn, that the whole world will be Christianized prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Many things stood out to me in this one paragraph on Oliviā€™s theology. The primary hook for me, and this wonā€™t be surprising to my readers, is that Olivi was critical of Aristotleā€™s presence in the development of the sacra doctrina within the Church. Olivi, like his teacher, Bonaventure, believed that Aristotle could only serve as an artificial grammar for articulating Christian doctrine. Such sucralose, in the minds of Bonaventure and Olivi, respectively, had no place in affecting a theology for the Church, insofar that Aristotle himself thought a construct of God as a pagan.

It is important for Christian folks in the 21st century to get beyond theology purely sourced from Twitter/X and other social media platforms. What the genuine student finds, if they study the books, is that things are much more complex and less concretized than they might want to think. There have been various strands of development, various traditions cultivated in the Churchā€™s history that transcend the parochial and sectarian and absolutized divides we see today on the interwebs. I think this one paragraph alone on Olivi helps to illustrate that point.

Within evangelical/reformed theology today there is a movement towards retrieval. And yet what this has come to mean, especially through the work of someone like Matthew Barrett and Craig Carter, is that what is really being retrieved is one strand of development that is Aristotelian/Thomist heavy; as if ā€˜Christian Aristotelianismā€™ was the only development present within the mediaeval and early and post Reformed churches. This simply is not the case; again, as our passage illustrates.

Conversely, I am anti-Aristotelian myself (no shocker there!) Some might think that this is because of my appreciation for the theologies of Barth and TF Torrance alone. Again, this is not the case. I was anti-Aristotelian way before I ever read Barth and TFT. I was exposed to the Bonaventure-Olivi thread of development twenty-three years ago in seminary. This thread was developed further with the sparker of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther; he looked back to such threads in the via antiqua through his direct mentor, Johann von Staupitz, and before him, Jean Gerson.

Anyway, this post is somewhat of a smorgasbord of hits on various issues; something like a Miscellanies. But I hope, at least, the reader might be able to better appreciate the ā€œproblematizedā€ nature of doctrinal development within the Church of Jesus Christ. In other words, I hope that folks might be alerted to the problem of reducing and then absolutizing oneā€™s pet positions. Surely, we ought to be convicted about the theological things we believe. But those convictions ought to first take shape (in a spiraling and continuous way) through the caldron of toiling with the sources (ad fontes) of the history of interpretation and development of the sacra doctrina.

[1] Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 205.

‘At any rate, it is not at all clear that He controls dogmatic thinking concerning Himself.’

Posted on by

It is time to break my blogging fast. It is fitting, the topic of this post, because I am nearing the end of my Philosophy of Religion class at the University of Oxford (next week is the last). There is one unit left, it is on Faith, Prayer, and the Spiritual life. The class is largely populated by atheists and agnostics. The text we used for class (which was augmented by many other readings and lectures) was written by an Oxford philosopher named T. J. Mawson, Belief in God. He is a Christian theist, but a panentheist who holds to a Christian universalism. What became stoutly reinforced to me was that the god of the philosophers (or the no-god) has no correspondence with the God Self-revealed in Jesus Christ. Mawson is arguing for the existence of a philosophical Monad; a Pure Being; an Unmoved Mover; Pure Act (actus purus). Indeed, he is arguing from within an analytic philosophical key; but, nevertheless, this key is still funded by the Hellenic Monad of the classical philosophers.

Unfortunately, too much of that ā€œkeyā€ has been pressed into the development of Christian theologies; both antique and modern. This has always been at the basis of my critique of what I have called classical Calvinism (as a riff on classical Theism). Too much of the ā€˜beingā€™ that can be proven is synthesized with the God of Christian revelation, such that the God produced is something of a hybrid notion of God wherein God functions more like a philosophical monad rather than a personal and relational God of triune Self-given love, one-in-the-other as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The god of the philosophers has no place with the God who we have come to know in the face (prosopon) of Jesus Christ.

Karl Barth, observes the same thing as that has largely taken place in the ā€˜older orthodox theologyā€™ of the Protestant Reformed of the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively. Indeed, what is imbibed by the orthodox, it could be said, is simply just the re-gestation of a mediaeval theology as that developed on the ā€˜Western frontā€™ of the Latin church. Barth writes:

The weakness of the older orthodox theology was that in all its doctrine of the divine providence, and of the creation and man, and earlier of God and the election of grace, it believed that it could dispense with this relationship either entirely or almost entirely. It thought and spoke about the divine ruling as an idea. With all of its divergence from individual philosophical systems, its development of the concept was far too like the philosophical development of a concept. In spite of the testimonies from Scripture, it was content with what was basically a quite formal and abstract consideration of the subject. It did not make it at all clear to what it ought really to be looking at as a Christian theology, and more often than not it did not even look there, but somewhere else. This was the root of all its uncertainties and deviations, of all the dangers to which it more or less openly exposed itself as it proceeded, and above all of the insipidity or colourlessness of all its thinking to which we drew attention at the outset. The One who is described as King in Holy Scripture is acknowledged to be such, but He does not act as such. At any rate, it is not at all clear that He controls dogmatic thinking concerning Himself. At many points He seems in fact not to control it. What does control it, and what is passed off as the authority which controls the whole universe, seems rather to be the concept of a supreme being furnished with supreme power in relation to all other beings. And the credibility of what is ostensibly said about the rule of God seems to depend upon the existence of this being. With regard to this, we may say: 1 that the existence of such a supreme being is itself highly doubtful, and therefore the credibility of a doctrine of Godā€™s rule cannot be a Christian doctrine because the God of Christian teaching is certainly not identical with that supreme being. If we are still under the shadow thrown by this twofold difficulty, it is high time that we moved away from it.[1]

I clearly concur with Barthā€™s last clause (and the whole passage!): ā€œ. . . it is high time that we moved away from it.ā€

[1] Karl Barth,Ā Church Dogmatics III/3 Ā§49 [176] The Doctrine of Creation: Study EditionĀ (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 180.

The Early Aristotelianization of Reformed and Lutheran Theology

Posted on by

Barth on the stillbirth of the Protestant Reformation. He underscores a reality that I have been, we have been writing about for years, in regard to the scholasticism Reformed and Lutheran. That is to note, the reception of the Aristotelian mantle that had, ironically, brought to formation the very Church, and her doctrina, that Luther was seeking to reform. Unfortunately, very early on in the second and third generation reformers (on both the Reformed and Lutheran sides) imbibed the theological categories that had originally led to the status of the Roman Church that Luther and others believed needed to be reformed from within.

Face to face with the difficulty of both schools, the Reformed no less than the Lutherans, made a formal borrowing at this point from a philosophy and theology which had been re-discovered and re-asserted at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuriesā€”the philosophy of Aristotle and the theology of Aquinas. The borrowing consisted in the adoption and introduction of a specific terminology to describe the two partners whose activities are understood and represented in the doctrine of the concursus [accompanying] in terms of a co-operation, the activity of God on the one side and that of the creature on the other. The concept which was adopted and introduced was that of ā€œcause.ā€ For it was by developing the dialectic of this concept that they both effected the differentiation of themselves on the one side and the other, and also decided the difference which already existed at this point within the Evangelical faith itself. This, then, is the controlling concept for the form assumed by Evangelical dogmatics in this and in all kindred topics.[1]

This theological arrangement, ended up thrusting people back upon themselves (as TF Torrance phrases it frequently), by thinking of a God-world relation from within a competitive frame. God above, the great decretal ā€œcauser,ā€ and the human below, the striver attempting to meet the conditions of Godā€™s causal-ness (this sounds something like what we see in a Federal or Covenant theology). In this frame we end up with a bilateral, yet asymmetric, relationship between God and humanity, such that God decrees certain things to obtain, whilst the elect of God must discern these things, and again, meet the conditions of the decree; of the covenant of works released through the so-called covenant of grace.

The aforementioned reflects just one example of how this ā€˜causalā€™ based relationship gets formulated and expressed. For Barth this would be a theology of the decretum absolutum (absolute decree of predestination, from within a classically construed Reformed theology, in particular). The Lutherans have their own expressions of this type of decretal theology. For a contemporary example see Jordan Cooperā€™s work.

[1] Karl Barth,Ā Church Dogmatics III/3 Ā§49 [098] The Doctrine of Creation: Study EditionĀ (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 97.