Doubting Thomists | Doug Wilson and Dr. James White
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- In this episode of The Sweater Vest Dialogues, Pastor Doug Wilson and Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries discuss the modern Thomist movement. Does Thomism or Classical theism have an exclusive claim on Christian orthodoxy?
The Sweater Vest Dialogues are presented by Canon Press.
Fun fact: James White got all the way to Moscow before realizing he’d forgotten his sweater vest, because of gas prices he biked to Phoenix and back and still made it in time to sit down with Doug.
Lol 😂
You serious, Clark?
Umm that's a 98 hour ride
"I'll take $500 for things that never happened, Bill." 🤣
I also heard he converted 53 mormans on a water stop through Utah.
James White "How far can we go past the headlights of scripture"? Exactly!
I'm not sure that the question is a challenge to the claims of Classical Theists. Francis Turretin argued that proper implications of Scripture can be produced by taking a proposition from Scripture and a proposition derived from reason/natural revelation. For example, Scripture implies that the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper is wrong because the Scriptures teach that Christ had a human body (Matt 27:58), and reason tells us that human bodies are not omnipresent. Do you think that is a legitimate method?
@@colenorville6676 I think if we are all honest, we simply don't know. We can't go back 2000 years and get clarification.
Overthinking is what creates so many denominations. The original audience was being prepared for the end of the Old C age. It was a transitional period, leading us to the New C age we are in now.
My personal view (of the Lord's supper) has always been its a "picture", not literal, its symbolism, but can I dogmatically say I am right?
There are some things that seem very clear. I am a sinner, Christ died for sinners.
I am 8 minutes in and there is still not a definition of what Thomism even means. While I am familiar with many theological terms and therefore don't want to be treated like I'm completely ignorant, is it not fair to say that this is not a commonly used term? A quick, basic definition would set the foundation so people could then follow the discussion better.
Doubting thomas is a pretty common term. I thought they were just doing a play on words.
thomas aquinas .. he was a saint and church philosopher in like 1300’s
This discussion is about Thomas Aquinas Natural Theology. In short terms, it is understanding the meta physical through nature. They go so far as to say it gives salvific revelation
I would have liked that too. I think by the end we get a rough idea.
Thomism is really just Hellenic philosophy washed with theological terms. It's pagan at root. The basic assumption is: Being precedes Meaning. Ergo, figure it out via the assumed autonomy of human reason. It's a terrible trap.
In the first 4 minutes I’ve detected at least 5 misrepresentations.
Explain please 🤔
Great discussion I just wish that you had provided specific talking points from thomists because now I’m curious if I’ve been hearing this
When you get the chance take a look at some of Dr White's more recent episodes. He has been going back and forth with them for the last 6 months or so
This was helpful, now sit down with some Evangelical Thomists and have a similar type of discussion!
They unwilling to. Dr White quotes them on his show, shows excerpts from their works… but it only goes one way.
They are hiding under their desks. Dr. White wants to. He says so all of the time.
I was the 666th person to like this video. Good thing I’m postmil, otherwise I’d be freaking out 🤣
🙄
Enjoyed the talk.
The fundamental error here is the, well, presupposition that one's interpretation of or derivation from Scripture is "what Scripture teaches." For example, White says that his claims about God's simplicity are the express teachings of Scripture, but that just isn't the case. The claims he made about God's simplicity are found nowhere in the Bible. They are man's attempts to make sense of reconcile the various claim in Scripture (and that we observe and experience). There really isn't any escaping this, but White reads these back into Scripture and says they are "there," when he is just engaging in a rather sophisticated eisegesis. He then pretends that his own eisegesis isn't eisegesis, but everyone else's is, and so everyone else (and in this case, Aquinas) is wrong and only White and those of his persuasion have "it" right.
It is a bit delusional.
He then performed some kind of bizarre conflation of Anselm's Ontological argument with Aquinas' position. The whole discussion became increasingly surreal as the talk unfolded.
This confusing of one's ideas with Word of God, and of thinking I understand things when I do not, are among the great dangers of apologetics.
Sweater vest days are the best days. Praise the Lord for you both, James and Doug.
I really enjoy them too.
Too complicated for me.... but what made sense was "talk like the Bible talks" ... and "don't go beyond the headlights of Scripture".
We should speak like the Bible, but we may have to do some hard thinking and use extra-biblical words to explain how certain verses can both be true when they appear to contradict each other (1 Sam 15:11, 29)
The problem is both language and consciousness changes. Not in simple ways, but I ways that make e.g. the Bible not able to communicate the same to us now, without heavy paraphrasing. But with heavy paraphrasing one usually also looses something. So we need to see the Bible through the lens of everything, through the lens of our lives, the lens of history, the lens of tradition, the lens of our hearts, etc. The Bible itself is an attempt at communicating what was not originally a text, but was actually all those other things. It's all impossible, and inevitably leads us to focus differently. Only by grace do we understand anything at all. The great thing is, that it still manages to communicate the important stuff to everyone who listens, namely that we are bound to get it wrong, and that that is ok, we just need to trust God is in our lives for us, so we don't need to look for magic bullets to solve life. It's in His hands. Trusting, not in a single thing, but trusting in general, is what saves. That we all disagree so much is the best way to display that understanding is not the important part. The important part is trusting Christ, who is actually present with us, in us, whom we breathe, live in, and who is our life. If we get it all wrong, it might cause some temporal chaos, but it's more important that we see each other as souls, all of us traumatised, in need of community, no matter who we are, or what we are wrong about.
This conversation is heady and I like it quite a bit. However, Doug's reaction @16:49 perfectly exemplifies me trying to follow along the first time through this lol
Oh man. This was a stretch for me, but I’m glad I made it to the end for that pseudo/oiko-baptism crack!
Lol.Same here.
It's fun to see Doug listening and looking like he's actually learning from someone else.
Hahahaha...as though he hasn't been doing that for decades.
He is a humble man.
As a Catholic, and obviously a Thomas Aquinas reader, its interesting seeing the protestants perspective of him. Good convo
@Abdul Dinero I did not watch the whole conversation but White clearly does not understand divine simplicity. He is stuck in the kindergarten of seeing God with a set of attributes. Augustine and Aquinas probably could not help him.
@@bestpossibleworld2091 ...or White understands what Aquinas says about Divine Simplicity and rejects his particular take on that issue. If you call yourself Reformed, then the Bible is your sole infallible rule of faith and practice. Aquinas is useful only insofar as his teachings reflect those of the Scriptures. White's stance was perfectly orthodox in Reformed circles until two minutes ago. He's been saying the same things since the 1980s.
@Michael Fox Yes. That must be it.
I love all that Apologia Church has done for me as an “agnostic” calling me back to the Christian faith. Ive been to theyre church many times in Mesa, Arizona. Their service is great & they have a lot of little ones in attendance thats always made me smile so cute. Ive recently converted over to Catholicism, ive done this miraculous thing that just sounds so simplistic but when implementing it into practice is difficult. Listening to someone genuinely like I may perhaps be wrong & if not better for me to rationalize my position. Regardless if they align with me, or whether they have a neutral or opposing alignment, ive learned a lot about protestant-catholic lies & propaganda & to be fair vise versa with catholic-protestant lies & propaganda.
Not all Protestants are pressupositionalists. The Reformed scholastics have a completely different view of epistemology and metaphysics than these guys and their forebears (Van Til, Kuyper, Kant, Descarte). Still love Dr. White's work but hes very wrong on natural theology and apologetic methodology.
I would have lost my mind if not for these two. Thank you for your courage and God bless.
Just be a Molinist man
Need to start out defining terms, to help those who are not 4th year doctor of divinity candidates...
I'm an undergraduate engineering student with 0 official theological education and I can keep up fine. Look up words if you need to, doesn't take long.
In reference to the attributes of God, I once had a Pentecostal minister make the statement that in the beginning God was not sovereign as there was nothing to be sovereign over. To which I reasoned, you can't make an attribute of God dependant on the external Creation; Sovereignty is a part of who He is. It was as though we can't have God sovereign within himself apart from Creation. He might start deciding things for Man before He creates him & that would endanger Free Will. Needless to say I was never again invited to tag along with my Pastor to a "School of Ministry" conference.
Hahahaha, if Spurgeon is right about the gap theory, and it’s worth considering in the whole scheme of things. We would not bring such foolish speculation. George Pember’s book claims that the verse, “the earth was null and void” could be translated, “the earth was null and ruined”. If that’s the case, there must have been a time when it wasn’t ruined.
You sorta back into this one by assuming upfront that sovereignty is a divine attribute. You said an attribute cannot depend on anything outside of God. You are right about that. You should have then reasoned therefore sovereignty is not a divine attribute. It’s popular today to claim sovereignty is something entirely different that the meaning of the actual word. It means “the right to rule” and God does not rule himself that is a logical contradiction.
I studied under Dr. James Dolezal at University and would be quite interested to hear a dialogue between him and Dr. White. I couldn’t help but think of Dr. Dolezal the entire time I listened to this.
Two men befuddled by the fact that many Christians are favoring Thomas interpretation of scripture over theirs
Time-stamp
15:05 -
15:25, 15:40 - ad intra
15:50 - acting in harmony
16:23 - no giving of love?
16:58 - letting the scripture speak
19:30 - feminism and submission
20:00 - authority and submission within the Godhead
20:25 - ad intra
21:02 - Wilson’s summary: “And so for us, submission does not equal inequality.”
25:03 - Wilson’s view on labels and “subordination”: subordination is a heresy, so don’t go by that.
22:10 - James White: Does Jesus receive His deity from the Father, second-hand?
23:20 - John 10:30
28:10 - James White on Nicaea, Chalcedon, and creeds
32:00 - White on his book
33:22 - Paul expanding on the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 in 1 Corinthians 8:6
34:06 - Wilson’s take on skepticism
"The Two Powers of Heaven" by Alan F Segal (Dan 7, Ancient of Days and Son of Man, being the two powers) is an indirect investigation into the prototypical trinity (binity) that emerged in the Intertestamental period. But the doctrine was declared heretical in the second century AD because the Son of Man looked too much like Jesus. The Christians rounded out the Trinity by including the Holy Spirit to the already existing Two Powers doctrine following Pentecost and the highly visible activity of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity was not a radical new invention, as some assert, but a natural development of increased understanding of the Godhead.
Yes. Anthony Rogers talks about this a lot, going into the jewish things in the early sources for the trinity (among other things) in his livestreams.
I tried so hard to follow this conversation, and now my head hurts.
This shows that there has been a Van.Tilian captivity of the Reformed churches
What is wrong with this?
Would love to see a conversation between Paster Doug and Bishop Baron, just a little dialoge between protastants and catholics
Or even Jay dyer
gold berg
" Would love to see a conversation between Paster Doug and Bishop Baron, just a little dialoge between protastants and catholics "
Don't you mean Christians and Catholics?
@@rickdavis2235 Catholics are Christians. You don’t determine who and who isn’t a Christian.
@@jesuschristsaves9067
" Catholics are Christians. You don’t determine who and who isn’t a Christian. "
You are correct. I don't determine who is or isn't a Christian. The Bible does, and I can read the bible, so I can make that claim standing on God's inspired word.
Catholics are not Christians. If it was Christianity, they wouldn't call it Catholicism. Catholics teach a different Gospel of works, a different Jesus who's blood cannot save without your help, the church's help, the Mass, the sacraments, baptism, the saints and Jesus' mother, Mary. Catholicism is a man-made religion and Christianity is personal relationship with Christ Jesus. When Nicodemus asked Jesus how to be born again; how to have eternal life, Jesus told him that whovever believes in him (Jesus) shall not perish but have eternal life. Not one word about any works.
We don't find Catholicism in the writings of the Apostles. The Apostles had one charge and that was to define, found and build the church so one would imagine that if they meant Catholicism, we'd be reading it directly from Scripture rather than “picking it out of pepper” or by inference via external tradition, hocus pocus and the likes. They defined the Church. They just didn't define yours.
I know you believe they are the same because you've been told they are. I believe you love Jesus with all your heart but you are being misled and that upsets me as a Christian. I'm here for you because I care about your eternal life and your relationship with God.
@@rickdavis2235 darn tootin
I like this version of Dr white !
Asking important questions ov the other side and also allowing for explanation. Maybe Dolezal and Barcellos would be willing to dialogue with him ? This would be very educational for us .
That would be fantastic.
I would like to see something formal like White has described.
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
@@Eric_Lichtenberg I think it really needs to happen.
Aquinas was not himself working "beyond himself." He was working within a very rich Western (and Eastern) tradition. He authentically quoted far more Scripture and theologians than Dr. White. ever does. By the way, instead of just telling us what Thomists think, bring in Edward Feser and let him respond to White.
He quoted scriptures often times without doing sound exegesis. Even the devil “ doth quote scripture” He missed the heart of the gospel. Aquinas mist justification by Faith. Dr. White’s theology is far more biblically sound. And his hermeneutic is far more consistent!
You have an ideology that you’re trying to defend. You have to be right on the gospel or you’re wrong and everything else. Aquinas missed justification by faith which is clearly taught in Romans in Galatians and everywhere in scripture including the book of acts as the gospel of the grace of God. Aquinas was wrong on many many things! Don’t idolize this guy
I really wish y’all would define Thomism before you spend an hour talking about it
Yo! It can be frustrating, but in academic conversations when someone is adding to a conversation it’s almost necessary to be aware of the meta narrative that is happening within scholarship. In this context, they are arguing for a thomist metaphysics that over simplified Gods simplicity and makes things confusing when pushed to its logical conclusions. The result of which is shown in this dialogue. Hope that helps
None of the divine attributes are in conflict with each other or contradictory. This is a very different kind of categorical distinction than saying all of those attributes are the same thing.
The question is pretty simple : What is the background of the NT writers, the Law and the Prophets or the greek philosophers?
The NT writers wrote with the background of both the philosophers and the prophets, but only built on the foundation of the prophets. They corrected the philosophers.
I have watched a metric ton of both of these men's material, but I have never noticed that scar on Dr. White's lip. Does anyone know when that happened, and what caused it? Thanks
I love Doug Wilson. I like James White. I listen to them both frequently. Brilliant men. But listening to them discuss simplicity, ad intra distinctions in God, subsistent relations, and inseparable operations… is like listening to Chesterton talking about Calvinism. Almost insufferable.
Simplicity isn’t really that difficult. There are no ad intra distinctions WITHIN GOD… i.e. things we can separate from just God’s undivided essence (i.e. parts). Whenever we see something IN THE WORLD like God’s wrath, love, justice, mercy, goodness, jealously… all of those simply predicate 1 THING (i.e. God). They do not predicate things (i.e. parts) IN GOD… they simply predicate God.
The trinity does not refer to three THINGS (i.e. parts) that can be distinguished from one another as separate “things”. It refers to 3 subsistent relations within God that are predicated on ONE THING (i.e. God). God the Father, who is knowledge and love, knows himself perfectly from all eternity and this self knowledge is the begotten Son… the WORD… and eternally acts in love towards Himself as the Spirit. The trinity describes how God relates to Himself, in perfect knowledge and love. Each of these relations, knowledge and love, are founded on the one BEING of God and each are distinctly and fully God.
Which leads us to inseparable operations. The act of any of the three persons of the trinity is simply the act of the ONE GOD making his BEING… KNOWN in the world (by Christ) through the act of love toward the world (by the Spirit). We can distinguish various acts of Father, Son, and Spirit… but each are in fact the ONE GOD acting (i.e. Father making himself known through the Son by the Spirit).
All of this can be derived from Scripture. None of it is “extra-Biblical”, except to the extent that the Bible must itself be understood by reason, according to truth, in the Spirit.
This is where you lose me: "All of this can be derived from Scripture" -- can you explain this? All of this seems nice, but no more "true" than any other idea that's out there. You think it's from the Bible? I have never seen anything like this in the Bible. Would appreciate an explanation.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 - Where would you like me to begin?
@@josephbrandenburg4373 - For example, we can start with the trinity. Are we agreed that there is only ONE THING… i.e. that God is ONE? (Deuteronomy 6:4).
@@brentonstanfield5198 Yeah, I was referring to divine simplicity. But if you have the whole thing written down you can go all the way through it.
@@brentonstanfield5198 could you provide an extensive source of documentation for this idea of God's Trinity?
Great discussion guys! What are you guys say carries a lot of weight with me because you’re both Churchman and scholars! I don’t understand why evangelicalism has to go crazy either with Wokeness or with this hyper-Thomism
Maybe this misunderstands the distinction between nature and attributes? God is not comprised of parts in the manner in which a person is comprised of parts but rather exists as pure Being. When we speak of nature, or essence, we speak of the metaphysics of God's being. To say we can recognize attributes of that multi-faceted yet indivisible Being, does not negate that He is in fact pure being and has no parts. The 1689 seems to articulate this as well in their section on God and the doctrine of the Trinity. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Much love and respect for pastor doug and doctor white.
been watching Dr. White for years... has he always had that scar on his lip or is this just the highest quality footage ever, catching all the details?
i don't remember any scare in the past as well.
I think it’s new because my wife and I have said the same thing.
One thing is needed , Marry🎉 closed the good Part and will not be taken away from her . JUST LOOK AT JESUS , SPEND TIME Daily IN THE SECRET PLACE OF HIS PRESENCE . ONE THING IS NEEDED ❤
This is why you guys should Join us in the Orthodox Church. We don’t have to deal with this blatant contradiction. You have to jump through hoops justifying why you reject Rome, but USE the theology of the Saint that massively shaped the very reason the reformers left Rome, for your own theology.
We can venture out pretty far in trying to understand these things but overall, God has given us a Word which has to be relatable to humanity.
“Claim Jumping” Theological Orthodoxy, Great Historic Creeds, Orthodox Trinitarian theology, received Orthodox understanding, camp of the Orthodox all in the first 3 minutes. If you are referring to classical Calvinist thinking say that but it sounds more like what I’ve heard an awful lot lately that Reformed thinkers are reaching back to ancient Church History and the wisdom of the Church Fathers to assign credibility to Protestantism. Doing so is a step in right direction but is precisely “claim jumping”. It’s also always correct and valid when confronting Catholicism, but, that is a double edge sword in the predicament of Protestantism.
Believing the Church Fathers were infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit when they created the Bible but completely absent similar or any such inspiration in any other aspect of their respective ministries is nonsense. Orthodoxy is Orthodox because of the fundamental organizational principle of Christ Church established by James and the Apostles in first century Jerusalem, enduring consensus. The Only Church that has maintained fidelity to that principle is the One, Holy, Catholic (not Roman) and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Churches. Orthodoxy wasn’t rediscovered by 16th revelation because it never went away. claiming authority by harkening back to this element or that while completely disregarding the totality of it to argue the correctness or incorrectness of any subsequent revelation or tradition is missing the point because your all swimming in the same stagnant pool just as you do when invoking a singular passage from scripture to say see my belief is correct while ignoring the sum total of Scripture in its completeness in history and in full context from not just a literary perspective but also a cultural one. This allows your opponents to likewise cherry pick verses to prove their point and that has led to 30,000+ Christian denominations and still counting, the greatest tragedy to Christendom ever, thank you Pope Leo the IX. True understanding of Scripture only comes from the men who created it and those men are now referred to as Orthodox and their Church, Christs Church is inarguably the Orthodox Church.
Is the Orthodox Church perfect? Of course not. Is it the only Churxh in which one finds salvation? Salvation is Gods gift through his incarnate son to everyone who choose to seek. Is it’s road map on the search for salvation more correct than any other fashioned from 16th century revelation or from the notions of any one Pope or emperor? Yes obviously, because it has as has always been the case that Truth is distinguished from heresy through the enduring voices of the many and is evidence of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages.
"They're now being presented as absolutely necessary for theological orthodoxy" said the guys who believe wholeheartedly that their particular (pun intended) systematic theology is absolutely necessary for theological orthodoxy.
I am a Protestant and I thank you for this dialogue.
However, it seems to me that you teach Subordintionism? The only distinction in the Trinity is the role in which the Persons relate to each other. That is why you need the filioque (otherwise there would be two sons of god which cannot be).
Once you talk about revelation when the Word of God is silent, it's just speculation.
@12:54 Not only is attempting the answer this question in vain because of the limitations of man and the lack of this answer in scripture, but God wasn’t thinking anything 10 minutes before the world was created because the concept of time was not brought into fruition, And God is not subject to time, let alone anything that he hadn’t already created yet or if he had created anything that you would be subject to it at all.
Why in the world did James White think that THAT particular shape of beard looks good on him?
Really enjoy listening to these guys discuss topics that I am ill-equipped to follow along with. I guess I can sigh while being edified.
Where can I locate the ligioner article James mentioned he wrote on the divine simplicity?
we need a debate/discussion between James white and James Dolezal
Or R Scott Clark and Doug Wilson. Or Joe Boot and David VanDrunen
@@CC-jd4if ok but like, knowing the history with r s Clark and doug wilson
that would be the funniest thing to watch
Looks like this reach Mark Jones.... Maybe Mark Jones and Joe Boot or Wilson
God having many individual parts [attributes or powers] could come from or lead to myths about heroes gaining powers and becoming gods.
It’s unclear to me why you would quote Augustine favorably in terms of the Father loving the Son and then in the next breath criticize inseparable operations, a doctrine Augustine defines and defends in De Trinitate, as though it were a Thomistic invention.
The only way to make sense of Gods attributes is with the energy essence distinction.
Seems to me that this conversation suffers from the same failure to understand (or take seriously) Thomas’s biblical theological scholastic method, which people like Van Til and Schaeffer also didn’t understand. Aquinas did build on Aristotle‘s natural theology, but in the light of divine revelation. These types claim for scripture an alternative metaphysics of its own, but when pressed can never really show us clearly in the text where it lies. The reason for that is none of the sacred writers, though inspired, wrote metaphysics. There are obvious metaphysical implications of their writing, but there is no formed metaphysical doctrine in sacred scripture that can be lined up against Aristotelian-Thomism and used to critique it. It’s analogous to when some evangelicals claim a scientific picture of nature in the Bible and then use that to critique contemporary experimental science. The methodological problem at root is that the biblical writers wrote essentially historically, and experientially, leaving to the church the task of doing the science of metaphysics (or natural science) in light of it - as opposed to seeing them as competitors. The protestant principle of sola scriptura leads to a constantly competitive approach, as opposed to the faith-seeking-understanding approach in St. Thomas and other non-reformed scholastics.
Oof. Each of these men need to go back to the drawing board on this issue.
28:49 dangerous to put your chips in on st Thomas Aquinas but not dangerous to out your chips in on Luther?😀 really? Putting your chips in on Luther?
36:12 - But Calvin? :)
Good talk, this is very typical of people and Paul addresses this in scripture, does he not?
1 Corinthians 3
Evidence that many Christians are yet carnal.
Two brilliant theologians talking shop, who can’t get enough of this. This is gold Jerry
I feel like God is allowing us to learn, love, and Glorify HIM but like they said 12:53 - 13:45 sums it up well. Great discussion. In agreeance like to stick to scripture. Only a one TRUE GOD can be so incomprehensible.
Sweater Vest Dialogues 4Life! We need more of this. And in person.....Love you guys!
Do you really think this is helpful? Seems they are one step away from debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin 📍
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 could I point something out? This video is a dialogue questioning Thomas Aquinas, the most well known scholastic. Isn't it ironic that you've used the quintessential question (angels on a pinhead) used to ridicule scholasticism to ridicule this video?
@@Jo-xf3kw explain how it is ironic
@@doctrinalwatchdogactive6454 Because this video is cut from the exact same cloth as your angels dancing quip. The reason this video exists is because there are numerous loud voices aggressively pushing this sort of "Aquinas is necessary" scholasticism on other believers, particularly online. They are warning against the dangers of falling in love with esoteric and extra-biblical philosophy and making it central to biblical exegesis.
Thus it's highly ironic that you would choose to criticize the critics of modern scholasticism using a very famous historical criticism of scholasticism.
@@jaked8537 I think "Doctor" White was talking about "Divine Simplicity" (chapter and verse?) and said God's wrath is connected to God's love. So let me get this straight, when the Lord casts people into hell to be tormented day and night forever and ever that is because of God's love? How do ya'll figure that?
Would it be appropriate to view Aquinas and his influence in the same way that we would see bishop Athanasius in his day ? It took a good while for the church to formulate its doctrine on the trinity even though it was taken for granted buy the church from its inception. I’m not on either side at the moment and I found Dr whites book on the trinity to be my number one resource when answering others for a more clear presentation of the trinity . This topic has come up in my 1689 circles and men that I love to learn from are leaning in the direction of Aquinas , but not for all that he would go on to teach .
@UCZtzQ8C0-_rCvlXJ_95xddg
I remember when Dr White recommended a Roman Catholic for teaching on the Trinity
No! Christ was the last revelation. The early Church didn’t “formulate” doctrine, it affirmed it in the face of heresy from Arius to Nestorius to the Iconoclast to the filioque to papal primacy which of course was the precedence for Protestantism revelation of Calvin and Luther.
@@SaltShack formulating doctrine on the basis of scripture being the ultimate authority of course.
@@michealferrell1677 That is exactly correct. There are just two things that Protestants and Catholics including Aquinas conveniently disregard. First is the unavoidable lens and context thing. The second is that the Apostles and early Church Fathers didn’t have New Testament Scriptures until they created them hundreds of years after Christ’s resurrection, see Codex Siniaticus. Christianity didn’t begin with the written text we have today and interpreting that text outside of or with any lens other than that of the Church is likely to be an error and in too many examples, a great and tragic error. Proof, Catholics believe their interpretations are correct as did Calvin, as did Luther, as did Wesley, as did Zwingli, as did Huss and as does every Evangelical with a Bible, an opinion and the courage to believe their opinions are in fact truth. since the first Century, truth, as Scripture tells us, has always been distinguished from heresy by the enduring voices of the many. That is to say the fundamental organizational principle of the Church has always been enduring consensus. Unfortunately when Pope Leo IX turned his back on that principle it set the stage for the seemingly endless fracturing of the Church and that has been a great tragedy. Thank you for the exchanges.
@@SaltShack
The Old Testament was the scriptures for the New Testament church . The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises.
I guess I don't understand what this video is even about. I do hear embrace of the EFS, which as taught by Owens Strachans father in law and embraced by him is heresy. I've heard Jeff iirc dismiss Stephen Wolfe for being a "Thomist", I still don't get what the issue is. Even in Joel Beeke systematic theology Thomas is referenced a bunch in the first chapter in systematic theology alone.
Helpful conversation, but in all of my reading of Aquinas I never got the impression that he was attempting to baptize Aristotle. IOW, It seems to me that Aquinas, following Anselm, who was following Augustine, believed that his doctrine was the product of the Bible not Aristotle.
I don't have no problem with Aquinas as long as not go against the basic tenets of faith revealed in the Scriptures. He is part of what I call the " great three A's of apology": Athanasius, Agustine and Aquinas.
Trent was completely Biblical, your Theology and anthropology of justification comes from a few decontextualized passages from St. Paul, not from the New Testament taken as a whole, or even the Pauline corpus taken as a whole. No one believed what you do about justification for over a millennium and a half of Christian history.
Lots I want to say, but I'll leave it at this: I sometimes wonder if guys holding views like the Thomists truly Or at least consistentl regard Scripture as divinely inspired LETTERS (they aren't all letters but you get my point) to people. If you start with that understanding, you will not feel so comfortable to turn every little verse into a proposition that needs to be carried to its ultimate logical conclusion. We don't do that with regular letters we send or receive.
The Spirit does at some richness to the Bible that can only be discovered through tough studying, but that's not the same as forcing everything to fit an unscriptural(?) paradigm.
Great advice about not being Pardison when it comes to being Thomist. I love these guys, but do we make the same mistake with Calvin?
40:20 Doug Wilson was so quick to it and gave me a very good laugh.
Francis Schaffer would have responded with the Capadocian fathers on this as towards the end of his life was very much studying the eastern fathers.
The answer for these distinctions in God is the monarchia of the father and the Essence Vs. Energies distinction.
Good convo!
Sweater vests for life!
Why don't james white have a dialogue with Dolezal?
👀
Can you do a video on the world society church of God? Asking for a friend.....
James refers to Calvin, does anyone know where that is found, I read the chapter in the institutes about the Trinity, but doesn't sound like what James is talking about.
Scary with the quote that the persons do not love one another. That is what they do. If they were to stop (which is impossible) they would no longer have anything. It is a mutual giving of everything, in eternity. Love is giving, freely, everything, all one is, a constant emptying. We humans are incapable of that on our own. Only by faith do we participate that divine love. I personally think that creation is the eternal overflowing of that love between the persons. They all let go constantly and give, and the process itself amplifies (in temporal existence) the love itself into more of it. Of course in eternity, it's hard to talk of any amplifying, it all just is, eternally. The end product is both the beginning, and the journey. I think temporality itself is our experience of the unfolding of that love, though in eternity, it not temporal of course, it just is what it is. God, it's hard to know how to talk of this. In one sense, the whole point of it all, from God's side, is to make us aware of the eternal, on the other hand it seems impossible to do it through regular language. Seems like poetry is better suited to the task.
And perhaps better than poetry, is music, and better than that, is just watching children in play, and even better to join them.
What happened to James White's lip?
@@bretlynn ARRE!
I’m curious too, I hadn’t noticed that before!
This won’t age well.
y
I’m not sure it needs to. It truly is just a conversation about some current trends in evangelicalism.
@@fletchershumack “The fact that Thomism is the philosophy of common sense is itself a matter of common sense.” -G.K. Chesterton
This is a giant exercise in determining that Canon Press has a way better camera than Alpha and Omega Ministries. Yes, the video is better. Yes James White got into a fight with a group of lions. It was only because he was limited to 2 fingers to poke out their eyes and no weapons that one of them happened to catch his lip.
Josh Sommers?
What happened to his lip?
@@charliek2557 no one seems to know the story. It's been like that for a long time, just wasn't noticeable until now.
@@BurkMacklynFBI the fact that you even mention that name shows that you're not ready to have a real answer to that question.
@@wesleyn4545 my man Wes
Doug's laugh 😂😂
Didn't Thomas say all he had written was chaff?
From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Thomas Aquinas: "On 6 December, 1273, he laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to Father Reginald, who urged him to continue his writings: I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value'".
Humbling conversation. Brings light on the limits of our feeble attempt to know everything there is to know about God.
Search Geoff Thomas Fellowship Conference The Mysteries of God. Great sermon and touches on what you were saying.
Fueling the alligator rhythm
This brought out a smile. Thank you😃
Scared to see where their theological offspring go
We only know of God what He has revealed of Himself to us. To look for more than what He has revealed is to not be satisfied with what He has seen fit to reveal of Himself as if He doesn’t know what we need to know. That is pride and we know where that leads.
Enjoyed this discussion!!
There are all kinds of things you know that God has not revealed to you. Nature reveals all kinds of things, but it is knowledge distinct from divine revelation
Yes God has revealed Himself through the nature He created. Through the study of nature we learn more of His revelation of Himself. But it is all within the revelation He has provided. We can’t know more than what He has revealed to us.
Question: "Does Thomism or Classical theism have an exclusive claim on Christian orthodoxy?"
Answer: No, Thomas Aquinas never made an exclusive claim on Christian orthodoxy by insisting that God was the author of the Summa Theologica and that should it should be memorized before reading the Bible. However, John Calvin twice did make such an exclusive claim on Christian orthodoxy by stating (A) that the Institutes of the Christian Religion were actually authored by God, and then (B) exhorted its readers to memorize it before reading the Bible so that (C) the reading of the latter might then become "profitable":
1. When presenting the Institutes of the Christian Religion to the French monarch, John Calvin wrote: "But our doctrine must stand sublime above all the glory of the world, and invincible by all its power, because IT [the Institutes] IS NOT OURS, BUT THAT OF THE LIVING GOD and his Anointed, whom the Father has appointed King ..." from the PREFATORY ADDRESS TO HIS MOST CHRISTIAN MAJESTY, THE MOST MIGHTY AND ILLUSTRIOUS MONARCH, FRANCIS, KING OF THE FRENCH (Henry Beveridge, Esq. English translation, Page 10, Paragraph 2)
2. In the Preface To The Reader, SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT WORK, [prefixed to the french edition, published at Geneva in 1545.], John Calvin wrote: "And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine proceed from God, I will venture BOLDLY TO DECLARE what I think of this work [the Institutes], ACKNOWLEDGING IT TO BE GOD'S WORK RATHER THAN MINE ... (Ibid, Page 22, Paragraph 6)
3. Regarding the order by which the Institutes and the Bible should be read, John Calvin wrote: "My opinion of the work then is this: I exhort all, who reverence the word of the Lord, TO READ IT [the Institutes], AND DILIGENTLY IMPRINT IT ON THEIR MEMORY, if they would, IN THE FIRST PLACE, have a summary of Christian doctrine, and, IN THE SECOND PLACE, an introduction to the PROFITABLE reading both of the Old and New Testament." (Ibid, Page 22, Paragraph 6)
Scholastic Answers deboonked you guys on this
this conversation demonstrates how ridiculous are the predicates that flow from the application of platonic categories to the bible. you're trying to describe the monad and then despairing at how futile it is. when it fails you revert to biblical language, round and round
Can you rephrase that?
How exactly are they harmonious without being “parts”. How are these attributes separate without being divided? They are separate ad extra, just like you almost said before you corrected yourself.
Hi. Would you say that sunlight is divided from the sun?
@@nigelpierre1991 - depends how you mean it exactly but for the most part yes. The sun is made up of several distinct parts and is very different than the appropriate way to conceptualize the Divine Essence.
@@fndrr42 But this is the exact description we find in Hebrews 1:3:
"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..."
The metaphor seems clear enough, that Jesus is to God the Father what sunlight is to the sun; namely, equal in essence. What is your understanding of this biblical text?
Oh that was the best ending to any of these dialogs!
Fruit
White’s beard is
Will there be a part 2?
Now, would you also take information from other writers like, C.S. Lewis, who leaned upon Aristotle and Aquinas? And whose best friend was Roman Catholic, that person being Tolkien...?
CS Lewis believed in purgatory along with other “Catholic” beliefs. I’m pretty sure Protestants simply pick and choose. No different than the early Reformers who quoted St. Augustine on grace yet ignored him on the sacraments or ecclesiology.
@@mosesking2923 Pick and choose has nothing to do with it. It's whatever lines up with the bible and not some made up "sacred tradition". Augustine can be right on some things and horribly wrong on other things, as with all men.
They had a discussion about Catholics - th-cam.com/video/jE1S4afpfts/w-d-xo.html
Yeah but Lewis is famous so....
Listening to this video can only lead one to conclude that the foundation of The Faith is the Bible and Tradition. To be rich in history is to be Catholic brothers.
Tradition is not without authority, but it is not infallible and it is always subject to scripture-the ultimate authority from which all others flow.
@@kaylar3197 True. However, it becomes more clear by the day that the great divorce and the countless Christian factions, many of which today are Christian only in name, was/are a grave mistake. Luther should have stayed, he should have fought for mother church. So much of the anti Catholic rhetoric is rooted in pride, “I know better, let me start a church (rather than helping The Church) I know what is Truth.” It’s this rush to be The Leader, undergird by an utter lack of humility and meekness that dilutes Christianity today. Luther’s actions were analogous to a Father who, unhappy with his family, and unwilling to suffer for others, seeks greener pastures only to find at the end of his life that his unwillingness to hold fast in Faith Hope and Love, he laid waste to his family and increased the spiritual rift between God and Man.
@@commercialrealestatephilos605 First of all, is it not prideful to presume to read the hearts of men you have never met?
Secondly, Luther was kicked out of the Catholic Church. He did not leave voluntarily.
Thirdly, claiming that the Reformation is anti-Catholic is to assume that the Bible and History are on the side of the High Midaeval Theology that the Reformers were questioning based not only on Scripture but on the Church Fathers as well.
@@colenorville6676 probably some pride in that statement yes. However, Luther did more than just leave the Church. He removed 5 books from the Bible and wanted to remove the book of James as well. He also by example paved the way for endless and diluted factions. He paved the way for divorce. A little Prideful on Luther’s part? What choice did the church have? Many saints were mistreated by misguided people in The Church, however, they understood Simon Peter’s words, where else shall we go Lord?” You stay, you fight for holy mother church. The alternative is clear, we are living it. Endless churches Christian in name only neither based on the Bible or tradition.
LETS GOOOO
theres nothing going here.
Love this!!
I thought global warming would get rid of sweater vests.
Two great men of God
Thank you!
I greatly enjoy theological discussions, but you Gentlemen are next level. I mean, you're so up there; whereas, I... let's just say I get lost a lot, but when I don't, it means I get it 😆 Always looking forward to the Sweater Vest Dialogues, my good Gentlemen!!
Am I the only one who thinks it’s weird that they keep calling him Thomas, and not Aquinas? Confusing. I’m still not 100% sure that’s who they’re talking about… lol
For whatever reason Thomas is usually called by his first name rather than his last. Even his teachings are called Thomism rather than being called by his last name.
@@h68819 thanks! good explanation.
Aquinas isn't his last name, it's where he is from. He's "Thomas from Aquino" in Italy.
When is Jesus referred to as Yahweh? And vice versa...how can one make these statements without backing them up with any scripture and Doug just sits there and nods...where do these guys come from
See Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58.
In the whole Bible that’s all you came up with? The name Yahweh appears over 6700 times in the original text. None of them are referring to Yeshua btw. Jesus of Nazareth is not YHWH because he was created by YHWH “the firstborn of all creation”. Yet you refer me to 2 verses using the Tetragrammaton? Y’all Christians are funny. Should do some research once in awhile lol
@@michaeljonathan543 Eastern Orthodox Christians would hold that virtually every theophany in the OT is the Son. That's because Jesus in the NT says the Father has never been seen *or heard.*
I don’t believe Jesus was an Eastern Orthodox Christian so I honestly don’t care what that group of “Christians” believe or don’t believe. I base my beliefs on what it says in the Holy Bible, not the manufactured corrupted KJV or NKJV. I do my own research and I think for myself with help from Gods spirit. Isaiah 55:11 can by itself prove the Trinity is manufactured by the Nicean creed. Millions have died bc they didn’t believe in the false pagan Trinity. I wonder why…
@@michaeljonathan543 I notice you did not even engage the two verses he cited, which should not be a problem if the Bible is so clearly on your side.
The verse you cited from Colossians does not state Jesus is a created being, since firstborn can refer to being "having primary importance ," not just coming into existence first. Israel is God's firstborn, but not in the sense of coming into existence before other nations (Exod. 4:22)
I think one question here is, within a biblical standpoint (assuming presuppositionalism), what sort of philosophical tools are most consistent with Romans 1, and to what extent do we allow proofs from natural revelation to shape our theology. For example, if one could use change/contingency in creation to show that God is the uncaused cause of the world, should we use such a proof? Is that good philosophy according to the Bible?
Put another way, is it helpful to have a philosophical proof from a contingent world that proves strict monotheism? If the cost of such a proof was commitment to an unchanging monad in whom there was no potency, would that simply be a speculation or would it materially conflict with the Bible’s teaching about God?
Follow up thought: Van Til seems to have objected to Thomism’s view of the proofs of God’s existence because they result in a world that is correlative with God (i.e. co-eternal). But Van Til also affirms that there is no change in God (even in his will?) at creation. It’s difficult to see how he could reconcile his criticism of Thomism with an affirmation of God as pure act. Any ideas?
John Frame, in his book the doctrine of God, seems to agree with Van Til’s criticism of Thomas, and wants to allow for contingent acts in God’s will to preserve the doctrine of a free act of creation. But he seems to give up absolute immutability in the Thomist sense to do it. Is that a nod toward the Bible or the sacrifice of the traditional view of God as absolutely immutable?
I find it interesting that the East come up with a different answer. Luther seemed to critique Aristotle for not recognizing God has to have potential to be almighty. Heidelberg disputation, towards the end. Doug like many others however doesn’t mention that the Spirit also sends the Son, that the Son predestines, that the Son wills freely, and that the Spirit wills freely, and indeed in Daniel unrestricted freedom of choice is prerogative of Yahweh alone, and so if the Son wills freely, and yet does the Father’s will, another answer besides subordination or submission is to simply say they have a unity of will/end goal, which is more like soccer players on a field than a captain sending a scout. That would be the difference between how Doug sees it and how Ambrose explains the same passages. Luther follows Ambrose in the Last Words of David and said clearly the Son rules and if the Son rules and yet the Father rules the Son then we have a pagan god. No he says, they rule together, just as the Son’s kingdom and dominion is in the end mixed with the Ancient of Days in Daniel, because it is the same kingdom and dominion. And there is one Throne in Revelation 22 and it only mentions God and the Lamb but we all know that the Spirit is not excluded. Otherwise we may as well exclude the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:6 since it says God, and of course if we follow Grudem and Ware’s logic, therefore it is speaking of the Father alone.
Richard Swinburne provides a very clarifying perspective on the Godhead in his book “Was Jesus God”, I really appreciated his understanding and explanation of this topic.
Can you share it here?
Excellent discussion. Doug, you addressed the main issue in the current debate when you said, "Thomas is not my interpreter." Amen.
but james white and doug is, right?
Always love seeing you two together!!