For the last six months or so, I’ve been working through Richard Muller’s “Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics series. Here at Triablogue, I’ve been posting selections from his Volume 2: Doctrine of Scripture. In the coming months and years, I hope to continue to do that. And at Reformation500, I’ve been posting mostly from his Volume 1: Prolegomena.
I’ve entered a new section over there, Getting the Starting Points Right, which looks at the historical development of theological prolegomena. Now, I know, to modern ears, that kind of study sounds about as fun as having a root canal done. But in reality, if it can be said that “the rise of the European universities” was probably the most significant event of the previous 1000 years (yes, greater than the Reformation – I’ve heard it said), then this next section is essentially “the story of how they did it”.
Of course, it’s a long story, with lots of granular detail.
But you hear it all the time: “We all bring our presuppositions” to this study or that study. The real question is, “what constitutes good presuppositions to have?” Where did these come from? How did we get them? And where did “bad presuppositions” come from?
After all, if we presuppose that “God exists and that he rewards those who seek him”, we must also “always [be] being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”.
If we want to approach “the world” today with “a Christian worldview”, then it behooves us not only to do so “with gentleness and respect”, but also (if we are going to speak to the “thought leaders” of the world today, among whom we might classify academia, politics, and the media), to do it with a level of historical awareness and philosophical rigor. To be able to compare worldviews.
In this respect, Roman Catholicism is a bankrupt system, doctrinally and philosophically. I’ve commented in the past, in response to the question, “why are there so many ‘intellectual’ converts to Roman Catholicism?” – the answer to this question lies in the fact that there are still Roman Catholic universities such as Notre Dame that still retain the veneer of philosophical sophistication, and there are individuals such as Edward Feser who are supporting Roman Catholic viewpoints by trotting out the 13th century philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, as if it were somehow a great panacea to all that ails the world today.
There is no doubt, Aquinas was “state-of-the-art” for his era, but his blend of neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism does not and cannot adequately describe our world today.
Trying to present “philosophical sophistication” using the Roman Catholic Church today is going to force upon us its justifications for syncretism, and “and-and” theology, and “development”, and “ex opera operato” sacraments, and justifications for the medieval Roman hierarchy (which remains in place today) in spite of the pure evil that that hierarchy has been responsible for in the world [much of it in the name of justifying its own authority]. It’s going to end up giving us someone like “Pope Francis”, for whom a tremendous degree of justification is going to be needed.
Martin Luther rejected a lot of Aquinas as nonsense, [and rightly so, as should we], without having given too much of a reason why. But in our day, we need to be able to say why.
I think Muller is a great place to start.
"...there are individuals such as Edward Feser who are supporting Roman Catholic viewpoints by trotting out the 13th century philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, as if it were somehow a great panacea to all that ails the world today."
ReplyDeleteJust keep in mind that Feser et al. are not trying to revive Thomas's exact views, but rather continue to develop the Thomistic tradition, drawing key insights and themes from Thomas but taking into account developments in philosophy and science since then. W. Norris Clarke, for example, describes his project in The One and the Many as a 'Thomistically inspired metaphysics' that is not a repetition of Aquinas's thought but rather a 'creative retrieval' of it.
"There is no doubt, Aquinas was “state-of-the-art” for his era, but his blend of neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism does not and cannot adequately describe our world today."
Actually it seems as if more and more secular (or at least non-Catholic) scientists and philosophers are drawing upon Aristotle and Aquinas to synthesize a non-mechanistic worldview that can accommodate the best of modern science. See for example Rupert Sheldrake's Science Set Free, Walter Freeman's synthesis of neuroscience and Aquinas's account of intention, Stephen Mumford's appropriation of Scholasticism in his account of causal powers, etc.
Also, I think your worry that Thomistic metaphysics and Catholicism are a package deal is unfounded. One can appropriate metaphysical themes like act/potency, hylemorphism, the analogy of being, etc. while not buying papal infallibility and many of the specific institutional doctrines of the Catholic Church. James Dolezal's God Without Parts is basically an argument for Reformed Thomism when it comes to the doctrine of God.
Helpful clarifications.
DeleteHi JD, starting with your last point, I wouldn't call them a "package deal", but the latter certainly will draw upon the former.
DeleteI understand that Feser is looking for "developments" in Aquinas, but in any event, Roman Catholic sacrementality (and by extension, its supposed authority) are built on that same foundation. If you strengthen that one foundation, if you continue to suggest that "Aristotelian metaphysics really can be used to accurately describe the world", then that certainly can be used to provide justification for those (essentially very harmful) views of Roman Catholicism.
I understand, too (as I've written about elsewhere) that the Reformed Orthodox also used some Aristotelian categories (but not his metaphysics) as a way of speaking in a common kind of language about God and the universe. I still think (with McCormack and Horton and others) that it's important to move away from that sort of thing.
But I think that act/potency is just a silly way of looking at things -- and Feser's "melted goo-ball" explanation is laborious and just a plainly stupid way of looking at matter (from his work on Aquinas).
Instead of looking to "draw upon Aristotle and Aquinas to synthesize a non-mechanistic worldview that can accommodate the best of modern science", where these philosophies are after-the-fact explanations that basically were used to describe faulty views of reality, why not look to some of the actual science and draw philosophical conclusions from what we're actually learning, rather than to try to shoehorn quantum physics into a system that really seems to distort reality more than explain it?
Rocking, I think that the clarifications that I've posited here are even more helpful.
DeleteBut in our day, we need to be able to say why.
ReplyDeleteSo true. I remember my irc chats with Perry Robinson a decade ago where he emphasized over and over that the magisterial reformers were largely ignorant of the theology and philosophy of Aquinas and the medieval Schoolmen. For example, Calvin's Institutes is a huge book but he barely mentions Aquinas (much less engage his writings).
Most modern Protestants like myself are also ignorant. Sadly, that includes many Protestant ministers. In the past some Protestants like Turretin were somewhat familiar with them, but most weren't. As a Protestant I reject many of the philosophical and theological distinctions of Catholicism, but we can still nevertheless learn from some of it both in it's good and what to avoid in its bad. Understanding various Catholics distinctions can help Protestants better formulate their own distinctives and distinctions in contrast (or in similarity) to Catholic ones.
Take for example the collected Catholic tradition, theology, insight, wisdom, folly and error on topics like:
Justice
Merit
Gambling
Hi Annoyed -- I've seen comparisons with Calvin and Aquinas -- and I don't think they're very good. One exception is Richard Muller, who, in his "Unaccommodated Calvin" isolates who the "schoolmen" are for Calvin -- they amount to the current-day French scholastics with whom Calvin contended regularly. I think you are right to say that Calvin never interacted with Aquinas's work. There was enough other stuff going on.
DeleteMuller's 4-volume "Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics" is exceptional, because he not only treats the Post-Reformation writers (most of whom WERE interacting with the Medievals), but also the Medieval writers themselves. It would be interesting to see someone like Perry Roinson try to interact with someone like Muller.
As for "the collected Catholic tradition", whatever "wisdom" in the links that you posted has nothing from those old "Catholic Encyclopedia" entries, well, it is, as Calvin says, "polluted" by the taint of the Roman Catholic religion.
John what do you think about this Aquinas quote on the sacrament of penance:
ReplyDeleteChrist’s Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all debt of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure to which he participates [participat] in the power [virtutem] of Christ’s Passion. Now in Baptism man participates totally [totaliter] in the power of Christ’s Passion, since by water and the Spirit of Christ, he dies with Him to sin, and is born again in Him to a new life, so that, in Baptism, man receives the total [totius] remission of debt of punishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of Christ’s Passion according to the measure of his own acts, which are the matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (84, 1,3). Wherefore the entire [totius] debt of punishment is not remitted at once after the first act of Penance, by which act the guilt is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been completed.
Vincent: Here is the key to that: "man is released from the debt of punishment according to the measure to which he participates in the power of Christ’s Passion".
DeleteHow do you reconcile that with: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."?
How is one required to "participate" in a "free gift"?