The Aquinas Wars: Surveying The Lay of the Land

 

Introduction

Theological trouble is brewing. It has been for a while. We are now several books, dozens of articles, and innumerable blogs, tweets, and status updates into this fight. 

While it is tempting to jump in as a combatant (and I have done that from time to time), my main goal here is to explain what this war is about and why it matters. With any luck, I'll do this in a way most laymen can understand. I will do my level best to represent each position fairly, but please note this is a snapshot in time. The battle lines are still somewhat fluid, but I think a general topography has emerged. Get ready to survey The Aquinas Wars.

An Overly-Generalized History

In one sense, this debate goes back to Tertullian asking what Jerusalem has to do with Athens. For ease, I'm going to limit our focus to more recent history. 

Many of you will be familiar with two Reformed giants of recent times. Namely, R. C. Sproul and Greg Bahnsen. In 1977 they debated one another on apologetic method. Apologetics is the rational defense of faith. Apologetic method seeks to answer how do we defend the faith in a way faithful to Scripture and aligned with reason? A few distinct camps have emerged on this question, Sproul represented the classical camp, with Bahnsen representing the presuppositional camp. 

I'm not going to recap that debate (you can read it here, or listen to it here). Suffice it to say where we are now is it is perfectly evident different apologetic methods depend on different views of natural theology, different views on the nature of Sola Scriptura, different views of the effects of the fall on man, and different views of God Himself.

Fast-forward to more recent times. This all comes to a head via two different doctrinal streams. First, as complementarians define their position they popularize the Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son (EFS for short) to help account for equality of person even as they espouse different roles for men and women. The more classically-minded see this as an unacceptable compromise of the historical understanding of the Trinity, introducing a division in the very being of God. And this brings us to the second doctrinal stream, the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS for short). Simplicity simply means God is not composed of metaphysical parts. That is, you don't get God by adding omnipotence with omniscience with omnipresence, etc. In His Being, God is without division. James Dolezal wrote some books on this, including All That Is in God. John Frame responded to Dolezal's book with a broadside. This exchange set off a host of reactions and responses, with continual dustups over the last five years. 

The Lay of the Land Today

As these dustups continue, there are now four broad camps. 

1.  Theistic mutualists skeptical of natural theology. In this camp is John Frame, Owen Strachan, James White, Jeffrey Johnson, and most presuppositionalists. These are among the most vocal critics of classical theism and the project of natural theology. In broad form, they believe Sola Scriptura and the nature of man render natural theology a doomed project. They also uphold modern views of personhood and personality, such that for God to be personal He must be personal in the way moderns imagine personhood. Those of us more classically-minded would say they believe at least some language about God is univocal.

2.  Theistic mutualists supportive of natural theology. In this camp is William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, and most classical or evidential apologists. They agree with the above camp on God's personality. However, they also believe natural theology can be used to show the existence of God. So they are not quite as skeptical on the nature of man and not quite as restrictive in their understanding of Sola Scriptura. Many of today's most popular arguments for God's existence come from these guys (Kalam, the argument from consciousness, modal ontological argument). 

3.  Classical theists supportive of natural theology. In this camp are the late R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, and living theologians and philosophers such as Matthew Barrett, Craig Carter, David Haines, and most people affiliated with The Davenant Institute. They uphold the classical view of God, including on simplicity, aseity, The Trinity, and the Incarnation. Being classical, they also uphold a classical understanding of reason and the ability to demonstrate the existence of God through argument (natural theology). Common terms to describe this position are Reformed Thomism and Christian Platonism. 

4.  Classical theists who believe it is clear to reason God exists. This camp is newer and somewhat unknown. But without doubt, its champion is Owen Anderson. It upholds the classical theism of confessions like Westminster. But it critiques other supporters of natural theology not for going too far, but for not going far enough. Presuppositionalists say the problem with Plato is he was trying to use reason for what it cannot achieve. This camp would say the problem with Plato is it's pretty evident he could use reason quite well, so he should have understood the truth about God. Because he did not, Plato's unbelief is morally culpable. And so it is with all unbelief. Because it is clear to reason God exists, all unbelief is morally culpable.

Conclusion

I understand this is a gross summary, in which I've engaged in gross generalizations. But if you are trying to catch up on this brewing war, in which strikes continue to be made, I hope this helps give you some terminology to learn about and scholars to brush up on. Make no mistake, this war will continue. Major publishing projects are in the works, conferences are taking place, and shots are being fired via social media. Stay tuned to learn more about my own stance on these issues.