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. 

(Mis)Using Scripture in John Frame's Apologetic

 In John Frame's article "Presuppositional Apologetics" he presents a very succinct and straightforward definition of the methodology. What is interesting is his use of Scripture. Surely, whatever other support the presuppositional method has, it MUST have strong Scriptural support. 

Frame offers the following (paragraph 4):

What about religious faith, as an assumption governing human thought? Scripture teaches that believers in Christ know God in a supernatural way, with a certainty that transcends that obtainable by investigation. Jesus himself reveals the Father to those he chooses (Matt. 11:25-27). Believers know God’s mysteries by revelation of his Spirit, in words inspired by the Spirit, giving them “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:9-16, compare 2 Tim. 3:16). So, by believing in Jesus, they know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:7).

Here, it seems to me, Frame is basically correct. Believers in Christ do indeed "know God in a supernatural way, with a certainty that transcends that obtainable by investigation." I think the Scriptures Frame cites here are, more or less, correctly applied. Please note that Frame wrote this article as an entry in The New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics so we are not expecting exhaustive exegesis of each passage. But, on the whole, I think he uses these passages correctly. As Christians our knowledge of God is supernatural, dependent on the Holy Spirit and His revelation in Scripture. 

Now we get to Frame talking about the apologetic implications, and Frame says this (paragraph 11):

"Only by trusting God’s Word can we come to a saving knowledge of Christ (John 5:24, 8:31, 15:3, Rom. 10:17). And trusting entails presupposing: accepting God’s Word as what it is, the foundation of all human knowledge, the ultimate criterion of truth and error (Deut. 18:18-19, 1 Cor. 14:37, Col. 2:2-4, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:19-21). So the apologetic argument, like all human inquiries into truth, must presuppose the truths of God’s Word."

Did you catch the shift there? It was subtle, almost unnoticeable. We went from 1. The believers' knowledge of God through faith in Christ is supernatural (a point with which I agree) to 2. Saving faith requires presupposing the truth of God's Word; and 3. All apologetic arguments must presuppose the truths of God's Word.  

These points are not all the same. And while I think Frame established (1) well enough; (2) and (3) are sorely lacking. First, the Scriptures Frame cites are, at best, only tangentially related to the sweeping claims he is making. Interestingly Scripture does not really claim, at least in a straightforward way, that it is the foundation of all human knowledge. Frame's best case here is something like Colossians 2:2-4, but even here saying all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ is quite a different claim from Scripture is the foundation of all human knowledge. 

But there is a larger problem for Frame here, and that is a problem of circularity. And I'm not talking about epistemic circularity. I'll leave that to other writers (for now). No, Frame has introduced circularity with respect to salvation and its relation to presuppositions. Remember in the first paragraph we quoted from Frame he said "Believers know God’s mysteries by revelation of his Spirit, in words inspired by the Spirit..." but then Frame also says "Only by trusting God’s Word can we come to a saving knowledge of Christ (John 5:24, 8:31, 15:3, Rom. 10:17). And trusting entails presupposing: accepting God’s Word as what it is, the foundation of all human knowledge, the ultimate criterion of truth and error".

So, according to Frame, we must:
1. Presuppose the truth of Scripture in order to have saving faith; and,
2.  Have the mysteries of God regarding salvation confirmed to us directly by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

But, wait a minute, which comes first? Do we presuppose in order to have faith? Or, having faith, does God reveal this to us by His Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:9)? I think, being charitable, Frame can resolve this by saying at regeneration the Holy Spirit really does all of this in us at once but we grow in our understanding of it over time. That would be fair, and consistent with Frame's view of the order of salvation (see here). Unfortunately for Frame, this renders his application of these passages to all human knowledge entirely useless. That is, to avoid the conclusion no one could ever come to have saving faith since said faith would require presupposing the very thing that must be revealed in order for us to presuppose it, we have to limit our understanding of the passages Frame cites to the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration (and perhaps sanctification).

However, limiting our understanding of the passages in this way means Frame cannot then claim these passages support the notion all human knowledge presupposes Scripture. These are Scriptures about the process of salvation and what happens in the believer when the Holy Spirit does His work. To try to read into them claims about all human knowledge depending on Scripture is to render it impossible for anyone to ever know anything. If all knowledge depends on Scripture, and our knowledge of the truth of Scripture depends on direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, how could we have knowledge of what the Holy Spirit is revealing to us? To know what the Holy Spirit is revealing would require knowledge. But that knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit revealing it to us. Now we have arrived at the epistemic circle.

The answer, at this point, reduces to mere subjectivism. And elsewhere Frame admits as much, discussing the order of salvation as a pedagogy Frame notes (paragraph 9) "Indeed, there is a similar subjective dimension to all human knowledge, for knowing itself is, from one perspective, a subjective process that goes on in the mind." Frame and his presuppositionalist allies can appeal to direct revelation all they want. But that revelation must occur inside the human mind, and if there is no ground outside of direct revelation by the Holy Spirit in the process of regenerating and sanctifying believers, then we have no grounds for actually trusting the process of revelation that occurred inside of our own minds. 

Now, there is much, much more to be said. But it is late, and I am tired. Notice, however, that presuppositionalism as presented here (and we'll see this elsewhere too) really boils down to the Holy Spirit's revelation of Christian truth to the believer. On this view, it is unclear why apologetics is needed at all (evangelism, certainly, but apologetics, why bother?). But even more significantly, it is entirely unclear to me how Frame and other presuppositionalists avoid infringing on the very sufficiency of Scripture since Scripture itself relies on an internal subjective process of revelation to be known with certainty. But more on that in the future.