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. 

Why Classical Theism Matters

 In recent history, theological discussions that might otherwise be relegated to the ivory tower have spilled over to the popular level. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is how blogs, social media profiles, and podcasts influence subsequent social media interactions. Now, at both the academic and popular levels, there is a clear line of demarcation between classical theism and theistic personalism.

Even this terminology raises questions. Most theistic personalists do not self-identify as such. And many people have no idea what a term like "classical theology" means. 

For simplicity's sake (pun intended), classical theism refers to the view of God widely shared over the course of history that sees God as simple (not composed of parts) and immutable (unchanging in His being). This leads to many further assertions, such as God is pure act, the unmoved Mover, being itself, etc. In contrast, a relatively recent view has quickly attained consensus among many modern scholars. That view is theistic personalism, which holds God must be personal in some sense in the same way we are personal, and this typically results in either denying or reformulating classical views of simplicity and immutability. Subsequently, questions are raised about the very nature or possibility of natural theology, apologetic method, and ultimately the nature of fundamental reality itself. 

While my paragraphs above are gross oversimplifications of the relevant issues, I don't want this post to focus on the academic debate but on why this matters on the popular level. Why should the average Christian care about what seems like such a distant scholarly concern? Or, stated differently, why does classical theism (or its denial) matter in the day-to-day pursuit of Christ? 

There are more answers to this question than I can list here, but I want to cover a few in summary form. 

First, classical theism inspires our worship. In The Knowledge of the Holy A. W. Tozer wrote that what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. Our worship is a response to who God is and what He has done. Classical theism bears directly on the question of what we think about God, and thus on our response to who He is. Classical theism preserves God's greatness, His holiness, His justice, His love, without reducing them to a mere creaturely understanding of these words. Classical theism doesn't give us a complete understanding of God, in fact, it affirms we cannot attain that. But it still allows us to understand the truth about God in a way that inspires our worship with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28). This is especially the case when we consider how entirely holy God is in light of the fact the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This is not to say theistic personalists cannot worship God, but the more creaturely we envision God the less of a mystery things like the Incarnation become. 

Second, many modern objections to the Christian faith simply don't exist given classical theism. One of the key mistakes the New Atheists made was critiquing a version of theism that for the majority of Christian history wasn't actually upheld by the Church. For a Cartesian dualist the problem of interaction becomes a significant challenge to belief in the soul. On classical theism, someone can raise the problem of interaction but it's pretty easily answered given a solid understanding of form/matter. Similar things can be said with respect to objections to the Trinity, where the distinction between essence and person becomes crucial. 

Third, classical theism has a certain consistency and comprehensiveness that is unrivaled by theistic personalism. This plays out on questions of ethics, the nature of reality, culture, and the meaning of life. What is the good life? How do we live it? Why should we bother even thinking about it? Again, it is not that theistic personalism cannot answer such questions, but that the answers end up necessarily disjointed and (at times) contradictory because theistic personalism lacks an integrated understanding of essential reality tested over millennia. Classical theism gives compelling answers to questions of abortion, sex and gender, the dignity of the person, and the value of the family. Theistic personalism is only raising those questions in reaction to the depravity of the culture around us. It's not that their answers are wrong, it's that we don't even know what the consensus answers will be on theistic personalism. 

We could go on, but I hope this is enough for people to consider the importance of the topic. Whatever one thinks of the debate between theistic personalists and classical theists, I hope we can all see the important nature of it. Nothing less than the essence of Christian theology and discipleship is at stake. 

Thomism Thursday - Can Anything Happen Outside of God's Government?

[Photo of St. Peter's Basilica, C/O Chad Greiter, open source]

"Reply to Objection 1. There is nothing wholly evil in the world, for evil is ever founded on good, as shown above (I:48:3). Therefore something is said to be evil through its escaping from the order of some particular good. If it wholly escaped from the order of the Divine government, it would wholly cease to exist." - St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 103, a. 7, ad 1

Time forbids us from considering the totality of this point. However, I want to point out the Angelic Doctor is addressing whether anything contingent can happen and ultimately if anything can happen outside of the Divine Government (aka - Providence). Aquinas affirms nothing can resist God's will, though some things do happen which evade *particular* goods. Why is this the case? God so governs the world that if something happened completely outside of God's will, that thing would simply cease to exist. 

How does this apply to us today?

First, it seems our society is in some respects in total rebellion against God. However, as sinful as our society indeed is, it cannot completely escape God's will. God governs all things, and all things depend on God for their existence. The desire to completely escape God's will is self-destructive, and I mean that literally! To completely escape God would be to completely cease to exist. 

Secondly, following from this, the arguments of the sort "You are on the wrong side of history" are absurd! People aiming at and wishing for the complete cessation of existence have no business appealing to history. Period.

Third, and finally, this reveals that the difference between theological liberalism and conservatism is not simply on paper or rhetorical. What it ultimately reveals is a completely different metaphysic, a completely different religion, a completely different theology. People often ask if Christianity and Islam worship the same God. We should also ask if Christianity and liberalism worship the same God? The answer is a resounding "No!" They think I'm on the wrong side of history. I think their position (if it were actually attainable) would render humanity nonexistent. We don't have the same system, we don't worship the same God.