Aquinas Invades the Reformed Baptists

www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-...
Well, I really was not trying to make today’s program a pre-view of what is upcoming for my students when teaching Church History and Apologetics, but, we did cover that area. First portion of the program was a bit “in house,” discussing the rise of Thomism in the midst of Reformed Baptists, so that some are accusing myself and Jeff Johnson and Owen Strachan of “heterodoxy” based upon their extremely narrow positions.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio.com/solo/aomi... for more of A&O ministry's content.
#simple #thomasAquinas #natural #past #hype

[@BrandonCorley109]

There's obviously some massive error in Aquinas (Justification/Soteriology, Nature/Grace, and other errors common to Roman Catholics), but his Theology Proper, Trinitarianism, Christology, rejection of semi-Pelagianism, and commentary on John are as stellar as can be. Dr. White doesn't list any good reasons to object to Aquinas in these things, as he is eminently Biblical in them. Dr. White needs to read Matthew Barrett's "Simply Trinity", or Augustine's "On the Trinity" here. Swain's "Trinity and the Bible" is helpful here too.

[@josiahpianoman]

Something tells me he already has read those, especially given the online/podcast debate as of late.

[@gabrielferreira1531]

There´s no way reformed and thomistic wordviews can unite.The Reformed and Thomists do not share a common theological method, as is often claimed, and that those called “reformed scholastics” today had an overwhelmingly negative view of Scholasticism, as Voetius says of them, “they twisted and perverted the Scriptures throughout with senseless and inept interpretations”. He also wrotes “1. That they often scribble out a lengthy instrument with ridiculous and inept explanations and proofs. 2. That they do not rarely pass over better and more solid proofs. 3. That they often commit a categorical error, and strive to prove the mysteries of the faith from reason and the light of nature, or from philosophy and human philosophical authority.” He, with other reformers also rejected the virtual disntinction in Aquinas for the Scotist virtual disninction. Aquinas disagrees Reformed, in Theology Proper also, including saying God is not known in himself, but only from second causes where the Reformed sided with Anselm that God’s existence is self-evident. Polanus says, Syntagma 2.4, “Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics deny in vain that God is known by himself.” And while the Reformed themselves were so concerned about reading Aristotle himself, Aristotle’s ideas about universals don’t line up well with those of Thomas, lending themselves more to a Scotist interpretation, as in Baxter, Junius, Voetius and Rutherford There´s no protestant thomism in a coherent way

[@alexjessalexjess864]

Did these guys ever read what Luther and Calvin said about Aquinas? And they accuse you of heterodoxy if you don't like him? What a joke

[@andrewdavidson8167]

To help everyone out. Tell us what Calvin and Luther said about Aquinas? And then can you show us how they had a different understanding of theology proper than Aquinas? Cause that’s what the video is about and that’s the topic of our current discussion

[@adindubose9314]

Dr. White, I think it would be interesting to see you do a debate on this subject

[@ConciseCabbage]

James White fighting side by side against the Thomists with Jay Dyer. It would be like Legolas and Gimli. Heartwarming.

[@CaseyCovenant]

Please make a playlist of all the video clips on Aquinas, simplicity, doctrine of God, and sola scriptura under one playlist heading.

[@lectorintellegat]

It’s obviously uncharitable to say that you’re heterodox. And it’s obviously naive to say that Protestants are capable of a naive or uncritical reception of Aquinas. But we ought also to recognise how much of Aquinas can be helpful, how the reformation is hard to understand without taking Thomism into account, and how classical theism is not easily dismissed (piecemeal or whole) without great difficulty. Seems to me that not everything has to be glossed as a pitched battle between slanderers or syncretists on the one hand, and naive biblicists on the other. Both sides have decent points here - both White and some of those who are now suggesting Thomas to be helpful.

[@PastorKThroop]

Thanks, brother. I have been proud to be associated with GBTS, and I am actually excited and encouraged by your stance on these issues.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@Keith Throop I have listened to White for years and I will say that he is misguided on this issue. I think it’s going down a very dangerous road and you should be careful as well

[@PastorKThroop]

@@andrewdavidson8167 Could you describe the danger? I'm not sure what you mean.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@Keith Throop Sure. The danger with eternal functional subordination, which granted White has not come out and said he affirms that, but he essentially espouses the same doctrine as Owen Strachan which would have a different understanding of simplicity and tip toes an Arian line. I know that is one of the criticisms White has disregarded, but hear me out for a second. If you believe the doctrine of EFS, then you believe that the plan of redemption was exclusively the Fathers plan from eternity past. The Son and the Spirit did not devise the plan but simply chose to be obedient to the Fathers plan. You can hear all of that on Owen Strachans podcast the antithesis where he describes EFS or ERAS as he calls it. But think about that for a second. That would indicate that there are multiple wills within the godhead since the Father makes a plan the Son and Spirit did not. Their will per-say is to obey the father. That’s multiple wills and divides the Trinity in a way that is antithetical to an orthodox understanding of God I think on the issue of what James White calls hyper simplicity, he doesn’t show that he fully understands what’s being talked about from those who would make statements like, “God is identical with his attributes.” When we talk about God, it is impossible to talk about God without considering all that God is. Modern churches will emphasize love over wrath, but you cannot do that since God is who he is. I would argue that Whites simplistic understanding of the doctrine of simplicity will lead people down an unorthodox understanding of God that really divides the essence of God in parts. And the only reason why White really seems to be opposing that doctrine is because Aquinas believed that. That’s a really bad reason to deny something because that doesn’t mean the doctrine is false

[@PastorKThroop]

@@andrewdavidson8167 Thanks for the clarification.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@12:00 That’s such a useless comment to make. I’m glad you recognize that that doesn’t automatically make what you say right, but that is still such an uncharitable way of conducting yourself. Bavinck for example would hold the view you reject, so because your younger you should stop and think. See how that doesn’t work?

[@fndrr42]

James - nobody is really saying that if you don’t accept what you call “hyper-simplicity” that you will become a true-theist. Many people hold to many positions inconsistently (likely all people); they are saying that as a metaphysic - it will lead there when fully followed out.

[@fredanderson5278]

Semper Refermonda, love it.

[@Bobbyhiddn]

25:24 - Are you aware this is not just Aquinus’s, but Johnathan Edwards and John Piper’s view of the Son? I am in agreement with them.

[@HosannaInExcelsis]

I wonder what kind of theology would we have if we were not using categories pulled from Platonic or Aristotelian philosopy. Isn't the word homoousion ("the same substance") a key idea to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity?. Were is that concept in the bible Dr. White?. What about this whole idea of hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) so fundamental to understand that Christ has both a human and a divine natures? If you are consistent with what you are saying, you should avoid using them, or else your argument will be utterly inconsistent and arbitrary. Because, if you use this categories pulled from philosophy, why cannot Aquinas do the same to explain the change in substance in the eucharist ("transubstantiation")? Please be more consistent Dr. White.

[@zachdavenport8509]

One can describe biblical concepts with philosophical categories, but one should not then use those categories to venture beyond what scripture teaches. Scripture teaches clearly that Christ was fully God and fully man. It is clear that there is only one God (ie one substance.) However, it does not teach that there is a transformation of bread and wine into flesh and blood. I understand the arguments for believing the eucharist is in some sense the body and blood, but scripture does not explain any sort of process by which this occurs. Thus, one should not attempt to explain it with philosophical categories imported onto the text. Also, I wouldn't say any single word such as homousion is key to understanding the trinity. It was a good word to describe this concept when the Nicaean creed was formulated, but it isn't as though greek philosophy was necessary to understand Christian doctrine. It just happened to be the language of the day.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Isn't the word homoousion ("the same substance") a key idea to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity?. Were is that concept in the bible Dr. White?. A son has the same nature as his father. 2 Sam 19:13a And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh? ...

[@zachdavenport8509]

@@jamessheffield4173 I don't think that passage applies. In view there is a human father and son who share genetic material. This was understood unscientifically as "bone of my bone flesh of my flesh." Having the same nature in that sense is not the same as being of the same substance as it applies to the Divine nature. Always be careful when drawing analogies between the Creator and His creatures.

[@HosannaInExcelsis]

@@jamessheffield4173 really you are going to argue that the word nature means the same as substance in the bible?. You are very bold to be a protestant. Because that will mean that we are partakers of the same substance of the Father ourselves: 2 Peter 1:4 (NASB20) “Through these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world on account of lust.” Are you trying to say that we then become of the same substance of the Father just because he allows us to share in his nature?. If so, we should call ourselves homoousion too.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@zachdavenport8509 Wouldn't the Son of God have the same Divine Nature as the Father? I and the Father are one.

[@barelyprotestant5365]

The fact that you can't see the benefit to teaching Divine Simplicity is rather telling. Essentially, what you seem to be confessing is that God's wrath is just a bigger version of our wrath, or God's love is just a bigger version of our love. If God's love and wrath are two separate things, and merely just bigger versions of what we see, we're in big trouble. God's Love cannot be separated from God's Wrath, whatsoever, because they are both the same thing. That's a comfort, and one of the greatest comforts I've received when I switched to classical theism.

[@JJHOMEY14]

17:41 “But they’re not the same THANG” love it

[@jamessheffield4173]

I found almost all church fathers argue from Scripture like modern Protestants.

[@Gregorydrobny]

Poe's Law applies here.

[@biscuitcake5894]

ofc they would. Why wouldn't they? Are you assuming that you have to be a protestant or believe in sola scriptura in order to have a high view of scripture or to even quote it? Typical protestant conception that all orthodox and catholics are bible denying false tradition followers.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@biscuitcake5894 I am saying like Basil the Great Where traditions differ Let Divine Scripture decide The Letters, Letter 189 (To Eustathius the Physician).

[@biscuitcake5894]

@@jamessheffield4173 Yeah, this is what Catholics believe. Tradition can never be different from scripture. If it is then it's not really divine tradition.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@biscuitcake5894 Methinks, sometimes the church of Rome doesn't follow Scripture. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. 39 Articles of Religion

[@colinlundstrom207]

Phenomenal job

[@thursdaythursday5884]

I don't think you understand Aquinas. That's not surprising, because, like many philosophers, he's extremely difficult to read without a guide, and Aquinas is particularly difficult, I find, because he often uses ordinary words in a highly technical manner. If you want to understand his Trinitarian theology, Brian Davies has a clear and accurate summary in his (alas, somewhat expensive) book The Thought of Thomas Aquinas. There is a whole book on the subject from Gilles Emery and a new one is coming out from Thomas Joseph White. (If you want to get the basics of Aquinas from a philosophical perspective, I would actually start with Edward Feser's extremely clear and concise introductory book, but there is nothing on the trinity there.)

[@cesarchavez9897]

Man, you are so humble I'm in tears. The thing is no matter what anybody says, if one disagree with Aquinas one does not understand him. Wow. Keep it up brother. Your arrogance is off the chains.

[@Parks179-h]

@@cesarchavez9897 not the best way to “rebuke” a brother, my friend. I would like to point out that your comment make you look arrogant even though I trust that that is not your intent. Blessings to you in Christ.

[@thursdaythursday5884]

@@cesarchavez9897 Thing is, in 99% of cases where someone is criticizing Aquinas, the person actually doesn't understand Aquinas. And now good secondary material, such as what I listed, is easily available, so there isn't that excuse anymore. Clear and accurate summaries are available, if you make a bit of effort.

[@thursdaythursday5884]

I am willing to bet that neither you nor Mr. White have read a single book of non-polemical Aquinas scholarship.

[@Parks179-h]

@@thursdaythursday5884 well…. You are wrong lol

[@andrewdavidson8167]

Yet all 3 of you have a different understanding of simplicity from the classic Christian faith. I would argue that your affirmation of EFS leads you to deny the covenant of redemption, and the fundamental unity of the godhead. I would also argue that this is an example of being uncharitable to your brothers in Christ whom your criticizing, since they do not show a shallow understanding of the early church fathers. Classical theism is replete with quotations and shows a robust understanding of the early fathers. To clarify as well. If you believe in EFS, you have to believe in 3 wills within the godhead, since the plan of redemption was the fathers plan, not the Sons nor the Spirits. And the obedience of the Son was acting out a will that is in submission to the fathers will. That’s two wills right there. Owen Strachan has an episode of the antithesis where he says that exact thing, short of three wills. I would highly recommend that James White, Owen Strachan, and everyone else go back to the drawing board and start to consider the implications of your statements

[@AK-qc8ix]

What are Baptists reformed from?

[@gargo45]

Reformed back to the truth of the Word

[@AK-qc8ix]

@@gargo45 That doesn’t answer my question. God has always had a true church that was never a part of the Catholic religion. So, what are Baptists reformed from?

[@shawngillogly6873]

​@@AK-qc8ix2nd Generation Reformed from the Independent Noncomformists, today called Congregationalists. They moved to CredoBaptism and adopted Owen's Covenant Theology.

[@AK-qc8ix]

@@shawngillogly6873you might as well have written that in another language.

[@timffoster]

Call me crazy, but I think white is in over his head on this one. He's not really providing any biblical support for his position

[@tookie36]

Right?!? 30 min video and no scripture mentioned.

[@emilesturt3377]

Imagine you're seated on a chair, and a few feet away from you are two five year old children, each with a stone that is too heavy for them to pick up and carry. (which you gave them in the first place for this teaching demonstration) You say to them both, "what I want you to do is to pick up the stone, bring it to me, and then we'll have a great day; I'll piggy back you around everywhere and we'll go to disneyland forever!“ ... But if you can't, then you're in big trouble! And it'll be nobody's fault but your own! They then both try and pick up the stone... To no avail. You then somehow get inside the mind and heart of the child on the right and cause him to ask you for help. Then (as you had already planned before his or her birth) you get up off your seat, and stoop down in front of the child, pick up the stone, throw it away and he or she then has the greatest of views and the knowledge of a priceless holiday coming up! With the child on the left, however, you get really angry (for some reason) and promise to send it to the waste disposal centre to get crushed and burnt forever and ever. 😮😂😮 This is Johnnny boy Calvo's lovely god (and built mainly on a dodgy and wholly unnesessary interpretation of Ephesians 1 and Romans chapter 9) 🤬🙏😂

[@andrewdavidson8167]

Can you quote Calvin and show how his interpretation was dodgy and unnecessary?

[@emilesturt3377]

@@andrewdavidson8167 I could, yes; but I'll just quote Moses, Jesus and Paul for now... these few words debunk Calvinism: (meticulous divine determinism) "Choose life" "Whosoever" "That all might come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved"

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@Emile Sturt That’s great. But I asked for a quote from Calvin. Just any quote that would show his interpretation of the two passages you referenced were unnecessary

[@emilesturt3377]

@@andrewdavidson8167 God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation. Calvin was a remarkable and very devout man... This we would both agree upon. This quote of his though, which relates to the passages you asked about, exemplify the Augustinian stream of thought. I personally side with the ante-Nicene early church' view of human will and the nature of Adamic sin, and the Patristic / Eastern Church's consensus relating to the nature of divine providence and synergism... and consequently, election. More simply put, we simply do not agree that God working everything according to His purpose means that he foreordains all things meticulously. Compatibilism, yes! But NOT the errenous view of it found in Reformed theology. Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1 are properly, consistently and coherently interpreted in light of the surrounding chapters and the consensus of the non (later in his life thinking) Augustinian Church and the novelties of the Reformation (doctrines of grace). Primacy of Grace, Yes! Augustine a blessed man? Yes! Pelagianism? No! Bar St Augustine, all the early Fathers: Irenaeus, Origen, Cyril, Athanasius, the Cappadocian and all the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox onwards (and vast swathes of the Western church), reject the Reformed take on Romans 9... i.e., double predestination. Peace in Christ to all. 😊🙏🌈😇

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@Emile Sturt Was that from the institutes? If so that’s not a commentary, but a systematic theology. Here is Calvin’s comment on Ephesians 1:4 “According as he hath chosen us. The foundation and first cause, both of our calling and of all the benefits which we receive from God, is here declared to be his eternal election. If the reason is asked, why God has called us to enjoy the gospel, why he daily bestows upon us so many blessings, why he opens to us the gate of heaven, -- the answer will be constantly found in this principle, that he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world. The very time when the election took place proves it to be free; for what could we have deserved, or what merit did we possess, before the world was made? How childish is the attempt to meet this argument by the following sophism! "We were chosen because we were worthy, and because God foresaw that we would be worthy." We were all lost in Adam; and therefore, had not God, through his own election, rescued us from perishing, there was nothing to be foreseen. The same argument is used in the Epistle to the Romans, where, speaking of Jacob and Esau, he says,” The primary thrust of his comment on that passage is that at the end of the day, we cannot say that we have been chosen by God because we are worthy. Now I believe that is a comment made to make the Catholic stop and think, in addition to the anabaptists I believe. I don’t know if he would say that Arminians would call themselves worthy. That is a characterization from modern Calvinists against Arminians. But anyways. That is his primary concern. That’s just on verse 4, but his actual interpretation of it is what I was asking for. You gave me a statement from Calvin about his general doctrine. Can you show me how that commentary from Calvin is unnecessary in light of what Ephesians 1 says? Also, when it comes to the early church fathers. I think it is incredibly lazy and immature to broad brush a statement like what you’ve done that all the fathers disagree with the reformers on this issue, simply because not all the fathers are in unanimous agreement with each other on many issues. I am assuming that you are not a Lutheran, but the Lutherans would argue very strongly their case that the early fathers believed water baptism is the means of regeneration. I’m assuming you wouldn’t agree with that, but some of the fathers would. I can tell you probably listen to Soteriology 101. That’s fine, I’m not against that. I would just caution you to be a little more careful with how you use sources, whether it be Calvin or the fathers, since anyone who says that the early fathers essentially believe what I believe are just ignorant of the fathers

[@Parks179-h]

The reformed are not biblicist from history. Bavinck and many others from the reformed tradition point out the the incommunicable attributes. Divine Simplicity, impassability, immutability, Etc. I have to disagree with Mr. White here, although I deeply respect him.

[@TheCityOfGod-lg8qe]

White is not even reformed. Bavinck very much is. Baptists are way more inclined to reject aspects of classical theism

[@aadschram5877]

james, the exodus continues!

[@annakimborahpa]

1) An excerpt from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume III, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5: "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED ON EQUAL TERMS, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." 2) An excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." 3) An excerpt from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have A Dream speech given at Washington, D.C.'s Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.'” 4) Who is correct, (A) John Calvin who stated that "ALL MEN ARE NOT CREATED ON EQUAL TERMS" or (B) the US Founding Fathers and Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. who stated that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"?

[@thomasglass9491]

Calvin is right!

[@annakimborahpa]

@@thomasglass9491 So if "Calvin is right!" would you also agree with him when he stated that his Institutes of the Christian Religion (the theological compendium composed during his lifetime) were both: (A) Divine Inspired and (B) Divinely Authored by God, and that (C) the Institutes of the Christian Religion should be read and memorized first before reading the Bible so that any subsequent study of the Bible might then become "profitable"? (A) "But our doctrine [the Institutes] 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 ... (Prefatory Address To His Most Christian Majesty, The Most Mighty and Illustrious monarch, Francis, King of the French, Beveridge translation, Page 10, Paragraph 2; ntslibrary online, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 18 of 944) (B) "And since we are bound to acknowledge that all truth and sound doctrine proceed from God, I [John Calvin] will venture boldly to declare what I think of this work, ACKNOWLEDGING IT [the Institutes] TO BE GOD'S WORK RATHER THAN MINE ..." (Preface To The Reader, SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT WORK, [prefixed to the french edition, published at geneva in 1545.], Beveridge translation, Page 22, Paragraph 6; ntslibrary online, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf page 30 of 944) (C) "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 OF BOTH OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT." (Preface To The Reader, SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT WORK, [prefixed to the french edition, published at Geneva in 1545.], Beveridge translation, Page 22, Paragraph 6; ntslibrary online, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf page 30 of 944)

[@fireflames3639]

This is one of the most pointless comments I've ever read

[@annakimborahpa]

@@fireflames3639 Did you intentionally omit the period at the end of your sentence or was your train of thought cut off?

[@andrewdavidson8167]

@Fire Flames You know when someone has to post something where a majority of the words are in all caps, it’s probably not a conversation worth having

[@alt-monarchist]

When will you debate Jay Dyer??? Also the Orthodox church is the only true Church

[@eg4848]

- cringey skull image - no substance - passive aggressive - has to make his dumb outdated politics be known - Jay Dyer stan yup we got an orthobro

[@Parks179-h]

Ehhh

[@sandromnator]

Eastern Heterodoxy is not true nor orthodox.

[@alt-monarchist]

@@sandromnator says the Heterodox

[@gargo45]

@@alt-monarchist Christ is the only way and as soon as you repent and trust in Him and what He did in His life, death resurrection alone to save you, you will be saved from hell and given everlasting life. Apart from trusting in Him alone apart from your works you remain dead in your sins. Flee to Him today and be saved!

[@HosannaInExcelsis]

Sure, in some cases you have divergent opinions in the early Church Fathers. But what about in those doctrines in which they have a strong consensus like baptismal regeneration, transformational righteousness, the Eucharist as a sacrifice, good works conducing to salvation?. What are you going to do with them? just swept them aside and think that Christianity was wrong all along before Luther and Calvin?. You cannot even hold the Nicean Creed with the early Church because you deny that baptism is the efficient cause for the forgiveness of sins. Certainly you won't be able to sit at the table with the Church of the 4th, 5th and 6th century. Moreover, you couldn't even attend a worship service in the early Church because the Fathers all believed that the mass was a sacrifice. It is hard to be a Calvinist Dr. White.

[@adindubose9314]

How about we stay on topic please. The issue is divine simplicity, something many Calvinists have in common with Roman Catholics. Pivoting to the whole rest of Catholic dogma makes you look stupid.

[@TheCrusaderPub]

@@adindubose9314 he is on topic. You allow White to meander all over the place before getting to the point. Whereas here, he is addressing a specific thing White brought up, and you tell him to “stay on topic.” Don’t be shill for Mr. White.

[@HosannaInExcelsis]

@@adindubose9314 I didn't know you are the moderator of this channel, and the one who says which topics can be discussed. Of course you didn't even understood my comment. This is not about Catholic dogma, but about the assertion that the "Church Fathers are all over the Place". More than a fair question to someone who prides himself in having taught Patristics when the other guy was "5". I know that protestants are quite inconsistent and blind to topics like these. But if you are going to make an assertion like that, at the very least you should have a consistent answer in those topics in which the Fathers are not "all over the place" and contradict your theology. And also, if you don't have anything relevant to say about this, just avoid making any comments. Probably another smart protestant (I know many) will at least try to provide an answer.

[@adindubose9314]

@@HosannaInExcelsis It is literally impossible to respond to what you said. You grouped together 4 or 5 doctrines, none of which have anything to do with the overarching topic of the video, alleged almost universal consensus, and made some sparky remark about how it must suck to be a Calvinist. To respond to you, I would have to survey every early church father on each of these doctrines, and provide you with quotes to prove what they said and argue they held a certain position, then count up all of the church fathers that hold each position on each doctrines and compare the numbers. Many, many LONG books would have to be written to argue this in any effective manner. The more effective route here is to argue that key trusted Reformed thinkers, in addition to many in the early and medieval church, did affirm the absolute simplicity of God. Another route that might be effective is just arguing against the claim that simplicity is biblically unwarranted speculation, or arguing in favor of the position by showing why divine simplicity is necessary to believe in summary form.

[@TheCrusaderPub]

@@adindubose9314 “impossible to respond” seems to be a common theme of yours.

[@fndrr42]

You are teaching some kind of strange Biblicism here. It’s circular and will tie you up in knots if you attempt to follow the logic. Can’t use the metaphysic of Aquinas but have no problem baptizing with Kant’s.

[@BurkMacklynFBI]

Dude you nailed it in this comment. I've been studying hard this subject of presup, and I'm finding Kants idealism all over Van Tils works. Funny he wrote a book against idealism. This stuff is so hurtful to the church. Young reformed presuppers I try to coach out of this don't even believe in the reliability of our senses. It's unbelievable. Btw they love circles 🔵

[@fndrr42]

@@BurkMacklynFBI - When people openly embrace and affirm circular reasoning - all bets are off. It's weird that they can't see the connection to post modernism but it will become more clear.

[@dirtcvma]

James sister is Catholic yeah?

[@thecutworx]

Why are you afraid?😂😂😂

[@emilesturt3377]

Unfortunately John Calvin's lenses were warped, and when you put them on, you too, also see things in a certain way. The truth is... is that some things are objectively and demonstrably true. 2+2=4 and not 3 or 5 I am a male not female I was born in 75 and not 85 The Reformed / Calvinistic system does not recognise, and deviates from, the Patristic (non Augustinian) consensus on many issues, and even the many that Augustine was in line with. The genius of Aquinas is a lot more in line with reality and the Patristic consensus (he draws from John of Damascus and others). In my book, unfortunately he sticks to Augustine's novel view of predestination, but he tries to find the middle ground between that and genuine free will. A very inconsistent and historically illiterate and bias video - highlighting the fact that the desired philosophical (incoherent) hermeneutic of meticulous divine determinism / Calvin's compatibalism is only consistent with itself and not with the majority of Christian Orthodoxy xxx

[@P-el4zd]

I will take Thomas Aquinas over John Calvin any day.

[@tristanling4146]

Any day? What text has Thomas Aquinas exegeted better and more faithfully than John Calvin? From your statement, I would only have to demonstrate one example where Calvin’s explanation of Gods word is more faithful then Aquinas to prove your mistrust in Aquinas.

[@P-el4zd]

@@tristanling4146 As a confessional Lutheran, I see John Calvin theology as heterodox. I most certainly do not agree with all of Thomas Aquinas, but I take Aquinas over Calvin any day.

[@tristanling4146]

@@P-el4zd once again, is there any specific exegesis of any particular text Aquinas is more theological accurate compared to Calvin? I do not agree with Calvin on everything, (I’m a reformed Baptist) but regardless of both of our traditions, we should judge someone’s theological value based on their exegesis and application of Scripture.

[@P-el4zd]

@@tristanling4146 Which exegesis are you talking about with Calvin, his exegesis where he misuses logical syllogism to overthrow biblical teachings on sacraments, the false teaching of double-predestination, false teachings on baptism, the false teachings on the eucharist, the false teaching of preservation of saints, the reject of the sacrament of private confession and holy absolution, etc. Do you own any of Thomas Aquinas and actually read through it without piecemealing it in a fragmented way? I actually have John Calvins Institutes of Christian Religion, though, I have not quite read the whole thing, same with Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, I own both volumes. If my memory serves me correctly, when I was a Calvinist for a short period of time Thomas Aquinas was one of the late R.C. Sproul’s top 5 theologians (John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas). Confessional Lutherans totally ignore John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli (Zwingli literally resurrected Nestorianism). Summa Theologica is a masterpiece whether you agree with his points or not his scholastics and his sheer theological intellect is unmatched by few in history. I do not agree with everything Aquinas, but he cannot be ignored-I will say it again, I will take Thomas Aquinas over John Calvin any day, then read Calvinist logical syllogisms that overthrow biblical teachings on sacrament, the extent of the Atonement (Scripture teaches single predestination ,not double predestination), etc.

[@DekemaStokes]

@@P-el4zdI have both too and I’m in the middle I haven’t converted to RC because of the doctrine or Mary but I must admit AQUINAS is unmatched in his summa theologica compared to Calvin’s institute it’s the truth again a Protestant but Aquinas is a TITAN in both philosophy and theology and I would rather listen to him then Calvin

[@TheCrusaderPub]

Aquinas: everything Calvin wishes he was.

[@adindubose9314]

Calvin wasn't trying to be a systematic theologian. The early Reformation was characterized by writing in such a way that it would be useful for the common man, but the later Reformation did develop into a more systematic theological effort. In addition, Calvin was much more concerned with the debate about grace than he was hashing out the doctrine of God again (some would argue he considered it a settled matter)

[@TheCrusaderPub]

@@adindubose9314 the Institutes are a joke to you then? Let’s be real here, where Augustine Aquinas recognized the need for nuance, Calvin took their work and became a hammer, seeing everything as a nail.

[@adindubose9314]

@@TheCrusaderPub I don't know what you expect me to respond to here. I don't think the hammer-nail analogy really demonstrates the distinction. Are you saying Calvin wrote too much in the topic? That he misused scripture? That his arguments were hasty and undeveloped? That he was more harsh on his critics than were Aquinas and Augustine? That his breed of Reformation was unjustifiedly radical?Any way you mean it I get the impression neither one of us knows enough about any of these figures to have a meaningful discussion about the topic

[@TheCrusaderPub]

@@adindubose9314 to be honest, I just expect you to actually read what they say before listening to everyone else on the subject. So when it comes to knowledge, speak for yourself.

[@DecimusStark]

@@TheCrusaderPub Have you ever read Calvin or knew what Calvin was after? Calvin was trying to be the farthest thing from Aquinas. That aquinas as a Aristotelian, which is pagan in nature and origin. Calvin didnt want to glorify himself but he wanted to stick to scripture and form every conclusion from scripture based on what scripture said, and help the common man.