Two excellent doctoral dissertations contrasting Catholicism with the Reformed tradition

As my research continues for an upcoming post concerning a defense of the Johannine authorship and historical integrity of the Gospel of John, I sometimes get a bit side-tracked by works that I discover online. The two following doctoral dissertations are the most recent examples.

The first is Leonardo De Chirico's, Evangelical theological perspectives on post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism (LINK). From the abstract we read:

The Second Vatican Council and subsequent ecumenical developments within the Church of Rome have forced Evangelical theology to rethink its own perception and analysis of Roman Catholicism. Against this background, many Evangelical theologians of varying tendencies and with different degrees of depth and insight have attempted to grapple with the new Roman Catholic outlook and the ecumenical challenges it brings. After describing the theological contours of Evangelicalism, the present thesis critically surveys the works on Roman Catholicism by Gerrit Berkouwer, Cornelius Van Til, David Wells, Donald Bloesch, Herbert Carson, and John Stott.

The second contribution is Sarah Timmer's, Receptive Ecumenism And Justification: Roman Catholic and Reformed Doctrine In Contemporary Context (LINK).

This dissertation is an excellent exploration into the doctrine of justification—common elements and differences—as expounded by the Catholic and Reformed traditions. It also includes some reflections on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification document published by Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Lutheran World Federation in 1999.

Anyway, felt compelled to bring these contributions to the attention of my readers. Back to work on my upcoming apologia on the Gospel of John...

Grace and peace,

David

Presuppositional apologetics: an unusual, yet quite interesting dissertation

Shortly before heading out for a 10 day Caribbean cruise, I came across a dissertation that caught my eye:

The Apologetic Methods of Isma'il R. al-Faruqi and Cornelius Van Til - Eric  R. Dye,  University of London, 2000 (LINK to online PDF copy)

I downloaded a copy to my tablet to read during the cruise and travel time; I also took my copy of al-Faruqi's, Christian Ethics, finishing both before my return home last Friday.

It had been years since my first reading of al-Faruqi, but I know for fact that I did not back then discern the remarkable parallels between al-Fauqi's and Van Til's apologetic method, as uncovered and related by Eric Dye in his dissertation. But my second reading, enlightened by Eric Dye's insightful reflections, has me wondering how I missed the parallels during my first reading.

Anyway, though this topic may not be of much interest to many of my readers, I felt compelled to bring it up....

Grace and peace,

David

Is God a being or a person ???

Summer is finally over, and with its end, so too the numerous outdoor projects and frequent guests—I am officially back to beachbum status !!! [GRIN]

Earlier today, while reading through some apologetic sites known for their frequent anti-Catholic posts, I discovered that TurretinFan (hereafter, TF) had posted the exact same thread (What About King Saul?) on James White’s AOMIN blog (MY REBUTTAL HERE).

This “discovery” enticed me to check and see if any other anti-Catholic mischief has been transpiring over the last few weeks on the AOMIN blog. By clicking on the Roman Catholicism Category, one finds no less than 10 anti-Catholics posts between 08/30/09 – 09/23/09. I then looked over recent The Dividing Line programs introductions; in addition to the ongoing diatribe concerning Francis Beckwith, I found this: In the first half I discussed the debate between TurretinFan and William Albrecht on the topic of the propriety of the use of the phrase "Mother of God" with reference to Mary (LINK). I had not heard/seen anything on this debate, and needed to do a bit of research to find the full debate (James has a tendency not to provide pertinent links). The entire debate in MP3 format can be accessed HERE; and installments of the debate are found at YouTube, beginning with PART 1.

During TF’s first cross-examination (MP3 - 9:40ff.), he asks William the following questions:

What is God? Is God a being or a person?
William answered those questions with: God is three persons in the Trinity.
TF then asked: You don’t understand the distinction between a being and a person?

Part of William’s response included: …I just don’t understand what you are trying to get to with that type of question.

Indeed William, indeed! TF’s questions are, without any doubt in my mind, ill-conceived, misleading, and above all, imprecise. The terms “being” and “person” each have many meanings (whether one is thinking strictly of the English usage, or the Greek and Latin equivalents), and in any theological discourse, one must carefully, and precisely, define them. For instance, one of the definitions of the English term “being” is “a person”; and to complicate matters even further, some Reformed theologians (TF claims to be “Reformed”) clearly state that God is both a “being” and a “person” (e.g. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction To Systematic Theology, 1974, pp. 229, 230; Ralph Smith, Paradox and Truth, 2002; Lane Tipton, “The Function of Perichoresis and the Divine Incomprehensibility”, The Westminster Theological Journal, 64.2 – 2002, pp. 289-306.)

Now, interestingly enough, James White, in The Dividing Line program linked to above, comments on TF’s question/s to William:

…he [William Albrecht] is asked a very simple question, a very simple question that would require him to understand and to know a simple, orthodox, definition of the doctrine of the Trinity; specifically that with the one being that is God there exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now this is, this is, orthodox Roman Catholicism. But as you will see, Mr. Albrecht knows much about Mary, but knows very little about the Trinity; because he doesn’t understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and he doesn’t understand the orthodox use of the term being, in regards to the being of God which is shared fully and completely by three divine persons. (7:22ff.)

And a bit later:

There is absolutely no reason for this confusion, if you have even the most basic understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity: there is one, true and eternal being, of God—the ‘what’ of God, that which makes God God—shared by three co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s not difficult, it’s not hard…

Sorry James, the doctrine of the Trinity is complex; hundreds of books have been written on the doctrine, and many more will be written. Add to this the fact that TF does not define the term “being”, one can certainly understand why William dealt with TF’s questions in the manner that he did so.

Now, let’s move on to James’ definition of “being”: there is one, true and eternal being, of God—the ‘what’ of God, that which makes God God—shared by three co-equal and co-eternal persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Is this definition as clear as James seems to think that it is? James is equating “being” with the essence/nature/substance of God—i.e. God’s ousia. Take note of this usage when applied to Christology: Jesus Christ possesses two “beings” (i.e. essences/natures/substances), one that is fully divine, and the other that is fully human. Sounds silly doesn’t it. I think one can readily discern that the term “being” can be confusing; that is, unless one, as said earlier, carefully, and precisely, defines it.

I am ultimately left wondering if James is truly aware how the term “being” has been used in Catholic thought? One articulate Reformed theologian sheds some important light on this issue:

Being is used in two senses in scholastic philosophy. First, there is the abstract property that applies to absolutely everything, “being in general.” Aquinas denies that God is being in this sense, for being in general includes the being of accidents, for example, a kind of being that is certainly not divine. Furthermore, Aquinas has a deep desire to maintain the Creator-creature distinction. To say that God is being in general would imply pantheism, the identity of God with the world.

For Aquinas, God is Being in a second, more profound sense: that of esse, sometimes translated existence. The distinction between essence and existence is basically between “what” and “that.” The essence of anything is what it is; to say that it exists is to say that there is a being with such an essence. (John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, p. 221 - italics in the original.)


Yes James, “There is absolutely no reason for this confusion”; “It’s not difficult, it’s not hard…” Right…


Grace and peace,

David

UPDATE (09-25-09): Just moments ago, I discovered that William has uploaded a short rebuttal to some of James White’s criticisms concerning the “Mother of God” debate: LINK.

ANOTHER UPDATE (11-19-10):

Van Til's controversial comments on the doctrine of the Trinity have once again created some theological conflict within the Reformed community. Note the following two posts (linked to below), by Colin Smith:

Van Til and the Trinity: God as a Person

Van Til and the Trinity: A Quick Response to PuritanReformed

Presuppositional apologetics vs. atheism.

Right or wrong, I have, for a number of years now, embraced many of the aspects of the apologetic method developed by the Reformed philosopher/theologian Cornelius Van Til, known as presuppostionalism and/or TAG (transcendental argument for the existence of God).

Van Til’s most erudite disciple, the late Greg L. Bahnsen, is now being represented via YouTube. His debates with two prominent atheists, STEIN, and SMITH (along with many other items) are available for all to take in, and reflect upon. ENJOY!!!

Grace and peace,

David

James Swan, Systematic Theology, and Catholicism

James Swan, one the members of the “Team Apologian” crew, put up this morning, what may very well be his most ill-conceived post (in my subjective opinion), on either the AOMIN blog, or his own Beggar’s All blog. James is reading through Cornelius Van Til’s An Introduction To Systematic Theology and takes a quote from the book which references some “fifty-seven varieties of heresies with which our country [USA] abounds” and then tries to apply it to Catholic converts! I kid you not; here is the greater context:

I've been reading Van Til's An Introduction To Systematic Theology. Van Til notes systematic theology seeks to offer an ordered presentation of what the Bible teaches about God. He says "the study of systematic theology will help men to preach theologically. It will help to make men proclaim the whole counsel of God. Many ministers never touch the greater part of the wealth of the revelation of God to man contained in Scripture. But systematics helps ministers to preach the whole counsel of God, and thus to make God central in their work."

Here was the point that I found most interesting:

"It is but natural to expect that, if the church is strong because its ministry understands and preaches the whole counsel of God, then the church will be able to protect itself best against false teaching of every sort. Non-indoctrinated Christians will easily fall prey to the peddlers of Russellism, spiritualism and all of the other fifty-seven varieties of heresies with which our country abounds. One-text Christians simply have no weapons of defense against these people. They may be able to quote many Scripture texts which speak, for instance, of eternal punishment, but the Russellite will be able to quote texts which, by the sound of them and taken individually, seem to teach annihilation. The net result is, at best, a loss of spiritual power because of loss of conviction. Many times, such one-text Christians themselves fall prey to the seducers voice."

Of course, I had the converts to Roman Catholicism in mind, rather than Russellites. I wonder how many of these Catholic converts actually attended churches that proclaimed the whole council of God? A question I would ask is how many Catholic converts previously went to churches with strong systematic confessions of faith, like the Westminster Confession, and how often were they taught the confession, like in a Sunday School class, and how well did their minister cover all the doctrines in the confession of faith? I would expect some rather weak answers. (James Swan, http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2270 - italics in the original post.)


My-oh-my, where to begin…

Has James so quickly forgotten the fairly recent converts to Catholicism who not only went to “went to churches with strong systematic confessions of faith”, but also received seminary training in conservative Reformed schools; some of whom went on to pastor the type of church James makes reference to! (E.g. Scott Hahn, James Akin, Robert Sungenis, Steve Wood, and Jerry Matatics.)

And then there is myself. I was mentored and discipled by a ruling elder of the ultra conservative Orthodox Presbyterian Church, who I had met at the Christian bookstore he was working in which specialized in classic Reformed works. After reading through the entire systematic theologies of Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, and W.G.T. Shedd (along with the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Longer and Shorter Catechisms, and numerous other Reformed works by such authors as B.B. Warfield, John Owen, John Murray, Jonathan Edwards, et al.), I became a member of the OPC. And my Reformed readings continued, but it was not long after my conversion that I began to see the incredible amount of schism that existed among the conservative Reformed churches. Their inability to exist together in ecclesiastical unity led to my deeper studies into history, including the early Church Fathers. (And we all know what Newman had to say about history!)


Now, I am certain that my response is not one of the “rather weak answers” James was hoping for when he penned his post. And I am quite sure that the examples of the Hahn, Akin, Sungenis, Wood, Matatics, and myself are not the only ones which make James’ post incredibly suspect.

But there is perhaps an even larger issue that needs to be addressed: the differing types of systematic theologies. Van Til (and James) acts as though the only systematic theologies that have been written are Reformed. Fact is there are Arminian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and Catholic systematic theologies. And there is a considerable amount of diversity among the Reformed systematic theologies. How is the simply lay person going know which of the dozens of extant systematic theologies out there is one he needs to read and embrace?

I am not going to bore everyone with my personal favorites, but I would like to end this post on one important note: Van Til’s An Introduction To Systematic Theology is certainly not one of the better ones, even when we allow for the fact that it is only an “introduction”. Van Til was a brilliant philosopher, but not a great theologian; his teaching concerning the doctrine of the Trinity is but one example of his sometimes muddled thought. Van Til stated:

We do assert that God, that is the whole Godhead, is one person…He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God, we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective “personality” may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality. Yet, within, the being of the one person we are permitted and compelled by Scripture to make the distinction between a specific or generic type of being, and three personal subsistences. (Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction To Systematic Theology, pp. 229, 230.)

Me thinks I smell a whiff of modalism…


Grace and peace,

David