We already have a zillion threads on atheism vs. Christianity. Personally, I’d like to see more of the epistemological stuff.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:We already have a zillion threads on atheism vs. Christianity. Personally, I’d like to see more of the epistemological stuff.[/quote]Please peruse this Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics title page for a snack until we can get rollin again. I’m not indispensable here either ya know. You guys should feel free to carry on.
Or THIS A Defense of Reformed (biblical) Presuppositional Apologetics by Cornelius VanTil great piece excerpted from one of Van Til’s books the title of which escapes me at the moment, but I read it years ago and devoured this chapter.
my offline life is taking some unforeseen twists… again. Some good, some bad, one very good and a bit scary, but all by he providence and grace of my wise and blessed Lord.
@KAMUI: For now (I’m sorry guys, I am just really wiped out), what you are saying in that last post sounds like a sort of self styled mono ontological philosophical pan"theism".
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< And this definition of free will does not contradict the absolute law of the infinite being in any way, shape or form. >>>[/quote]Which makes you this infinite being? =] Not by yourself of course.
I’m not stringing you guys along. Honest. I am just wiped out and have not had the time to do justice to your guys posts.
[quote]Christopher saith: As a Thomist, I declare in my consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or practical assumptions, but a thing attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God. >>>[/quote]Say a bit more about this Chris. If you would Please. Is this how Thomas BEGAN by asking “is there anything?”.
It’s very interesting BTW that you attempt to relive the tension between the will of man and the decree of God by resolving them into a duel between Augustine and Aquinas. They were very different indeed.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Christopher saith: As a Thomist, I declare in my consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or practical assumptions, but a thing attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God. >>>[/quote]Say a bit more about this Chris. If you would Please. Is this how Thomas BEGAN by asking “is there anything?”.
It’s very interesting BTW that you attempt to relive the tension between the will of man and the decree of God by resolving them into a duel between Augustine and Aquinas. They were very different indeed.[/quote]
Correction Augustinians and Aquinas. Difference.
Yes, they were two different men, but they were both men and they were both Catholic. They both are Doctors of the Catholic Church. The difference between them is not fundamental, their difference lies in their emphasis. Augustine was influenced by Plato, Aquinas influenced the West with Aristotle. They emphasized two different sides of the same truth, both taught Catholic doctrine. The two used different philosophies to explain those truths.
Trying to put these two in a duel, is like trying to make two brothers fight because one loves their mother because she is strong and the other loves her because she nurtures him.
Trying to start this fight is ignoring the fundamental truth that they both love the same woman, their mother.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Christopher saith: As a Thomist, I declare in my consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or practical assumptions, but a thing attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God. >>>[/quote]Say a bit more about this Chris. If you would Please. Is this how Thomas BEGAN by asking “is there anything?”.
[/quote]
Matters what you mean by began.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< The two used different philosophies to explain those truths. >>>[/quote]They did indeed and both were wrong. Augustine was less consistent than Aquinas actually. Epistemologically speaking that is. Non transcendental Calvinists like Augustine (oh yes he as), are the least consistent of all. I’m gonna really shoot for more later. No work tomorrow, so I can be up later.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Christopher saith: As a Thomist, I declare in my consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or practical assumptions, but a thing attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God. >>>[/quote]Say a bit more about this Chris. If you would Please. Is this how Thomas BEGAN by asking “is there anything?”.
[/quote]
Matters what you mean by began.[/quote]What was Thomas’s epistemology. What was the one all defining first principle that governed all others for him? As I’ve said numerous times. There are only two. Which was his? Both he and Augustine expressed the same one btw. Which is why I say that Aquinas was actually more intellectually consistent. He developed his theology based on his autonomous Greek epistemology. Augustine developed his theology based on my epistemology while obliviously declaring autonomous Greek epistemology.
Of course absolutely everybody ultimately shares the same biblical epistemology in actuality according to Romans 1. Except that autonomous man, born as Adam’s teeth broke the skin of the fruit, prefers Aristotle, Plato and Aquinas’s epistemology that exalts them above God in the chain of reason. God is treated, rather than the definition of all else, as Himself an object of inquiry the same as every other in the insolent courtroom of the first man Adam. We shamelessly carry on His tradition and will continue to do so until the Lord Himself descends from heaven with a shout and the voice of the Archangel and the trumpet of God.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Plato [/quote]
You do realize that Augustine used Plato. You seem to ignore this.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Plato [/quote]
You do realize that Augustine used Plato. You seem to ignore this. [/quote]That’s why he was wrong Chris. Epistemologically speaking. Reread my above post please.
Augustine - Platonic epistemology(Greek pagan) + ultimately sovereign God of scripture = irreconcilable logical inconsistency, but the right God.
Aquinas - Aristotelian epistemology(Greek pagan, same thing) + contingent God = logically consistent, but diminished God denied by scripture.
EVERY unbeliever - Dead in Adam and thus embrace Aristotle, Plato, Augustine and Aquinas’s autonomous epistemology on the intellectual level, while living unavoidably in accordance with the fractured image of God remaining in them. Intellectual UNcertainty and absolute pragmatic certainty. A colossal living contradiction in every last specimen.
Protestant Arminian - Same as Aquinas.
Non transcendental Calvinist - Same as Augustine.
Transcendental Calvinist(Westminster protestantism) - Van Til (and me) Romans 1 (scriptural) epistemology wherein God is the very first non contingent fact or idea that defines ALL, including especially Himself AND man. 100% consistent and biblical. All is known to Him because ALL is ordained by Him. He does not act in ultimate response to anything outside of His own nature, purpose and will and is hence the one and only non-contingent entity in all of existence. ALL is known to Him and as His child, to me by faith.
For ANYthing to be known EVERYthing must be known. Friar Pat said so. I agree. This God and this God alone does know everything and is therefore the only possible explanation for anything. THAT is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who became flesh and dwelt among us.
[quote]<<< He is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. >>>[/quote]HALLELUJAH!!!
EDIT:Almost forgot. Your mother and sons analogy is brilliant. Is that yours? It is however fatally flawed.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Aquinas - Aristotelian epistemology(Greek pagan, same thing) + contingent God = logically consistent, but diminished God denied by scripture.
[/quote]
I still haven’t seen how Aquinas believes in a contingent God. His five proofs prove a necessary being. That would be…the opposite of contingent.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
EDIT:Almost forgot. Your mother and sons analogy is brilliant. Is that yours? It is however fatally flawed.
[/quote]
Three things, Pat is not a Friar. Your cynicism and frustration is palpable. You might want to sit out a few and cool off.
Second, I see you quoted from WC. So much for rejecting tradition. I don’t understand your hypocrisy. You condemn others for having tradition, but you clearly have plenty of it yourself.
I have no doubt, but you’ll inevitably not tell me or make such a mess of your explanation that a logician couldn’t figure out what you were talking about, as per modernist norms I suppose.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Second, I see you quoted from WC. So much for rejecting tradition. I don’t understand your hypocrisy. You condemn others for having tradition, but you clearly have plenty of it yourself.
I have no doubt, but you’ll inevitably not tell me or make such a mess of your explanation that a logician couldn’t figure out what you were talking about, as per modernist norms I suppose.[/quote]We’ve covered this too Christopher though it’s goin on two years now.
07-28-2010, 08:46 PM
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And where do you get the idea of restricting His Children to the Holy Bible, it is not in the Bible (and no one here has shown me that it is anyway) that one is to only use the Holy Bible, so you would have to come with some tradition outside the bible to be able to read the bible and conclude that only the Bible is what we should have.[/quote]
Actually, that was Tirib’s statement. I believe tradition has it’s place but only to the extent that it agrees with Scripture.[/quote]
In my tradition, Roman catholic tradition is the best evidence against extra biblical tradition possible. Bar none. Yes, tradition, or more accurately in my view, “CONSENSUS” has it’s place in there being wisdom in a multitude of counselors when interpreting the one source of faith, worship and morals. That being the scriptures. With a couple millenia of Christian history behind us there will be no new view regarding any central precept of said faith, worship or morals that NOBODY has yet found in the scriptures. Damnable cults are spawned in the wake of such insolent presumption.
Like every other error I’ve ever seen and believe you me I have seen LOTS of error, biblical support for sola scriptura carries no weight with committed proponents of authoritative church tradition so citing the biblical evidence is pointless. They have their traditional church explanations that they accept for those passages and that’s that.
Once you throw off the boundaries of God’s written holy Word, the on marching halloween party that is the vast synthetic temple of Roman catholic tradition is the inevitable result in the hands of fallen man.
/quote
EDIT: I remember every substantial conversation we’ve ever had Chris. Because, as I’ve told you, our God has burdened my heart on your behalf. I do so truly believe that in your case and a few others He supernaturally supplements my very fragile memory.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Three things, Pat is not a Friar. Your cynicism and frustration is palpable. You might want to sit out a few and cool off. >>>[/quote]It’s tough to read people over the web Chris I know. I am not even slightly frustrated or agitated. It’s a joke. Like how I call forlife “Elder Forlife”. No timeout needed.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I still haven’t seen how Aquinas believes in a contingent God. His five proofs prove a necessary being. That would be…the opposite of contingent. >>>[/quote]Aristotle’s prime mover, which is the god Aquinas “proved”, is the wholly deficient at best product of the machinations of the sinful mind of man who begins by ASKING, “is there anything”, rather than PROCLAIMING “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit” ARE, ARE, ARE. Aquinas like Aristotle began with himself and produced the only end possible on that basis. A faceless, contentless, impersonal PRINCIPLE.
Just like Kamui. Only Kamui arbitrarily assigns comprehensive sovereignty to his first principle because at least he recognizes that component as necessary. Aquinas’s god, and the protestant Arminian’s, saves or damns in response to man and is therefore literally as contingent as the sinful will of sinful man.
No sir. The God who in the beginning commanded pure incomprehensible nothingness to obey Him as it brought forth everything[quote]“from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”[/quote]Therefore:[quote]he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.[/quote]
Aquinas didn’t proved Aristotle’s Prime Mover.
He used Aistotle’s reasoning to prove the abstract necessity of a God.
Granted, this god is a faceless, contentless one.
But… this is not the God Aquinas believed in.
His goal was not to logically deduce the “Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”. It would be impossible.
His goal was to make a logical point against atheism, dualism and polytheism.
After all, he wrote a “Summa contra Gentiles”. And in this context, “Is there anything ?” is a rhetorical question, a dialectical weapon. It’s not the starting point of Aquinas’s own philosophy, it’s the “Captatio Benevolentiae” of a Dissertatio.
That’s strategy, not theology.
Declaring him an heretic because of this (probably vain) strategy is a bit unfair.
Regarding theology, Aquinas explicitly stated that Incarnation, Trinity and Redemption are revealed mysteries, knowable only via faith, not via philosophical reasoning.
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Aquinas didn’t proved Aristotle’s Prime Mover.
He used Aistotle’s reasoning to prove the abstract necessity of a God. >>>[/quote]And I’ve said this many times. The traditional “proofs” establish the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of no god in particular.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Granted, this god is a faceless, contentless one. But… this is not the God Aquinas believed in. >>>[/quote]Hence my charge of inconsistency. Not only aimed at him, but my own Protestant Arminian brethren as well. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< His goal was not to logically deduce the “Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”. It would be impossible. >>>[/quote]Hence my charge of being unbiblical. On the basis of autonomous reason? It IS impossible as is “proving” anything at all. On the basis of biblical epistemology? This Father, Son and Holy Ghost replace one’s self as the launching point of reason.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< His goal was to make a logical point against atheism, dualism and polytheism. >>>[/quote]And as Elder Forlife so conclusively demonstrated, on Aquinas’s (Aristotle’s) epistemology this dialectical weapon was turned back in his own face. It is a weapon shared in common by everybody who believes in any god. THE God does not leave Himself vulnerable to such small logical assaults.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< After all, he wrote a “Summa contra Gentiles”. And in this context, “Is there anything ?” is a rhetorical question, a dialectical weapon. It’s not the starting point of Aquinas’s own philosophy, it’s the “Captatio Benevolentiae” of a Dissertatio. >>>[/quote]From a couple pages ago to Chris: “that alleged “beginning” is not actually the beginning at all. The beginning is the presupposition of our own autonomy. The question is a symptom.” [quote]kamui wrote:<<< That’s strategy, not theology. >>>[/quote]I’m talking about epistemology. THEology is built upon epistemology. The scriptural Christian one is the foundation for all truth including theology. The non Christian one is the foundation for everything else.(large exposition required here)[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Declaring him an heretic because of this (probably vain) strategy is a bit unfair. >>>[/quote]My friend, please show me where I have declared Thomas a heretic at all, nevermind based on his erroneous epistemology. I have not and there was much theological content in his work that I agree with.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Regarding theology, Aquinas explicitly stated that Incarnation, Trinity and Redemption are revealed mysteries, knowable only via faith, not via philosophical reasoning.[/quote]Like these. Again, Where he was right he was grotesquely inconsistent with Aristotle and his autonomous epistemology. Van Til exhaustively handled Thomas’s attempt to build a Christian theological edifice upon a pagan Greek philosophical foundation. As do once again, my own protestant Arminian brethren.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In my tradition, Roman catholic tradition is the best evidence against extra biblical tradition possible. Bar none.[/quote]
I haven’t seen how an actual Tradition goes against the Bible. It is extra biblical, meaning it is outside the Bible. But saying extra biblical tradition goes against the Bible, always is stretching the definition of the word extra.
[quote]
EDIT: I remember every substantial conversation we’ve ever had Chris. Because, as I’ve told you, our God has burdened my heart on your behalf. I do so truly believe that in your case and a few others He supernaturally supplements my very fragile memory.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Three things, Pat is not a Friar. Your cynicism and frustration is palpable. You might want to sit out a few and cool off. >>>[/quote]It’s tough to read people over the web Chris I know. I am not even slightly frustrated or agitated. It’s a joke. Like how I call forlife “Elder Forlife”. No timeout needed. [/quote]
There is a difference between Friar and Elder, Forlife was an Elder. A Friar is the name of a man within a religious order. I don’t believe Pat is, and calling him so has parallels with calling a civilian a Marine. A Marine isn’t better than a civilian, but it is disrespectful to call a civilian a Marine, at least to the Marines.
Anyway, regards.
BC
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I still haven’t seen how Aquinas believes in a contingent God. His five proofs prove a necessary being. That would be…the opposite of contingent. >>>[/quote]Aristotle’s prime mover, which is the god Aquinas “proved”, is the wholly deficient at best product of the machinations of the sinful mind of man who begins by ASKING, “is there anything”, rather than PROCLAIMING “The Father, Son and Holy Spirit” ARE, ARE, ARE. Aquinas like Aristotle began with himself and produced the only end possible on that basis. A faceless, contentless, impersonal PRINCIPLE.
[/quote]
You seem to be missing this fact: He was fighting the Mohammedans in the Universities. The Western contemperory man was learning the Arabic Aristotle. Aquinas effectively destroyed the modern man’s and the Mohammedans’ ability to use Aristotle to prove the Tyrant-god and other deemed heretical conclusions.
This is equivalent of saying a man is wrong because of the weapon he used, when all he did was take his opponents gun and shot his opponent in the foot (most courteously of course). The man himself admitted that truth makes his Aristotelean philosophy look like straw. However, it had been most effective against his opponents.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< There is a difference between Friar and Elder, Forlife was an Elder. A Friar is the name of a man within a religious order. I don’t believe Pat is, and calling him so has parallels with calling a civilian a Marine. A Marine isn’t better than a civilian, but it is disrespectful to call a civilian a Marine, at least to the Marines.
Anyway, regards.
BC[/quote]Fair enough Chris. No need to be unnecessarily antagonistic. We have plenty to argue about besides. I will never again call him that. My apologies to Friars and friaries everywhere.
We’ll continue on Aquinas later.