Philosophical Theology

I will interact with portions of this article by Professor Carl Trueman.

A recovery of classical theology also raises an interesting ecumenical question. Why do Protestants, especially those of an evangelical stripe, typically prioritize the doctrine of salvation over the doctrine of God? If an evangelical rejects simplicity or impassibility or eternal generation, he is typically free to do so. But why should those properly committed to the creeds and confessions consider that person closer spiritually to them than those who affirm classical theism but share a different understanding of justification?

I am committed to the catholic creeds and Reformed confessions. Maybe that is why I find it interesting that we are being asked to consider why those committed to the creeds and confessions (like myself) can enjoy more spiritual closeness with those who reject certain tenets of classical theism (like certain evangelicals) than with others who have “a different understanding of justification” (like devout Roman Catholics). In other words, in the context of spiritual closeness we are asked to compare (a) an evangelical’s rejection of “simplicity or impassibility or eternal generation” to, what is framed as, (b) a mere “different understanding of justification”. (Let that sink in.)

Many things jump out at me. First, should we infer that a “different understanding of justification” does not entail a rejection of the true and Reformed doctrine of justification? Such an inference seems unwarranted. After all, how much can we differ on the Reformed doctrine of justification and still hold to the gospel? (Given the later comparative reference to Roman Catholic Dominicans, who are to be considered orthodox in their doctrine of God, it is apparent that what is being called a “different understanding of justification” does not cash out as any mere theological difference but an outright repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.)

Would it not be fairer to evaluate the foundational basis for spiritual fellowship between a confessional Reformed believer (like myself) with either of these two different classes of people: (1) those who cannot accept and, therefore, reject the philosophical underpinnings and subsequent implications of certain constructs of, for instance, divine simplicity (e.g., Alvin Plantinga), and (2) those who reject the simplicity of the gospel as it relates to a Reformed doctrine of justification (e.g., any of the popes since the sixteenth century)?

Before reading on, it might be helpful to internalize that the idea that we should not prioritize the doctrine of justification over the doctrine of God can imply that we should not prioritize God’s grace over the God of grace. Although a worthy reflection in its own right, one can easily miss the point if it’s abstracted from the present context. We aren’t to be prioritizing complementary doctrines in the abstract but rather discerning which doctrines are absolutely essential to understand and embrace for there to be the possibility of “spiritual closeness” in the household of faith.

Back to basics:

Although the doctrines of simplicity, impassibility and eternal generation are glorious truths to be cherished and defended, we may not deny that the basis for genuine spiritual closeness (i.e., true fellowship in the Lord) is union with Christ by the Holy Spirit and agreement over gospel truth. Accordingly, it is no small matter that entrance into that spiritual oneness is gospel wrought conversion, which eludes official Roman Catholic doctrine according to confessional Protestant standards. In a word, one cannot possibly enjoy spiritual closeness with a Roman Catholic who is true to Roman Catholicism. Therefore, no matter how pristine a Roman Catholic’s theology proper is, there’s no possibility of Christian fellowship for those who truly reject the Reformed doctrine of justification.

Simplicity isn’t as simple as the gospel;

Regarding the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS), some of its loudest proponents have identified and acknowledged different implicit difficulties having to do with (a) God’s absolute freedom as it relates to the necessity of the divine decree, (b) personal properties of divine persons as they relate to a non-composite being, and (c) the intelligibility of divine attributes being one and the same attribute due to the transitive nature of the law of identity (just to name a few conundrums). Others have hedged on certain tenets of DDS while claiming to affirm the doctrine. And even others simply have hand-waved while labeling evangelicals who disagree with them as dangerous if not heretical. (To varying degrees we can cite similar observations about eternal generation and impassibility.)

Surely divine simplicity, impassibility and eternal generation do not just jump off the pages of Scripture. That is not to say these doctrines aren’t imbedded in Scripture and cannot be inferred by careful study. But that seems to miss the point about Christian fellowship. To understand the gospel and be genuinely converted one needn’t understand how God, not being made up of parts, can be three distinct persons yet one divine being. One can be genuinely converted and enjoy spiritual closeness with other regenerate believers without having considered, let alone reconciled (a) orthodox conceptual distinctions about God that are understood analogically with (b) how God cannot be a composite being (either logically, metaphysically, or physically). Moreover, if God is creator and redeemer, then how might we address challenges relating to God taking on accidental properties? And if God is “most free” yet the divine will is timelessly eternal, then how could God have created another world in place of this one? Or is the logical trajectory of DDS that God has actualized all possible worlds? How might the average born again believer in the pew, with whom I can enjoy spiritual closeness in Christ over the forgiveness of sins, answer the question of whether God has unactualized potential?

Of course there’s a difference between not having an opinion on x and having a reasoned rejection of x. However, if one does not believe that a sophisticatedly developed conscious-rejection of these philosophical constructs is sufficient to undermine a credible profession of faith, then why not consider those who mistakenly reject these loftier doctrines, while affirming the evangelical gospel, as standing more solidly on fellowship ground than all the Thomists within Rome who reject the simplicity of the gospel? Yet if it is believed salvation hinges in part upon not rejecting simplicity, impassibility or eternal generation, then we would not have elevated Roman Catholics who decidedly oppose sola fide above such professing Protestants. We would merely have placed them on equal ground! Neither sort would be spiritually closer than the other to a true believer.

Although I have not been satisfied with some of the representations I’ve heard from some of the most vocal defenders of DDS, I do believe there are adequate answers to such questions even though some strident proponents of DDS seem to struggle with arguments levied by the ablest objectors to DDS. But the point isn’t whether divine simplicity, impassability or the eternal generation of the Son are glorious truths over which we can fellowship with other true believers. (Indeed we can!) Rather, the point is merely this. I am much “closer spiritually” with (a) an evangelical who sadly rejects DDS because he has not found the arguments he has read particularly persuasive, than with (b) a Thomist who believes in the transubstantiation of the mass and that his works of piety can assist in meriting his justification. (In this example, the evangelical needs further spiritual understanding, whereas the Thomist is in need of spiritual conversion.)

Priority misplaced:

There is a significant difference between theological agreement among Trinitarians and spiritual closeness among gospel believers. Again, we must remain mindful that in the context of spiritual closeness we’re not to be prioritizing doctrines based upon which ones we subjectively believe bring more glory to God but rather which ones are objectively sufficient for fellowship in Christ. Those are the parameters. I’m just coloring between the lines.

This is a real issue. At an Association of Theological Schools accreditation meeting I once found myself placed among the “evangelical” attendees. In that group was someone who denied simplicity, impassibility, and the fact that God knows the future—all doctrines that I affirm. Those are not minor differences. Wistfully my eyes wandered to the Dominicans at another table, all of whom would at least have agreed with me on who God is, even if not on how he saves his church.

I appreciate the confidence that the Dominicans at the table would all have agreed with the Reformed on the doctrine of God. Yet without acquainting oneself with particular Dominicans and their personal convictions about God, then on what basis may it be inferred that their doctrine of God is orthodox? Obviously, we would be justified in relying upon what Dominicans must confess in order to be Dominicans. Fair enough! Yet why not apply the same standard of inference to a Dominican’s view of “how God saves his church”? In other words, if we can be sure that Dominicans are correct on their doctrine of God, then why can’t we be equally sure that they are wrong on “how [God] saves his church”? They are Roman Catholics after all.

Rome breeds skepticism, not substantive agreement with evangelicals let alone spiritual closeness:

It’s reasonable to infer that what some Dominicans believe about God is purely formal and based upon implicit faith in Rome as opposed to receiving true doctrine from the authority of God speaking in Scripture (apart from the alleged infallible mediation of the church that would veil the only ultimate source of gospel truth, Scripture). One only needs to consider that if Rome hasn’t placed her imprimatur upon a particular doctrine, then there is a built-in epistemological skepticism about the doctrine under consideration that in theory plagues all devout Roman Catholics until Rome formally formulates the doctrine. Yet when Rome has placed her imprimatur upon a particular doctrine, belief in that doctrine suffers from her view of perspicuity and her historical denial of the plain meaning of words, even her own words! Because Rome is free to dial back her dogmatic claims and reinterpret their prima facie meaning at will, devout Roman Catholics can never be certain about any of the theology of the popes. That’s just built into the papal system. For instance, Rome claims semantic equivalency between calling Protestants “heretics” and the more contemporary and conciliatory phrase of “separated brethren”. One need only consider the doctrinal harmony Rome claims between her irreconcilable pronouncements of Unam Sanctum and Unitatis Redintegratio.

Papal Rome has always been an unreliable and deceiving chameleon. Indeed, Roman Catholicism, even with her commitment to the historical Trinitarian creeds of the church, is always only a pope away from incorporating Mary into the Eucharist, thereby making God out to be Quadrinity! That is no mere stretch given (a) Rome’s idolatrous elevation of Mary and (b) that Rome’s ultimate interpreter of Scripture, the papacy, may decree contradictory doctrine as it pleases. (Consider how Pope John Paul ii tried to synthesize his idolatrous devotion both to Mary and the Eucharist.)

If the Church and the Eucharist are inseparably united, the same ought to be said of Mary and the Eucharist. This is one reason why, since ancient times, the commemoration of Mary has always been part of the Eucharistic celebrations of the Churches of East and West. 58. In the Eucharist the Church is completely united to Christ and his sacrifice, and makes her own the spirit of Mary.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA, OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II Chapter 6, sections 57 and 58.

The takeaway is simply this. Our agreement with devout Dominicans on orthodox Trinitarian theology (or any point of theology for that matter) can only be formal rather than substantive as long as they deny Sola Scriptura and seek ultimate warrant for their beliefs from a succession of infallible popes. The epistemological antithesis between Evangelicals and Dominicans can only be bridged by the gospel, which Dominicans have vowed to reject.

A brief word on foreknowledge:

Regarding the denial of divine foreknowledge by some, I don’t know any evangelical who would find spiritual closeness with Open Theists. (Even the Evangelical Theological Society doesn’t!) So, although I’m sure there are exceptions, that particular lament over the evangelical church seems to be more a throwaway than a serious concern over something systemic. But since it was mentioned, I’ll briefly say that what I do find interesting on the matter of divine foreknowledge is that Rome denies theological determinism, which is the ground upon which the orthodox doctrine of exhaustive divine omniscience can be established. Furthermore, by denying theological determinism the doctrine of God’s independence is implicitly violated, as God’s free will would not be the source of all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. (CCC #600) So, with any internal consistency, how can any devout Roman Catholic philosophically justify his belief in God’s aseity or exhaustive omniscience? That is to say, although Rome claims an orthodox view of divine foreknowledge, she implicitly denies a consistently Reformed understanding of contingency and possibility, which are essential to theological determinism, human freedom and divine exhaustive-omniscience. Consequently, even our theological agreement with Rome on exhaustive divine omniscience is more formal than substantive. (Of course that’s better than a more consistent view of incompatibilist freedom that denies General Revelation and logically leads to Open Theism.)

A Reformation reminder:

When Pope John Paul ii commended the Dominicans to continue to fervently preach the gospel, is there any reason to believe that he had in mind something other than Rome’s irreformable and damning proclamation of justification by faith plus works? But it’s not only that Rome has anathematized the gospel. She has erected and elaborate surrogate-system of dung (skybala) to replace the theology of the cross. And if that weren’t enough, the harlot (perched upon seven hills) has pronounced her anathema upon anyone who who’d dare oppose her by denying her view of merit, seven alleged sacraments, transubstantiation of the mass, infallibility of the Pope, Marian dogma and much more. Beloved, Rome has always played for keeps and those with a heart for ecumenicism would do well to sit-up and take notice lest they mislead others. The church must be vigilant and never forget that Rome affirms the person of Christ while denying the work of Christ, which makes her an enemy of Christ and no amount of Trinitarian orthodoxy can remedy that reality.

We would at least have shared some common ground upon which to set forth our significant differences. The Reformed Orthodox of the Westminster Assembly would have considered deviance on the doctrine of God to be anathema and, if forced to choose, would certainly have preferred the company of a Thomist to that of someone who denied simplicity, eternal generation, or God’s foreknowledge. Why do we not think the same? The modern Protestant imagination is oddly different from that of our ancestors.

If all Thomists are devout papists (like Dominicans), then how may it be asserted that the Divines would have enjoyed more fellowship with Thomists than someone like Bruce Ware or Alvin Plantinga? Yet if Thomasts can be quasi-papists, then we would need to know which additional doctrines (beyond the doctrine of God) these phantom Thomists embrace. Transubstantiation? Purgatory? Fill in the blank.

Thomists and Romanists get a pass:

As it stands, it would appear that an evangelical’s unfortunate rejection of complex philosophical constructs of certain doctrines of God is sufficient for Thomists and Romanists to be considered spiritually closer to the Reformed regardless of what other doctrines they might believe.

For some reason the differences between the Reformed and non-evangelical Trinitarians are being minimized in certain Thomistic circles. Things are either much more stark than being portrayed by the “Great Tradition” crowd or else the Protestant Reformation was unjustified and the Reformed church is schismatic. The fact of the matter is, the Reformation dividing lines are clearly defined and not merely a matter of a “different understanding of justification”. Indeed, how reasonable is it to think that Dominicans who “would at least have agreed with me on who God is” might also agree with me on “how he saves his church”? In a word, the Great Tradition movement unwittingly encourages people to swim the Tiber but why not the Forth?

Wrapping up:

Much can be said about the all too pervasive Protestant departure from doctrines such as eternal generation, divine simplicity and impassibility. Even a world-renowned Reformed seminary had been coddling the last doctrine on the list. As dreadful as all that is, we still must not confuse formal theological agreement among Trinitarian communions with spiritual closeness. The former is purely an objective consideration pertaining to what we might theologically have in common whereas the latter has a gospel-centric import that contemplates ecclesiastical and metaphysical dimensions pertaining to what we spiritually share in Christ. Neither error is acceptable but in the present context we must be nuanced. Let’s not settle for either-or but strive for both – yet each in its proper place.

A point of emotion for many is that although we should prefer both: (a) clearer lines drawn with respect to Rome, and (b) to walk lockstep on the doctrine of God with all evangelicals – a desire for both can result in some fallaciously believing that to affirm the need for the former is to deny or diminish the need for the latter. Although I appreciate the concern, it is not as though we can reel in Protestant rogues through the means of creating jealousy of Roman Catholics. (This isn’t Romans 11!)

In short, we must resist saying “peace” when there is no peace (or in this case, “spiritual closeness”). Even a righteous outrage over the state of the broad evangelical tent must be according to pinpoint precision along with a dispassionate yet critical understanding of Roman Catholicism. Yes, there is grave error in the church but how can that make Reformed Protestants spiritually closer to Roman Catholics than they were when Rome anathematized the gospel 450 years ago?

An evangelical can confess the gospel of Christ and that God is one yet self-exists in three distinct Persons without having worked out whether (a) God is whatever can be properly be attributed to him (or that God is love as opposed to has love), or (b) the Son is (or is not) autotheos and how that might relate to unbegottenness, or (c) God delights in himself and his works without emotion. The point being, fellowship among evangelicals, grounded in a common confession of the forgiveness of sins, will always be along a vast theological continuum of spiritual closeness whereas with devout Roman Catholics spiritual closeness is a binary consideration. There is none. So, let us not confuse (a) fellow believers who are being sanctified within the body with (b) those in need of spiritual conversion who experience their spiritual closeness within an apostate religion.

Our personal spiritual affinity toward other professing Christians begins with an objective ecclesiastical standing, which is based upon baptism and a credible profession of faith before the elders of a true church that preaches the biblical gospel. In other words, how can evangelicals enjoy spiritual closeness with Roman Catholic Dominicans when they are not to be admitted to the Lord’s table? Indeed, wouldn’t the Reformed church excommunicate a member who resolved to pursue holy orders (the rite of ordination) in the Roman Catholic communion even though his trinitarian theology stayed intact?

In the final analysis, the prioritization of spiritual closeness with non-evangelical Trinitarians comes across more as a protest against non-liberal Protestant confusion than an accurate entailment of actual spiritual unity over gospel truth. Although I can appreciate the intent, as it seems born out of an understandable frustration with evangelicalism, I find that such a prioritization does not foster God-honoring ecumenicism but rather gospel confusion. I’d prefer that we unite over the premise that we won’t improve within our Protestant ranks by replacing perceived Protestant defectors and neo-Socinians with non-evangelical Thomists and Romanists. We can only weaken the church by such a mindset, while not doing our Roman Catholic neighbors any eternal favors either. After all, even if the Protestants in view were on par with Machen’s liberal nemeses, that would not undo the 500-year Reformed perspective on spiritual closeness with those who are in communion with the pope.