Book Review a Defense of Free Grace Theology
Johnson, Jeffrey D. The Failure of Natural Theology: A Disquisitional Appraisal of the Philosophical Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press Bookish, 2021. 264pp. Hardcover. ISBN: 9781952599378. $40.00.
1. Introducing Johnson and His Project
Jeffrey D. Johnson'south latest release from his publishing arm is The Failure of Natural Theology. The volume, as the title suggests, is controversial. While there has been a steady rise in appreciation for Thomistic theology, especially on the doctrine of God, Johnson seeks to end this growing motility. If you lot aren't familiar with Johnson, he is the Pastor of preaching and teaching at Grace Bible Church and President of Grace Bible Theological Seminary in Conway, Arkansas. He has an 1000.Rel. in Biblical Studies and a D.Min. from Veritas Theological Seminary.[ane] Johnson has published widely through his publishing house, Complimentary Grace Press, on a variety of topics.
Earlier summarizing and interacting with Johnson's work, I should answer two questions. Start, what is my evaluation of his volume (in other words, what is the "TL;DR" version)? I must confess that Johnson'southward book is, to borrow his ain phrase, fatally flawed. It's flawed in its claims, its argumentation, and its rigor. If I were to critically engage all the flaws, this review would become a book of its own. So, I would warn you upfront not to buy and read the book. It does not contribute to the ongoing debate almost the validity and value of Thomism. It misunderstands natural theology, Thomas, and Classical Theism. Only it besides fails to brand a serious and convincing case for Neo-Classical Theism (the view which I empathise Johnson to actually exist defending despite his verbal insistence on "Classical Theism," as I will seek to demonstrate beneath). However, my intent in writing a review of Johnson is not mere manlike tribal posturing that results in little more than beating one's chest for their team, which leads to my 2d question: why take I chosen to critically review this book given my conventionalities that it is neither serious scholarship nor persuasive in its claims? Johnson is not an good in natural theology, Thomism, Philosophy of Organized religion, or the Doctrine of God. He has not published in this area in any peer-reviewed work. So, why give information technology attention? While I exercise think there is always a worry that if you review books that y'all find seriously problematic, you lot will inadvertently make them more than popular and more widely read than they deserve, I remember this book warrants attending for two reasons.
The start reason I detect it important to review is that it'southward written by a self-attesting confessor of the Second London Confession of Faith (2LCF), who is also the President of a seminary that is growing in popularity among those that outwardly seek to confess 2LCF. I find this very troubling. The reason beingness, every bit I will argue, Johnson denies 2LCF at crucial points in his book (This isn't a worry for those not committed to confessing 2LCF or Classical Theism, and so if that's y'all, feel gratuitous to ignore this point). Moreover, I am a firm believer that we should exist more disquisitional of our own "tribe" and Johnson fits that characterization for me since I also confess 2LCF. I call up we should reserve our strongest critiques for those who outwardly confess the same behavior. As Proverbs reminds usa, "faithful are the wounds of a friend." This doesn't mean my goal is to wound in the contemporary sense. I seek to build upwardly religion, promise, and love in both Johnson and his readers. But these virtues hogtie me to provide a disquisitional engagement in hope that bad arguments would be surrendered, false beliefs would exist revised, and religion in our God would be nourished.
The second reason I find it worthwhile to review the book (and more relevant for those who find the rise in Thomistic allegiance troubling) is that critically engaging with primary and secondary sources, and showing how to properly evaluate prove and arguments, is of corking value and short supply. Every bit Richard Cross has reminded usa, "we larn from the mistakes of our forebears as much equally from their successes."[2] And many of u.s. larn best from serious disagreement and fence. The kind of fence that focuses on arguments and asks the difficult questions. And Johnson does ask some proficient questions. And then, I hope to provide this sort of educational interaction within my critical engagement. This ought to remind u.s.a. that people and books are not enemies to exist conquered but (potential) friends to exist persuaded. Equally I note later in my review, I find Johnson to exist both earnest and genuine in his thinking. Merely I detect his arguments seriously wanting. To his work I at present turn.
2. Summarizing the "Failure" of Natural Theology
If the subtitle of the book wasn't clear enough, Johnson sets out to critique Thomas Aquinas and his natural theology. In Johnson's introduction, he explains that Thomas's doctrine of God is wrong and "problematic for a proper view of classical theism" (4). He then provides his basic thesis:
When Thomas Aquinas introduced Aristotelian concepts into his theology proper, notwithstanding, he not just departed from the theologians who went before him only he besides altered the biblical didactics of God. As this volume volition seek to demonstrate, Thomas added to God'due south uncomplicated and immutable nature an additional attribute not taught in the Scriptures: divine immobility (v).
In brusque, Johnson suggests that by integrating philosophical categories outside of Scripture, Thomas, and those like him, err.
Johnson structures his argument effectually this thesis, covering nine total capacity with 2 appendices. Each chapter begins with several biographical paragraphs nigh Thomas that are supposed to orient the reader to the topic of the chapter. The starting time two capacity focus on issues with "natural theology" and "philosophy." Johnson argues that natural theology is a human project designed to sympathise God apart from divine revelation (10-xi). He suggests that natural theology is distinct from natural revelation which starts and ends with God's cocky-disclosure (11). He spans several pages attempting to prove this stardom. Based on this, he waxes about the disability of natural theology to reconcile the transcendence and immanence of God. The following ii capacity are defended to elucidating the natural theology of Aristotle and Pseudo-Dionysius. Johnson spends a significant corporeality of time summarizing Aristotle's account of move and his cosmological statement. He then focuses primarily on the mysticism of Pseudo-Dionysius.
From this foundation he and so provides 2 chapters examining Thomas Aquinas'due south philosophical theology. He summarizes the diverse epistemological methods for knowing God, the role of philosophy, divine immobility, and more. He and so suggests that contra Thomas and Aristotle, "both non-motion and motion" can be in God every bit Trinity (116). Subsequently, his 7th affiliate focuses on the chief problem within his thesis: a critique of "divine immobility." He claims that Thomas added the attribute of "divine immobility" to God because of his commitment to Aristotelean metaphysics (136). The next affiliate attempts to provide the "solution" to the problem: the Trinity. Herein, Johnson argues that "simplicity is not ultimate," suggesting that Thomas forced all theological data to fit a strong version of divine simplicity at the expense of the Trinity (154). Finally, he closes with a chapter on analogical language. He worries that the Thomistic version of illustration forces God to be wholly other, on the other side of a "transcendental wall" that is impossible to cantankerous (177).
3. Three Serious Criticisms
Absolutely, this is a short summary. Much more could be said. But I think it gets the basic thought across and I think my critical interaction volition further elucidate Johnson'southward argument. There are three primary areas I plan to critique, though there are numerous aspects I take issue with. The overarching trouble that I retrieve infects each is misunderstanding. I call back Johnson misunderstands natural theology, he misunderstands Thomas and classical theism, and he misunderstands his own interlocutors. I will survey each of these areas in turn. As a notation, it is important to point out that I call up Johnson's own flaw isn't malicious. I genuinely believe he is seeking to be faithful to Christ, his church, and his Discussion. I believe he is doing his best to read Thomas and understand him. However, this does non atone one from guilt, especially when that one publishes an entire book-length work based on misunderstanding. In the end, I institute myself sympathizing with Johnson'south merits that "it is frustrating reading Aquinas because he leads his readers into a maze of irresolvable contradictions" (150). I understand because I found myself frustrated reading Johnson for the same reasons.
3.one The Trouble of Natural Theology
The kickoff problem I focus on is this: What Johnson considers a "fatal flaw" for natural theology isn't fatal. The reason it'south not fatal is considering he misunderstands natural theology. He defines natural theology narrowly as a project that is completely divorced and insulated from divine revelation. For example, he says "natural theology is the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of organized religion is express to what can be known most God through reason or empirical senses" (xi). He thinks natural theology must offset somewhere other than God's self-disclosure. He claims information technology "seeks to construct a knowledge of God through reason and sense experience" lone (11). He thinks "natural theology seeks to obtain a philosophical knowledge of God by suppressing the cognition of God that comes through natural revelation" (22). Merely these claims are simulated. Not only are they false, some are potentially slanderous. Does he really remember that those committed to retrieving Thomism (and all other philosophical theology) are actively "suppressing" that cognition of God? It is 1 matter to say they suppress it passively by entailment (incorrect as it may exist). But to propose they are actively doing so is serious defamation.
At present, it is true, that there is a co-operative of natural theology that is preoccupied with various arguments for the existence of God autonomously from Scripture in many cases, which is the scope of natural theology I remember Johnson is unremarkably targeting (though it's not always clear). But fifty-fifty these arguments are constructed inside the context of religion seeking agreement and never divorced from God's revelation. Have Anselm as a chief case. He absolutely seeks to construct an argument autonomously from divine revelation, but not in contradiction to it nor in ignorance of it. There is a massive difference between conceiving of something apart from Y and in contradiction to Y. One does not entail the other. More chiefly, natural theology as an entire project is not identical to these sorts of ventures. I have written elsewhere virtually the nature of natural theology, and I follow Herman Bavinck who defines it as theology that is "through" the natural order compared to supernatural theology (like Scripture) that is "from beyond" the natural club. This is the same way Francis Junius thinks near natural theology. What differs is the efficient cause of the theology–in this case, the natural low-cal of our understanding.[3] The task of natural theology is to utilize natural means via our renewed reason in service of theological construction under the dominance of Scripture and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Natural theology is not some hyper-speculative enterprise designed to insulate oneself from God'south divine revelation in Scripture. Thus, I recollect Johnson fundamentally misunderstands the theological task which leads him to his faulty conclusion.
I think much of the underlying reason for Johnson's failure to understand this is due to a naïve biblicism. For example, Johnson critiques Thomas because his "doctrine of God is not rooted in revelation lonely." He claims this ends up being "an inadvertent assail on the sufficiency of divine revelation" (48). This misunderstanding of Scripture's sufficiency is a problem that is surfacing in more than than discussions on the doctrine of God, and so it is good to think about what sufficiency ways. 2LCF 1.i confesses the following: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving noesis , faith , and obedience …" Notice what Scripture is sufficient for. Is it everything? No. It is not sufficient for changing the oil on my truck. It is not sufficient for installing a new difficult drive in my computer. It is sufficient for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Everything necessary for the Christian life is plant in the Bible. But non every detail of the organized religion is there. And utilizing philosophy (such equally "good and necessary consequence") does non jeopardize Scripture's sufficiency. It does not move the foundation from divine revelation to human being reasoning. The theological chore is not to merely parrot the words of Scripture but to "remember God's thoughts after him and to trace their unity" every bit Bavinck has said.[4] The church catholic has understood this—including the vast number of Reformed theologians—and even Thomas himself. For instance, Thomas argues that "This scientific discipline [theology] can take something from the philosophical disciplines non because it necessarily needs their help, but rather in gild to reach greater clarity regarding its own proper subject area matter."[v] Elsewhere, once more, Thomas says, "any is found in other sciences that is inconsistent with the truth of this science is to be condemned equally utterly false"[half-dozen] Neither Thomas, nor the Reformed, thought philosophy was superior to Scripture. Merely both plant information technology necessary to come to a clearer understanding of information technology. To be articulate: This does not hateful we need things outside of Scripture for " saving noesis , faith , and obedience …" But if we want to both know and enjoy God to the maximum degree, we ought to utilize all the means God has given us in his practiced creation.
But in that location is a further problem with Johnson's agreement of natural theology. At times, he seems to recollect philosophy is interchangeable with natural theology. He even argues that "Philosophy, as it turns out, is a detractor rather than a handmaiden to theology" (191). To exist frank, I'chiliad not sure what to exercise with this claim. His unabridged volume is an practice in philosophical theology. Making arguments is part of what philosophy is. So, either Johnson's claim is entirely self-defeating or he is incredibly unclear and means to say that something like Aristotelian or Thomistic philosophy is a detractor rather than handmaiden.
3.two The Problem of Thomism and Classical Theism
The 2d major fault that Johnson commits is a primal misunderstanding of both Thomas and Classical Theism. Both errors are intertwined to some extent, simply I will try to prove his mistakes related to each separately.
three.two.ane Thomas Vindicated
I intend to focus first on 1 of Johnson'due south well-nigh egregious errors when treatment Thomas since I have already interacted with his misunderstanding of natural theology. The fault I want to betrayal here is related to Johnson's "fatal flaw" for Thomas—what he calls the additional aspect of "divine immobility." It is this "divine attribute" that Johnson suggests Thomas adds to the divine nature and signals his unorthodoxy (5). Johnson builds his case against divine immobility by summarizing Aristotle'south cosmological statement for an unmoved mover. Hither is how he sets it up in his ain words:
Co-ordinate to Aristotle, since all things in motion accept an external cause, at that place must be something without motion that is the first cause, and this static, stationary, and immobile first cause Aristotle defined equally actus purus (55).
So, since Thomas sought to "baptize Aristotle," he follows Aristotle in this argument, which means that God as first cause must exist "static, stationary, and immobile." Even in God'due south action to create he "remains completely passive and unaware that he is exciting objects to motility after him" (64). So, Johnson'due south basic argument confronting Thomas is as follows: "If everything in motion has a crusade, and if God is first cause, then God must exist immobile" (97). Let me attempt to spell that out a petty clearer:
- Everything in move has a cause
- If everything has a cause, at that place would exist an infinite backslide of causes
- Therefore, at that place must be a first cause that isn't in motion (from 1 and ii)
- God is the showtime crusade
- An object that isn't in motion is immobile (i.e. static and stationary)
- Therefore, God isn't in motion and is immobile (from 4 and 5)
In that location are a few curious things about this statement. Start, Johnson's ain solution to this argument is to deny 1 and iii. His reason for denying 1 appears to exist that physics doesn't map onto metaphysics. What is true for this cosmos is non truthful for the divine. So, not every motion has a cause (133). His reason for denying 3 is a petty stranger. He says: "Who is to say both non-motility and movement couldn't exist in the Trinity?" (116). Who is to say? Well, classical logic is to say that A can't be non-A and be true. That's similar saying two+2=5. Maybe Johnson would want to make use of sub-classical logic, just I doubtfulness he is enlightened of the ongoings of such a niche and complicated subject. Merely maybe this was a skid of the tongue and what he really meant to say was that in God at that place is cocky-motion. Thus, God isn't acquired from anything external to motility simply is moved by his own adept pleasure. Just even if this is Johnson'due south argument, information technology doesn't invalidate the Thomistic proof for God's immobility. This is considering Johnson is not attentive to the debates regarding what Thomas means in the first way (e.g. the cosmological statement for an unmoved mover). There is debate over whether move is intransitive or passive. For example, does Thomas mean that anything that is in motion is moved by another or that anything that is passively moved by something else is moved by another? There is a strong Thomistic consensus that the passive sense is the proper meaning, which and so excludes cocky-motion from the proof.[7] In which example, Johnson'south argument is invalid from the offset.
However, these aren't the only issues. Johnson's understanding of what immobility ways is wrong. He thinks immobility means being static or stationary. He claims that an unmoved mover couldn't do anything—it would be frozen (66).[8] But this is the exact critique Karl Barth suggested over a half century agone: "The pure immobile is death. If, then, the pure immobile is God, decease is God."[nine] It reminds me of Charles Hartshorne equally well who is preoccupied with the nastiness of "immobility." Just information technology should exist obvious that Thomas doesn't fence that God is immobile in the sense of beingness passive, unaware, and static. Rather, it'due south function of what actus purus means for God to be the near active beingness with the most life. Therefore, God is not immobile in the sense of a lifeless rock but immobile in the sense of possessing so much life in pure perfection that he cannot possibly exist moved to receive farther life. Thomas sums upwardly his understanding of move and mobility in adequately clear terms:
Augustine is speaking here co-ordinate to the manner in which Plato said that the first mover moves itself, referring to every activity as a motility; on this usage, even to know, to volition, and to love are described equally some kind of motility. Hence because God knows and loves himself, they accordingly said that God moves himself; but this is non the motion or change of what exists in potentiality, which is the sort of motion we are talking about in this discussion."[10]
James Dolezal echoes Thomas: "God is unmoved not because he lacks life and action, but because he is identical with his life and actuality and therefore cannot be determined to any further actuality of life than he already has."[11] To claim that immobility is identical to inactivity is a primal misunderstanding and devastating to Johnson'southward instance.
But Johnson's reasoning for immobility divers as static has one more fault. He thinks that God as actus purus would mean that God cannot create because creation is an efficient cause and efficient causation requires movement (68). But, again, this shows a lack of careful attention to Thomas. Thomas explicitly calls God the outset efficient cause.[12] And for Thomas, an efficient cause is "that which brings something into beingness or changes information technology in some fashion."[13] At that place is no reason that God as efficient cause should require movement. To assume motion is required for efficient causation is to beg the question against Thomas. While Thomas could be wrong, information technology's necessary to at least give him a off-white hearing. For example, Thomas explains this very scenario in consecutive sections of his Summa Contra Gentiles:
All motility or change is the act of that which exists potentially, equally such. But in the action which is cosmos, nil potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have only shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change…. Once again, in every alter or motion there must exist something existing in i way now and in a different fashion earlier, for the very word change shows this.[fourteen]
For creation is not a change, only the very dependency of the created act of being upon the principle from which it is produced. And thus, cosmos is a kind of relation; then that nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject.[fifteen]
Both of these sections clearly offering a model of agreement how God can be pure act and can create without motion.
three.2.2 Classical Theism Vindicated
Johnson not only misunderstands Thomas but Classical Theism itself. There are five areas I want to focus on here. I count these every bit misunderstandings and not just bad arguments because he claims to confess 2LCF which confesses Classical Theism and because at that place are practiced arguments out there confronting Classical Theism. I don't take those arguments to exist persuasive, but they are compelling in their own ways.
First, Johnson rejects the traditional account of divine simplicity because he rejects that God's attributes are identical with one another. For example, Johnson rejects that God's knowledge is identical to his essence and rejects that God's knowledge and will are identical (131, 140). He thinks that "if God can distinguish betwixt particular things outside of himself, then he is no longer undifferentiated in his simplicity" (132). He says that God has "ontological complexity" (50). Furthermore, he thinks that the Thomistic business relationship of simplicity requires cosmos to be necessary and eternal (119, 125). His statement's main contention is a rudimentary version of R. T. Mullins, Just Impossible: A Instance Confronting Divine Simplicity. At present, I think Johnson does press on an important possible problem for the Thomistic account. Even so, his "solution" not only ignores the tradition'south answers only departs from the tradition itself. For instance, Thomas addresses the problem of necessity. He seeks to circumvent the problem past positing ii senses of necessity—1 that is hypothetical and ane that is absolute. It is only the hypothetical necessity that applies to cosmos and such a sense of necessity does non atomic number 82 to an absolutely necessary or eternal creation.[sixteen] But Johnson does not engage such possible rebuttals.
A 2d area of misunderstanding is the doctrine of immutability. Consider Johnson's criticism of Thomas: "Aquinas taught that God is not just immutable in his graphic symbol but too in his actions (i.e., immobile)" (120). This claim reveals that Johnson thinks of immutability as a changelessness of grapheme and not action. Such a view is defensible, but it isn't Classical Theism or 2LCF. For instance, it is ubiquitous in the Reformed tradition to speak of God as existence immutable in more mere essence or graphic symbol. God acts in one unproblematic, timeless, and eternal moment, and thus doesn't initiate new acts ad intra. Consider just a few examples. 2LCF 2.i confesses that God is both immutable in essence and will and 2LCF iii.5 speaks of God's immutable purpose. Francis Turretin explains that "immutability is an incommunicable attribute of God past which is denied of him not only all change, but also all possibility of change, as much with respect to existence as to will."[17] Petrus van Mastricht similarly says that God is "entirely and in all means immutable."[18] Herman Bavinck follows them, claiming that "God is as immutable in his knowing, willing, and decreeing as he is in his being."[19] Even Louis Berkhof agrees, saying that "The immutability of God is a necessary concomitant of His aseity. It is that perfection of God past which He is devoid of all modify, non only in His Beingness, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises."[20]
A 3rd area of misunderstanding is that Johnson sounds like a Social Trinitarian at times. Johnson says that there is "internal (advertising intra) motion within the Godhead" (116). He also says that each of the Triune persons "have their own singled-out self-sensation" (185). For my money, that's merely Social Trinitarianism. If Johnson doesn't hateful to affirm this (which is entirely possible), he is beingness sloppy with his language. Now, again, you who are reading this review might be a Social Trinitarian. That's fine! I'm not here to contend virtually that. Simply I do think it's fairly obvious that Social Trinitarianism is irreconcilable with 2LCF and Classical Theism.
A quaternary area of misunderstanding is the nature of "divine relations." Johnson asks, "How can God know and love that with which he has no real relation?" (133). Johnson is referring to the classic Thomistic doctrine that God has no "real relation" with creation. But Johnson evidences a lack of understanding regarding what this "real" is supposed to mean. It doesn't mean having an peculiarly intimate relation with something. It has a technical meaning. There are two weather condition that are required for something to be a "real relation" for Thomas:
- The relation must be between two really distinct extra-mental things
- The relation must have a real actress-mental foundation in the subjects.[21]
And so, the reason God doesn't have a real relation with creation isn't about intimacy or honey or anything else. Information technology'southward a metaphysical claim. Information technology means that there isn't a existent extra-mental foundation in God for his relation to creation. He is really related to it in the sense that he loves and cares and provides in reality. But he isn't related to it in a way that creation changes him intrinsically.
A fifth surface area of misunderstanding is concerning traditional language about God. Johnson thinks that if we understand language about God as "restricted to the use of earthly symbols and physical metaphors" then we lock the real God behind a "transcendental wall." He thinks such an approach makes dearest, mercy, and compassion "simply anthropomorphic" (148). But this is just how the entire classical tradition has idea about language for God. Have two examples, though I could provide legion. Starting time, John Chrysostom thinks that considering God is ineffable he is "beyond our intelligence, invisible, incomprehensible" and "transcends the power of mortal words."[22] Chrysostom takes this to hateful that the merely way for humans to empathize God is if he condescends and accommodates himself. Equally Chrysostom explains:
God condescends whenever he is not seen as he is, simply in the way 1 incapable of beholding him is able to await upon him. In this way God reveals himself by accommodating what he reveals to the weakness of vision of those who behold him.[23]
Chrysostom is saying that our language well-nigh God is leap to the created realm and ultimately lacks transcendent correspondence. 2d, John Calvin emphasizes the nature of accommodated language so much that it might be the main facet of his theology of revelation.[24] Calvin follows the logic of Chrysostom and claims that God reveals noesis "tempered to our feeble comprehension."[25] He explains in full:
For considering our weakness does non reach to his exalted country, the description of him that is given to the states must be accommodated to our capacity then that nosotros may understand. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to united states not every bit he is in himself, but as he seems to us.[26]
So, for both Calvin and Chrysostom, our knowledge of God is accommodated knowledge. It is necessarily limited to the created realm. But our linguistic communication being creaturely and imperfect doesn't mean that nosotros are trapped backside a transcendental wall.
Now, I desire to summarize the overarching problem I am addressing in this section. Information technology is not about the validity of Classical Theism per se. Rather, information technology is nigh Johnson's implicit rejection of these classical doctrines found in traditional Reformed theology, including 2LCF. Johnson pays lip service to Reformed theology, Classical Theism, and 2LCF but his claims amount to what is called Neo-Classical Theism which is championed by thinkers ranging from William Lane Craig to Bruce Ware to John Frame. If you are reading this, you lot might exist a Neo-Classical Theist, and that's fine! There are numerous Neo-Classical Theist thinkers worthy of deep contemplation only I recall it'due south important to note that information technology is incommunicable to reconcile virtually forms of Neo-Classical Theism with 2LCF and I am skeptical that whatsoever version could be reconciled. And it is important to properly categorize Johnson. He claims to be defending Classical Theism, only he is really defending something else. If Johnson admitted his intention to revise Classical Theism and depart from 2LCF, my critique would exist unlike.
iii.3 The Problem of Source Citation
The final problem I want to expand on is Johnson'southward interaction with source textile. There are two related problems. The first is his handling of source material that he does cite. In short, by the end of the volume, I found myself double-checking every major citation he made considering I came to distrust his handling of source material. I found him oftentimes pulling quotes out of context to fit his argument or not agreement what the source was intending to say. I'll give several examples to show this. First, he quotes Robert Letham in support of his view on natural theology, but Letham'due south context is most atheists attempting natural theology like Richard Dawkins and not Christians like Anselm, Augustine, or Thomas (22). Second, he says that Craig Carter denies "God's relatability." Just Carter does no such thing. Carter is at pains to deny "Relational Theism." That is a technical term designed to demarcate between various models of God and has nothing to do with God'due south "relatability." Johnson'due south mistreatment hither is more than attributing a fake conventionalities to Carter. It evidences a serious lack of understanding of the literature. Third, he cites Augustine, Bavinck, and Turretin as claiming God is "simple and manifold" and thus not simple in the Thomistic sense (158-159). Bavinck straight references Augustine with his claim. But familiarity with these authors and their context militates against understanding "multiplicity" as complex. For example, Bavinck follows Thomas by claiming that God is "pure essence without accidents" and "is everything he possesses."[27] Turretin similarly says that God is "free from all limerick and division."[28] Finally, the quote from Augustine that Johnson relies on, if given its full context, clearly does non hateful God is simple and complex. Examine for yourself: "for God it is the same thing to be as to be powerful or just or wise or anything else that tin can be said about his simple multiplicity or multiple simplicity to signify his substance."[29] If nil else, I recall this proves that one ought to exist very skeptical of his claims that any theologian "supports" his view.
The second problem related to source citation is his shocking lack of interaction with numerous of import interlocutors. Certainly, he is aware of James Dolezal who is a popular Reformed Baptist and has published ii books directly related to Johnson's topic—a monograph on simplicity and a trade book on the classical attributes. Yet Dolezal doesn't make an appearance. He must also know of Richard Barcellos' work on Trinity and Creation. Barcellos provides a lucid defense of the classical understanding of God. I'm sure he is also aware of Steven Duby's numerous books and articles that ask all the same questions that Johnson asks but provide answers in traditional rather than novel ways. His recent book on God in Himself is dedicated to defending exactly what Johnson seeks to destroy. He must as well exist familiar with Tyler Wittman'southward work nether John Webster, addressing this very trouble of Thomas and the doctrine of creation. Simply none of these sources appear. Nor do most of the classic Thomistic resources. I even did a quick Google search on Faith & Philosophy and Religious Studies—ii of the premier and most well-known journals that publish on topics that Johnson is addressing (and Faith & Philosophy is open-access! No library subscription needed). I simply searched "Aquinas Simplicity" and in under 10 minutes had over twenty-five peer-reviewed articles from the tiptop thinkers in the terminal 30 years interacting with these problems–none of whom Johnson interacts with. Take several examples that would be of great assistance: Katherin Rogers The Traditional Doctrine of Divine Simplicity, Rob Koons Divine Persons as Relational qua-objects, Joseph Lenow, Shoring Up Divine Simplicity Confronting Modal Collapse, William Mann Divine Simplicity, Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann Absolute Simplicity, Timothy O'Connor Simplicity and Creation, Thomas Sullivan Omniscience, Immutability, and the Divine Mode of Knowing, and W. Matthews Grant Divine Simplicity, Contingent Truths, and Extrinsic Models of Divine Knowing. And this didn't fifty-fifty include me searching for things like natural theology or immutability. Modern Theology even had an entire issue dedicated to divine simplicity in 2019.
iv. Honoring where Laurels is Due
Now, despite these numerous concerns, I will commend Johnson for three things, though these do not overcome the problems with the book. Showtime, he does put his finger on areas that demand serious attention. It is not as if Johnson is asking bad questions. He simply comes to the wrong conclusions, provides bad argumentation, and is unaware of the vast literature on the topic. Second, I actually agree with some of his takes on analogical predication. I remember he misunderstands a lot of what's going on there, merely his basic indicate that there must be some bespeak of contact, some similarity, is correct. Third, I think Johnson is exactly right when he claims that "classical theism is not Thomism" and that Thomas was viewed as an innovator in his mean solar day (four). Unfortunately, Johnson goes on to misunderstand and revise much of the tradition. I call back there is a nifty need for a more than generous Classical Theism, simply the way forward is non to make bad arguments but to swoop even deeper into the tradition.
five. Conclusion
Every bit tin can be seen, I find Johnson's book to be overwhelmingly problematic. Such a merits may exist an understatement. I conclude this way not only because I disagree with his conclusions but because his overall method of argumentation and representation is dreadful. Thus, Johnson does not accelerate the conversation forward in any meaningful sense. While I frequently recommend books I disagree with because they open upward new ways to call up about old problems or ask groovy questions, Johnson's book does not exercise this. There is nothing original that couldn't be found in a better work elsewhere. Information technology provides no new insights, information technology doesn't ask new questions, it doesn't provide interaction with new sources. So, I practise not recommend that anyone read this book. I recommend that those uncomfortable with Classical Theism, looking for a more moderate approach, read other resource. And I recommend that those who are committed Classical Theists exercise the aforementioned.
Editors Annotation: The London Lyceum publishes a range of original pieces and volume reviews from various faith traditions and viewpoints. It is not the mission of the London Lyceum to always publish work that agrees with our confession of organized religion. Therefore, the thoughts within the articles and reviews may or may non reflect our confessional commitments and are the opinions of the author alone. Rather, we seek to generate thinking and foster an intellectual civilisation of charity, curiosity, disquisitional thinking, and cheerful confessionalism.
Jordan Steffaniak (ThM, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is co-Founder and co-host of the London Lyceum. He also serves every bit the producer and editorial director. He is a Research Swain for the Center for Faith and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and is a PhD student in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, Uk, studying the intersection of Conciliar Christology and anthropology. He has a wonderful wife and two sons.He too works in the financial manufacture as an account and product director.
[i] I should annotation that I am not sure if Johnson holds a Thursday.D. or a D.Min. His church website indicates that he holds a Th.D. merely his seminary website indicates that he holds a D.Min. His degree granting establishment does not offering a Th.D. Thus, I accept causeless his actual degree is a D.Min. As a note, I provided a re-create of this review in typhoon grade to Johnson that could have clarified this matter but did not receive a reply earlier publication. Later publication it was clarified that his M.Rel. was not from Primal Baptist College but too from Veritas, so this has been changed to match. Further notation from 10/xiv/21: Based on further information from a comment on this review, it is not clear that Johnson received his Masters and Doctoral degrees from the institution linked above in this footnote. At that place are archived webpages that propose he received these from another unaccredited institution in Arkansas that he served on kinesthesia at. Given the lack of clarity, I am not sure what degrees across his BA he possesses.
[2] Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus (Oxford: Oxford University Printing, 2005), vii–eight.
[3] Jordan L. Steffaniak, "The God of All Cosmos: A Critique of Evangelical Biblicism and Recovery of Perfect Beingness Theology," Journal of Reformed Theology 14, no. 4 (December ane, 2020): 360, https://doi.org/x.1163/15697312-bja10008; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:307; Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, trans. David C. Noe (Yard Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 145.
[iv] Bavinck, RD, one:44.
[5] Thomas Aquinas, The Treatise on the Divine Nature: Summa Theologiae I, one-13, trans. Brian J. Shanley, The Hackett Aquinas (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006), I 1.v ad 2.
[6] Aquinas, I 1.vi ad 2.
[seven] Timothy Pawl, "The Five Ways," in The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas, ed. Brian Davies and Eleonore Stump (Oxford: Oxford Academy Press, 2014), 116.
[8] It is worth noting that Johnson does admits that the Thomistic vision of God doesn't mean he isn't doing anything. Johnson says, "information technology just means that whatever God does, he is doing in an undifferentiated, single, necessary, timeless, and ever-present act" (119).
[9] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. T. H. L. Parker, vol. II/i (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1957), 494.
[10] Aquinas, The Treatise on the Divine Nature, I 9.1 ad one.
[xi] James E. Dolezal, God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God's Absoluteness (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 86–87.
[12] Aquinas, The Treatise on the Divine Nature, I three.8c.
[13] Edward Feser, Scholastic Metaphysics: A Gimmicky Introduction, Editiones Scholasticae 39 (Heusenstamm: Ed. Scholasticae, 2014), 42.
[14] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles: Volume Two: Creation, trans. James F. Anderson (Notre Matriarch, IN: Notre Matriarch University Printing, 1975), 17.
[15] Aquinas, 18.
[sixteen] See Tyler Wittman, God and Cosmos in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 84–91.
[17] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994), 1:204.
[xviii] Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Todd 1000. Rester (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018), two:155.
[xix] Bavinck, RD, 1:154.
[20] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Louisville: GLH, 2017), 37.
[21] Mark Gerald Henninger, Relations: Medieval Theories, 1250-1325 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), seven.
[22] John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, trans. Paul W. Harkins (Washington D.C.: Catholic Academy of America Printing, 1984), III, five.
[23] Chrysostom, III, 15.
[24] Michael Horton, "Knowing God: Calvin's Agreement of Revelation," in John Calvin and Evangelical Theology: Legacy and Prospect, ed. Sung Wook Chung (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 1; Michael H. Kibbe, "Present and Accommodated For: Calvin'due south God on Mount Sinai," Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. one (2013): 116; Jordan 50. Steffaniak, "Jump by the Word of God: John Calvin's Religious Epistemology," Puritan Reformed Periodical ten, no. 2 (July 2018): 135–36; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Organized religion, ed. John T McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 1.x.2; 2.xi.13; 2.16.2; 3.2.14.
[25] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, two.16.3.
[26] Calvin, 1.13.1.
[27] Bavinck, RD, 2:174.
[28] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, one:191.
[29] Augustine, The Trinity, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 2015), 209.
Source: https://www.thelondonlyceum.com/book-review-the-failure-of-natural-theology/
0 Response to "Book Review a Defense of Free Grace Theology"
Post a Comment