Coffee House Sessions

EP09 James Dolezal: Revelational Epistemology, Why it's Problematic and Some Implications

• James Dolezal - Guest, Brandon Adams - Artist • Episode 9

Share episode

In this episode, Jonny and John-Mark are joined by James Dolezal to discuss the weaknesses of revelational epistemology in theology. They begin by discussing Barth's approach to revelational epistemology, before moving to more contemporary approaches often labelled 'Van Tillian' or 'Reformed'. Some key figures discussed in this episode are Barth, Descartes, Kant, Aquinas, and Cornelius Van Til. The guys close by discussing some implications, and making the positive case for a classic nature / grace distinction in epistemology, where the Word of God bears upon all things pertaining to salvation.

To get hold of James Dolezal's book "All That is in God" go to our Bookshop HERE.

Support the show

Contact Broken Wharfe

Thanks for listening!

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Dr. Doel, it's wonderful to have you back in the coffee house with us. How about you begin our discussion by explaining the relationship of Christology and the incarnation of the word to epistemology, or you might say, theory of knowledge in Carhartt.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Ooh, this is

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Off You Go, James

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

This is, boy, I, I should have ordered a double shot espresso. You beginning, uh, with that question, and I, I certainly don't want to pretend an expertise that I don't have in this connection, but there is, I think, most fundamental to understand and Bart a, a need for Christ

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Christ

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

as a mechanism for general epistemology, um, and in particular for our knowledge. of God, um, not simply as redeemer, which Christ makes him known and discloses the Father, to us particularly, with regard to his redemptive purpose, but actually just for theology in general.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

general.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And the reason Bart needs his Christology to do this for us is because he does not believe that natural revelation will give you uh, the true knowledge of God. Uh, whereas the older reformed tradition would have pointed to a text like Romans one 20, that the invisible attributes of God and his eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen through the things that are made for Bart. Kind of working after, early modern skepticism, and I'm thinking here of Hume and then Kant's attempt to solve the skepticism of Hume, which in a certain sense just embraces the skepticism and then tries to out flank it with a set ofi presuppositions to, to organize our knowledge, uh, what you have sometimes in the reformed post ctet tradition. that it More or less accepts the skepticism about natural knowledge, whether that's natural knowledge of God, or whether that's natural knowledge of creatures, um, uh, post human, uh, epistemology, embraces a skepticism. that Doesn't think that man as man just naturally is able to know God by a contemplation of nature, um, or even really know nature by a contemplation of nature. And for Hume,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Q

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

that just simply is.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

simply is

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

That's the way things are. And there's no way to really surmount this problem. Uh, I think he recommends backgammon and coffee as the, as the antidote. Whereas I say if, if You're French.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

French,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

You know, and you'd think that you can't actually know the nature of things or the reality of the world around you. You commit suicide. But if you're if you're Scottish, there's still,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

backgammon of coffee,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

uh, and.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Far, far more civilized.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

It's more, it's more civilized. Well, I mean, I'm sure the French would disagree, but I'm thinking of John Paul sart, who, you know, as soon as you take away is if you stripped away actual knowledge, then what's the point of it all? And you know, So you can come into this sort of despair or you can just sort of, you know, carry on with the things you enjoy. Um, being a little bit whimsical about that, but the, po but if you're, if you're a Prussian, if you're conant, uh, I think neither of those are options. You certainly wouldn't Commit suicide and coffee and games doesn't sound like the way to live out your days. You've got to overcome this problem of man as man can't, no Nature. as Nature which is more or less what you get with K's denial that we can know causality with certainty, which means then you can't know natures which are causes of certain operations for instance in natural. things. But if you can't know nature's because they're not empirically available to you, you have to, you have to intellectually see natures, you don't see them with. The body's eyes but with the mind's eye, well, if you can't see these things, these non empirical realities, um, then you can't know that there's, you can't be certain that they're there and cot wants to say. but how? But it does seem like we do know those things seems that we know the nature of a, of a tree, or of a cat or a dog or of a man. And so where do we get our knowledge of substantial forms and of causality and of time and space? We don't get them from things outside of our mind as we have experiences of them and then extrapolate through that experience to the necessary foundations of what we're experiencing that intellectual vision. Uh, and so he would say, since we can't get the knowledge of things from things we must get, as it were, the knowledge of things, since it seems like we have this knowledge preloaded, so to speak, already. uploaded into our interpretive framework,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

framework, and so

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

can see the natural world through a set of not a posterior eye, buti categories that we all possess in common together by which we in a certain sense view the world. enter

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah. World.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Uh,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

So that's so, so, so that's cant, uh, we did a, we did a bro

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

as living in the afterglow, so to

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

in, that world. So j just, just, just help us track the, in the post canteen reformed versions of epistemology. Um, I, I guess there's a number of positions on this, but it, um, where does, how does sin. Become the, the, the, the problem, uh, um, uh, become the skeptical issue. So, so let me put it this way. So cant isn't saying, well, because we are sinners, we know in this way. He's sort of saying, that's just how the world's set up. But when you get to Bart, but is he saying, oh, cant's, right? That's how the world's set up and Jesus does the end run round that for us by some supernatural revelation. On all counts. On all things. Or is he also saying something about, and did post reformed epistemology say cant? Right, but it's because of sin, because we've suppressed the knowledge in some kind of way, and therefore no knowledge we've got is possible not just structurally in terms of our place in the world, but because, because, of our sin. Do you see camp camp wasn't going, we're all sinners, so we can't know. Was he, he was saying something different. But

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

saying

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

does

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

doesn't know natural things. It's man as man doesn't.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah, so does it do, does, does some post in, in, in post, I guess what I'm asking, in post canteen, reformed epistemology, does that carry through or does it get modified in some way to become the sin issue?

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Well, a couple I'll just say one thing on that. There certainly is no monolithic

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yes.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Conan reformed general epistemology, um, and you, and an exhibit of that in the more conservative branch even even more conservative and traditional Lombardi in my mind would be the critique that someone like Cornelius Vanil offers of Herman Baik, so Ventil, ventil Excoriates Bob Inc. For his realism. Uh, and so you can really see that there's, that there's not a consensus. on General epistemology between even, even among the, so-called Dutch Neo Calvinists if you want to include Van Till in that, and Bob Inc. In that, you, you still actually have a battle between

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

between

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

a non-realistic epistemology and vanil, which requires apri categories for him derived from scripture and the knowledge of the Trinity, um, and for Bart derived from Christology, Um, it's interesting, Christology is functioning for Bart, the incarnation in particular, but Christology, and the incarnation, are functioning for Bart similar to the way that the, um,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

um,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

knowledge of the Trinity and the 66 books of the Cannon function for Van Till. these are both, These are both,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

are both,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

roi. these are both Disambiguating specially revealed. this is the point. They're not part of nature. per se. They are, they are supernatural and through the supernatural disclosure of God, either in scripture or. The implanted knowledge of the trinity or in the case of Bart Christology, then we can actually get. to the truth of nature

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

nature.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

and the, the The realist, and this is, this is part of Van Till's problem with Bob Bank. the realist, actually believes that man is designed by, God in his creation and remains even after the fall, able to access the truth, of nature, and even access the truth of God, at least sufficient to render him,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

him,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

obliged to worship him and give him thanks and to render him guilty for not doing so, which seems to be the point in Romans one 20 and 21 that he has enough true knowledge of God to indict him for his failure to respond accordingly. And that seems to be a very post-fall condition. But Johnny, your point was, is, is is sin brought in as the account for why man cannot, know nature?

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

cannot,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Yes. That's kind of low hanging fruit for a Calvinist in a way, because

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

way, because Yeah,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

the t in our tulip already serves up this whole problem of total depravity. And if total depravity affects

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

affects

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

the mind in any respect, if it, if it warps our understanding or our thinking somehow, um, wouldn't that, account, wouldn't that be a better basis for Hume skepticism and con skepticism? than just simply man, is, man cannot know nature. as Nature. and Yes, I I agree. As a Calvinist, that seems like a more appealing explanation of man seeming ignorance of God It's just the, the Challenge is that Romans one 20 is is being spoken about men, certainly in their fallen estate.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

state. Um, so that, that touches on it on a a point. I was, I was sort of hoping you might get, get to, um, it's a simple point, but that why, why is this Christa centric, um, View of, uh, of doing the end run around the kind of the problem of our knowledge because we're sinful. Uh, why, why does it have such a grip today? Um, because it, it, it, it is difficult to sort of say, well, it, it promote it. It seems to have such explanatory power. It's quite easy, isn't it? In one sense to kind of go, well, we know we're sinners and we know we're saved by Christ, and we know in Christ, we come to know the Father by the, the Son revealing the Father to us and the Holy Spirit enabling us to receive and understand that revelation. And, and, and there you go. It seems like a readymade, um, your soteriology is doing your epistemology, and that sounds gospel centered. Man, you know,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

well, I, I mean, I think you're getting at the the appeal. If I, if I said to John, mark, um, John Mark, do you have a Christ-centered, do you have a Christ-centered understanding of God? If John Mark, well, if John Mark said, well, frankly, I don't it's not sound. Right.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

or almost

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

it's a, it, it's a question that, that makes us as evangelicals sweat.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Right.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

We feel completely uncomfortable answering in the negative.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Yes. And it, it, it, actually means that we just have to

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

have to

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

qualify the question somewhat and say, uh, are we talking about the knowledge of God? Um, as Redeemer

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

in

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

as he is to be perpetuated and reconciled to me in grace,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

in grace,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

that knowledge of God, the knowledge of God reconciled, I only have through Christ Jesus.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Jesus. Mm-Hmm

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

and then you go right to John 14, and you say, no man comes to the Father but by me and you, look at the text in which Christ is the only one who gives you the knowledge of God.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

of God.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

in hi, in his

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

in his

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

purpose to save.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

save.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

But if we said, is Christ the only way to know God at all, truthfully or in general,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

in general,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

or Bart is going to want to say yes, uh, or in the case of Ventil, he's not gonna say through, Christ. He's gonna say, well, scripture or the implanted knowledge of the Trinity. Which is a strange thing actually, because it's a knowledge of the Trinity that you have before, or independent of reading the record of Revelation, which historically has been the only source for our knowledge of the Trinity, is the inspired record of Revelation. Um, but either way, you have, in the case of bar and vent, till you have a supernatural source for the knowledge of uh uh, something over and above

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

and above

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Man in nature fallen or not, that is required for man to know God truthfully, through nature, which is to. say he doesn't really know him through Nature. He knows him through a supernatural light that shines on nature, but nature itself is not as such luminous enough. Or maybe it is and we're too dimm to actually see the light that shines forth from it. But either way. man in his natural state can't come to a true general knowledge of God, say as creator that that, I would disagree with. And there, and at that point, if you put the question to me, are you christocentric in your general epistemology? I would say I'm not because the incarnation of the sun, the word became flesh is not for the purpose of giving me the disambiguating key for general epistemology. That seems to me to be, to miss the purpose of the incarnation, which is salvific.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah. Just the, let's just back up just one second and say, okay, so let's, now this will, this will be, um, oversimplified, but if we've got a pre and post. Can't picture or pre and posten enlightenment. Uh, picture, um, I know Bing doesn't quite fit into this because he's post, but then uses the older way of thinking, doesn't he? Everyone would agree, I guess, right? That there's, there's God who creates, and so creation in some way ought to carry knowledge of God, and then he speaks and acts, and that's ins script. And so we have special revelation and some kind of general revelation is the difference is the post, um, uh, post cant post-enlightenment position that, that, that Bart and Van till in their very different ways take essentially saying, instead of going through general revelation and scripture. We come back to God, they're saying you've gotta jump over those in a sense, assume God and then come back through. because because of an tillian perspective would say that once you have accepted Christ and you know God as you say, then I can start understanding creation better than, than a non-Christian or so. So everyone agrees that there's special and general revelation. However, the, the cognitive order in which you come to knowledge, if as it were or you come to that reality, um, must be for the post-enlightenment folks, God first, then everything else rather than the preen enlightenment. Uh, we, the, the, the world is this constant display, a refraction of the perfections of God. So we might know him in some kinda way, in simple terms, is, is that a fair way of setting up at the basic level for those folks who may not be reading epistemology every day?

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Yeah, I think it is, and way, the way you could put it is in terms of starting point and we have to make a distinction on this is the starting point of my knowledge of God, the knowledge of God,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

of God.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

um, or is my, start in other words,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

in other words,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Some kind of immediate access, or is my starting point for the knowledge of God, the knowledge of the creature which is the means through which God reveals himself. Whether you're talking about language or whether you're talking about vestiges of divine glory that are contained in all the, the variety of his creation, or even whether you're talking. about revealed words written in ordinary human language on a page by virtue of inspiration. There's sometimes you'll hear people say, well, if we're, gonna, if we're gonna know God, we have to begin. with God. And I wanna say at the metaphysical and ontological level, of course that's right. Because all things are, from Him, through Him, into him. And you don't Actually know God at all unless God makes you to be and to know. Um, so there's a, there's a fundamental that's just basic theism. If you believe God is an absolute universal creator, sustainer, then you're going to have to say at the level of.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

the level of

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

actually existing and knowing I can't begin that without God making me be sustaining me, et cetera. The question though, but that's not nor necessarily what a revelational epistemologist, whether it's atilian or a barian, means when they say, well, we have to begin with God in order to know God, what they mean is we have to begin With some kind of supernatural special revelation, not with natural revelation. In order to know God, and in fact, even in order to know natural revelation, We have to first be illumined by a supernatural light. so that the natural Light that God kindles in us by virtue of creation and the luminosity that he puts in created natures. That is to say the knowable ness of created natures Us existing in a world of knowable natures with minds capable of knowing is not sufficient to get us to know nature. Not in a hu human skepticism, not in con solution to human skepticism. which is an aism, not artism, not infantilism. You will require in the case of, con a. Set of ized. And the critique is from when theorized. and that sounds like we just all have these ized and that are not supernaturally from God, And so that's kind of the ventilen, uh, and body and critique of Kant. But they do agree with Kant that we are going to need to have a set of categories that we don't about the world to know, the world that we don't get from. the world, Uh, and that is, req that will require a supernatural additional light. A supernatural light over and above the natural light. that God has already kindled in nature just to know nature. So nature is, I put it this way, nature is, there, and nature can show you God, but nature is silent and dark until a supernatural light shines on nature.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

nature. That's very

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And, and you find that, you find that in Augustine's illumination if you want to, if you want a sort of noble, ancient version of that. Um, but which has also been, critiqued and was critiqued even by the classical reform tradition. Uh, you certainly find different versions of that in Bart and Van Till, but it, it feels to the Christa centric question. That's the more Ian one. if I say my knowledge of kangaroos isn't christocentric, I mean, is that, are are you gonna, are we gonna have a special meeting with the elders at the church and you're gonna sit down? We're really, we're really very concerned that you have a non christocentric kangaroo. Probably not beside the fact, that's just a silly illustration. But if it were a less silly illustration, but still the question is is the knowledge that is received, especially from Christ, who is the light of the world, Is he the light of the world as is he functioning as the light of the world, as a kind of tari, is that the function of Christ incarnate in terms of general epistemology? He, he, his function is basically that of a tai that illuminates an otherwise? dark and silent nature. For us kangaroos are otherwise.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

How, how, how does this relate to the question of gr grace and nature then, or the, the relationship between the two? Because, but for someone with a, a realist understanding of knowledge, take for example, Thomas Aquinas, he has quite a strong view of nature and he would say that grace perfects nature,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And pre and in some ways presupposes nature.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

nature.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Uh, And, it's exactly the, that's a good question, John Mark. It's exactly the other way around. Uh, in the, in a kind of um, in a guardian approach, uh, in which nature presupposes grace, And it's quite interesting and there are accounts of creation. The way that a guardian will tell the story of creation is that creation as such, is already grace. And So they basically they tend to, they tend to reduce any,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

any,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

any, um, beneficence from God.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

God,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Let's just say life breath in all things. To kind of sum it all up, uh, act 1725, any beneficence from God is already grace. And so to understand nature, you have to presuppose grace.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

grace.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Um.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Uh, okay.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And I think that's actually the question is whether, if, whether grace refers to something supernatural over and above. created nature or whether created nature itself is assumed under the cate the interpretive lens in the category of grace. If it is, then you can start seeing how there's a move towards something like a revelational epistemology. Since there really isn't a nature grace distinction, uh, nature is actually just the first product of grace. And then what is salvation? Salvation's just an additional product of grace. And So we don't really distinguish between divine grace and let's say like general creation or sustenance. It all gets assumed under the category of grace and effectively, makes the distinction, uh, more or less disappear or be relativized to the point of some insignificance it seems.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

so, um, rather than creation, being gracious. Or what I mean, you know, I mean, God didn't need to do it. Um, it, it becomes some, it, it, it's, it's grace as supernatural intervention that kicks everything off. I mean, see, even as I say that, what, what what fascinates me is there's a number of things here, situa. Like we all wanna be about Jesus. We all believe in God. God created the world. And there's ways in which you can stitch that together, which leads you into a bit of a, a, an epistemological cul-de-sac. Um, and, and, and debates between both sides. Both sides trip up on some of these apparently saying the same things, don't they? Because

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And, and I mean we're, we're up against the limits of language here because in one respect, of course we wanna say life breath in all things. The very existence of the world is itself a gift. But then if we can't, if, if, if now gift or if we call gift grace, that becomes the ultimate parent category.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

category. Yes. Then

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

actually nature. there there is no nature grace distinction, there's just a grace, grace distinction. There's the grace that I call natural. and Then there's the grace that I call salvific over and above natural. But there's not really a grace nature distinction, I don't mean a separation or an antithesis at all. But there's not even a nature grace distinction. There's just a grace, grace distinction at this point. Uh, and in terms of getting knowledge of nature, Uh, there's a sense there's a sense in which, uh, the knowledge of the, uh, the graced, a let's put this way, a supernaturally graced knowledge, uh, seems to be the only route, uh, available to me.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah. Okay.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

I want to say, uh, I would like a different term. actually. I, I'd rather let's just talk about divine power, and then we can talk about. the power of creation and then the power of redemption. And I don't wanna suggest that there are really distinct powers in God, but there are definitely ways of characterizing it that have a meaningful conceptual distinction, uh, between divine the, the power of God in creation and the power of God, in regeneration which is, which aren't different powers in God. But in terms of, uh, in terms of how they relate to nature,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

nature.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

uh,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Uh,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

we make a distinction.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

John, mark, you were gonna come in there.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

I was just gonna ask, do you think that view leads to a hierarchy in almost the The, these different levels of gracious knowledge, if you can put it that way, because there aren't the same categories of two books, a book of nature and a book of grace. It's instead, Well, everything's really just grace and so I, I assume that would have to lead to there being some sort of hierarchy and ultimately an undermining of the inherent value of nature whatsoever. Well, for all practical terms for us, because, well, you just want to go to saving grace, which is of course beyond nature in and of itself.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Well in some, in some ways, uh, you you can see, you can see that tendency in some corners of the Protestant tradition where interest in the knowledge of nature is

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

is

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

sort of Passed, not denied, but sort of passed over because what really matters, the only thing that really should occupy our minds is, uh, the grace of God in Christ to save.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

saved.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And I wanna say ultimately that's what concerns me most, is that I'm created in his image, but also that I achieve my end of enjoying him by reconciliation. through his son. So I, I, understand that kind of prioritization. Uh, what I wanna be careful though is not making nature. Chapter one of the Book of Grace, uh, in, in which case then the distinction gets relativized to the point of not being, of not really being, uh, I'm not sure what's being, what, the distinction is, even signifying then at that point. Um.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

It's, it's so, so let's take your example, which I found highly entertaining. I know it was a silly one, but it works. Um, a, a christology of kangaroos, right? We can see at that level. Okay. The, this scheme doesn't, doesn't, wouldn't work there, right? Um, uh, however, when it comes to metaphysics, there's a drive isn't there In post kind of barian and, um, uh, theology to get your metaphysics from the gospel. So we have this, we have this category of knowledge or this, this, this realm of knowledge, the being of things, which is a way at getting at Nature and, um, understanding reason in relation to nature and all those sorts of things, the stuff that gets renewed. So there's one, one thing is what is it in fact that's renewed, uh, by redemption anyway? If we don't have an account of how we know things and, and, and, and, and, and our place in the world, but that's one side. Um, a whole, a whole discipline gets Closed down or subsumed into the gospel. So I know for instance, uh, Robert Jensen in his, um, volume one of Systematics sort of, uh, says, why, why are we, but basically why are we going to the philosophers for our metaphysics and not Paul and Isaiah or something like that? Um, and there's a drive to try and do your to, um, And John Webster does this, um, even in his later stuff, talk about an evangelical metaphysics. Well, he's quite happy to borrow bits from Thomas Aquinas and, um, but he's doing, but he's still off o only as it helps build out what he calls an evangelical metaphysics. And for him, evangelical metaphysics is filled out by the, the, the, the per the missions of the divine persons. So that's that, that God in himself and God toward us in the missions of the, of the persons gives your metaphysical grid and you borrow a bit from, from, uh, the to is tradition to fill out a bit bit of vocabulary, but basically to build out a, a, an evangelical metaphysics. So, um, you don't do metaphysics really anymore unless the gospel does it. Now that's not, that's harder to spot, I think, than the, can you now do like the, some, some rabid homeschoolers? Now we homeschool, so don't hear me. And who might wanna go? Let's do Jesus in the kangaroos, because we can only do kangaroos through Jesus as I'm kinda way. But in the, in the, in the bigger school, nobody's doing metaphysics anymore. There's probably a question in there. Is that what, what happens to metaphysics?

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

it's gone. Uh, now it, it remains in name. And interestingly, even some of the conclusions, uh, are maintained, uh, as they're borrowed from Aquinas or from Francis Turtin or, uh, you know, or, or others who actually believed in metaphysics as its own science. Uh, or as an aspect of the science of philosophy. What happens if you do a metaphysics of the gospel? Uh, and I'm thinking of someone like, um, Kevin Vanhooser, who proposes a meta in his book, re mythologizing theology, proposes a metaphysics of the gospel, and he even proposes his words, a recovery of Thomas Aquinas via Bart. That's his, that is, that is his That is his proposed. method. And so what you do, and I, I, I actually see in some ways I see Webster doing this where he's, he's taking on board a lot of

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

lot of

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Mistic metaphysical conclusions and even rationale and also so much as that reappears in people like John Owen he's doing the same. And I, I cheer on all of that. Uh, the, the more, the more so far as it's true Well, this is what I say so far as the first principles are clear, the reasoning a sound, and the conclusions are true, let's have it. That's, That's, my, that is my standard. And I do think that, and I think that someone like Webster, uh, and even Van Hauser in his own way, sees the truth of the rationale and the conclusions of certain Tom Metaphysical assertions. The question with regard to starting point though.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

starting point though,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

What is metaphysics? Is metaphysics only possible in light of special revelation? Do I require special revelation? Whether that is in the person of Christ incarnated or on the pages of holy scripture or in the alleged implanted knowledge of the triune God, which I I, I struggle with'cause I think we get our knowledge of the triune God by reading the revelation of, him in the redemptive record. Um, but nevertheless is are one of these three sources,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

sources,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

scripture, The implanted knowledge of the trying God um, supernaturally implanted or the knowledge, of God, in Christ Incarnated, are these required To begin That is to say, do I derive my principles of metaphysics and the possibility of the science, so to speak, from these principles? If so, it isn't, meta, it isn't actually a distinct science then sacred doctrine, It's just now a subset of sacred doctrine, sort of like Christology is, pneumatology is Trinitarian. Theology is, uh, your doctrine of redemption and and the second coming and the eternal state. These are all dependent. None of these can be arrived at

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

arrived

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

truthfully, apart from special revelation. Are we going to? And so they're all properly, uh, divisions of

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

of

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

theology or sacred doctrine. I would rather sacred doctrine. I.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

doctrine. I'd rather call it that. Yeah. Um,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Is meta. So what you do, so, so now you do need the Bible and special revelation for the knowledge of those things. Do you need the bible and special revelation for the knowledge to do metaphysics? Um, Do I need the gospel in order to enable me to

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

to

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

do

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

do

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

or reason

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

reason

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

properly in a metaphysical way?

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

physical way?

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Uh, and at that point, if you say yes, then there is then it is no longer a handmaiden of theology it. is properly itself. Theology, like Christology is not a handmaiden of theology.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

theology. Mm.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

a proper division of theology itself.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

itself.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

The doctrine of soteriology is not a handmaiden of theology. It's itself a formal constituent of theology.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

theology.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Why though? What actually distinguishes the science of theology Properly Theology, um, as opposed to the science of philosophy. And it effectively comes down to this and this, I agree with Thomas, Aquinas on that its principles are the knowledge, the knowledge of God and things, the knowledge of God, and creatures insofar as they're specially revealed. That's what makes it, properly theology. If I can know something but don't require special revelation for the knowledge I have of it, which I want to say metaphysics, for instance, um, or even natural theology, then that properly speaking is not a subdivision of sacred. theology. That is a, That is a division of a natural philosophy that can now be pressed into the service of sacred doctrine without becoming part of sacred doctrine.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

doctrine.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Uh.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

And, and if, if I'm tracking you correctly, the view that you explained before where it genuinely is just morphed into one of the proper categories of sacred Doctrine. What's really happening is there's an indirect denial of natural theology altogether, or, or what you might call just general reason or general revelation, because everything just becomes theology,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

that is exactly right. It is indirect. In the case of someone like Van Huser or maybe by Implica indirect, I think maybe even in the implications, of what Webster's doing, it's not indirect. In the case of Bart, it's quite direct. Nine That's what he says. question of natural theology is there. Natural theology? No. He's quite emphatic that there's no natural theology. So if you're a guardian, just take for instance someone like, someone like, um, in terms of EPIs by guardian here, I don't mean every untoward thing Bart ever said or the ethics of his personal life. or Any, I don't mean any of that. I just mean, bar in the case of our current question, epistemology. If you're a bar in the case of a of epistemology, it doesn't matter that you have now found room inside of your sacred doctrine for the metaphysics speak of Aquinas or of the Reformed Orthodox. Uh, It doesn't matter

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

matter

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

if you are saying that the source of my knowledge of those metaphysical truths

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

truths

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

is in fact beholden to holy scripture the same as you say, for the incarnation or the second coming, or the trinity. Um, if you say that, then it no longer is the handmaiden of philosophy. Serving. theology. It is Part of theology itself. And what's ha what you do is, so here's the thing about it. I, I this is how I imagine someone like maybe Van Huser or the late Webster, um, thinking, looking at metaphysics and saying, boy, you know, those conclusions do seem true. And the rationale, the reasoning process to those conclusions seems, definitely, seems correct. It seems almost willful, maybe even absurd to say substance metaphysics is untrue when it just seems like there are substances bearing accidents and that they aren't the same thing. And the existence of accidents depends upon the existence of substance and not vice versa. And that substance. receive some addition formally from the accidental forms that adhere in them. You know, things like that. The things that. When you understand the terms,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. yeah. But I dunno, I just love that. I love it when you do that, by the way. It is just brilliant. I just

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

where? Well, you know, this is, this is what my family has to put up with,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah. No, it's great. I love it. Yeah, yeah, yeah,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

then where do you fit that?'cause it's because it's true and the reasoning is sound. The question though is, but I can't have metaphysics coming from Pagans.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Mm

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Uh, I can't have I can't have Plaus helping me here. I can't have Plato or Aristotle helping me here. Um, I certainly want, wouldn't want to maybe entertain something. that a Muslim like Avicenna said, or a Jew, like my Mamadi said, I've got to have solely I. So How do I, save metaphysics from becoming a competing science?

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

science? Mm.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

doctrine? I colonize it. I

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Oh, yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's a helpful

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

and I fold it into sacred doctrine. At this point, it's no longer a handmaiden. we have to, real, this is no longer a ser. This is no longer serving. The queen of the sciences. Metaphysics is now properly itself, A queen of the, is itself a formal dimension. of the Queen of the sciences theology. That's a, I think that's a problem because then what you end up having to say is that there's no good reason

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

reason

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

for philosophers, which by the way, there's just no such like There's, if there's not a mono monolithic post conte, reformed epistemology,,there's definitely not a monolithic pagan philosophy. Like there's just no such thing they do galactic battle with. each other. Um, and some of them are much nearer the truth than others. And Christians historically have gravitated toward those that they perceive to be nearer the truth than others. And in fact, that even that isn't monolithic because Plato might be nearer the truth on some point than Aristotle and Aristotle, on some other point that Plato and so some kind of synthesis. In the interest of truth

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

truth

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

might be required, uh, even among the different truths seen in part by philosophers so that no one philosopher embodies the truth. of Philosophy. Um, this is a, This is a huge point that Aquinas makes, but also Protestant Scholastics, including later John, Gill, make this point that no one philosopher is philosophy. Um, I think this is the point though. Can then how do you account for

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

for

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

the true things that Platina says in the needs?

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

needs.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

If he never read the Bible or knew the gospel to furnish him with the first principles of his metaphysics, why does he, at least in certain areas of his philosophy, seem, to do metaphysics? Well.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Well, hmm,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And, and cor, and truthfully, I should say it even better truthfully, how do you account for the truth of metaphysic, like there's, you don't go to. plaus and find, um, A true doctrine of the incarnation. You don't go to Aristotle and find a true doctrine of divine triunity uh, or of the second coming. But you could go to Aristotle, and find a truth about the way substance and accidents relate and are distinguished from each other. So then the question is, but if it's all beholden to special revelation, either in Christ or in scripture or in the implanted knowledge, of the Trinity, then how do you account for the truth in the pagan metas?

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Well, so, so this, a couple of things have gone off in my head. One is, so you end up, you taking this approach, you end up with a radical de-skilling.'cause as you talk about going, walking your way through the, uh, the enormous divisions and diversity of pagan philosophy. How do you sift it? If you take the view that it's only the scriptures that give you your, your, your best fit tool, you know, you then you then go and find a philosopher who is the closest you can get and then slot him in. Um, so, so, but, but what you don't do is you don't learn the discipline and the tools for analysis and assessment of, of the truth of statements, um, other than some form of scriptural exogenesis, which of course you're also partly, you know, you're assuming some, some, some ways of, of, of approaching reality in text and, and the rest of it. So you end up with this radical de-skilling and going and finding the philosopher that sounds most like Paul to you. Um, and, and then missing the, the diversity.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

I think it al it. It also raises a question, Johnny, of How, how does one pegan philosopher critique another pegan philosopher? get closer to the truth as a consequence? Uh, without, so the question is, is there such a thing as good philosophy and then mediocre and bad philosophy, respectively? And then does good philosophy answer bad philosophy? And can you only know how to answer bad philosophy by a specially revealed principle or key to knowledge? And then if that's the case, why is it that certain pagan philosophers with no special? revelation seem to be effective at critiquing philosophical? I'll just give you an example. Let's just take Plato and Aristotle and put them against all the pre-Socratic, Greek materialists.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

materialists.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

I I think that their philosophy, I think both of them are much nearer the, first of all, both of them are much nearer the truth because they, believe in the reality. and the, and The primitive reality of spirit over. matter. Every Christian, every Bible, every Bible believer, Uh, and and frankly, Jews and Muslims as well at this point are gonna say, you know,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

you know,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

the metaphysic, the the philosophical arguments aside that already sounds closer to the truth

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

the truth

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

than pre-Socratic materialism.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

materialism. Mm.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

aism or something like that. Um, now that, you know, as as a Christian, I don't begrudge anybody who's reading their Bible and saying, the material world isn't the ultimately reducible first principle of all things, and therefore the presocratics had to be wrong. You don't need a philosophical answer to the presocratics to know that something isn't right with their

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

with

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

philosophy because your theology will not at all allow their philosophy to be true. And in that case, sacred doctrine has veto power over bad philosophy. But that's not the same thing as giving a philosophical answer.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

answer.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

To Bad philosophy. Uh, And in fact, it's possible even without the veto power of scripture, there's also the veto power of right reason.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

reason.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

right reason can actually veto bad reasoning as well. And it can do it in a way that actually serves Theo, is theology served

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

serve

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

by right reason. Let's just say Plato's or Aristotle's right reason or at least more right than the pre-Socratic materialists It is, is our theology served by their philosophical assertions about the first principle of all things, either whether of movement or otherwise needing to be immaterial? Is our theology served by their philosophical insight? Yes.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yes.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Is their philosophical insight impossible? Apart from our sacred doctrine? And I would say no. Um, it, it's not only possible they did it, Uh, what we wanna be careful you know, we need to qualify. this and say there are serious limitations with this with regard to the point of sacred doctrine. The Point of the point of sacred doctrine, uh, is, uh, I, would I treat scripture as a redemptive record? This is a, this is not just sort of the life and times of the triune God doing stuff. I think the aim, the aim of, you know, if that, if that were all scripture was, then the world could not contain the books, as, as John says, of Christ himself. Um, it certainly. could not. I think the point of scripture is the knowledge of God,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

God,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

yes, as creator, but that is, that is a prelude to the point of scripture, which is to know God in, in Reconciliation, It is an inspired redemptive record.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

record.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Do I need the inspired redemptive record to arrive at metaphysical truths generally? And then natural theological truth specifically about God and I would argue on both counts by scripture's own witness. We do not,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

do not.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

uh, but that we can clearly see the divine nature, his eternal power and invisible attributes through the things that are made, and even the fallen man sees them clearly enough to be indicted for not responding correctly, um, to those things. So I, I would say at a certain point, I, this is what I, wanna do. I'm not put, I don't wanna put metaphysics in competition. with scripture, but the way to, do, you have two ways of doing that. You can either make metaphysics its own discreet lower science,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

science,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

or you can deny that there, that such a discreet lower science is possible. That's the early modern skepticism that bleeds into certain parts. of the reform tradition, but certainly not across the board. It's not in bothering, um,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Um,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

you, if you don't believe that's even possible, then how do you save the true reasoning and conclusions of metaphysics? You have to transform it into theology. And then and then there's no, then metaphysics doesn't propose any. So you can say it's not in competition with theology. Here's how I would resolve. that because the author of Nature and the author of scripture is one, he's truth itself and he is not opposed to himself.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

to himself. Yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Therefore, while I may not always be able to see how they concur, I know that in principle they absolutely must concur. So I'm not a double truth. theory

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah, yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Uh, even if I do believe that, I don't always see how

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

how

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

some metaphysical insight, concurs with something that especially revealed. What I can't do is I can't, metaphysics can't prove scripture wrong.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

wrong.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Scripture must con scripture will concur with true metaphysics, but scripture will also reveal things to us that go beyond what a metaphysical reductionism is, Ena enables us to see. So like if you take the hypostatic union for instance, can one person subsist in two distinct natures? I don't think that a philosophy of personhood a can prove or disprove that. But moreover, I don't think that a philosophy of personhood. apart From the special revelation of the sun incarnate would even have the occasion to ask the question.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

question.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

You know what I mean? It just,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah. Yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

in which case then, now Theo, it's funny theology then, Ken, it, it's not furnishing you the first principles of your philosophy, but it is. it is. Pitching problems to your philosophy that will, that will cause you to revisit the questions, but not necessarily by furnishing new philosophical first principles, but by furnishing true theological conclusions that will make you go back and reexamine your philosophical. assumptions. And so I don't, want to say, well, they have nothing to do, with each other, but at the same time, that's not the same thing. as saying metaphysics of the gospel, I'm not saying that metaphysic, I'm not saying the gospel. of Christ incarnate doesn't, um, propose metaphysical challenges to us. But I want to argue that metaphysics itself is a, is a lower science that has its own formal object and way of arriving. at its conclusions that are distinct from that of sacred Doctrine even if they conserve sacred, sacred doctrine.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

So if the, if the, let's, let's come back to the, the post ian kind of world and the, the gospel centered approach to everything, which sort of is very difficult to argue with just at the, at the emotional reaction level. Of course, we wanna be Christ-centered and those sorts of things. And we've mentioned, you've mentioned, uh, what I'm looking for now is, is thinking about sort of particular ways outta that and that we see in, in, in, in the post barian, um, world and then, or the, and the posten enlightenment world. Now you, you've, you've talked about b Inc. And I remember last time you took, you've, you mentioned him as a, as a man out of time in many ways, and we've, we've touched on, on Webster who starts in his later work to deploy quite openly Thomas categories. And I very much like the way you characterized us as a. The, there's just certain, there's certain things you just can't argue with, so you wanna make use of them

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Yeah.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

um, and, and then actually have them contribute to you building your evangelical metaphysics. Um, uh, but, but as we read Webster, he is pointing, and of course, you know, every, he died in 2016 and never finished the five volume work. He'd be interested to see where he went. So we can't make that prediction of where he'd gone. But he, he has intro, he introduced me to, to Aquinas or the idea that things might not be the way that, um, late 20th century and early 21st century theology has set things up, particularly on trying to get God separate from the gospel in the right way and not have him collapsed into, into the gospel. So, so Webster's one that might indicate, we can read and indicate a way out of, even though he's kind of still kind of, you know, in that, in that post party in mold, um, There's some other proposals on the table that are starting to fly around things like, um, Christian Platonism, um, and, and things like this. Ha, I I get where, where might, what, what might we read that's doing a good analysis of some of this stuff. And, um, but also some, some attempts at recovery and, and maybe they're not even full recovery, they're new articulations in a new time of things that would chime in with the past as it were. Um,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

well I, in some ways, Johnny, I, I would not want to reinvent the wheel

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

the wheel. Yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

says they say, uh, and one way is to explore the almost parallel discussion and debate that went on among

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

among

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

20th Century Roman Catholic tous themselves regard to whether there was such a thing as Christian Theo Christian philosophy. So on the one side you have Etan Sison, um, and someone like Joseph Owens, uh, both of the, uh, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, uh, in Toronto. Uh, well, uh, Juston obviously had a career in France before he came over to Canada, but, um, in which they're arguing for a Christian uh, philosophy and, and Armand Mauer, uh, and others, uh, in that, in that sort of Pontifical Institute in Toronto trajectory. And then on the other side, someone like, maybe on the extreme other end, someone like Ralph Ary, uh, who taught at Notre Dame, uh, and maybe a little bit more, a a little less, uh, abrasive.Uh, someone like the late John Whipple who taught at Catholic University of America, Whipple and uh, McInerney are going to say that there is no such thing as Christian philosophy. There's just true philosophy or false philosophy and it's its own science. And Christian putting a, putting a name that has to do, with God's redemptive records specially revealed in scripture, calling it Christian, uh, is in a certain sense losing its distinction as a lower science. Um, and, and Now it's not as, it's not as, clean. I I'm, I, do not mean to suggest whatsoever that someone like, uh, et Gson who I, or Stephen Gilson for the Anglos, but that's, you know, et gson. I'm not going to suggest that he's effectively, uh, a revelational epistemologist among the tous, that that would be to grossly mischaracterize. him. He's very much a realist. It's just that he,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

that he

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

he believes that Thomas does a lot of his philosophizing by deriving his first principle of being from Exodus. three 14 and 15.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Ah, okay. Right

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

believes that Thomas gets his doctrine of God as pure act from the ex of Jesus, of especially revealed text and then builds his philosophy about act and potency out from there. Uh, it's, and you, I can see this, that's the one that tempts me. I suppose I can just see how as a Christian, when you have a name of God that does sound so much, like pure actuality kind of, and kind of landing ba and Thomas Thomas, himself is a, is a doctor of sacred doctrine. Uh, so of course he's going to appeal to special revelation for so many things that he says, and he's going to show how these concur with the best of natural theology. Uh, the question though is whether his natural theology would've been possible

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

possible

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

or even was done.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

done

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Without the, aid of. Exodus three 14 and 15. I'm not sure how you can, I'm not sure that you can actually divide the mind of St. Thomas, so to speak, and actually know that with any kind of certainty. Um, but the question of whether there is, so you'll have, like Joseph Owens writes a book, and elementary Christian metaphysics and like someone like Whipple would say there's metaphysics, there's not such a thing as a Christian metaphysics. Well, I would suggest for Protestants who really want to sort of sift through the question of whether there's such a thing as Christian philosophy or Christian metaphysics, that if you wanna highly sophisticated version of that exact question being worked out by people that are much further downstream in their sophistication of, the, of an articulate Question. The debates between the c, the the Tous Christian philosophy types s and company, um, on the one side and, Whipple and others, uh, on the opposite side of that uh, would be a really great place to start because in some ways That's the discu, that's the. dis that's sort of the discussion I would want to have as more of a classical realist and an anti with someone like John Webster or like, or like, um, Kevin Van. Hauser. And I would, I've mildly but clearly raised this concern, with Van Hauser in a book review many years ago, uh, which is

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

is

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

a metaphysics of the gospel isn't actually the science of metaphysics anymore. Metaphysics has now become sacred doctrine and is no longer handmaiden. Um, and I, so I think that that that discussion that that point I was raising 10 years ago in that book review is effectively a, version of this same debate, uh, that's going on between, the Thomas themselves.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

that is fascinating. I'm scribbling frantically down here names and, and things a bit for, for further reading. That

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

the sad thing on that is I, I kind of agree with Whipple on that discussion, but I love readings. Joss saw him because he is actually, he's, he's the better writer just in terms of literary skill. he's he's fantastic, and

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yes. Well, I'm reading him at the moment.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

recommend what he writes. Just like I very warmly recommend the late John Webster.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Webster. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I'm, I'm reading how you saying it's your song, um,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

well, you just gotta do it sort. of lazily and then, you know,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

I, I've just been calling him Etan Gilson Alright. E et gilson. That lad, um, So I've been reading Etison, um, and, and fa and, and, and, and really enjoying his critique of, of, of Descartes and Can't and their epistemology and laying out a realist approach.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

critique, his, his unity of philosophical experience and his book on being in some philosophers are, they're magisterial.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

There, there, I, I haven't got to that one yet, but that, but that, that's really, I mean, I'm, I'm also trying to learn the, uh, the, the, the debates and discover the debates within the Thomas Realist kind of camp. Um, so that's fascinating. I've just scribbled down a bunch of stuff there, and I will go and do some reading on Whipple. Did John Whipple die recently? Did I see? Um, yeah. Okay. I saw

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

just recently, uh, passed, but many years professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America, and his book, the Metaphysical thought of Thomas Aquinas, is of enormous significance and just will pay dividends for consideration. But My point is with regard to Webster, I, I like Webster. I like the trajectory of the later Webster. He's, he is in, he's in, so many ways moving away from his guardian, uh, you know, that he had embraced for the first two thirds of his public career, um. His embrace, his embrace of the truth effectively of istic metaphysics, both in terms of its reasoning and conclusions is very encouraging and I think instructive toward those that are needing to warm up to metaphysics. But the question is still, has Webster fully exercise The ghost of Bart when it comes to the, question of revelational epistemology, if you are still beholden to special revelation for the first principles of your science, you are doing sacred doctrine not metaphysics. Uh, and it's in any kind of historic lower science sense of the term.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

It just seems like he, he didn't shake it all off.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Yeah, and it's not to say he wouldn't have, it's hard to know. Uh, it's hard to know. John Mark, but I, I I think it's still, it still lingers there, although, I. At least in my mind, it, it's, it's easy enough to make the adjustment. in my own head because at, at, at the point, of when you're right in the guts of the discussion of, uh, with Webster, and he's giving you the reasons why God must be simple. um,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

um,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

it's, it's, it's very sound. It's classically orthodox. It's, mistic, it's reformed Orthodox. It's very compelling. And the fact that he thinks he's getting his first principles from the Bible at a certain point doesn't inhibit him from reasoning Well, when he actually gets into the doing of it, you know? so I, I,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

So, yeah. Yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

would want, to, I'm the last person who wants to turn someone off of Webster. I think he's, a, I think he's a net gain especially the last 10 years of his writing. But still, there are concerns with regard to how philosophy. relates to theology that seem to me to be a, a sort of latent guardian that still lingers there a bit.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Just, just, just pastorally. One of the things I, I've noticed, so folks listening to this, haven't read any Webster, don't worry at this point. But, uh, um, but let me just say, in these early stuff, there's very much, when it comes to what, what does the human come with? Before before salvation, there's like nothing so much in, in the sense of there's a, there's that kind of, um, uh, revelation come through crisis, very barian, our way of knowing then there's nothing being seen like it before. There's nothing renewed. It's so, so are the worldly. So eschatological ways of knowing break in from the other world. that, that that there's no real account of Reason restored when you get to later Webster, it's about the renewal of given you get much more of the, the, the grace renewing and perfecting nature now just pastorally. That's very helpful because what you can't help bump into when you're dealing with an non-Christian and with a Christian is that the non-Christian already does actually have some ideas about God and you are dealing with somebody who's reasoning and you need to take in just sort of evangelism and where they're at and what they're thinking. You can't do that sort of, um, well, I'm afraid until you accept Christ, you can't know anything approach, which we know just evangelistically doesn't work. And then pastorally when somebody's become a Christian and our minds are being put back together, we are not knowing in a way we never knew before. we are, uh, our reasoning capacities that were always there are being put to, to the use that they're in terms of knowing God, but also we start making, we do start making decisions in a, in a and start living more wisely. But, but the wisdom that we start to live by has echoes in the non-Christian world.'cause we know the wisdom literature and the proverbs is drawn not only from within Israel, but from outside as well. In other words, the world does know a bit about without special revelation how to, how to live. And so we, um, so, so pastorally this idea that, um, there was, there was, there was no way of knowing anything before. And then we have this entirely new Christocentric way of navigating the world. Just doesn't work out practically, actually does it. So, uh, that's a comment rather than a question really. But, but.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

I'm for a CHRISTUS centric view of salvation.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

salvation. Yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

and for all that is entailed in salvation, including the renewal of my will and of my mind. Um, but it's not gonna, it's not gonna make me uh, necessarily a, a better

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

better

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

scientist or baseball coach or you know, anything like this. It's not, there are there are just certain things that are known and learned, uh, that this is, it's, I I, I guess, a simple way to put it is it's not about that.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

that salvation isn't about, uh, giving you the key for a general epistemology. It's about being reconciled. to your maker from whom you've been alienated by virtue of your sin, and that that's what it's about.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

So it's also, salvation is not, and this is where we can go in sort of modern reform theology, sometimes accidentally, um, maybe sometimes by design. It's salvation is not about making you a better politician who knows how to run a government better or, uh, you know, you know what I mean? I mean, given in the,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

I mean, I don't, I, here's what I would say on politics, I'd say, well, the possibility that you have an ethical baseline

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

baseline Yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

that is, uh, informed by divine law, whether natural or positive is more likely if you're a Christian. Now, in terms of the skill of implementation and understanding how that works with regard to the art and science of civics, uh, you might not have any idea. how to wisely implement that,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And somebody who isn't a Christian might actually know how to implement to a net ethical, good, or gain, uh, that insight. So at the skill of politicking, uh, I am your, your ethics. you know, like if somebody's a, if somebody's a good person and a Christian, um, I'm going to assume that there's a certain baseline of judgment. there that's going to give them some discernment and at least, at the very least, restrain them in the office. But is it going to make them. Skillful at that work. I don't, I don't know that It has anything to do with that per, se.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah, yeah,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

though it could definitely feed into that for a net. Good. It could.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

and, and the reason you can say that so clearly and, you know, it's, it's genuinely a, a wise way of thinking. It, it's because you have the distinction between the science of sacred doctrine and the science of, you know, what you referred to as civics or you know, civil, political leadership, all those things that they're completely different. Sciences and civics is just a subordinate science.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

And this is, I, and I think this is, we, don't, we see this in other areas we don't, um, professional sports teams don't draft players, uh, on this basis, That's pretty clear. Uh, you know, whether they're good people or not, Uh, and we don't, uh, pick our physicians this way. Uh, this sort of thing. And I, I think it's just a recognition and then maybe John Mark way of putting it is that we do, re, we kind of intuitively recognize a nature grace distinction and we don't collapse them into each other just as a, as a, matter of course. I think even, even, the, Guardian, uh, who denies a nature grace distinction is going to live like there is one. He's still, He's still, going to pick his doctor, uh, on the basis. He, he would still pick a doctor who's never heard the name of Christ if he was the world's greatest oncologist and you had a, you know, you had a serious cancer. that only he could cure, um, you, you're gonna, you'll ask him, are you a Christian because you're evangelistic and you want to see his soul save, but that's not gonna be part of your vetting him for. his medical expertise.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yeah. Yeah. Helpful.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

I think that's our, our time limit.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Well, this is good. I've, I've, I've enjoyed this and, uh, I, I'm glad we're able to sort of bat this around together.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

it's been wonderful. Thank you very much. It's been, uh, it's, but stimulating conversation. I've been, do you know, I, I thought I had a pen. I had to, I literally had to grab for a crayon'cause that's all that was on my desk. And I've been with a, with a fist and a crayon, scribbling.'cause it's scribbling down. Very, very clever thoughts, but, um, thank you very much. Um, we now you are doing, i, I want to get you back at some point to tell us about angels. Um, uh, because you're doing, you're still working on, on that top on that.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

it's my perennial, it's one of my perennial interests for the, for the foreseeable future.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Okay.'cause one of the reasons I want to get you back,'cause we've had a lot of people, and I, I think this is a huge evangelistic opportunity here. I, I, I've come into people into contact recently with folks who are non-Christians or people from a Catholic background who are really concerned about the world of demons and angels and want to think thoroughly about that. Um, so it'd be fascinating to, uh, to get you back and, and hear what you're finding out at some point on that and,

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

I'd, I'd love to do it. We should find a, we should find, a date. and in the, in the not distant future, about Six months. from, from the time we're recording this, uh, but some still future for the, from the air date. Uh, Lord willing, I anticipate, uh, being with you guys in person,

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Yes. Yes.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

the UK doing uh, an IRBS uh, seminary course

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

course. Yes. Um, we are very much looking forward to that and it's gonna be wonderful having you over, you coming over for, to do, to do a week's teaching. Um, and it is on the doctrine of God. Or is is Doctrine of God.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

and I think we'll spread it over six days. and it will be about 38 hours of lecture. So it will be an intense six days. So the coffee house should be open, uh, and, uh, stimulating beverages, uh, available so we can, you know, hunker down for 38 hours. The doctrine of God.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

very much looking forward to that. And um, do you look out, I think will we, we'll be, we'll be advertising it on broken morph things and things like that to, to let people know about how to, how to come along and be part of that course.'cause um, that's gonna be an, an amazing week or six days hard work. Come and learn, come and discuss. It's gonna be excellent. Thank you very much Dr. Al. That's, uh, just a wonderful conversation, brilliant time.

james-dolezal_1_11-27-2023_115744:

Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure to be with both of you.

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

If you'd like to find details about the course, then join our email list. We'll be sending out an email in the not too distant future, and that will have the details about signing up to come to, uh, sunny Ram's bottom in, uh, the northwest of England. And to hear, uh, Dr. Dole speak about the doctrine of God. And I'm sure, uh, not just stimulating coffee, but also stimulating, uh, lectures and material six days, uh, on that. Woo. It's gonna be gonna be good. I.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

That be

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Um, thank you to all of you who've tuned in today. Uh, you can find the rest of these, uh, at broken wharf.com/listen. Uh, and if you found that this was, uh, maybe a, a bit too much for you, uh, maybe

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Get a coffee

john-mark_1_11-27-2023_165744:

understand what metaphysics is. I mean, uh, well done for getting through an hour and nine minutes of this. But, uh, do go to our Broken Wharf podcast'cause the Broken Wharf podcast. Uh, and we try and distill these things, put them in a slightly shorter format and make them a, a bit easier to, to digest. Uh, so go check that out. Thanks and bye for now.

jonny-woodrow_1_11-27-2023_165744:

Bye bye.