Subordinationism (1): Augustine facepalms at it. [2]

Wow! It has been a while since my last blog post on these series. Anyway, here I am.

My friend Sam (on the right) a second before he almost broke my

face by (accidentally) pushing me against the wall. He was trying to explain

me partialism. But orthodoxy prevailed, for which I am very thankful.
[Photo: Ed Bos]

In my second post dedicated to Augustine's criticism of Subordinationism, I will try to answer to a timely question that my friend Sam asked: "How would we directly apply this [Augustine's words] to subordinationism, if someone denies that subordination does not make one less 'great' than another (which I guess they typically do)?" This is a difficult question to answer for historical and therefore also theological reasons: the kind of subordinationism Augustine condemned is different from today's subordinationism. Keith E. Johnson says that "Augustine does not explore the speculative question of whether any analogy might exist between the Son’s filial mode of being eternally 'from the Father' and his obedience to the Father in his state of humiliation." However and more importantly, he also says that "there is no evidence that Augustine believed that the hypostatic distinction between the Father and the Son is constituted by eternal 'authority' (on the part of the Father) and eternal 'submission' (on the part of the Son). To the contrary, this element of EFS is incompatible with his account of trinitarian agency." There are several passages of Augustine's On the Trinity where we can read about this incompatibility.

But first, I would like to address the question mentioned above: what about someone saying that subordination does not make one less "great" than another? Well, to be very blunt, I think this is a very poor escaping device. Once we admit, as for instance Wayne Grudem does, that the Father has more authority than the other three persons, this necessarily implies that the other two persons are inferior to the Father. I will attempt to comment a couple of quotes by Grudem in order to show this (thanks to Rachel for pointing at them. I do not have time to read Grudem or Ware myself). 

"If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and, consequently, we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally 'Father' and the Son is not eternally 'Son.' This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 1994), 251.

The unorthodoxy of this rather unclear paragraph is revealed if we consider other places among Grudem's writings.

"Between the members of the Trinity there has been equality in importance, personhood, and deity throughout all eternity. But there have also been differences in roles between the members of the Trinity. God the Father has always been the Father and has always related to the Son as a Father relates to his Son. Though all three members of the Trinity are equal in power and in all other attributes, the Father has a greater authority. He has a leadership role among all the members of the Trinity that the Son and Holy Spirit do not have. In creation, the Father speaks and initiates, but the work of creation is carried out through the Son and sustained by the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Hebr. 1:2). In redemption, the Father sends the Son into the world and the Son comes and is obedient to the Father and dies to pay for our sins (Luke 22:42; Phil. 2:6-8). After the Son has ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit comes to equip and empower the church (John 16:7; Acts 1:8; 2:1-36). The Father did not come to die for our sins, nor did the Holy Spirit. The Father was not poured out on the church at Pentecost in new covenant power, nor was the Son. Each member of the Trinity has distinct roles or functions. Differences in roles and authority between the members of the Trinity are thus completely consistent with equal importance, personhood, and deity." - Grudem, Systematic Theology, 459. Emphasis added.

I am afraid Grudem and I use two different sets of logical rules. Grudem assumes that different roles or missions in the Trinity imply subordination between them, a subordination that is mainly characterised by a greater authority possessed by the Father. In the specific quotes mentioned above, he merely arrests this, without giving any argument to support his claim. In fact, a difference in missions does not logically entail a difference in authority. Grudem has to explain why he thinks this is the case and, at least in the section I quoted, he does not do that (although, I think I can reasonably assume he tries to do that elsewhere).  

In my opinion, the sections in Italic are radically problematic. According to the classical (and Biblical) view of God, He is one, He has no parts, and He is His attributes. Grudem himself seems to embrace this vital theological principle (see Bible Doctrine. Essential Teaching of the Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1999, 81-82; Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 2005, 36).

Firstly, if God is one in essence and attributes, I deeply struggle to understand how He can be so while one person of the divine Trinity (the Father) has more authority than the other two. True, "authority" is not included in the classical classification of God's attributes. Still, it is something that pertains to God. Therefore, if the Father has more authority than the Son and the Spirit, I enormously struggle to see how God is united according to the classical and orthodox sense, and I wonder whether Grudem's words entail a modified version of partialism.

Secondly, "authority" is certainly a positive thing to have. For sure, in man's earthly life authority may come with all sorts of trials and responsibilities. But this is not the case with the most blessed triune God. Moreover, common sense tells us that a person with more authority is more important that a person without it. Now, if this is true, how can Grudem claim that the Father who, according to him, has more authority than the Son and the Spirit, has the same importance than the Son and the Spirit? He has more authority, but he is equal in importance. This does not make much sense at all to me. To prevent a possible objection, I do not think that earthly examples would help. I guess Grudem would mention the example of a husband who has more authority than his wife and the children, but he is not more important than them. However, I think God's situation is significantly different (David J. Engelsma rightly believes that the godly families of the earth and the church family are the only vestigia trinitatis in creatura [vestiges/traces of the Trinity in creation] we may think of because they share in themselves the same Holy Spirit that the Father and the Son breath to each other. However, he would never dare to think nor he does think that God is ontologically similar to the vestigia). Human authority is always limited at least in one sense (and usually even more than one sense), while divine authority is all-encompassing and absolute, embracing the natural and moral order. Therefore, if the Father's divine all-encompassing authority is greater than the Son's and Spirit's divine all-encompassing authority, it seems to me that this implies that, after all, the Son's and Spirit's authority are not so all-encompassing. If you agree with this conclusion, I let you decide what heresy Grudem's words may lead to.

In case you are wondering or even jumping to conclusions,
the lady in the frame is Augustine's beloved mother, Monica.
[Art: Ron Hill. Used with permission.]

I hope this answers Sam's question at least partially. I realise that my arguments are not fully formulated and, certainly, they need to be refined. I am now going to quote Augustine who explains better what I have tried to say. He shows that, because of the unity and simplicity of God, if the Father is not substantially equal to the Son in everything, then the Son is not really equal to the Father in anything.

"Whence then is the Father greater? For if greater, He is greater by greatness; but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than He who begot Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is He equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing to be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal in power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is less wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains, therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But Scripture proclaims, that 'He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Therefore any adversary of the truth whatever, provided he feels bound by authority, must needs confess that the Son is equal with God in each one thing whatsoever. Let him choose that which he will; from it he will be shown, that He is equal in all things which are said of His substance." ~ On the Trinity, 6.3.5. Emphasis added.

I think Grudem's view necessarily implies all sorts of damaging difficulties. Furthermore, it seems to me that Grudem applies temporal categories to the atemporal, eternal, and immutable God. Grudem has a very bad philosophical theology, and, as I said in the past, I think Augustine's and Thomas Aquinas' trinitarian philosophical theologies may help him to clarify his confusion. I am not going to substantiate my claim because I do not want to make this blog post too long (and I do not even have the time). 

I conclude by offering several lengthy quotes from Augustine's On the Trinity. I have sometimes italicised the most relevant section which I think are connected somewhat to what I have said above. However, it is important to read the emphasised parts in their context. 

In the next blog post, I will move on to Anselm and what he can tell us about the topic in question.

Stay tuned. Stay orthodox.

~ ~ ~

 - The importance of a clear understanding of the two nature of Christ (human and divine). The importance to distinguish when the Scripture is referring to the divine nature or to the human nature.

"Wherefore, having mastered this rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God, that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father, and what to the form of a servant which He took, in which He is less than the Father; we shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary and mutually repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For both the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to the Father, because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown: but according to the form of a servant He is less than the Father, because He Himself has said, 'My Father is greater than I;' and He is less than Himself, because it is said of Him, He emptied Himself; and He is less than the Holy Spirit, because He Himself says, 'Whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven Him.' And in the Spirit too He wrought miracles, saying: 'But if I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God has come upon you.' And in Isaiah He says—in the lesson which He Himself read in the synagogue, and showed without a scruple of doubt to be fulfilled concerning Himself—'The Spirit of the Lord God,' He says, 'is upon me: because He has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives,' etc.: for the doing of which things He therefore declares Himself to be 'sent,' because the Spirit of God is upon Him. According to the form of God, all things were made by Him; according to the form of a servant, He was Himself made of a woman, made under the law. According to the form of God, He and the Father are one; according to the form of a servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. According to the form of God, 'As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself;' according to the form of a servant, His 'soul is sorrowful even unto death;' and, 'O my Father,' He says, 'if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' According to the form of God, 'He is the True God, and eternal life;' according to the form of a servant, 'He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' According to the form of God, all things that the Father has are His, and 'All mine,' He says, 'are Yours, and Yours are mine;' according to the form of a servant, the doctrine is not His own, but His that sent Him." ~ 1.11.22-23.

- Therefore, the only authority that the Father has over the Son is over the man Son, not over the divine Son.

"Not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion as a man." The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in "fashion." For in the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father; but in the form of God, in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, "by whom all things are made;" but in the form of a servant He was 'made of a woman, made under the law,' to redeem them that were under the law.' In like manner, in the form of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man. For if the Father alone had made man without the Son, it would not have been written, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature." ~ 1.7.14.

- Two meditations on the equality of the persons of the Trinity.

"One man is not as much as three men together; and two men are something more than one man: and in equal statues, three together amount to more of gold than each singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two. But in God it is not so; for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone; but these three substances or persons, if they must be so called, together are equal to each singly: which the natural man does not comprehend. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since phantasms or as it were images of bodies flit about in his mind. And until he be purged from this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be worthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. And when he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separate from Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is the only God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take it without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or better than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever else each is singly called in relation to either of the others." ~ 7.6.11-12.

"The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begot the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in the highest sense, 'Yea, yea; nay, nay.' And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For 'the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.' Through power He cannot do this; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself, knows all things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the Son as though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all those things that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz. in Himself, as things which are born of those which the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as those of which they are born, which the Son Himself knows in Himself. The Father then, and the Son know mutually; but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And each of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their essence: not by parts or singly, as though by alternately looking from this side to that, and from that side to this, and again from this or that object to this or that object, so as not to be able to see some things without at the same time not seeing others; but, as I said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there is not one that He does not always see." ~ 15.14.23.

©

IVP Young Philosopher of Religion 2016 & Tons of Books!

Hello, everyone!

To God alone be the glory. My essay ("Is Any Version of the Doctrine of the Trinity Logically Consistent?") won the InterVarsity Press Young Philosopher of Religion Prize 2016 1st prize. In addition to being declared IVP Young Philosopher of Religion 2016, the prize included £ 250 to spend in a selection of IVP books. Here is the list of the books I have chosen.

God Has Spoken, by Gerald Bray.
Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy, by Bradley G. Green.
A Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, by Francis A Schaeffer.
Christian Apologetics, by Douglas Groothius.
The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas, by Paul Copan & Kenneth D. Litwak.
Why good arguments often fail: Making a More Persuasive Case for Christ, by James W. Sire.
Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?, by James W. Sire.
The Doctrine of God, by Gerald Bray.
The Holy Spirit, by Sinclair B. Ferguson.
Embracing the Trinity, by Fred Sanders.
God's lesser glory: A Critique of Open Theism, by Bruce A. Ware.
Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present, by John W. Cooper.
We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, by G. K. Beale.
Awe, by Paul David Tripp.
Crazy Busy, by Kevin DeYoung.

Image credit: BuzzFeed books.

I am fully committed to that renowned school of thought according to which owning books is (almost) as pleasant, beneficial, and important as reading them. In fact, I have piles of books that are still waiting to be read. In addition to this, I have piles of other books in my wishing list that are waiting to be waiting to be read. And so on, ad infinitum. This is to say that this nerdy commitment of mine makes this prize even more enjoyable.

It is an exciting achievement, and I am very happy to have written and studied for that article. Independent of winning, which was an added bonus, I very much enjoyed studying for and writing the essay. The article should be put online in the next future, I am not sure when. I hope and pray that the Lord may guide me to use this encouraging result and its prize (as well as all the other tools He has lent me) for the glory of His name and the good of His kingdom.

"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes ~ 12:12-14.

©

My MA THESIS will be a BOOK & Few thoughts on Identity

Luther and Augustine chilling out.
 [Artist: Ron Hill. Used with permission.]

From 2013 to 2015, I had the privilege to study for a "Master - Research and Thesis" in Philosophy the continuity between Augustine's and Martin Luther's soteriologies. Its title was Luther's Augustinian Philosophy of the Cross and the Origins of Modern Philosophy of Religion. Please, take few moments to read a brief summary of my thesis.

Martin Luther’s theology of the cross as presented in one of his most representative works, the Heidelberg Disputation, was intended by its author to be a faithful exposition and development of Augustine’s theology of absolute grace: "these theological paradoxes ... have been deduced well or poorly from St. Paul, the especially chosen vessel and instrument of Christ, and also from St. Augustine, his most trustworthy interpreter" (Luther, Preface to Heidelberg Disputation. Emphasis added). This claim of Luther is often dismissed by a significant part of the academic world as a misunderstanding of Augustine’s soteriology. Through the discussion of both Augustine’s and Luther’s teaching on the issues of free will, good works, righteousness and the cross, in the first part of this work I have demonstrated the Augustinian nature of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, and, consequently, of the theology of the cross that this document expounds. This close comparative reading of several of the most important works of Luther and Augustine will be instrumental for the second part of this thesis, which is dedicated to the discussion of a philosophical thesis that I have deduced from Luther’s Augustinian philosophy of the cross. 

On the basis of the demonstration of the authoritative Augustinian origin of Luther’s theology of the cross, in the second section I have expounded Luther’s philosophical thesis. According to this thesis, no theology or philosophy which gives pre-eminence to the ethical presuppositions of man’s reason has at its foundation a proper understanding of the cross and its implied theology of absolute grace, and therefore every such theology or philosophy is necessarily Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in its nature. In order to prove this philosophical claim, I have analysed the philosophies of religion of Immanuel Kant and G. W. Leibniz, focusing on their respective theological anthropologies. These two influential thinkers, according to their respective methodologies, ascribe a foundational role to reason with respect to religion and theology. In this regard, I have shown that Kant’s and Leibniz’s religions are Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian in nature respectively, thus proving Luther’s thesis concerning the antithetical nature of the philosophy of the cross.

Very recently, I have signed a contract with Resources Publications in order to publish my thesis as a book. I think this is the best way to offer my work to the public. Publishing my chapters as separate articles would have taken a lot of time and a lot of work, and I cannot afford either of the two. Moreover, this publisher is dedicated to keeping the book price as low as possible, differently from other more academically esteemed publishers who very often offer prohibitive prices for their new publications.  

If you are wondering how exactly I gained a MA - Research and Thesis in philosophy by studying Augustine's and Luther's theologies (soteriologies), well ... you will have to buy the book to find out, possibly in multiple copies! 😉 Anyway, I have written this work in a comprehensible style, and I humbly think that all those even slightly interested in theology and philosophy will find the book enjoyable and instructing, or at least this is my hope (even though I do not claim that one by reading it should get excited as the guy in the video). 

The book should be ready by next year. That is a pleasant "coincidence," considering that next year is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation! I am very glad to offer my little contribution in celebrating this great event.

I am excited about this project, and I consider it a good encouragement to keep studying and writing, possibly for some academic journal in the near future. However, I am not my achievements, nor I am my failures. The fact that I am a young philosopher and scholar does not ultimately say who I am. In and of myself, I am a wretched sinner. However, by grace alone through faith alone (Eph. 2:8), Christ tells me who I am: I am a child of God (John 1:12), reconciled to God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:1-5), a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), chosen to be holy and blameless before God (Eph. 1:4), his workmanship (Eph. 2:10), loved by God (1 Tess. 1:4), made complete through the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour (1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 12:9; Col. 2:10).  Who I am, my identity, is in Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20). In failure and success, in joy and sorrow, in prosperity and poverty, in health and in sickness, in life and in death, this is what I am. And this is who you are, believer in Christ, who are reading these words.

Finally, as usual, all the glory goes to the Triune God. I hope this project may bring glory to Him. As Hilary of Poitiers once said, “I am aware that I owe this to God as the chief duty of my life, that my every word and sense may speak of Him” (On the Trinity, 1.37).

I hope to continue my short series on the Trinity as soon as possible.

Stay tuned. Stay in Christ.
©

Subordinationism (1): Augustine facepalms at it. [1]

This short series of blog posts has been inspired by the current controversy on eternal subordinationism. This summary has a list of the several parties involved in the debate, and therefore it may be helpful to those who want to study the debate some more. My blog posts do not claim to make contributions to the debate, nor to answer to its central questions. The modest goal of these three blog posts is to briefly see and comment what Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas have to say on the issue. We begin with Augustine.

On the Trinity (De Trinitate). That is the place we want to go. Augustine was not a systematic writer as today we would define it. However, On the Trinity is helpful inasmuch us it is arguably the most systematic Augustinian treatment on God. Here is one of Augustine's arguments to support the equality of the three subsistancies of the Godhead. Gird your loins because this is not exactly Sunday school material.

Augustine facepalming.
 [From Existential Comics.
Used with permission.]

"There is so great an equality in that Trinity, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and Son together greater than the Holy Spirit; nor is each individual person, whichever it be of the three, less than the Trinity itself ... In this Trinity two or three persons are not anything greater than one of them; which carnal perception does not receive, for no other reason except because it perceives as it can the true things which are created, but cannot discern the truth itself by which they are created; for if it could, then the very corporeal light would in no way be more clear than this which we have said. For in respect to the substance of truth, since it alone truly is, nothing is greater, unless because it more truly is. But in respect to whatsoever is intelligible and unchangeable, no one thing is more truly than another, since all alike are unchangeably eternal; and that which therein is called great, is not great from any other source than from that by which it truly is. Wherefore, where magnitude itself is truth, whatsoever has more of magnitude must needs have more of truth; whatsoever therefore has not more of truth, has not also more of magnitude. Further, whatsoever has more of truth is certainly more true, just as that is greater which has more of magnitude; therefore in respect to the substance of truth that is more great which is more true. But the Father and the Son together are not more truly than the Father singly, or the Son singly. Both together, therefore, are not anything greater than each of them singly. And since also the Holy Spirit equally is truly, the Father and Son together are not anything greater than He, since neither are they more truly. The Father also and the Holy Spirit together, since they do not surpass the Son in truth (for they are not more truly), do not surpass Him either in magnitude. And so the Son and the Holy Spirit together are just as great as the Father alone, since they are as truly. So also the Trinity itself is as great as each several person therein. For where truth itself is magnitude, that is not more great which is not more true: since in regard to the essence of truth, to be true is the same as to be, and to be is the same as to be great; therefore to be great is the same as to be true. And in regard to it, therefore, what is equally true must needs also be equally great." ~ On the Trinity, 8.1.1-2.

We may call this an "argument from truth." For Augustine, the "level of truth" of a created being establishes its magnitude, that is, the greater the truth the greater the magnitude and the smaller the truth the smaller the magnitude. Now, "in respect to whatsoever is intelligible and unchangeable, no one thing is more truly than another, since all alike are unchangeably eternal," and here he is clearly referring to God. In created things truth determines their magnitude, still their truth is not their magnitude. However, in God "truth itself is magnitude ... in regard to the essence of truth [i.e., God], to be true is the same as to be, and to be is the same as to be great; therefore to be great is the same as to be true." Therefore, considering that no person of the Trinity is more true than another or than two persons together, then they all have the same magnitude and they are all "equally great." 

Now, there is more to say. I originally planned to write only one blog post where I discuss Augustine's view on the equality of the persons of the Trinity. Nonetheless, I got a bit carried away reading (again) some sections of his On the Trinity. There are other passages I would like to quote and possibly comment, so wait for them.

Stay tuned. Stay Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis. ✍

©

The A-Team!

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, a theological commando unit was condemned by an academic court for logical fallacies they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security academic conference to the underground. Today, still wanted by the personal theists, they survive as theologians of fortune. If you have a philosophical theology problem, if no one else can help you with theology proper, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the A-Team.

The A-Team: Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

Seriously speaking (but not too much, and yes, I can do that, too, if I want), these three men are pretty much still very alive through their works. I have always loved Augustine and Anselm, two thinkers who have helped me in diverse ways. Recently, I came to appreciate more also the third man, Aquinas.

Many Protestants have a strict and negative judgement of Aquinas (especially with that threatening golden chain...... Did you get it? Golden chain! Aquinas wrote a commentary called Golden Chain, and in the picture I put a golden chain on Aquinas...  Funny, right?...... Right? ... 😐 ) ... Anyway! Certainly, I totally disagree with him at points (transubstantiation, justification, probably epistemology, just to name a few) and one needs to read him with discernment (thing that is also true not only for Augustine and Anselm, but for all non-inspired writers in general). Nevertheless, I think that reading Aquinas' theology proper judiciously (that is, his treatments of God's unity and trinity) may help Protestants with theology proper and philosophical theology. Richard A. Muller quotes Aquinas several times in connection with the Reformed Scholastics in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1 and elsewhere, while James E. Dolezal recovers Aquinas' defence and exposition of divine simplicity and God's triunity.  Of course, looking for someone more comprehensively and systematically orthodox, I would go for other theologians, such as Stephen Charnock (1628-1680) or Francis Turretin (1623-1687), Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) or Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965). But the main point I would like to make here is that the A-Team members are honorary ambassadors of that approach to theology that is usually called "classical theism" and that I embrace.

Therefore, the A-Team will be at the centre on my first short series of blog posts. In the light of the current controversy on trinitarian subordinationism caused by theologians such as Wayne Grudem and Bruce A. Ware, I will quote the A-Team on the equality of the three persons of the Godhead (and I will comment them when  the passage becomes tricky). I have to say that I have not read Grudem's and Ware's arguments but from secondary sources. However and with all due respects to the two scholars, it seems clear to me that their views are seriously defective, not only because of exegetical fallacies but also for mistakes pertaining to theology proper and philosophical theology. In this regard, instead of proposing novelties (that, at the end, are not new at all), I think that listening to the voices of the past is much more profitable and safe.

The series will have three blog posts, one for each theologians. I do not plan to make it particularly articulate and to develop it in depth. But do not worry, this blog is just at the beginning and I am just warming up.

Stay tuned. Stay classic.

©

Inaugural Post

Hello, everybody. 

Well, I suppose I can call myself a philosopher, now. BA in philosophy, MA in philosophy, PhD candidate in philosophy. I am not trying to boast (1 Cor. 4:7). My point is that I think this is my calling. Therefore, I have met one of the main requirements for being a philosopher: opening a blog... logically. Furthermore, I noticed there are not many blogs dedicated to my academic fields, so I decided to open my own in order to fill this desperate need... 😛

Jokes apart, through this blog I plan to offer quotes and reflections on christian philosophy, philosophical theology, theology and related subjects. Theologically, this will be done from a Reformed confessional point of view (Three Forms of Unity); philosophically, from a classical theistic perspective (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas [the A-TEAM!], the Reformed scholastics, etc.). Apologetically, well, for now I can only say that I like Gordon H. Clark. Of course, as a christian philosopher, my ultimate authority will be the Scripture, the Word of God. However, I will frequently interact with creeds and confessions, the Church Fathers, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, M. Luther, J. Calvin, J. Edwards, and many others. 

I would like to start by quoting Augustine: "It is a matter of no moment in the city of God whether he who adopts the faith that brings men to God adopts it in one dress and manner of life or another, so long only as he lives in conformity with the commandments of God. And hence, when philosophers themselves become Christians, they are compelled, indeed, to abandon their erroneous doctrines, but not their dress and mode of living, which are no obstacle to religion" (City of God, 19.19. I am indebted to Prof. Paul Helm for bringing to my attention this Augustinian passage in his blog). I think this description fits me quite well. 

Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

The greatest Church Father continues: "It is, of course, important also that he loves the truth and performs the duties of charity. For no one has to live a life of leisure in such a way that he takes no thought in the leisure for the welfare of his neighbour; nor ought he to be so active as to feel no need for the contemplation of God. The delight offered by a life of leisure must not consist in idle inactivity, but in the opportunity to seek and find the truth, so that everyone may make progress in this regard, and not jealously withhold his discoveries from others" (Ivi., Trans., R. W. Dyson). I hope that this blog may follow Augustine's directions in this regard.

So, to conclude. Thank you for reading my blog, and I hope it may profit you. 

Soli Deo gloria.

©