Greatest Hits: Episode 58: Philosophical Theology: An Introduction with James Dolezal

Well greetings to all and welcome to Theology in particular, a podcast of international reform Baptist seminary. My name is Joe Anity, along with Dr. Daniel Scheider, I serve as one of the hosts of Theology in particular, and I'm here to remind you of an announcement that was made in the introduction to the episode that aired last Monday. We will be taking the month of July off to devote more time to planning. We did the same thing back in January of 2026 and we believe that these little breaks which mirror the breaks in the academic calendar will help us in the long run. So instead of a new episode dropping every Monday in July, we will reach into the archives and replace some of the most listened to episodes from the past. Now, before I introduce this week's replay, I wanted to thank Dr. Scheider and Sparks for relieving me last month. My wife has been experiencing some significant health challenges associated with kidney failure. This kidney failure doesn't come as a total surprise to us. She was diagnosed with a chronic kidney disease when she was only 18 and was told that her kidneys would likely fail by the age of 30. We're 45 now and it seems as if that day has come. So in late April, she spent about seven days in the hospital. She is now on dialysis and is feeling much better than she did in April. Praise the Lord. We are praying for healing and wisdom, concerning future treatment options. Stepping away from theology in particular in the month of June was a great help to me and to us as I needed to focus on my wife and make some significant adjustments to our living situation to reduce her responsibilities at home moving forward. So thanks again to Daniel and Drew, I really did appreciate the break, my wife appreciated it as well. This week I decided to replay episode 58 of theology in particular, which originally aired in September of 2022. The title is Philosophical Theology and Introduction with James Dolezal. I've selected this episode for two reasons. One, it is one of our most listened to episodes. I assume as due to its usefulness. And two, as many of you likely know, Dr. Dolezal and his family are in need of prayer right now. About two weeks ago, our brother was struck by a car while walking near his home. And as I record this, it is my understanding that Dr. Dolezal is still in the hospital sedated and intubated. Please pray for his recovery and for his wife and children during this difficult time. If you wish to receive updates on James's condition, you may go to CarryingBridge.org and search for James and Courtney Dolezal, his wife posts regular updates there. I hope you are encouraged by James as you listen to this interview from the archives. May it also move you to pray for our brother and his family during this time of need. James, it's a pleasure to speak with you today. Joe, glad to be here with you. I think this is your first time on theology in particular. Am I right? It is. Years ago, I had been on with Matt Stahl in a earlier iteration of IRBS's podcast, but it's my first time in this new slick format. Oh, okay. I should have checked. Do you know if you told the listeners about yourself in that first episode? Do you remember? I imagine I did, but I'm sure everybody's eager to hear again. I'm eager to hear. We haven't spent time together, just a little bit of chitchat before this podcast recording began. I'd like to know more about you, James, would you mind sharing with us a bit about your background? Yeah. Well, most recently, I spent nine years as a professor in various ranks at Carrying University in Pennsylvania, just north of Philadelphia, teaching theology and philosophy and some church history there. And prior to that was at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, I am married. We have three children, my wife and I, and we are currently living in California. We've been here for about a year teaching, so I'm still teaching for Carrying University and then also teaching for a theological institute in Bakersfield. In addition to that, for the last few years, I've had the privilege of serving as a visiting professor of theology at IRBS, teaching doctrine of God, and then also a course called Foundations of Philosophical Theology. Wonderful. Yeah, and it's that course, Foundations of Philosophical Theology that I wanted to talk with you about today, that course title catches my attention. Foundations of Philosophical Theology, I think it requires an explanation. In fact, that course title might make some people pretty nervous. And I thought maybe the best way to get at that explanation would be to ask you, first of all, what is philosophy, secondly, what is theology, and then if we could put it all together, what is philosophical theology? So would you begin there, James, and just give us an explanation of what philosophy is? Yeah. And I'll say just that at the outset, this is, I think this course is unique in the curriculum of IRBS. And I talked with Dr. Renahan for some time before we launched this course, and the concern was that there was an intellectual history, a conversancy with philosophical ideas that really marks the Christian tradition from the second century right down through someone like Herman Bobbink or even Louis Barkhoff, it is still conversant with that. And it is definitely there in the 17th century English tradition, whether you're talking about Presbyterian congregational Sanglicans or particular or general baptists. There was just a language and a conceptuality, and so our concern was a course that kind of gave us an introduction to that, particularly in the age that's skeptical of philosophy. So your first question was what is philosophy, yes. I mean, etymologically, love of wisdom, the ancients who gave it this name said that it was actually supposed to be a statement of humility rather than just calling it wisdom, sapiensia, and Latin, why not just call it wisdom, rather than dare, rather than dare claim to obtain wisdom. Let us just describe this as the mind's inclination toward wisdom, therefore love of wisdom. So philosophy derives its name that way, which doesn't really tell you exactly what it does. So can I give you a little bit more about that? Yeah, please do. Yeah, I'll answer. Yeah. And I'm quoting here from Paul Glenn in his introduction to philosophy, and I think it's called an introduction to philosophy, and he says that philosophy is the science of all things naturally knowable to man in as much as they are, these are studying in their deepest causes and reasons. So there are a few elements in that. The first that philosophy is a science, that is to say, scantia, knowing it is a discreet, it is a discreet area of knowledge that is unique in as much as it has its own formal object. So it can share its material object with other sciences, but it has a formal perspective or point of view from which it asks questions and through which it sees answers. So it's a science in its own right. It's a science of all things naturally knowable, which is to say the sources for our contemplation that furnish us with things to contemplate philosophically are things that are accessible to natural reason in the order, we would say in the order of creation or the ancients were sentenced in the order of nature. And then in particular, but nevertheless, you think, well, if physicist studies, the physicist is a science of things naturally knowable, matter in motion or chemistry, the same thing, or even psychology for that matter. For history, if you want to call it a science, a discreet field of knowing with a certain formal viewpoint. So what is the formal viewpoint in so far as these are studying their deepest causes and reasons? The deepest naturally knowable causes and reasons. And so it's really studying being in general, particularly asking, and this is not going to sound very profound, I think, but it is really particularly asking why. When you ask why, what you're really asking is what makes this so? Or what is the reason for this? Or put it differently? What makes this to be? So that every, every why question is a question about a cause or a little bit more obliquely, a question about a sufficient reason or at least a partially sufficient reason. So when I say why I'm asking, what's the reason for or what's the cause of? And the lower sciences, the sciences that have a more narrow focus than philosophy are asking only particular why questions in a narrower context. Whereas the deepest, the deepest causes and reasons are really trying to get at the causal principles or the reasons that are universally, that are general, that are general. So, questions like, what is being, how is being diversified? That's not unique to physics or psychology or history or chemistry. That being, being actually covers everything, but being as a, the question of why being as a formal object is unique to philosophy and, and there are then there are sub departments I suppose, of philosophy and natural law ethics, things like that, so really we're looking for principles from the standpoint of deepest causes and reasons. So, I think that's, maybe what I want to say about it and I want to, but we have to position it, you know what I mean, in the, in the age of the internet, whether it's just a conversation of knowledge, where, yeah, where everything just stands shoulder, every, every area of human knowing, stand shoulder to shoulder with every other area of human knowing, and there isn't a hierarchy of the sciences, I think we're going to misunderstand philosophy's position. We want to call philosophy a science that is ranked hierarchically above the more compartmental sciences, not because it knows more about everything, that's certainly not what we're saying, but because it, it's formal point of view is actually wider in scope and deeper in penetration in terms of causes, but this doesn't mean that the philosopher knows everything that the physicist knows, or everything that the chemist knows, I mean, he, he may be a good philosopher and not know much about cobalan bonds, for instance, that he may, maybe a good philosopher and not know much about how to pursue the science of history and the ways in which you do history, so it's not saying, by saying it's ranked above, it's ranked above, and as much as it penetrates to deeper principles of being and covers a wider scope of reality, and it also, it also informs, in some respect, all the sciences below it, not by doing their work for them, they still have their own work to do, but by in a certain sense, giving those universal principles, blending, lending principles to sciences that are below themselves, but we should also emphasize that, and I do this in our course of IRBS, that philosophy is not the highest science, in fact, I would say among, among naturally knowable sciences, it's the highest, but that doesn't mean it's the highest among all human sciences, because the science of theology, which is based on special revelation, actually penetrates more deeply and sees things that natural reason un-aided could never see, things like the trinity, things like the incarnation of the Sun, the hyposatic union, special revealed facts about his resurrection from the dead and his second coming, these are things that, these are things for which we are beholden to use scripture and special revelation, and also, that scripture shows us how to be reconciled to God and natural law ethics, which is a subset of philosophy, doesn't do that, and so there are good ends, there are good things that theology does for us that philosophy doesn't, so I want to say philosophy ranks below theology, but above other sciences, mathematics, and even lower physics, and other lower sciences, I know, scientists don't like to be told that their science is a lower science, it feels insulting, because we're all, you know, we want all the sciences to be, you know, co-equals, but they're both in the order of knowing the scope and the depth of penetration, they're not co-equals, even if they are really distinct and having to teach as an integrity of its own, it has that integrity within a hierarchy. We've already begun to speak of theology, and you've placed it higher than philosophy. Do you want to give a proper definition to what theology is for us, James? Yeah, okay. Yeah, I'll do the same, and I'll be a little text bookie about it, and obviously words or reasons about God, in that kind of, in the etymological sense, it's the foremost human science, it's often called the Queen of the Sciences, mathematics claims that now, in an era that is obsessed, I mean, all the early modern philosophers were mathematics, mathematicians, right? I mean, from Descartes, from all the great philosophers were mathematicians, but in the modern era. So of course they say mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences, but philosophy, or I'm sorry, theology really alone has title to that rank, and it's the foremost human science that studies God, and all things in relation to Him, and that's really what theology studies God, and then anything else insofar as it relates to Him, that is to say, as from Him through Him or to Him, the formal object, though, we need to be careful here, because sometimes it's easy to think that the formal object of theology is just God, but the formal object of the human science of theology is actually God, and then all creatures in relation to Him insofar as He has been specially revealed. So as God, as He has made known to us in the prophetic word, that is the formal object of the science of theology, the sources for that exceed the sources of philosophy, which is not just say reasons encounter with nature, this is actually the mind, illumined by a source of knowledge with respect to things that are not available to us in nature. So then the question is, where do we get our principles for this science? We get our principles for the science of philosophy from nature itself, things like law of identity, whatever is is, and so I think, and then law of contradiction, I think cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respect. We don't require scripture to arrive at these things, but we do require scripture to arrive at even more blessed truths like who God is in His three persons of systems or how to commune with Him. The principles of the science of theology are derived from a still higher science, and this is how a clientist puts it at the very beginning of his summa de laugier, the science of God and the blessed, and by the blessed here I think He probably means holy angels and the souls of saints made perfect who are now enjoying the presence of God. They have a science in the sense of scantia, knowledge, and that knowledge which is original with God is shared in an immediate way, that is to say, not through a worrisome process of argument and reasoning, like Michael and Gabriel aren't having theological discussions moving from premises and trying to syllogistically arrive at conclusions, and so while they may know theological conclusions, they don't know them through the route of the theological science of theology as we know it. I think maybe it's burrow up or bobbing calls it the weary sum process of reasoning and argumentation, but nevertheless they still have that knowledge of that scantia, so the knowledge of God and the blessed is in fact the principle or the source that of course the blessed only have it from God by gift. And so for instance, the law was given by angels on Mount Sinai. Well, then it turns out that if the law, especially revealed, even through the administration of angels, is the principle for our science of theology, then the blessed ones also participate as God's creatures as conveyors of that science of that knowledge. But the principles of our knowledge actually exceed what is naturally available to reason through that special revelation. There are different opinions, and I think we could avoid this of whether God himself has a theology or whether he has merely, and even in the early reform and in like Francisco's Unius, he'll say that there's an archetypal theology, that's God's own theology, and then there's an actible theology. Others would maybe not go that route, they would say that God has archetypal knowledge or an archetypal science, but that science is not actually theology in the sense of, in the sense it's not a human science, not in the way that we know it. And if we did a scribe of theology to God, it would be almost metaphorical in a certain respect. But your other question. Put them together. That's what needs to be done, right? What is philosophical theology? What are we talking about here? All right, so let me put a little wrinkle in here if people aren't confused enough and just simply observe that the worth theology is a little squirrely sometimes in that it's used to describe what I just described, and what Aquinas describes theology as very early in his Sumitai la Via, and what the reform took theology to be, the knowledge of God and all things in relation to him on the basis of special revelation as its principle. But the, but the, there's another way historically in which the, in which the term theology has been used and it's used with a qualifier. So when we, we took out theology with a qualifier, and I'm thinking of one qualifier in particular here in this qualifier, natural. If we talk about natural theology, natural theology is actually what the science of philosophy can say when it, about God, minimally, when it gets to the end of its reasoning process, when it gets to the end of asking me. why. And it reaches the ultimate why question, which is philosophy, if it, if it's true to itself, philosophy will keep asking why, like a little child, why, why, why? And as it keeps asking why, it comes to the ultimate why question, ever book in my library, title that, the ultimate why question. And the ultimate why question from the philosophical standpoint is you're asking about what I, what I can see, what I can see via reason and senses and all that. I'm asking cause, I'm asking for a causal explanation of things. And the answer in the question is why something rather than nothing at all, why something rather than nothing at all. And at this point, you're looking for a complete and sufficient causal reason for the world. Philosophy asks that question. If it's, if it doesn't, you know, commit suicide before it gets to that question. And by the way, that's a very real prospect because a lot of philosophers ask a lot of questions about why, but once you get nearer to the ultimate why question, it becomes very uncomfortable, because once you start probing that question, you're going to arrive at the one for whom you are beholden for all things. And then there are moral obligations to come with that. There are lots of reasons why philosophers kind of quit doing philosophy before they get to the ultimate why question. And some of those are dread of what they will find and what obligations will be laid on them. So, what can philosophy do in its final stage? It can ask why something rather than nothing at all. And it can contemplate reasonably what must the sufficient cause of all things be in order to be the sufficient cause of all things? And I think this is arguably what the Apostle Paul is talking about in Romans 1, 20, when he says that men knew God. Now, this doesn't mean that they're all doing it through a process of torturous metaphysics. I mean, there are various degrees of how much reasoning processes engage here. But that man can, without special revelation, know the invisible attributes, the eternal power and the divine nature of God, and also infer from that that he is obligated to give thanks to this God, because that's actually what they don't do in verse 21 of Romans 1. I would argue that this is actually something that philosophy can do in its final stage, which historically has been called natural theology. Natural theology is true, but it's incomplete. It is, it knows God only as a causal first principle of the world. It knows that he ought to be worshiped and it knows that he ought to be thanked for all things. It doesn't know how to be reconciled to him, given our alienation from him on account of sin. It doesn't get you, it doesn't get you almost saved. It gets you massively obligated morally. If that makes sense. If we're going to say what is philosophical theology, we should observe that there's another use of the term theology, natural theology, which is not, which is borrowing that language of theology, but it's really what natural man can say about God based upon right reason, contemplating the first cause of the world. So what is philosophical theology? I would actually want to say the philosophical theology is that. It's natural theology, and insofar as it is true and and right based upon a right contemplation of nature. It has a remarkable service to offer theology, but it's not usurpatious. It's not trying to push theology off its throne. It's not trying to reduce those things that special revelation alone gives us Trinity, hypostatic union, union with Christ, the pouring forth of the Spirit, the second coming, the eternal state of the blessed and of the damned. Those things that are revealed to especially philosophy is not judging the truth value of those things. It's offering its resources in service to the articulation of things that, of itself, it could not discover. So that makes sense. It's very helpful. Yeah, philosophical theology is natural theology, you're saying, and you're placing it under theology. And in service to it, because here's the thing, if the principles of philosophical theology, if the first principles of philosophical theology were derived from scripture, then it would just be theology. And if the first principles, if the first principles epistemologically of philosophy were derived from scripture, it would just be theology. And then it wouldn't be a handmaiden. It wouldn't be subordinated to theology. It wouldn't be the mistress. And so we're going to have to distinguish these sciences in a hierarchical way to ensure that when we talk philosophically about God, we understand that that is, while not untrue, that is a lower science crest into the service of a higher one. But here's the thing about them. They get along. I mean, they get along because they don't believe nature. And the author of scripture and the one who gave man reason and illumined his intellect even through the things that are made is one. He is God. He is truth. So in principle, we should reject the idea that good philosophy and truth theology are ever going to conflict, while also acknowledging the true theology will, as that higher science exceed the vision of natural theology or philosophical theology. Yeah. What would you say to the person who thinks that philosophy is to be regarded as equal or superior to theology? I don't know if you can just imagine an opponent like that, who has that position. What would you say? Yeah. They're out there. I mean, even a manual Kant wrote a book called, something like religion within the bounds of reason alone. Yeah. So when that there it is. You get that spirit in England, in the English D.S. tradition as well, that basically where basically these things are on point. Now, those ones wanted to say actually natural theology is all you can possibly hope to do. And then there's even the question of whether they're doing natural theology well. You can be bad at exegetical theology, like bad interpretations of the Bible. I'm thinking of Evangelical Open Theus for instance, which you could also be bad as a philosopher. In fact, I tell my students sometimes, I really hate every philosophy except for the true one, which is to say every philosophy is really terrible except for the true one, which by the way is probably why listeners who have had any experience with philosophy might have had a bad experience, chances that you have a bad experience with a philosophical, philosophical idea are pretty probable. Same thing true in theology, I like to say, I really dislike all theology except for the theology that's true. So what I should say, what we should say to the person who says, well, they're equal, they're equal. I would want to emphasize that the immediate source of the principles for the science of theology, the science of God and the blessed, excels out of the principles of philosophy, which is the natural light of human reason as it contemplates the world of nature. Of course, that natural light of human reason was kindled by God and is sustained by God. All things are from them through them, but nevertheless, the principle, the immediate principles of our knowledge through special revelation excel those of the principles of the derived from reason. So that would be the first thing I'd want to emphasize is astrology philosophy. It's just not going to take you to the deepest questions that we have. No, it's not. The deepest question is how do I know and actually unite to this God, and natural theology is never going to tell you how to be reconciled and joined to Him. That would be the, I mean, principles or sources would be the first way I would distinguish those sciences. And then, okay, on the flip side, what would you say to the person who thinks that theology or the study of scripture is all that we need and that all philosophy is to be avoided by the believer. And I've encountered folks who have this perspective, and they will often cite that Colossians 2.8 passage, which warns us about being taken captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, etc. I mean, what would you say to that person who has that view? And maybe in the circles with which we're familiar, we encounter that far more than, you know, religion within the bounds of reason alone type arguments for parody arguments for the two sciences of theology and philosophy. And I guess what I want to say initially is I would want to emphasize and readily concede that saving knowledge does not require philosophical knowledge. There are certain first principles that you cannot know that are necessary just to have language be intelligible to you. Just to have statements about being intelligible to you. But those aren't quite philosophy. Those are those are philosophical conclusions that are necessary. Those are just like a law of non-contradiction for instance. I mean, that's a necessary constant for statements about being to hold together or make sense. But what I want to say is before you do the science of philosophy, even if you never engage the science of philosophy, scripture gives a scripture alone is sufficient to give us a saving knowledge of God, which is our highest price. But I would also want to in say in one respect, and hopefully we've qualified this enough, I would also want to say that and one does not need the human science of theology to know God solidifically. In other words, we don't need the science that is extrapolated from the principles into a kind of system, scripture, God, creation, angels, man, sin, Christ, salvation, church, last things. One may not ever have read a theology book if one reads his Bible and believes it before getting into the science of theology, the kind of reasoning process. That also, in other words, if you say it's not necessary or the theology is sufficient, I wanna say even more sufficient still is just the Bible and believing what it says. Theology then, but to advocate too, but then to execute theology is to say that you don't want to grow in the understanding of that faith theology is an attempt to understand that deposit given to us. So I'd wanna grant that at the outset. One needs to know the witness of Holy Scripture and believe it for salvation. As for Paul's warning to be aware of philosophy, I take, and I make this argument in my class of RBS that when he says philosophy and empty deception or vain deception, I think he's actually speaking metonymically there so that when he says empty deception, that's actually characterizing the philosophy he's talking about. So that what he's warning against is not philosophy as a science, but he's warning against empty and false philosophies of which there are many. And I teach, I taught intro to Western philosophy for several years of the university. I've taught this for a couple of times at RBS in intro to philosophical theology. And I would wanna say the same thing, be aware of every false philosophy of which there are many. I think of sending my kid to college. And I think what professor is gonna mess him up the most. It could be the history, the lit or the philosophy professor, but historically philosophy professors do a lot of mischief because there's a lot of bad philosophy. And the apostle Paul is aware of bad philosophy. In his case though, it's not philosophy in a sense of Plato and Aristotle, though that was already in existence. I mean, that stuff had been around for quite a while by the time Paul writes. He's actually referring to, it seems like what he's calling philosophy are Jewish myths that deal with aesthetic practices, certain legalistic approaches to festivals and diets and also perhaps the worship of angels or demons are in that mix as well. Also the vain philosophy is actually a vain philosophy that results in a false religion. And that's what he's warning them against. There's a long commentary tradition on this particular text in our reformed tradition that comments on it. I wonder if I could just read a little bit from John Davenon's commentary in Colossians 2A. This is from the Banner Truth Geneva series. I want to read a little bit, you get a taste of how he'd take it. Whether we speak concerning moral or natural philosophy, whether concerning any other branch of philosophy or the whole of a certain body, it is certain that that cannot be condemned. Less God himself be called into judgment for philosophy is the offspring of right reason. And this light of reason is infused into the human mind by God himself, reason is of God. By the way, Joe, I just want to pitch in really quick, I mean, this is a angle again, a Protestant. But that's exactly what Thomas Aquinas says about reason in his commentary on the weeds his day trying to talk to. The reason doesn't exist independent of God making it be, sustaining it, and even ordering it to know things naturally. So if we despise what can be known through natural reason unated by special revelation, then his point is that we're despising the providence and the handy work of God who gave us that reason, sustains it and orders it to actually know things. Aquinas makes that argument. I think that Davinah is gesturing toward that argument. So he goes on a little bit and put, "We therefore judge not the discipline of the stoic "so the plateenists know the Aristotelians "to be true philosophy, but whatever among all these "or others shall have been discovered, spoken, "or written by the light of right reason." So in other words, he's saying, "I'm not gonna sign up for a philosophical system, "but I'm signing up for true philosophy." And he's saying, "I find bits of it in stoicism, "platinism and Aristotelianism, which is fascinating "because you'll find, in the reform tradition," and that's the reform tradition, but in the reform tradition broadly, there's a very favorable commentary tradition on Aristotle's Nikomaki and Ethics. You'll find like a Southern Presbyterian, like James Henry Thornwell, frequently alluding to ideas of Aristotle favorably as if they were true. Even in this respect, Calvin himself makes a statement that I think, and I know we're long in our recording, I don't wanna derail us, but I think this statement from Calvin is just should be out there in the conversation 'cause it's the same idea, Calvin talking about philosophers. Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them, teach us that the mind of man, the fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God's excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall never reject the truth itself, nor despise it, wherever it shall appear, unless we dishonor the Spirit of God. What then? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observations and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were the void of understanding the conceivably art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? What shall we, are these the ravings of madmen and he goes on like this? And that's Calvin saying that if we despise the true wisdom of natural philosophy given to pagans, we're despising the Spirit who kindled that knowledge in him, given that the Spirit of truth is actually the Spirit of truth in both scripture and nature. - Yeah, that's beautiful. I think that would be, I would want to kind of emphasize that the concern here is that philosophy not be allowed to falsify scripture. That's what we need to emphasize. Not the true philosophy doesn't have a hand-made role to play in helping us to articulate and conceptualize things that are said in scripture, but it doesn't have a veto power or falsification role. It does have veto power over other false philosophies. The true philosophy can falsify a false philosophy. It can show false a false philosophy. - Well, it can't show false scripture. - Sorry to interrupt, it didn't mean to. - I wonder if you could speak to that. The benefits of philosophy to the Christian and general to ministers in particular, like how does philosophy help us? Why study it? Why engage in philosophical theology? - I think most generally true philosophy teaches us how to ask causal questions. And since Christians worship the one who is the absolute first and complete cause of all that comes to be, it is beneficial to us to know how to inquire reasonably about causality. In other words, causality is not all of a single sort. Aristotle observes a fourfold causality, more or less, I mean, with some inflections, but there's final causality, this material causality, there's efficient causality. And so formal, final, materially efficient, these are all different ways of causing. And so if we understand that not all causing is of the same sort, then it's going to help us avoid attributing causality to God mistakenly that we ought not attribute to him. For, and I'll give you an example, material causality. God is the first and complete efficient cause of all things, including all matter, whether you're talking about subsisting, what are you talking about? Concrete, signate matter or prime matter, if you care to get that deep, God's the cause of all of it. In which case, then the world doesn't have a material cause. So when I say God's the cause of all things, I don't mean that he's the material cause of all things because God is a material and he doesn't tinker with already existing material. Therefore, God causes material, but he's not a material cause. But if you don't understand material causality, then it's a little harder to make that qualification, which is a true qualification that agrees with scripture. Does that make sense? So sometimes knowing philosophy actually guards us from unwittingly saying things about God that wouldn't actually be right, or at least it gives us a way to make art. Maybe people don't know about material causality, but they know that God isn't a material cause, even if they don't have that language. But sometimes it's nice to have a conceptual language to help articulate what the Bible already requires us to believe. Philosophy can furnish many of those concepts to us. - You could help us think very clearly about the God of scripture. - And it's something scripture when it does that. - Yeah, it's not falsifying scripture, but it's lending. Think of it as a handmaiden, Joe. I mean, a handmaiden or a handmaiden goes around the house and keeps things dusted and the furniture straight. And it helps with the presentation of the house, but that doesn't mean that the handmaiden is the mistress. - Right. - So I think that's it. - I guess the other thing I would wanna add just to that is that it has an apologetic value as well. And at RBS, we actually put this, I think in the catalog with our apologetic sources. And first, I would wanna say that it can prove the existence of God to reason by way of a cosmological argument. And then which Tarotan and others will say is a great benefit to the pagans that we engage. And then secondly, I'd wanna say that while philosophy cannot demonstrate the mysteries of the faith, like the trend you're the incarnation, it can be used by the Christian theologian to expose philosophical objections to the faith they're unreasonable. And so when bad philosophy comes and offers arguments against the faith, good philosophy, while it cannot prove the faith, it can show bad philosophy to be an unnecessary conclusion or an unreasonable conclusion. So that while it cannot prove the faith, it can expose unreasonableness as a kind of servant. You know, when you've got your chessboard laid out and you've got those pawns, some of those pawns are necessary to kind of knock down that initial onslaught of the opponent. True philosophy can actually serve theology by falsifying bad philosophical arguments against theology. And that's not philosophy proving articles of the faith, but rather defending them from false philosophical arguments. - Well, there's a pretty big and really foundational question here, I think, and that is the relationship between faith and reason. I wonder if you would speak to that issue a little bit, James, the relationship between faith and reason and how that relates to our conversation here about theology and philosophy. - First, I think we should say that faith and reason cannot be opposed to each other, since the author of scripture and the author of nature and the one who created and sustains reason is one and he is true to self. So just in principle, as we should say, faith and reason do not oppose each other. Nevertheless, we should say that faith exceeds reason, particularly in as much as it is derived from a higher principle, namely special revelation. But while it exceeds reason, it cannot be unreasonable or opposed to reason. So we can talk about truths that are beyond reason's ability to discover. But once faith makes that discovery, once faith makes that discovery through scripture, reason can then offer its services to help order and articulate what faith or scripture furnishes to our knowledge. So even there, we can distinguish the role of reason in the moment of discovery, which would be natural philosophy and even natural theology. And then the role of reason in relation to faith, not in the moment of discovery, but in the service that it offers to ordering our thoughts about what faith is disclosed. So that would be like one way of putting it. And I also just wanna say, we should also emphasize that both faith and reason are gifts from God of which he is the ultimate source. He creates these gifts and gives them to us. He implants reason in the mind of every man. And even as Calvin says, and even that is not itself eviscerated. It is convoluted, but it is not lost. And so true philosophical insights still remain, even for the pagans and the after the fall. And so what we should emphasize is that both of these are ways of knowing that our gifts of God to man for which man can never say I knew that independently of God may be a soul. That's, and historically I should emphasize, I know there's a lot of modern concern about the autonomy of human reason. And that natural philosophy is guilty of a kind of autonomous use of reason. Or at least an alleged autonomy of reason, because even someone like Bantill would say, there's never any real autonomy of reason. In my own research, I have found that to also be the position of Thomas Aquinas, for instance, that human reason does not exist independently of God, but in fact God is the one who made it to be, sustains it, and he didn't just make it be in sustaining. He's actually the one who orders it toward every act of knowing that it's successfully a cheese. So that God made the world intelligible. He planted intellect and reason in man. He brings man's mind into contact with things through the senses. He gives man the ability to arrive at universals through the contact after having received particulars. And that none of this is actually taking place independently of the providence of God in whom we live, move, and have our being. What we should say, though, by qualification, is that special revelation, we're not saying that special revelation is itself the principle for all epistemology. So I guess I just want to emphasize that reason does not require special revelation as an epistemological principle. What it requires as an epistemological principle is the intelligibility of nature. What it requires as a causal principle is God who made it gave it to us, sustains it, and orders it successfully to all of its knowing. So at no moment does our reason act independently of God, even if reason can act independently of special revelation, such as what might be indicated in Romans 120 for instance. So what you're saying is that those who do not have access to scripture or to special revelation can still know things that are true about the world. They can still be reasonable, and insofar as they're reasonable, I'll cite with Calvin and say, if we reject their wisdom, if it is true that in fact that's an offense against the spirit of God who gave them that reason and sustains it. We're running short on time, James. This has been really wonderful, really insightful stuff you're bringing to us. There are a few questions that I wanted to get to, though. Who from among the non-believing philosophers became closest to the truth in your opinion? I thought that would be a fun question to ask. - Yeah, that's a fun question. - That's a hard question. Certainly some of them came much closer to the truth than others. Let me just say emphatically on the front and just going to the ancients. Both Plato and Aristotle came much closer to, when I say the truth obviously that's relative to, well which truth and about what particularly? But even general, I'll make a general statement and say, both Plato and Aristotle come much closer to the truth than Democritus did before them. Democritus is the materialist philosopher who famously said, or was said to have said, there is nothing but atoms and the void. In other words, bits of matter in the space between them, that's pretty much all there is in the universe. That secular philosophy today, by the way, secular philosophy today is basically materialism. It's atomism, but this time with microscopes. And so I would want to emphasize, I think that Democritus is so much farther from the truth than both Plato and Aristotle who both appeal to immaterial realities as underlying and even causally accounting for the visible material world. Even though they're still pagan, that is just so much closer to reality than Democritus' materialism. So I think we have to be careful. We talk about pagan philosophers. Pagan philosophers engage in mortal battle with each other over and on philosophical disagreements. And Christians very early indicated that in those battles among the pagan philosophers, they took sides with some pagan philosophers over other pagan philosophers. So for instance, with Plato and Aristotle over again, and then maybe Platonus, over against all forms of materialism, fine. If anti-materialism is essential to Platonism and Aristotelianism, then we should agree that far with Platonism and Aristotelianism. When it comes to kind of a transcendent cause, a cause that is a cause that transcends our world, you probably get more of that flavor in the good of Plato or the one of Platonus. And this is this transcendence that there's an immaterial perfect source of all being. Now let's emphasize Plato and Platonus did not believe that the good of the one was the creator of the world. And Christians had to immediately correct that error in the pagan philosophy. But they did say that there was one causal source or found of all things that itself was not just another material bit, but in fact superseded in excellence in being all things that flowed from it. That's a philosophy that's getting pretty, like you're kind of moving squarely into Romans 120 arid territory with that kind of claim. Aristotle does not have quite, although he gets close perhaps with his own unmoved mover, which by the way, it's not quite a coin, this is unmoved, but there's a difference. But Aristotle, I would argue in terms of natural philosophy, accounting for the intrinsic causal principles of things in the world, his highlamorphism, that things are composed of matter and form and that the forms of things, which have been proposed by Plato, but Plato said that there's forms. There's-- There's a principle of wetness, there's dog-iness, and there's cat-ness, and there's cow-ness and human-ness, but they don't actually exist in individual, humans, cows, cats, and dogs. Those, the wetnesses of things exist in a different world. So there was a divide between things, and then that virtue of which they're what the kind of, they are the kind of thing they are. I think Aristotle corrects that mistake in Plato by saying that actually the form, not shape or material, but the wetness of a thing is actually in the individual, so that there's actually caninity in Felix, and there are caninity in Felix and felinity in Garfield, if Garfield were a rip cat, and humanity and job. So your wetness doesn't exist in a separated world. So like if you can see this, like one of those things is right, and like I think Aristotle's right about that, and I think Plato's wrong about that. So it depends on which truth you're talking about. There's a transcendence with regard to the first cause in Plotinus and Plato that captures the imagination of the early Christian theologians, including Augusta. And continues to sort of enamel later theologians, but Aristotelianism, in terms of a natural philosophy of things in this world, achieve so many more convincing insights than even Platonism. So what are the Christians doing that, they do what Dovenant said. I don't sign up for Platonism, whole hog or Aristotelianism, I just take the truth wherever I find it, in whoever's hands I happen to find it. So I guess that's what I want to say. I'm kind of Plato, some hybrid of Plato Aristotle in terms of philosophical knowledge, but Platonist is not an unbelieving philosopher, but he makes his own contribution that I think sees something of depth and causal explanation that actually exceeds Plato and Aristotle. And that's his whole doctrine of existence, his philosophy of essay or the act of to be. That is a causal principle, things that are composed not just of matter and form, but they're composed of existence and essence, and existence is itself a discreet intrinsic principle that's causing a composite thing to be. That insight, we have to wait for medieval Muslims and medieval Christians before we start hearing things like that. So you don't really have pagan philosophers that seem to achieve that level of insight. - Well, here's another fun question. Who from among the Christian theologians provides us with the best example of using philosophy and the service of theology. You perhaps already started to answer that a bit. I don't know what you think about it, but. - Yeah, I mean, I have an opinion. Obviously, it's always arguable. It's like saying who's the best baseball player and you're kind of on the short list of Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Babe Ruth. And then it depends on who's the best pitcher and then you've got to talk about pitching styles and are you talking about dark baltira or post 1920 based? So you know how it gets, who's the best? So thank you, Joe. I'm gonna give my answer, but let me give a gallery of people that - Yeah. Let's do this and do it with more or less success. I mean, I have probably some objections at some level in the way every one of these persons handle it at some point, but they did a fairly good job. Just starting from the second century, Justin Martyr, here in Nias of Leon, jumping ahead, Augustin of Hippo, Hilary Fortier, John Damascus, pseudodinistias, Buidius jumping way ahead and some of Canterbury. Albert the great, the mentor of Aquinas. I mean, there are a whole bunch actually in the 13th century, but Thomas flying us bon adventure, coming fast forward. I mean, you could throw in Don Scotis as well, though I'm more Thomas than Scotis, so as the reformed tradition, but you could fast forward to the reformed tradition and say Peter, Marker, or Migli, Gerylama, Zankeus, go into the English tradition, William Perkins, William Twist, Stephen Charnock, John Owen, and let me throw in a Baptist, John Gil. But have all demonstrated a really more or less, I mean, like Justin Martyr less, Scotis less. Okay, from this list, if I had to pick one, who was probably most successful at doing philosophical theology as a Christian, Thomas Aquinas, but anybody who knows me, you know, my kids could have told you that was gonna be my answer. - Yeah, I figured it would be. - And if something, like when you read John Owen, that's not to say, and he's better than Owen, like when you get to John Owen, and Owen's arguing against the Sasinians, and the Sasinians have a biblicalistic and method of theology, a hyperlitteralistic read of scripture and a false doctrine of God, and when Owen was to argue against them, he shamelessly appeals to Aquinas's sumacontrigant to us and to the commentaries of Cardinal Coyton, Thomas DeVio, who was notoriously anti-reformation, all he's the one who was supposed to elicit a retraction from Luther, and yet, you know, go fast forward a century and a half, and here's John Owen citing that very same Cardinal for the cause of God and truth against the Sasinians. And I like to say, and he doesn't qualify it or offer an apology when he does it. He just quotes Coyton or Coyton and moves forward. Because no one doubted, like Owen's anti-romatism, that was unquestionable, that he was anti-papous, but that did not prevent him from resourcing that medieval and later medieval Catholic tradition, fruitfully, because he was interested in the truth and he believed that in that one respect, and in many other respects, actually, they had it. And so why shouldn't we avail ourselves of it? So some of what Thomas is doing kind of enters into the bloodstream, both in the Catholic and Protestant traditions. - Yeah. Well, I appreciate that about you, James. You're not jumping in with both feet and committing to one of these philosophers or theologians and saying they got it all right. We have to take all of this into consideration, test it against scripture and take the good and spit out the bad, I guess, you know? That's an important thing that we all have to do. Could we conclude by suggesting some recommended resources? I'm sure you have a whole list of books that you could recommend, but do you have a few that you'd like to put before our listeners? - Yeah, let me give a few intro volumes. And these are some of these are the kinds of books that helped me when I was trying to get into this. I mean, my seminary training initially did not prepare me to do this. This is what we're doing at IRBS, but partly because this is not done in most American seminaries. And there were books mostly written by 20th and early 21st century Roman Catholics. And when I read these books, these kind of introductions to philosophy or metaphysics, I began to read my own tradition with more understanding, meaning they were describing a thought world that would have been the thought world of like, say, the English Puritans. I understood John Owen and Stephen Charnock better after having read some of these offers. So I'll give you a few. Couple of older works they can be found and use book places and some of them are reprinted. Paul Glenn, GLENN and Introduction to Philosophy is a nice work. I would also offer a suggestion of Daniel Sullivan, same title also an introduction to philosophy. I guess why reinvent the wheel. There are lots of books that have that title, but Glenn's volume is good. Sullivan's volume is good. The second edition, especially if you could find it. ATIN JISON looks like ATIN Gilson to the English reader. If this kind of gets you more to an intermediate level, elements of Christian philosophy, he's going to introduce you basically to Thomism, but JISON's a 20th century Catholic writer died, I think in 1978, is a lucid writer, a very good writer, a historian of philosophy by trade. And then finally, if you want a more recent volume, a little smaller, maybe a nice first step in. Ed Faser, FESER, has a book called The Coinus, A Beginner's Guide, it's probably $10 on Amazon. I'm not, these are not unqualified recommendations. My only unqualified recommendation is the Bible. But with qualifications, that's not a recommendation either. That's an insistence. These are his recommendations. But with qualifications, I think that these are generally reliable guides into the subject, and they'll be challenging. I mean, I guess I'd want to encourage listeners who might become readers in this area, that there's a learning curve for us in 21st century Western culture, with our own sort of educational milieu as it is. The learning curve is a little steep on the front end, but there are dictionaries and then to help us with that. And then there's also the internet to help us with that. And I've actually found that you could find nice, like philosophical word lists with little explanations for free online, or there's also some good books. At IRS, I require Bernard Wulner's book, Wulner's book, Addictionary of Scholastic Philosophy. And when we do sort of vocab quizzes out of that dictionary, just because learning the grammar is essential to becoming conversant with this kind of thought world. Well, James, I really appreciate it. appreciate you. I mean that I've listened to you lecture before at a pastor's conference years ago and after every session I thought oh my goodness I need I'm gonna need a month or more to digest what was said there you know it was just so so jam packed dense in a good way but very clear and I appreciate you brother I think you're doing a wonderful thing for the church and for the seminary in bringing this teaching to Lord willing future ministers I think you're serving the church well brother so thank you for your labors show thanks for your kind words and and for having me on today well to our audience I do hope this conversation has been helpful to you if it has please consider sharing it with others and lastly don't forget to check back with us next Monday we will be replaying episodes from the archives until then Biden Christ thank you for listening to Theology in particular if you have any comments questions or suggestions for future podcasts please email TIP@irbs seminary.org for more information about the seminary go to irbs seminary.org irbs is a confessional seminary committed to the inherent and infallible word of God as summarized in the second London confession of faith since our podcast sometimes addresses issues outside the confession please understand that the views and opinions expressed on theology in particular are not necessarily those of irbs it's trustees or every faculty member (gentle music)