Jac3510 wrote:I never said that a warranted faith was necessary for salvation. As I have said time and again, blind faith is better than no faith. Blind faith is sufficient to save. It does not follow, however, that because it is sufficient to save that we are to remain in that state. The biblical standard, what God expects and demands of His children, is a rationally warranted faith.
As to your second two comments, no one takes Aquinas' remarks to be a repudiation of his arguments. On the contrary, his comments are a great illustration of my own point. He was granted a very private, very special revelation precisely because he embraced so fully the revelation already given him. But that's all contextual stuff. If you really want to explore it more deeply, look into the period of his life from 1272-74, and note especially the mystical experience he had in response to his writings on transubstantiation.
Lastly, no one is talking about what is "possible." Again, we are talking about what is warranted. God could have created the whole world, complete with all our memories, two seconds ago, and we would never know it. Do we have any reason to think that is the case? Of course not, and we have plenty of reasons to think that it is the case. So don't be so base and try to poison the well by implying that admitting the possibility of the miraculous makes reasonable discussion and warrant unnecessary. The position you are talking about is called fideism, and it is condemned both in Scripture and has been formally condemned by the church as heresy. If you want to say you are a better theologian and understand Scripture better than me and the great saints of the ages past, then I'll just shrug my shoulders and move on. If not, then we can agree with what I said from the get go: blind faith may be possible in the barest sense, but it is no better or more preferable than the person who places their blind faith in Jesus and then lives a carnal lifestyle. Is it possible? Sure. Is it biblical? No. And if someone wants to make that position the basis of their arguments against or understanding of Christianity, then they're just constructing a giant straw man and aren't worth dealing with.
I can hear when you make the claim that blind faith is sufficient to save, I just don't think we need saving. I do get your interpretation of the Biblical standard is that God expects and demands a rationally warranted faith from his children, I just don't hold your opinion or the words of the Bible as any more of an authority on these matters than the scriptures and opinions of other religions and thier adherents or founders.
I will have a look into the latter period of the life of Aquinas, he's a fascintating man with a brilliant mind, the contextual stuff from where I'm standing is more that of man expressing a conviction of the divine within the framework available to him , ie the theology of the Abrahamic faiths and the philosophy/metaphysics of Aristotle. Similarly I see Jesus, or least those who wrote about him, as accepting himself as divine and expressing his conviction in the language and context available to him at the time, that of the Jews with a dash of Greek/Roman as an influential force in the environment. And Buddha expressing his insights within the vedic tradition which surrounded him.
My problem with the philosophy of Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes and beyond is rooted in thier almost complete disconnect with day to day life. The distinction between non-living, living, animal, plant & humans displayed by these three philosophers is not just bordering on idiocy, it's abhorent in my opinion. The pre Socratics, the philosophers of the east and many modern philosophers seem to have been keenly aware of our place in the world, Aristotle, Aquinas and Descartes on the other hand leave my genuinely concerned as people who have retreated almost entirely into thier own ego. Thankfully I live in a world post Jeremey Bentham and Darwin who started to bring some clarity, and evidence, to these very concerning and domineering worldviews that in my opinion are responsible for suffering on a scale which abolsutely eclipses the suffering of Jesus on the cross. When I first encountered the philosophy and proofs of Aquinas, Aristotle and Descates they seemed quite profound, after reading Aquinas by Feser, your book on divine simplicity and some of Feser's articles online & digging a little into some of the original sources I find myself amazed that people took this to heart and glad that few now do.
As to who is the better theologian or who has a better understanding, or view of scripture, only time will tell regardless of how secure and warranted you feel in your position. I'm not doing this as an intellectual exercise, I've had a few brushes with death recently, I have a young family, pets, plants and rocks which I have a relationship with and makes my life worth living - my prized possession that I cling to is a rock from a moutain worshiped in the Shinto tradtion which I use to sharpen the razor I shave myself with each day and to maintain the edge on the knife I use to prepare all of my food some of which I grow - I've been fighting leukaemia for the past three years and have had keen interest in comparative religion for the past 15 or 20 years. I have a great respect for the teachings Christ, Buddha, Krisna, Dogen, Lao Tze and many others. I meditate regualary, I do body work with chi gung & kung fu, in many ways I'm preparing mentally to die and slow and painful death in front of my wife and kids and in other ways cannot express the delight I feel that I am still here to enjoy and take heart that I may have a long and happy life thanks to the wonders of modern medicine.
In framing the opinions of others through the lens of a European dualistic philosophy alongside classical theism and Christianity I suspect you are as guity of taking down straw men as opposed to talking to people as I.
