I didn't answer it both ways, Canuck. I broke it into two questions (since the way it was phrased was a little loaded):You've answered both ways. The statement I made was whether it was purely rationally definable and you answered "Of course it is" and then go on to agree that it is not "purely" raionally definable. I do reject the appearance of age argument on the basis that the argument assumes God is a deceiver. However, it's entirely possible (although I don't believe it probable) that Man has mistaken the appearance of age as a result of our limited observations and perspective. If that were the case, it would have nothing to do with God's intention to deceive or not. It would simply be that some men have mistakenly interpretted the available evidence and come to an erroneous conclusion. When you claim that special revelation must not contradict itself, you appear to me to assume man's capacity to understand is complete and that special revelation eliminates any mystery. What you may be reducing by your approach to "rationally definiable" may in fact be elevating the approach over the source and assuming more than that which has been specially revealed is in fact intended to declare.
1. Is it rationally definable? Yes, via general revelation;
2. Is it purely rational, that is, knowable in its completeness apart from SR? No, it is not. The rest of my answer explained that.
My point with regard to SR being rational was that it must be understandable by people. If it isn't, it is incomprehensible (I see no middle ground here: a proposition is either comprehensible or it is not). But revelation, by definition, reveals something, and thus must be comprehensible. But that which comprehends is the mind, and therefore, the thing comprehended becomes rational.
So, I'll answer your question again, the same way I did before. We can know quite a bit about God's existence with unaided reason (pure rationality); with the aid of SR, we can know more about God's existence. SR, however, doesn't negate GR.
The bolded words above show that you agree with what I'm trying to say, and so I'm going to have to take your criticisms at this point to be my being unclear. The fact that you believe that we can know some things about God apart from SR is all I am saying. I am not saying we can know EVERYTHING about God without SR. I'm not even saying we can know everything about God WITH SR. The question is, "What CAN we know?" Certainly GR reveals some things. I take the doctrine in this thread, simplicity, to be one of them. Now, perhaps upon investigation, we will find that GR does not reveal it. This could be for two reasons: first, it could contradict it. Perhaps GR actually reveals that God is a composite being, contra the doctrine. Or, second, we could conclude that we do not have enough information, and thus, we conclude that we must be skeptical about our perspective (which is precisely what I said above). In any case, I've not argued for any absolute dualism. I'm interested in what GR shows us about God's nature.I don't agree with this. It may be adequate from our perspective and in that capacity perhaps I'm splitting hairs. But it's not necessary to assume that our capacity and capabilities are adequate and by that to assume that God is not greater than our ability to comprehend or to discover. That's the basis of the need for special revelation in the first place. Certain elements are knowable and discernable through natural observation. Even special revelation, by definition exceeds that, and further special revelation is sufficient I believe to what we need to know but it is not all there is to know. The sending of Christ as the living word demonstrates that as well in my opinion. Assuming an absolute dualistic, system may be an easier approach in this regard, but it is, in fact, not necessary to eliminate skepticism about one's own perspective. In fact, I think it's healthy to hold even one's own perspective in question. In fact, I think the idea that we can't start our with skepticism about our own perspective has more in common with what has developed into humanism and materialism. If we accept that we are created and that there is a God who supercedes the sum of our own existence and knowledge then we begin from a position of professed inability to understand everything and a dependence upon that creator to reveal to us that which we cannot by our own devices perceive and then understand. That doesn't fit into a dualistic all or nothing viewpoint of course. Perhaps the viewpoint espoused is what is determining some of the conclusions.
As it stands, I think SR supports the doctrine of simplicity as well (Deut 6:4, among other verses, comes to mind). But there we are dealing more with exegesis than pure reason. That's why I focus on the former. If SR teaches that simplicity is wrong, then arguments for simplicity based on GR must be flawed for the simple reason that truth cannot contradict itself. In that case, we have to deal with the arguments from GR either way, so I suggest that we follow Paul and start there.
You are misunderstanding me. I am a Thomist, but I'm also a Dispensationalist among many other classifications. Doctrines are systemitized over time. Even the Trinity did not get a final formulation for a few centuries. I'm sure that you will find some aspects of Thomism that are not present in the CFs, just as you'll find, in the CFs, some contrary ideas. As I already pointed out, Aquinas was an Aristotelean, but Augustine, for example, was a Platonist. What you will find rather universally, however, is the core idea that I'm presenting in this thread: namely, Divine Simplicity (DS). That was born out of their discussions on impassibility.This really surprised me and it''s why I answered so quickly earlier on. You're making a universal absolute statement here that requires only one exception to disprove. I'm not complete in my reading of all the early Church Fathers but I've read enough to know that projecting Thomastic assumptions anachronistically backward upon them is quite a remarkable claim. Before I take the effort to show otherwise, is this really what you're wanting to say, or am I misunderstanding you?
Second, even if you show me a few references of CFs who even rejected DS, I've already provided quotes of several who accepted it. The point, then, is that what I'm arguing has for has historical roots as far back as the second and third centuries. It was, in fact, the predominant position. Showing an occasional exception doesn't change any of that.
Finally, EVEN IF I was wrong (which I'm not), it wouldn't change the fact that you still have to deal with the arguments themselves. If the history of interpretation is all that matters, then we may as well all go back to being Roman Catholic. But that's all invalid anyway, because to argue as much is to commit a genetic fallacy. The origin of an idea has no bearing on its validity. Ideas are weighed on their own merits, not on their origins.
Bottom line: yes, the CFs held to the core doctrines of simplicity and impassibility; one exception wouldn't change that fact; and even if all this were wrong, to use this as a basis for disproving DS is to commit a genetic fallacy.
What assumptions are those?We're dealing with more than just General Revelation. We're also dealing with the assumptions made by the one's interpretting the evidence and the conclusions mafe. For the record, I agree with you that God can be known in part through General Revelation and that Paul clearly understood that.
First off, I'm not a dualist, and if you misread that into my comments, as I said above, I'll write that off as my being unclear. Please quote where I implied dualism of any kind, and I'll be more than happy to clarify myself. Second, "the message of the gospel" is not an issue here. I would argue that the Gospel itself is NOT a matter of GR; it is STRICTLY a matter of SR. I would also argue that DS is not related to the Gospel. Third, I've not once appealed to a Scripture in this thread, and thus, by definition, it is impossible to have any eisogesis. Fourth, just like the Bible is not a science book, it is not a philosophy book. I'm bringing in " a system of thinking and organizing to written revelation that carries with it assumptions both logically and culturally outside of that which was assumed and intended by the original authors and intended audience" about as much as OEC does when they try to compare Genesis 1-2 with modern science. There's not outside system here. The Bible makes propositional statements. General revelation yield propositional statements. Those statements have to be understood rationally. The only assumption I'm making here is the law of non-contradiction. Surely you have no problem with that. Finally, there is no analogy to be fallacious. I wasn't making an analogy when I warned you of a genetic fallacy. I was stating a fact, which is the same statement I made above. Whether or not DS comes from Greek philosophy has no bearing on whether or not it is true. To say it is false or invalid because it comes from Greek philosophy is to commit a genetic fallacy. Period. That's just a fact. Now, if it turns out to be false because it contradicts Scripture (or reason), and that because it has false assumptions, then it is up to you (or whoever), to demonstrate that. In that case, you are objecting to the reasoning itself, not the source.I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. When you bring a system of thinking and organizing to written revelation that carries with it assumptions both logically and culturally outside of that which was assumed and intended by the original authors and intended audience then you do more than change the message. Your analogy is both fallacious as the message of the gospel is not mathmatics (which interestingly assumes the dualist assumptions of your ealier comments) and further the imposition of a foreign philosophy and approach to frame and organize things within an original piece of literature may result in eisogesis into the text rather than exegesis out from it. I suspect we agree with that in general, but perhaps there's some different applications taking place.
So, if you please, let's talk about the assumptions that are incompatible with Scripture, or let's leave off this and get on with looking at the doctrine itself.
I don't believe that Greco-Roman pagan traditions matter in the least one way or the other. I'm not a Greco-Roman pagan. I know that a rational study of GR leads me to conclude DS is a true doctrine. I know the CFs held to the same. I know Aquinas' arguments on the matter (along with Anselm, Augustine, Ambrose, Cyril, Ireneaus, Martyr, and others) make sense as well. Whatever happened in historical theology is beside the point. Obviously, I don't agree with something just because the CFs (or Aquinas) said it. But you brought them up, not me. I've consistently appealed to basic logic.You don't think so? You don't think Thomastic thinking and tradition hasn't made assumptions both as the nature of special revelation and then examined the text and applied the assumptions implicit to the organization and reconciliation of scriptural passages, concepts and in turn built theology upon it?[/quote
I'm sure that there are Thomists who have interpreted the Bible incorrectly because they imposed their system on it. But that's not a statement about Thomism, anymore than it is about OEC when OECers do it. That's more genetic fallacy. But in any case, you didn't respond to my statement. I already told you why it isn't hermeneutical. We aren't dealing with texts. Aside from Deut 6:4 that I mentioned in this very post, where have I mentioned any verses in this thread? I haven't, so this isn't an issue of interpretation. Not interpretation of SR, anyway.
There's that charge of dualism again. I don't even know what you are talking about. What do you mean by the word "dualism"? As commonly used, it refers either to the relationship between the body and the mind (thus, substance dualism, composite dualism, monism, etc), or it refers to the idea of a Good God vs. an Evil God.You again appear to be framing the question dualistically to assume that Paul meant what your Thomastic tradition assumes and if someone doesn't agree with that implicit assumption then they must be disagreeing with Paul and not with your Thomastic tradition. It's an interesting assumption, but I don't buy it. Neither do I assume there isn't probably common ground, but I don't accept the all or nothing construct you're assuming.
So, can you please explain to me what the heck you are talking about, because, frankly, you have me utterly lost!
You don't believe that the incorporation of the Greco-Roman pagan traditions at the time of Constantine impacted the theological understandings and took them in a path different than what Christianity was before that?
I've addressed most of what you've said, although dropped the last few elements which I can address more as we go if you wish.
Now, would you care to boil your position down for me to a clear statement on what you do hold? I can't tell if you are advocating agnosticism (in the sense that we can't know anything about God because He is incomprehensible) or just anti-Catholicism or if you have some other positive belief that you haven't mentioned yet. Perhaps this is due to the fact that I don't know what you mean when you say I'm using a "dualist" system.
With that said, I would like you to answer the rest of my post when you have time. I asked several questions there that I thought were rather important, and much of what I've said in this post is just an expanded form of what was said in the latter half of that one. And finally, I'd like your thoughts on the actual argument I have put forward for DS. There are others as well, but the basic one I put forward is definitely rather basic, but definitely, I think, a good starting point. I've been fair in answering your criticisms, and will continue to do so. Perhaps, then, you could address my actual argument, and then criticize it where you think you see a false assumption?