Posts
Just a short post, continuing my look at the relationship of Protestantism and natural law. For background, I suggest this post and at least the conclusion of this post.
John Vervaeke on Jonathan Pageau:
Jonathan Pageau is way more radical than people realize because he is rejecting nominalism at a profound level. He thinks there are real patterns everywhere, as far as I can tell and they have a life of their own – they have an independent existence to which we have to respond.
Pageau and patterns. What are patterns but an extension of Plato’s universal forms as embodied in Aristotle’s. This as opposed to the nominalism described by those like Scotus and Occam – and embraced by Luther and many early Protestants.
That makes him much more radical than most of modern Christianity because modern Christianity – especially Luther…Luther is explicitly and deeply influenced by nominalism; deeply, deeply. And this has been insinuating into Protestantism, I would say (and I welcome Paul’s [VanderKlay] response on this), and has become pervasive throughout Western Christianity. Eastern Orthodoxy not as much because it is still tied to Neo-Platonism.
Without universals (patterns, when extended), natural law is not possible. Nominalism denies patterns; nominalism places all on the will of God, not the reason of God.
As I have noted several times before: it seems to me that God willed a universe that is governed by His reason. As He breathed into man, God’s reason is also our reason – albeit imperfect, given our fallen nature. If viewed through this lens, there is no conflict between the expression of God’s will and reason.
And, therefore, there need not be any conflict between Protestants and natural law.
I don't see any reason why Protestants cannot accept natural law. C.S. Lewis certainly did.
ReplyDelete"Eastern Orthodoxy not as much because it is still tied to Neo-Platonism."
I've never made this connection before. I wonder if Eastern Christianity never had a tradition of liberty because they followed in the tradition of Plato instead of Aristotle? Maybe this also explains why Russia fell to communism without the aid of Gramsciism? Can we separate the good aspects of Plato's philosophy from his political and social philosophies? Is there anything good in Plato that we cannot get from Aristotle in a better form?
Plato's forms. There exist things (forms, beings, whatever) that would exist even if a human mind did not exist - even if NOTHING physical/material existed.
DeleteWithout Plato's forms, Jesus would be Aristotle's embodiment of what, exactly?
(And for the casual reader: I am not placing God and His Son below Plato and Aristotle.)
I'll have to think about that.
DeleteATL
DeleteAbsolutely. Protestants do study the Scriptures and apply logic and literary rules to surmise meaning and do find order.
That does not mean, of course, that Protestants do not have biases that can cloud the conclusions. That is why preaching is both/and a classroom and homily.
BM.
Things that exist outside of the physical, angels for an example, are not just "ideals" a la Plato. They just are a different creation.
Jesus is the embodiment of God in the form of His created being, in the creation we inhabit.
Plato's ideals are analogies that get stretched beyond their boundaries.
"Things that exist outside of the physical..."
DeleteJaime, I did not use this phrase, so I am confused as to your comment. Please clarify if you would, as I don't want to misunderstand you.
"There exist things (forms, beings, whatever) that would exist even if a human mind did not exist"
DeleteI will answer with another question: what is there without a human mind?
A human mind requires a human. This creation was made for humans. No humans no creation.
I would like to revise and extend my "Protestants do study the Scriptures and apply logic and literary rules to surmise meaning and do find order." comment.
DeleteProtestants do study the Scriptures and apply logic and literary rules to surmise meaning, purpose, and do find order.
"what is there without a human mind?"
DeleteGod. Triangles. Math.
"As I have noted several times before: it seems to me that God willed a universe that is governed by His reason. "
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the basis of modern science, which Protestant Christians (mostly) developed in the 16th and 17th centuries?
Which means I totally agree with you.
I was thinking before I read to the end of the article, "why would I think God's will and reason be in disagreement?"
I heard something interesting from Paul VanderKlay, separating the 16th century Protestantism from the 17th century and beyond.
DeleteThe Heidelberg Catechism (16th century) had statements that still reflected something more than strict nominalism. It was in the 17th century that this began to change, therefore changing science, what constituted reason, etc.
So, it seems to me, that Protestants may have held to more medieval views early on (why would they not, as they were living in that environment), but eventually moved to a nominalist view (Enlightenment influenced, perhaps).