I was listening to this without video so I was surprised to not hear Jordan's voice at first haha. This is awesome, you two are the ultimate Lutheran power couple
I would love to hear an episode about the Autotheos, because a long time ago you said you might do one, and there's a lot of debate surrounding it. I personally hold to it as of now, but if it blatantly contradicts the ENTIRE church leading up to it, I might have to reconsider.
He mentions autotheos in "The Basics of Trinitarian Theology" video and a few more times in that whole series. Also I finished writing a research paper on autotheos especially as it relates to eternal generation and found a lot of good scholarship in that area. If you are interested, I can give you my bibliography.
I learned about Classical Theism from Dr. Norman Geisler who co-founded the seminary I attended. It is good to see someone like you take a stand on the Classical attributes like Divine Simplicity.
Growing up, I would say I was a theistic personalist. I wasn't even aware of this until I came across the works of people like Feser. I would say Feser is right that theistic personalism makes God into a creature, but this is NOT to say that theistic personalists would claim that or recognize that. Theistic personalism is quite popular in contemporary philosophy of religion (e.g. Craig, Plantinga, and Swinburne). In the case of Richard Swinburne, I don't think his views are consistent with his own (present) religion of Eastern Orthodox.
I think this does a good job of laying out a defense of the broadly "Western" doctrine of God. I think the problem comes in the 20th-Century of Western Christianity now having to engage not only with contemporary philosophy BUT ALSO with a global Christianity which includes the Eastern traditions. The question is to what extent did 20th-Century theologians (Barthian, ecumenical or otherwise) depart from a strictly Thomistic conception of the Trinity in order to once again engage with competing models. For e.g., the Roman Church of today does not have a single doctrine of God, but allows for various schools alongside Thomism so long as they are *generally amenable* to Divine Simplicity. Eastern Catholicism allows for Palamite theology and isn't as committed to a rejection of essence/energies, Scotism complicates things as well, etc. Joseph Ratzinger's theology could be described as a via media between Classical and Social Trinitarianism (with his embrace of elements of personalism). And of course, let's not forget the Jesuit nouvelle teologie and their "transcendantal/Kantian Thomism" (Rahner, Kung). All that to say, I think a communion of the church can tolerate a number of different models while giving priority to certain schools (Dominican Aquinas for the RCC, perhaps Lutheran-Orthodox Gerhard for Lutherans). I'm not denying that this is a political compromise of sorts, but it is being realistic about where we've developed as respective communions, and we aren't going to turn these massive ships around any time soon.
I agree that the desire to be acceptable within the Academy has been deadly for Christian belief and practice. I see this with the seminary for which I have taught part time. I also did my seminary degree there, and the more conservative seminary nearby called my institution neo-orthodox. I didn’t really understand that until just recently, after reading some more recent reform theologians and your work. Now they have gotten to the point where they are going in all kinds of strange directions and I have decided I simply cannot teach there anymore. There was always a tendency to play to the Academy and as the Academy has gotten more radical, so has my seminary. It is very sad.
Looking forward to reading this volume! On another note, looks like some of those shelves are bowing from the weight on them... but that could be lens distortion.
Regarding the supposed conflict between Hebrew thought and Greek thought, not only do you have language in the book of Hebrews that is similar to platonic thought, but I would argue that there is a sense in which the tabernacle and the temple are in some way seen as reflections of the heavenly Temple. See Exodus 25:9, where Moses is given the pattern of the tabernacle by God. This is not exactly the same as platonic thought but it is similar in that it points to the fact that there is reality in the heavenly places which forms the pattern for the earthly. In the case of Exodus, it is the mind of God, which is what the early church fathers emphasize. Perhaps the connection between heavenly and earthly temples can also be seen in Isaiah 6. Ezekiel is given the pattern of the new temple in chapter 40 and following. When could also point to the fact that Matt is made in the image of God, the earthly connected in someway to the heavenly. I am trying to remember what I learned about the supposed radical difference between Hebrew and Greek thought and I think it had something to do with how they supposedly see the human person. I seem to remember being told that Hebrew thought only speaks of man as a body, and there is no sense of an eternal soul. There was a lot of emphasis in the academy on the word for soul merely meaning the.”self.” The Greek, on the other hand, supposedly emphasized the eternal soul and had contempt for the body. Thus Greek thought is “dualist.” This interpretation, of course, fits in very well with a materialistic metaphysics, which was adopted by protestant liberalism. This anti-Hellenism, of course, runs into a lot of problems when interpreting the New Testament, as well as the intertestamental Jewish writings.
A book defending notions like divine simplicity and refuting the Hellenization thesis is badly needed because it is difficult to find a modern Christian philosopher or theology that holds anything like the correct doctrine of God, ideas like theistic personalism, process theology and open theism dominate the conversation
Dr. Cooper, I appreciate your thoughtful thinking. Though as a Lutheran, I follow more the dialectical theological school - Hermann, Bultmann, Barth and Gogerten - and against the scholastic bent that I think Luther uprooted with his theology of the cross.
Gotta thank you Dr. Jordan, you were instrumental to my conversion to Lutheranism! I just got baptised under the LCMS today! Praise the Lord!
Congratulations!
based
I was listening to this without video so I was surprised to not hear Jordan's voice at first haha. This is awesome, you two are the ultimate Lutheran power couple
You are doing a tremendous service defending classical theism from a protestant perspective. Thank you Dr. Cooper!
I would love to hear an episode about the Autotheos, because a long time ago you said you might do one, and there's a lot of debate surrounding it. I personally hold to it as of now, but if it blatantly contradicts the ENTIRE church leading up to it, I might have to reconsider.
He mentions autotheos in "The Basics of Trinitarian Theology" video and a few more times in that whole series.
Also I finished writing a research paper on autotheos especially as it relates to eternal generation and found a lot of good scholarship in that area. If you are interested, I can give you my bibliography.
I learned about Classical Theism from Dr. Norman Geisler who co-founded the seminary I attended. It is good to see someone like you take a stand on the Classical attributes like Divine Simplicity.
In regard to God’s timelessness, Thomas Aquinas says that time is a measure of change. God does not change and so God is not in time.
I really appreciated this book. Very clear and helpful.
Growing up, I would say I was a theistic personalist. I wasn't even aware of this until I came across the works of people like Feser. I would say Feser is right that theistic personalism makes God into a creature, but this is NOT to say that theistic personalists would claim that or recognize that. Theistic personalism is quite popular in contemporary philosophy of religion (e.g. Craig, Plantinga, and Swinburne). In the case of Richard Swinburne, I don't think his views are consistent with his own (present) religion of Eastern Orthodox.
Nice of Lisa Cooper to invite her husband make to this rare guest appearance.
I think this does a good job of laying out a defense of the broadly "Western" doctrine of God.
I think the problem comes in the 20th-Century of Western Christianity now having to engage not only with contemporary philosophy BUT ALSO with a global Christianity which includes the Eastern traditions. The question is to what extent did 20th-Century theologians (Barthian, ecumenical or otherwise) depart from a strictly Thomistic conception of the Trinity in order to once again engage with competing models. For e.g., the Roman Church of today does not have a single doctrine of God, but allows for various schools alongside Thomism so long as they are *generally amenable* to Divine Simplicity. Eastern Catholicism allows for Palamite theology and isn't as committed to a rejection of essence/energies, Scotism complicates things as well, etc. Joseph Ratzinger's theology could be described as a via media between Classical and Social Trinitarianism (with his embrace of elements of personalism). And of course, let's not forget the Jesuit nouvelle teologie and their "transcendantal/Kantian Thomism" (Rahner, Kung).
All that to say, I think a communion of the church can tolerate a number of different models while giving priority to certain schools (Dominican Aquinas for the RCC, perhaps Lutheran-Orthodox Gerhard for Lutherans). I'm not denying that this is a political compromise of sorts, but it is being realistic about where we've developed as respective communions, and we aren't going to turn these massive ships around any time soon.
I agree that the desire to be acceptable within the Academy has been deadly for Christian belief and practice. I see this with the seminary for which I have taught part time. I also did my seminary degree there, and the more conservative seminary nearby called my institution neo-orthodox. I didn’t really understand that until just recently, after reading some more recent reform theologians and your work. Now they have gotten to the point where they are going in all kinds of strange directions and I have decided I simply cannot teach there anymore. There was always a tendency to play to the Academy and as the Academy has gotten more radical, so has my seminary. It is very sad.
Looking forward to reading this one
I bought the book. Good job!
Looking forward to reading this volume!
On another note, looks like some of those shelves are bowing from the weight on them... but that could be lens distortion.
Regarding the supposed conflict between Hebrew thought and Greek thought, not only do you have language in the book of Hebrews that is similar to platonic thought, but I would argue that there is a sense in which the tabernacle and the temple are in some way seen as reflections of the heavenly Temple. See Exodus 25:9, where Moses is given the pattern of the tabernacle by God. This is not exactly the same as platonic thought but it is similar in that it points to the fact that there is reality in the heavenly places which forms the pattern for the earthly. In the case of Exodus, it is the mind of God, which is what the early church fathers emphasize. Perhaps the connection between heavenly and earthly temples can also be seen in Isaiah 6. Ezekiel is given the pattern of the new temple in chapter 40 and following. When could also point to the fact that Matt is made in the image of God, the earthly connected in someway to the heavenly.
I am trying to remember what I learned about the supposed radical difference between Hebrew and Greek thought and I think it had something to do with how they supposedly see the human person. I seem to remember being told that Hebrew thought only speaks of man as a body, and there is no sense of an eternal soul. There was a lot of emphasis in the academy on the word for soul merely meaning the.”self.” The Greek, on the other hand, supposedly emphasized the eternal soul and had contempt for the body. Thus Greek thought is “dualist.” This interpretation, of course, fits in very well with a materialistic metaphysics, which was adopted by protestant liberalism. This anti-Hellenism, of course, runs into a lot of problems when interpreting the New Testament, as well as the intertestamental Jewish writings.
I'm going to buy my $18 Just and sinner mug.
A book defending notions like divine simplicity and refuting the Hellenization thesis is badly needed because it is difficult to find a modern Christian philosopher or theology that holds anything like the correct doctrine of God, ideas like theistic personalism, process theology and open theism dominate the conversation
AD said all this weeks ago with a lot less windsomness
Dr. Cooper, I appreciate your thoughtful thinking. Though as a Lutheran, I follow more the dialectical theological school - Hermann, Bultmann, Barth and Gogerten - and against the scholastic bent that I think Luther uprooted with his theology of the cross.
That sounds like Forde and Paulson, do you like them? If yes, Dr. Cooper might transform into a sith lord and send you to an LCMS re-education camp
Then you are not Lutheran😊
I’d love to have the Logos version. 1:16:45
Everyone's theology is going to be influenced by philosophy rather they relize it or not.
the best philosophers have sound theology transform their philosophy
Your wife is beautiful inside and out!
Yes.
Ok you lost me when you failed to define prolegaauma. Or what ever. I go back to Paul to keep it simple.
“Prolegomena.” It is the Greek word for “presuppositions.”