@curiousdannii I'm still digesting it so I can formulate it in my own words. I think to have a realist worldview doesn't mean we do natural theology, because the source of doctrines is only from revelation. But once a person becomes Christian, in day to day life, the realist Christian sees the world as suffused with God's nature exemplified in the 3 transcendentals: the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

Guided by Revelation, then the Christian will enjoy, use, get inspired, and get nourished by seeing God's immanence in nature and receive guidance for ethical particulars, not principles. Again, I'm still digesting, so my description may not be that effective.

@AlBrown Well, most Protestants don't, except Lutherans and Anglicans. It appears Reformed does teach some form of real presence in Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the preaching of the Word, as the article explained, but more as a concession than an outflow of full sacramental worldview.

@AlBrown I listened to the sermon, just curious how a McMaster seminary graduate would preach. He explained Rom 1:16-17 and Hab 2:4 quite well; I like how he explained step by step how he came to the interpretation that he offered the congregation. About his criticism of Bible textual critic / translator, I think it's somewhat unfair because textual critic should NOT mix NT with OT, but should only compare textual witness to the book.

What he wants them to do should happen in commentary, or how NLT does it: in the footnote, see Hab 2:4 (NLT) where they add this footnote: Greek version reads If the vision is delayed, wait patiently, / for it will surely come and not delay. / ⁴ I will take no pleasure in anyone who turns away. / But the righteous person will live by my faith. Compare Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:37-38.

@AlBrown Wow, quite a journey for you to arrive at Christianity. Welcome home. About materialist monist, yes, it's quite inconsistent. If you haven't read C.S. Lewis's Problem of Pain (or maybe in another book, I forgot) you'll read about how he rejects materialism, then Hegelian idealism, then a few other things to narrow the field of dead-end options.

@curiousdannii Thanks, it's already in my bookshelf, tagged as recommend by dannii :-)

@GratefulDisciple Is this use of realist the same as moral realist in ethics (like in Cameron's book)?

@curiousdannii I haven't read Cameron's book yet, but since it's an ethics book and glancing at the the SEP entry and at a Routledge article it's a completely different use since moral realist can be conceived in many ways, not necessarily tied to realist ontology.

Quote from SEP: " Moral realism is not a particular substantive moral view nor does it carry a distinctive metaphysical commitment over and above the commitment that comes with thinking moral claims can be true or false and some are true."

The realist side in the realist vs. nominalism debate is a matter of ontology/metaphysics, NOT epistemology, so I don't think Noetic effect of sin is connected since the latter has to do with what reason can do (epistemology). But being a metaphysical a priori (which one can argue that it has Biblical support), and one does NOT have to be a Platonist realist either, although it seems the church fathers went the Christian Platonist route.

I came across Roger Olson again, a Wesleyan whom I quoted in an answer, in his blog article The "Catastrophe of Nominalism". In this article he doesn't connect it with Wesleyan theology, but more of the cultural damage caused by nominalism.

The comments are worth reading as well, as he engaged with quality questions that further clarifies his position: 1) Counts Radical orthodoxy as ally but consider them "Catholic wannabes" and not that comfortable with the "ontology of participation" which Hans Boersma & Robin Phillips (and myself) advocates.

2) Regarding relationship with epistemology he says "Realism is a metaphysical belief; that 'there is no view from nowhere' is an epistemological belief. As someone who admits I do not possess an unbiased 'view from nowhere' and that even my own ideas are perspectivally infected, I can still say that realism is truer than nominalism." "Neither epistemology nor ontology sits as the other's feet. They always go together however uncomfortably. The ideal is to see them married."

Another quote from comments: "It seem to me, instead, that epistemology has been the all-controlling branch of philosophy for most of Western history--especially since the Enlightenment (but even also among late medieval scholastics). Everyone has ontological commitments that intrude into their epistemology whether they admit it (even to themselves) or not. What counts as reason? What counts as evidence? Epistemology alone cannot say with finality."

@curiousdannii This Catholic Answer article What's in a Name connects nominalism to total depravity and sola fide and to Calvin's "God can be sovereign only if man is nothing" (one of the main points in Robin Philip's article that he labels "zero-sum economic transaction"). I think the analysis is skewed, although nominalism does play a role.

CONCLUSION Whether that is a fair charge or not, I myself is more interested in how nominalism impacts our sharing in divine life, which for me is a big part of being united with Christ. In other words, I buy into the kind of metaphysical realism that Boersma describes for the basis of my spirituality. Reading anti-nominalist ally from Anglican (Boersma), Wesleyan (Olson), and if I can find one a Reformed & Lutheran representative should keep me in the Protestant camp.

@GratefulDisciple Hmm, I have to admit I still don't understand either side.

I feel skeptical when someone labels a majority as having some position when they would rarely use the label for themselves. Not that it is necessarily inaccurate to say that most Christians have been nominalist, but that the category may not be the cause of the characteristics the realists say it leads to

@curiousdannii "the category may not be the cause of the characteristics the realists say it leads to" Agree completely that we have to be careful in assigning the cause, especially if that category is said to be at the heart of a key Protestant doctrine such as imputation. The hard thing about noticing nominalism, I think, is how pervasive it is, as Roger Olson's article describes. It's the natural air for more than 700 years. It affects not only theology, ethics, spirituality, but culture too.

@GratefulDisciple And if that's the case we have to be careful not to overstate how problematic it is

@curiousdannii Sure. I may have been carried away and allow my own cherished opinion to color my charges. Roger Olson's blog article + comments is a good corrective (since he wasn't defensive about his theology), unless he addresses the impact of nominalism on Wesleyan theology elsewhere. To be fair, I have to look for a Calvinist to answer the charges levelled against them (one from Anglican, one from Catholic).

I'll give his article a read later

Anglicans are Reformed though, don't forget they wrote the WCF

@curiousdannii Sure, but I feel they are not hard Calvinist, and their view of sacraments is more open to Catholicism, although not to the extreme of transubstantiation.

One book I still want to read is "Anglican Theology" from the "Doing Theology" series.

@GratefulDisciple That might be the case for liberal and/or anglo-catholics, but the centre of Anglicanism should still be seen as Reformed

I see. So I should be looking at evangelical Anglican theology

Depends what you're looking for ;)

I think it's true that Anglicans and Presbyterians struggle these days to teach their doctrines of real presence. That could be due to nominalism.

But churches have been and are thriving without that kind of sacramentalism.

I think I'll have to be careful when using the language of "sacramentalism" talking to a Protestant, since this realist view of seeing the world in relation to God as what the church fathers did (as a "mystery") is much broader than the 7 (or the 3 or the 2) sacraments in the church. I'm much more interested in the former.

@curiousdannii So yes, Protestant churches are thriving without church sacraments, but the question is whether they are thriving spiritually, whether there is hunger for relating to God other than through Bible study and usual church activities and missions.

@GratefulDisciple I think it would be highly insulting and condescending to suggest otherwise. Of course spiritual vitality is not distributed evenly, but to imply that the great majority of churches have massive deficiencies is so problematic.

@curiousdannii Well, I'm sorry if I give that impression. If I may rephrase, I start with my hunger. Then I look at the theology that I was raised with: Reformed. Then I discover Thomistic metaphysics (and certain spiritualities based on it) which nourishes the hunger. I'm still not a Catholic at this point. But then isn't it natural for me to ask what is it about Reformed theology that cannot support this spirituality?

Even when I have massive disagreements with Catholic or Pentecostal theology I'll still recognise that God is doing great things in some of their churches, and that many people are closely connected to God

@GratefulDisciple Shouldn't you first ask if RT can't?

@GratefulDisciple I wasn't directing that comment at you, but more at any anti-nominalists who go to such extremes, if any do.

You're much more philosophically minded than I am. I'm barely keeping up with half of these conversations. But I'd find it hard to believe that Reformed Protestantism is utterly incompatible with other metaphyics.

@curiousdannii I understand. To me Robin Philips may be off-putting to you (and I'm sure to many others), but I read it as troubleshooting and exposing potential problems.

It's not like they're adopting Buddhism's "reality is an illusion". That kind of metaphysics wouldn't be compatible with Christian theology.

About asking if RT can't, personally I don't feel committed to RT, it's part of the church I was born into. I just want a theology that lets me to express how I view myself, God, and the world, and the relationship among them in the language that find most satisfying. Of course, other people have other preference. What's unite myself and them are that we all want to glorify God and to flourish in our salvation journey.

It's like expressing love. We have our preferred novels, poems, and movies that help us communicate to others (and to ourselves) how we want to love. The movie Shadowlands and that Japanese movie I shared with you a few weeks ago are among the top 10 for me.

That "language" I meant, is of course, philosophy, which comes in so much variety (because of the nature of its discipline). There are even books on Buddhist philosophy, Islam moral philosophy, etc. So when choosing realist vs. nominalistic philosophy, like what Roger Olson is saying quoted above, it's finding a pair that marries well with the theology. If RT marries well with realist philosophy, that's a viable option for me.

Well, Roger Olson said metaphysics marrying epistemology. I'm taking that analogy differently in marrying a theology with a philosophy that describes it. Isn't that what "philosophy is theology's handmaiden" is all about?

I get that. I'd just caution not to let your preferred philosophical framework be the tail wagging the dog. These philosophical systems will typically be several steps removed from the scriptures. When we debate theology we aim for propositions that can be supported or refuted by scripture.

Philosophies can be elegant or beautiful. But true theology will have things that are paradoxically, and some that are unpleasant.

I don't think you're trying to do that! I just want to say, don't count RT out yet.

For myself, I am a little bit unhappy that our core Trinitarian/Chalcedonian theology is still heavily based on ancient Greek metaphysics. I kind of wish we could move away from that.

@curiousdannii Of course. When using scripture I try to stay Evangelical. I just want to be an out of the box thinker when it comes to constructing theology. Yes, certain philosophical systems are incompatible with scripture, either distorting or excluding some truths. Certain philosophical systems can also distort reality, so they will fell out of use by non Christians. Great theologians can synthesize scriptural fidelity with great and viable philosophical system, making it one happy family.

To use your anology, I think it's a poorly matched marriage.

@GratefulDisciple I think that's a great aim! And I appreciate our discussions for broadening my philosophical outlook.

Transubstantiation is the ultimate bad ending of Christian theology based on Greek philosophy

@curiousdannii Well, then why not trying to rephrase it? I really see philosophy as a language used by conceptual animal (humans). We invent new philosophical terms / systems as we engage with the world and cultures over time. There is a big debate of course about using Greek terms, but one defender said the early church father actually extend one of the terms to fit Christian use (forgot which one).

@GratefulDisciple Maybe I will, one day ;)

OK, nice chatting with you. I need to start doing some work. Have a good night.

It's more than just language though. We can't just relexify Greek metaphysics.

@GratefulDisciple Haha sorry, have a good day!

@curiousdannii Cannot resist to respond to this one. Had to look up "relexify", understanding that you came from linguistic. I came from computer science so lexical analysis is a natural concept to me. Good word to have.

@GratefulDisciple I can't help dropping in linguistics ;)

@curiousdannii It's part of you just as computer science, classical music, C.S. Lewis, etc. contribute to my idiom collections that come naturally to me.

(and I'm sure I could have chosen a better term rather than 'idiom' ) :-)

And is French your first language? That would make a big difference too.

Stop chatting, and go!

No, it's not French; I'd rather not say. Sorry.

OK. Bye.

No worries. I was surprised to see you say that English wasn't your first language, and then guessed French cause your profile says you're from Canada.

@GratefulDisciple Thanks. All of that makes sense. Id agree w all