@AlBrown The article I referred you earlier turns out to be so good and so thorough an explication of the damage that nominalism has done to late Medieval theologies which in turn infected Protestant theologies esp. Calvin, that I'm reading in in depth.

You'll find out he keeps citing books by Hans Boersma such as Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry which I end up planning to read too, as it goes deeper into a core idea that made me dissatisfied with Reformed theology in the first place. He cites C.S. Lewis in making the same observation about how early Christians have a very different way of looking into reality, more participatory in God.

Why do I bring this up? You mentioned about getting tired of sound doctrine, scholarly discussion, etc. which doesn't really help us meet the real God. I feel the same way too, but I blame it on nominalism. This paragraph from Boersma's book reminds me of you: "This is an important point, because many younger evangelicals are reacting against the propositionalism and intellectualism of their forebears.

They have found some of the theological handbooks from which they learned their theology to be dry and lifeless. Theology, younger evangelicals rightly sense, must be about more than just providing true propositional statements about God and our relationship with him. More importantly, many of today's evangelicals sense that these theological handbooks wrongly give the impression that we can fully and adequately grasp the truth to which our theological statements refer." ....

... As we attempt to recover mystery in theology, it is critical that we recognize that the premodern notion of mystery owed nothing to skepticism or relativism. It had everything to do with acknowledging that the mystery of God's being had suffused the created world. Theology's genuine humility has less to do with skepticism than it does with mysticism. (end paragraph)

How is it related to happiness? I subscribe to Aquinas & Augustine's notion of happiness which is heavily linked to ontological participation in God's happiness. But nominalism severs this connection, and if modern evangelical theologies are still built on original Calvin's theology (as the 3 part article describes), we will not be able to see the world that way, and happiness needs to be substituted by something else, which I believe Charismatic/Pentecostals tries to do in a nominalistic way.

I think I begin to understand better why I instinctively shies away from Charismatic practices and try to reach the real God through Catholic spirituality which I mentioned a few weeks ago through Timothy Gallagher's books on Ignatian spirituality and more recently, Robert Barron's book The Strangest Way. To my pleasant surprise, that Calvinism article quotes Barron as well, confirming why the same participatory ontology idea draws me to both.

By the way, my saying "trying to reach the real God" is wrong, because one core idea of Barron's book is that God is the seeker who reaches down to us like the shepherd who out of love looks for the lost lamb who lives in sin (me) and leads me back to flourishing life in a world suffused with God's glory for me to participate so I can have partial happiness in this broken world before heaven.

Conclusion: if I were to answer that question I would refer the person to Barron's book, where he relates a true anecdote after quoting Luke 6:20 ("how blessed are you who are poor" (page 51): One of the classic substitutes for God is material wealth, the accumulating of "things." ... (cont'd)

Like any drug, houses, cars, and property provide a "rush" when they first enter the system, but then in time, the thrill that they provide wears off, and more of the drug must be acquired. This rhythm continues inexorably and tragically until the addict is broken by it. Once, on a Sunday afternoon, a knock came to the door of the rectory where I was staying. When I answered, I found a man, neatly dressed in expensive clothes and exuding confidence and self-possession. ... (cont'd)

We sat down to talk, and he said, "Father, I've realized all of my dreams." "Well, that's wonderful," I responded benignly. "There's only one problem," he continued, "I'm perfectly miserable." It turned out that his dreams had to do almost exclusively with the accumulation of homes and the maintenance of an impressive stock portfolio. His education, his friendships, his social, and professional life circled around and served that addictive and finally insatiable desire [emphasis mine].

The result according to the predictable physics of the soul: the crash into the misery that had taken possession of him. How "unlucky" for him to be tied up in such a net -- and how necessary that he find the detachment of the first path of holiness. (end quote)

Going back to that article, it gives me an answer to a longstanding question of mine of how come Protestants and Catholics both look up to St. Augustine but YET produced theologies that in some areas are SO different? Now I know the answer: it's because Calvin's commitment to nominalism (which is not 100% his own fault, because he was affected by the via moderna revolution in 1200) neglected the worldview that St. Augustine (and the rest of the early church fathers) bathed in.

@curiousdannii Have you read Hans Boersma ? Turns out he's Anglican, I thought he's Catholic. So if reformed theology repents of the sin of nominalism, I might stay Protestant :-), or more precisely, "Evangelical catholic" (small "c").

@GratefulDisciple No I haven't, haven't even heard the name before.

@GratefulDisciple I skimmed that article, as well as the first in the series. I don't really have enough philosophical background to understand it all, but it does seem like this "nominalism" is far from self evidently wrong or sinful, nor am I convinced that it is the defining framework of Reformed Protestantism.

To start with, I find it hard to take seriously any attempts to do away with the is-ought problem. Surely Christians, who believe we live in a post-fall universe, must defend the distinction between what is and what ought to be! But Telos is important, and while perhaps not the most common topic in Reformed Theology, is certainly still discussed and used.

Maybe Calvin did have some of these problems. If, as the third article says, Calvin did strictly separate the ontological and the economic views of God, then modern Protestants seem to mostly say that the economic does truly reveal the ontological.

@curiousdannii Well, in order for a sin to be sin, it has to be intentional. The jury is probably still out whether the 3 reformers could be excused for creating a theology based on nominalist and voluntarist ways of perceiving reality which distort the relationship between God's will and God's nature, which in turn affected the doctrine of imputation vs. impartation/infusion. Especially since Catholics were affected to some extent as well, resulting in the abuse of the sale of indulgences.

@curiousdannii is-ought problem is very serious today, which cuts at the root of Christian natural law ethics which could have made Christian positions a lot stronger today. It's about whether something is good by virtue of God's command or by virtue of what God infused in nature which in turn discoverable by human beings, making it a lot less arbitrary and making for common ground among civilized people of many religions.

@curiousdannii I think the "economic" sense in Part 3 is completely different than Ontological and Economic Trinity idea. This is about relationship between God and creation as a "zero-sum economic transaction" (nominalist way) which evacuates inherent meaning and order from the realm of things in the world, making the world completely non-sacramental and non-incarnational.

The 3 part article can be hard to read, but is very rewarding since it connects a lot of issues together and makes me understand why Reformed church building and liturgy are what they are compared with Anglican & Lutheran which are richer in symbolism. I now also understand why J.S. Bach's music, a Lutheran, feels "sacramental" to me (I had listened to Bach since I was a baby, and his sacred music played an important role to my faith).

@GratefulDisciple it's clear the author is very much a sacramentalist. That he gets a lot out of sacramentalism doesn't mean it's right for everyone else

Anyway, I truly hope that more evangelicals will go back to the early church father's worldview to undo the via moderna which in turn produced Enlightenment philosophy (and political ideas) that was proven to be very destructive. I recommend Hans Boersma's book for a gentle introduction to the early church father's worldview.

Sacramental architecture is also super subjective. What helps one person feel closer to God will feel gharish and off-putting to someone else

@GratefulDisciple sure, but neither Aristotle nor nominalism nor voluntarism or any of these other categories are going to be that

@curiousdannii Let's make sure we are talking about the same things. Sacramental is not about feeling. I think Part 1 and Hans Boersma's book will explain a lot better than I am.

Sacramental theology isn't part of my background. Whenever I hear people talk about it it does sound like it presents itself in feeling though

The way that author writes is quite off putting to me. Quite dogmatic and personal preferences or beliefs.

Robin Phillips I mean

I advise not to learn from what people talk about the church sacraments, nor about sacramental theology. It's about how one view the world, more to do with teleological ethics and the unity between who one IS and what one OUGHT to do. About Robin, he's passionate about it of course, but he backs it up with objective analysis that is not his own. He simply brings different threads together. I have been reading about these concepts piecemeal, so I can definitely say it's not his original idea.

I understand it's VERY hard for modern people to get acclimated to non-nominalist thinking, but I think once you get an "aha" moment, it will become a lot easier and then can see the significance of realist vs nominalist views. He's far from the first who blame nominalism for modern ills. I have seen this done by many authors who wrote in the past 50 years or so.

@GratefulDisciple in the first article there is a threefold schema that I think comes from Aristotle. My understanding of the is ought problem is that it means you can't move from man as he is to the telos of man. I would have thought if you cared about telos that is something would care to emphasise, but Robin seems to reject it?

@curiousdannii What's the title of the section where he reject it?

Aristotle and the Old Testament

I would say that only special revelation can reveal the telos of man, not human observation or rationality. And so I support the is ought distinction.

@curiousdannii There is distinction, but the ought is discoverable from the is. Voluntarism cuts that link.

Expressed in Christian term, it's as if you cannot derive laws of God from the imago dei because voluntarism cuts that link.

@GratefulDisciple it's not voluntarism that's the issue (and I might disagree with voluntarism) but the combination of the lack of data and the noetic effects of sin.

@curiousdannii The noetic effects of sin simply makes human NOT being able to do what he knows in his heart what he OUGHT to do. Isn't it what Paul said in Romans 1:18-32?

@GratefulDisciple No, the noetic effects mean that we can't reason as we might want to. We have no capability to reason our way to spiritual truths that must come from revelation. And not just because of our creatureliness, it means we can't reason as Adam untouched by sin could have.

I'd say it includes us not knowing what we ought to do

Also the telos of humans is to be relational beings connected to God. So when cut off from God, we cannot reason our way to understanding what kind of relationship with God we ought to have. So it's utterly impossible for the non-Christian to have any hope of identifying the telos of humanity.

The noetic effects of sin probably also include not being able to distinguish the characteristics of the image of God from the corruptions of sin.

Time for me to go to sleep, but if you could tell me your top book on these topics I'll add it to my list. It sounds like some of this could be relevant to my research interests too (accommodation)

Sorry I was distracted, just came back.

I would like to clarify that Aristotle on his own would NOT be able to say fully how human beings are supposed to be related to God, only an inkling of it such as in Platonism. So revelation IS necessary, natural theology is not enough. But even after your explanation, noetic effects of sin is about something else.

The telos that humans can discover through is-ought IS limited (without revelation), but to say that the limited knowledge cannot be the basis of ethics or to say that God's nature has nothing to do with it is going too far. That's what nominalist/voluntarist do. They say that goodness cannot be discovered AT ALL in nature.

@curiousdannii I have to start my work day as well. Talk to you later.

@GratefulDisciple Thanks for great comments. I have read all. Yeah nominalism is a good characterization. Add hard cessationism and they sometimes sound like atheists as I mentioned. “Hard” meaning God (none of the trinity) never talks to anyone (I never did decide where to put that exactly, whether is a supernatural gift explicitly or related or technically proph

esy etc). || I take it a step further; I think there is a limit to the truth that can be in a thought/fact/assertion etc. The Truth is not a claim or statement. It’s the very Logas of God, the Christ pre- and post-incarnation. This makes the mystical unknowing and skeptical unknowing distinction fade, not entirely but almost. Technic

ally thats a type of skepticism and Im sure it has a name, but I put a low limit on how much spiritual knowing, spiritual truth can be gained through the intellect. Sound doctrine matters a lot, but mostly to keep from going astray not to get anywhere. Took me two decades to arrive at Christianity so Im new to it. Im am probably in the tiny minority of people who have a profound confidence based on analysis and meditation and sincere open-minded search for truth based on definitions etc as a C

hristian. Im almost as close as one can get to a tabula rasa as youll find for a Christian.

Philosophy of science, psychology, cogsci, physics, metaphysics, religion, hypnosis, conscience studies. One of those decades as a materialist monist, the most blatantly false, superstitious, literally self-inconsistent of all philosophies far as I can see. Many meditation retreats. Hinduism, zen, buddhism, nonreligious nondualism. Turns

ut the Truth is that silly religion everyone told me was trite and superstitious (although I heard endless lies about it, basically everything though I knew). Anyway I did start going to services again. Pretty good one yesterday. Yeah I made a mistake to put a meta topic here. Was a knee-jerk as I had posted about the question itself here just prior, but that’s not a reason to put the other here too. Anyway. Your comments made sense.

Guess I can’t have it all. Theres a lot I disagree with and dislike about Catholicism. But maybe they are the only ones reasonable about spiritual knowing and uniting. 🙂

Yes nominalism is the right term. But is more than that. A second component. Beginning to think some of them don’t believe the miracles happened before either. It’s just ok to throw them far enough into the past that we can safely pretend. Enough prayer and rigorous meditation and becomes even more obvious He’s real. Then that fact has to be dealt with.

It helps that theres NO bs in the Bible Ive ever seen. Revelation is obviously more true and ness. I heard someone say “nature cannot make an aesthetic error”. No matter how abrupt or unusual or whatever a transition or pattern is, the log or cavern or foliage etc will never be “oh thats just wrong” like man-made can. Same

seems to be true about the Bible. Turn on the extra-intellectual Truth knowing, whatever field or dimension that is, and the Bible (kjv anyway) cannot make a mistake. It’s amazing.

Meaning divine revelation

So far the only preacher who hasn’t gotten to the point of (what I would call) obvious error is Tim Schmidt of Firth Bible Church. MacArthur went a long way but then is cessationist. I mean I get the sentiment; it’s very easy to be silly and pretend to be the Holy Spirit oneself and is much abused etc. But how he

thinks he knows that God Himself has stopped always.. is just arrogant. That whole crowd, just sounds so awful, when they go down that avenue. Ugh. And yeah, to repeat they honor the church fathers right up until that issue.

podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/firth-bible-church/…

@GratefulDisciple If the voluntarist thing makes everything arbitrary, then that's a bad position.

I'd say we can recognise goodness in nature. And we can recognise some sufferings and evils.

But the amount that you can learn through natural theology is so limited as to be almost not worth considering. Maybe that's too strong. But it should be our last resort?

Cameron's Joined Up Life, which I recommend before and is a common textbook in Australian colleges, is on the moral realist side BTW.

@GratefulDisciple Just heard rev schmidt compare the warnings to gentile and jew in romans 2:10 to approx 3:12 and phil 3:1 to approx 3:10 or so.. to a very similar one that could be made even more powerfully for Catholics. Ended with “Jesus and apostles did not teach us a sacramental religion.”