@kutschkem I have now written an answer to your question:

@curiousdannii I came across your Philosophy.SE question. I have 2 observations: 1) Isn't this a matter of terminology? If historically all Christian theists bundle the transcendental Goodness at the same level with "core" attributes of God (such as aseity and simplicity), then isn't the answer to your question "yes" because

1a) "classical" is necessarily historical; 1b) all major classical theists "bundle" those "core" attributes with Goodness where God is maximally good and all love in creatures participate in Goodness? I believe all major classical theists would assert the intrinsic connection because they construct classical theism for the purpose of connecting the immanent life of Trinity (conceived in terms of knowing and loving) to how the virtue of love is produced in us as grace.

Therefore, if modern Christian philosophers (maybe like Swinburne & Plantinga) and the analytical philosophers mentioned in Dawn Chow's dissertation want to reconstruct Christian theism that divorces that connection (using nominalism, etc.), maybe they should not use the term "classical theism" to avoid confusion.

My second observation: 2) Christians are commanded to love. God needs to give us the means to understand what love is. Classical theism then provides the conceptual framework to link classical theist's understanding of the Trinity (as the 3rd subsistent relation and of divine mission, derived partly from 1 John 4:7-9) so we have something concrete to model our love from.

So by revelation God needs to be Goodness itself which needs to be integral to Christian theism, and classical theism is right in bundling it.

Going back to your question, Dawn Chow's dissertation is a good one to read, mostly to update myself on contemporary philosophy. Maybe after reading it I'll be more confident to answer your question. My instinct is a "yes, because classical theists do their work to process revelation", but I feel I cannot post the answer it yet until I demonstrate that any conceptualist/nominalist framework is flexible enough to express what a Biblical Christian theology needs.

If participation in God's goodness is so central to Christian sanctification, and if the Christian wants to avoid Divine Command Theory, I doubt a conceptualist / nominalist framework can ever be sufficient.

Observation 3) Can one be a realist only for certain things like Goodness, Truth, and Beauty (the transcendentals) but not others? If so, the answer to your question maybe a qualified "yes".

@GratefulDisciple "Classical Theism" isn't just what's historical, for there's always been a spectrum of views. And so yes it is a question of terminology, I'm asking whether realism is integral to the definition.

@GratefulDisciple Some of them wouldn't claim (I think) to be Classical theists as they reject simplicity or another doctrine. But I think it's probably possible to endorse all the core doctrines of Classical Theism without buying into philosophical realism.

@GratefulDisciple If you're saying "God's goodness" you're already not being a good Realist ;)

@GratefulDisciple I feel like the question should be flipped around: what is there in historical orthodox Christian theology that needs Universals to exist, and what would demand they exist in the way that Realists think they exist? Especially when Classical Theism Realists actually say they exist as God, and so don't actually have distinct existence like we would naively think, or how a non-Christian Realist would likely say they exist.

I haven't been doing much thinking on these topics recently. Had brain fog after covid late last year, and haven't got back into the swing of it yet. I want to, but don't really know where to get started again.

@LeeWoofenden Thanks, good answer (as far as I can tell)

@curiousdannii yes, I should have said "participation in the Good". I call it "nominalist slip" after "Freudian slip" as evidence that as much as I want to be realist, I still have the hangover from my Calvinist upbringing ;)

@curiousdannii I hope you'll get back to your usual self soon. I myself have been somewhat lethargic lately, trying to be more productive.

@LeeWoofenden Yes, as an answer describing the Swedenborgian perspective, it's a good answer (+1), but I object to Swedenborg's description of the biblical prophet inspiration (in your #1 point: manner of inspiration) of "being possessed by spirits" in such a way that they are not aware of their own minds. It is a gross overgeneralization of the Saul incident.

Rather, the people who wrote the OT and NT should be conceived as reflecting and putting down to words their visions/dreams/hearing/special-experiences, so while they are writing they are inspired YET in full command of their faculties. So the writings were deemed inspired by the community, not by they themselves (except the special experiences). They are trusted as true prophets, and the community assigned the writings to be "verbally inspired" after the fact.

@LeeWoofenden This 1980 themelios article The Old Testament Prophets' Self Understanding of Their Prophecy by OT professor Douglas Stuart should represent the mainstream view, at least the evangelical view.

@GratefulDisciple Why do you want to be a realist?