Classical Theism or Neo-Classical Theism?

You may have noticed that I refer to Classical Theism as Neo-Classical Theism from time to time.  Now the term has been used in other contexts, in fact some of those seen as in disagreement with classical theism have been labeled as such.

So why use the label in this context. Well I remember first using it probably about 7 or 8 years ago, possibly earlier.  However, I don’t think I was the first and certainly not the only one to do so. 

Why did we add the prefix “neo”?  The answer is that just as with its attribution to others, there is a suggestion that this isn’t just the original classical theism but that because it is an attempt by contemporary people to make use of older ideas, they unavoidably bring their own perspective onto things.

One specific way in which I think they do that us by attempting to employ words and concepts from a different cultural and philosophical setting into our philosophical setting.  I think this is often seen as much in what they infer that they should be against. This has been seen particularly in the concupiscence debate and I suspect is there in other debates such as the one on EFS.

I think another aspect of its newness, is its attempt to both freeze the theology and to narrow it in but that fails to reflect the variation at different times and the way in which theology developed.  Calvin differed from Aquinas who differed from Athanasius, Humanists differed from Scholastics, Platonists differed from Aristotelians and so on.  Again, differences probably reflected cultural and philosophical context as much as anything.

This is important because I’ve observed some interesting defences of this Neo-Classical Theism. Specifically, it has been suggested that those challenging it are attempting to overturn the historical position of the Church by rejecting it and that this will potentially lead to future dangers. 

First this response puts too much focus on a uniform view of the historical position and doesn’t allow for the diversity mentioned above. Secondly, it shuts down debate about where the church needs to continue to reform.

Third it makes hermeneutic and tradition as, if not more infallible than Scripture.  This also reduces confidence on our ability to read and understand Scripture together as God’s people, illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, by speculating about future, potential and hypothetical risks, it distracts us from the actual issues already present.  To be sure we should be alert to those potential dangers but not at the risk of ignoring actual dangers here and present.

For example, the level of argument where insinuations and baseless accusations are thrown around and never retracted or apologized for us a real and present danger.