tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post7480017059979476817..comments2023-11-23T11:12:37.953-06:00Comments on The Supplement - Catholic Commentary: Francis Schaeffer and AquinasFred Noltiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-69764729018059345612010-12-31T21:06:34.883-06:002010-12-31T21:06:34.883-06:00Reg,
You're a scholar and a gentleman!
...Reg, <br /><br /> You're a scholar and a gentleman! <br /><br /> DanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279813829473668314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-57880965717322198582010-12-31T19:02:58.374-06:002010-12-31T19:02:58.374-06:00Dan,
I'm sorry I haven't persuaded you. T...Dan,<br /><br />I'm sorry I haven't persuaded you. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you for providing the Schaeffer quotation. I appreciate it very much.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />RdPFred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-27991392029334685292010-12-31T18:44:55.538-06:002010-12-31T18:44:55.538-06:00Reg,
While Aquinas asserted that truths known by ...Reg,<br /><br />While Aquinas <i>asserted</i> that truths known by revelation are more certain than truths known by reason, he did not <i>and could not</i> prove by human reason that this should be so. That’s what provided the philosophers with grounds for rejecting Scripture as the ultimate test of their metaphysical truths. <br /><br />You have asked for names of others who agree with Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279813829473668314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-12018197360956404232010-12-31T17:47:56.695-06:002010-12-31T17:47:56.695-06:00What this means is that the absolute standards of ...<i>What this means is that the absolute standards of revealed truth by which Aquinas judges natural reason can not themselves be established by natural reason.</i><br /><br />This is more or less correct, although it’s not the sort of language that St Thomas uses. Because truth cannot contradict truth, there can be no conflict between the truths of faith and the truths discovered by way of reasonFred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-55726411522344388552010-12-31T17:21:45.800-06:002010-12-31T17:21:45.800-06:00Dan,
I don't consider anything to be settled ...Dan,<br /><br />I don't consider anything to be settled at all. I've written a <a href="http://the-supplement.blogspot.com/2010/12/aquinas-descartes-and-schaeffer.html" rel="nofollow">new post</a> in defense of my view. See if that helps.<br /><br />In the way of actual influences upon Descartes, you'd be better off looking at William of Ockham. See (for starters) <a href="http://Fred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-59826071762946064532010-12-31T16:55:43.673-06:002010-12-31T16:55:43.673-06:00Reg,
Thank you for your last post. We are back ...Reg, <br /><br />Thank you for your last post. We are back on track and really making progress now.<br /><br />We have established Aquinas’ Affirmation that (in your words) “reason can arrive at truth, and that is not dependent upon theology to do so." We have also established that Modern Rationalism (expressed in Descartes’ axiom “I think, therefore I am”) is founded upon the principle Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279813829473668314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-86064032277942355682010-12-31T00:48:05.236-06:002010-12-31T00:48:05.236-06:00Daniel,
Your last dodge is unnecessary; we are al...Daniel,<br /><br /><i>Your last dodge is unnecessary; we are all saying the same thing.</i><br /><br />Really? We’re saying the same thing? Then I suppose we’re done here, since you must agree with my post. :-)<br /><br />Oh, wait. You said that I’m wrong about a few things. So I guess that we’re not saying the same thing, are we? :-)<br /><br /><i>Schaeffer said the same, “In [Aquinas’] view, Fred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-45543295222241134272010-12-30T18:55:51.497-06:002010-12-30T18:55:51.497-06:00Reg,
Your last dodge is unnecessary; we are all s...Reg,<br /><br />Your last dodge is unnecessary; we are all saying the same thing.<br /><br />We agree that Modernity's Rationalism was crystallized in the Descartes’ axiom, "I think, therefore I am." The foundation for this axiom is the idea that man, beginning only with his reason and without resort to God's revelation in Scripture, can attain to universal truth, meaning and Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279813829473668314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-55954100468419430212010-12-30T08:45:10.986-06:002010-12-30T08:45:10.986-06:00Daniel,
It occurs to me that this conversation ha...Daniel,<br /><br />It occurs to me that this conversation has strayed off-topic. I'm not blaming anyone for that (I have surely contributed to this off-topicness myself, and I'm willing to take full blame if you like), but I want to get things back on-topic.<br /><br />The blog post attempts to show that Schaeffer misrepresented Aquinas' views. You say that my source for Schaeffer'Fred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-24889717579153883772010-12-30T08:11:21.956-06:002010-12-30T08:11:21.956-06:00Hello daniel4wr,
You want me to “provide the corr...Hello daniel4wr,<br /><br /><i>You want me to “provide the correct quotation from Schaeffer’s work” to support your misstatement of his position. There are no such quotes. That’s the point.</i><br /><br />I regret the poor formulation of my request. Schaeffer misrepresented Aquinas in his works. I am very confident of this claim. I'm somewhat confident that the quotation I have in mind Fred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-12518747635467500082010-12-30T00:46:50.780-06:002010-12-30T00:46:50.780-06:00Greetings Reginald,
You want me to “provide the ...Greetings Reginald, <br /><br />You want me to “provide the correct quotation from Schaeffer’s work” to support your misstatement of his position. There are no such quotes. That’s the point. <br /><br />You're afraid I misunderstood you if I think you claimed Aquinas is wrong in saying that reason can arrive at truth. I did not say you claimed that reason can not arrive at truth. I said Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279813829473668314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-16044303667866039262010-12-29T23:19:09.522-06:002010-12-29T23:19:09.522-06:00Hello daniel4wr,
The above blogger has not even r...Hello daniel4wr,<br /><br /><i>The above blogger has not even read Schaeffer, much less understood him.</i><br /><br />This turns out not to be the case. However, I will tentatively overrule my own objection, on the following grounds:<br /><br /><i>The quoted paragraph that is said to summarize Schaeffer’s thought is not even Schaeffer’s own words, but from some other misinformed internet source.Fred Noltiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10203885485191808284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5239290722575996816.post-41507094141666079062010-12-29T21:54:59.102-06:002010-12-29T21:54:59.102-06:00Those who claim that Schaeffer misread Aquinas do ...Those who claim that Schaeffer misread Aquinas do not understand Schaeffer, or Aquinas, or both.<br /><br />The above blogger has not even read Schaeffer, much less understood him. The quoted paragraph that is said to summarize Schaeffer’s thought is not even Schaeffer’s own words, but from some other misinformed internet source. Schaeffer never attributed to Aquinas the notion that the Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14279813829473668314noreply@blogger.com