What do you think?
Rate this book
Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism
Southwestern Journal of Theology 2021 Book of the Year Award (Theological Studies)2021 Book Award, The Gospel Coalition (Honorable Mention, Academic Theology)Following his well-received Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition, Craig Carter presents the biblical and theological foundations of trinitarian classical theism. Carter, a leading Christian theologian known for his provocative defenses of classical approaches to doctrine, critiques the recent trend toward modifying or rejecting classical theism in favor of modern "relational" understandings of God. The book includes a short history of trinitarian theology from its patristic origins to the modern period, and a concluding appendix provides a brief summary of classical trinitarian theology. Foreword by Carl R. Trueman.
340 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 20, 2021
24 people are currently reading
306 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 21, 2021
What can I say? It was long and meandering at times, repetitive with a penchant for drum banging, thoroughly classical and unapologetically old school. And I drank it up slow and steady, enjoying every draught. To put it simply, I believe I have been convinced that anything other than the classical understanding of God -- defined at at Nicea, defended by the fathers, foreshadowed by the ancients, assumed by the scholastics, renewed by the reformers, and taken for granted by so many afterwards -- cannot do justice to the otherness of God and ultimately leads to a diminishing of praise, wonder, and joy. If you want a full orbed, worthy to sing about God, I'd start here, with the God defended as Biblical reality and expounded upon in this book.
Carter's 25 theses of classical theism are helpful and clear. His pushback on modern interpretation through his Isaiah test case is exceptional. And his incessant proselytizing on the importance of ex nihilo is inspiring. He has done a great service, and although it gets boggy at times (as mentioned), Carter is clearly looking out for his reader by substituting conciseness for emphasis. It's hard to walk away from this work without convictional clarity, no matter where your convictions fall.
Carter's 25 theses of classical theism are helpful and clear. His pushback on modern interpretation through his Isaiah test case is exceptional. And his incessant proselytizing on the importance of ex nihilo is inspiring. He has done a great service, and although it gets boggy at times (as mentioned), Carter is clearly looking out for his reader by substituting conciseness for emphasis. It's hard to walk away from this work without convictional clarity, no matter where your convictions fall.
May 12, 2021
This is superb. A Themelios book review is forthcoming.
April 8, 2021
In his new book, Contemplating God with the Great Tradition, Craig A. Carter recounts a significantly different experience with Biblical education than my own. In his account, he was taught to look down on the Father’s Trinitarian theology as inadequate and, perhaps, a capitulation to the philosophical trends of their day. However, when he began to read the Fathers for himself, he encountered something radically different. Thus, he came to appreciate not only the Fathers’ method and theology but also the philosophical framework which they worked out in critical interaction with the best philosophy of their day. In my experience, I was taught what Craig calls “Trinitarian Classical Theism” (TCT) with its attendant view of the Trinity and came to embrace “Christian Platonism” as I studied Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine in my undergraduate and graduate education. However, as I began to grapple with the questions driving Plato and Aristotle, I began to question their conclusions seriously; ironically, I found in Augustine a subtle but dramatic departure from Platonism. These seeds of philosophical inquiry were nurtured through the works of John Frame and Cornelius Van Til, among others. Once I followed Frame and Van Til in abandoning the Platonic epistemology, I soon realized that this entailed an abandonment of the Platonic metaphysic. I did not, however, default to “pantheistic materialism” that Carter decries throughout Contemplating God. Instead, I found myself embracing an equally—if not more—supernaturalistic metaphysic than Platonism. I was pleased to receive a copy of Contemplating God with the Great Tradition from Baker books for an opportunity to wrestle further with Patristic theology and its contemporary significance.
There were many good and commendable things in Contemplating God. I wholeheartedly agree with Carter’s sustained attack on methodological naturalism, especially in Biblical studies, and with his argument that much contemporary theology is uncritically indebted to naturalist and materialist metaphysics. There are also many of his twenty-five theses of “Trinitarian Classical Theism” that I would wholeheartedly accept, or with only minor clarification. Carter also rightly identifies the stakes involved: we cannot reject the metaphysics of the Fathers without rethinking the way they expressed their theology or even specific theological claims they make. However, the good things that Contemplating God argues are outweighed by its substantial problems.
Carter writes to show the “congruence between the classical Nicene doctrine of God and the teaching of the Holy Scripture” (loc 1008). He intends to argue that the Fathers were “not reading Greek metaphysics into the Bible but rather were correcting Greek metaphysics using biblical theology” (loc 1029). When he says Trinitarian Classical Theism is Biblical, he means that it is either explicitly stated in Scripture or logically deduced therefrom, as the Westminster Confession has it (loc 1179). Something that is only compatible with Scripture may be believed but cannot be held up as a standard of orthodoxy. To argue this, he builds on his earlier volume Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition. His method works with two levels of exegesis, following the “classical method of doing theology by contemplating the results of exegesis and seeking to formulate doctrines that can guide us in a deeper ‘second exegesis,’ in which we try to listen to God’s voice speaking to us through the text” (loc 5867). Though he seems to be writing for “conservative” Evangelicals who have supposedly abandoned “Trinitarian Classical Theism” (TCT), his only dialogue partners (excepting a brief criticism of Rob Lister) are modernist theologians who have sought to radically reshape the Christian doctrine of God (such as Bultmann, Pannenberg, social Trinitarians, process theologians and open theists). He thus never deals with the issues which contemporary, Bible-believing Evangelical theologians find problematic with TCT. Instead, he repeatedly suggests that anyone who disagrees with his position is a naïve, ignorant idiot. For example, “ignorance that might be excusable in a layperson is often found among pastors and theologians, who just do not know how the classical tradition sees the relationship between the simple, perfect, eternal, immutable God and the God of the Bible, who speaks and acts in history” (loc. 1094). Or, “the decline in the study of Greek philosophy by theologians also renders them unable to comprehend what the fourth-century debates were all about” (loc 668). Finally, “Many contemporary evangelical theologians are trying to play the game called the liberal project without understanding what game they are playing or what its rules actually are” (loc 6410). This gets the fundamental problem with Carter’s argument: he draws a false disjunction where one must either be a TCT proponent or a modernist, adopting polytheistic and pantheistic materialism. For example, “Biblical exegetes must be theologians, not secular historians, and they must begin with the classical orthodoxy of the church, because the only alternative is to begin from a set of presuppositions that is hostile to the Bible itself” (loc 1000). The only options, apparently, are either Classical Theism or the Hellenization thesis, namely, that the Fathers’ uncritically accommodated the Bible to Greek philosophy (e.g. loc 240, 1066-1089, 5919). Carter does not entertain the idea that some of us who disagree at points with the Fathers have read them, understood them, appreciated them, and have disagreed with them on Biblical and philosophical grounds, arriving a position that is not “half-baked” (loc 905) but well-reasoned.
To argue his position, Carter engages in a three-part argument. In Part 1, he addressed the definitional issue, first describing the contrast between “Classical Orthodoxy” and “Relational Theism” (Chapter 1) and then describing TCT (Chapter 2), focusing on 25 theses (read them here). Then, in Part 2, Carter argues that TCT has “biblical roots.” After defending theological interpretation in Chapter 3, Carter then argues Isaiah 40-48 presents God as “the Transcendent Creator” (Chapter 4), the “Lord of History” (Chapter 5), and Monotheism or God’s uniqueness (Chapter 6). Finally, in Part 3, Carter seeks to demonstrate that TCT is found in history and is Biblically based. In Chapter 7, he unpacks the thinking of various fathers. In Chapter 8, he argues at length that creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) is found earlier in the tradition and rightly deduced from the Bible. Finally, in Chapter 9, he concludes that the God of TCT is the God of the Bible. The epilogue concludes, “Why the Church Does Not Change Its Mind.” The title of the epilogue implies what may be the biggest problem in the book. Throughout Contemplating God, Carter makes it clear that TCT is the only orthodoxy and that it is required to even speak about God rightly. However, he also makes clear that it is incredibly difficult to understand, such that most theologians and pastors today—let alone the average layperson—cannot understand it (loc 1000, 1080, 1094, 6417, 6467). In this way, he sets theology and right knowledge of God far beyond the grasp of most Christians today or throughout history. By suggesting that any other position is sub-Christian, outside of the “Great Tradition,” or outside of what the “church” has believed, Carter makes it clear that orthodoxy, tradition, and the church are defined not by the believing community but by its most wealthy and intelligent members, the only ones who can afford and succeed in the sorts of education necessary to understand TCT. For me, this is unacceptable but a clear implication of the marriage of Platonism and the Bible.
A more in-depth review can be found on Teleioteti.ca, here (https://teleioteti.ca/?p=5202).
There were many good and commendable things in Contemplating God. I wholeheartedly agree with Carter’s sustained attack on methodological naturalism, especially in Biblical studies, and with his argument that much contemporary theology is uncritically indebted to naturalist and materialist metaphysics. There are also many of his twenty-five theses of “Trinitarian Classical Theism” that I would wholeheartedly accept, or with only minor clarification. Carter also rightly identifies the stakes involved: we cannot reject the metaphysics of the Fathers without rethinking the way they expressed their theology or even specific theological claims they make. However, the good things that Contemplating God argues are outweighed by its substantial problems.
Carter writes to show the “congruence between the classical Nicene doctrine of God and the teaching of the Holy Scripture” (loc 1008). He intends to argue that the Fathers were “not reading Greek metaphysics into the Bible but rather were correcting Greek metaphysics using biblical theology” (loc 1029). When he says Trinitarian Classical Theism is Biblical, he means that it is either explicitly stated in Scripture or logically deduced therefrom, as the Westminster Confession has it (loc 1179). Something that is only compatible with Scripture may be believed but cannot be held up as a standard of orthodoxy. To argue this, he builds on his earlier volume Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition. His method works with two levels of exegesis, following the “classical method of doing theology by contemplating the results of exegesis and seeking to formulate doctrines that can guide us in a deeper ‘second exegesis,’ in which we try to listen to God’s voice speaking to us through the text” (loc 5867). Though he seems to be writing for “conservative” Evangelicals who have supposedly abandoned “Trinitarian Classical Theism” (TCT), his only dialogue partners (excepting a brief criticism of Rob Lister) are modernist theologians who have sought to radically reshape the Christian doctrine of God (such as Bultmann, Pannenberg, social Trinitarians, process theologians and open theists). He thus never deals with the issues which contemporary, Bible-believing Evangelical theologians find problematic with TCT. Instead, he repeatedly suggests that anyone who disagrees with his position is a naïve, ignorant idiot. For example, “ignorance that might be excusable in a layperson is often found among pastors and theologians, who just do not know how the classical tradition sees the relationship between the simple, perfect, eternal, immutable God and the God of the Bible, who speaks and acts in history” (loc. 1094). Or, “the decline in the study of Greek philosophy by theologians also renders them unable to comprehend what the fourth-century debates were all about” (loc 668). Finally, “Many contemporary evangelical theologians are trying to play the game called the liberal project without understanding what game they are playing or what its rules actually are” (loc 6410). This gets the fundamental problem with Carter’s argument: he draws a false disjunction where one must either be a TCT proponent or a modernist, adopting polytheistic and pantheistic materialism. For example, “Biblical exegetes must be theologians, not secular historians, and they must begin with the classical orthodoxy of the church, because the only alternative is to begin from a set of presuppositions that is hostile to the Bible itself” (loc 1000). The only options, apparently, are either Classical Theism or the Hellenization thesis, namely, that the Fathers’ uncritically accommodated the Bible to Greek philosophy (e.g. loc 240, 1066-1089, 5919). Carter does not entertain the idea that some of us who disagree at points with the Fathers have read them, understood them, appreciated them, and have disagreed with them on Biblical and philosophical grounds, arriving a position that is not “half-baked” (loc 905) but well-reasoned.
To argue his position, Carter engages in a three-part argument. In Part 1, he addressed the definitional issue, first describing the contrast between “Classical Orthodoxy” and “Relational Theism” (Chapter 1) and then describing TCT (Chapter 2), focusing on 25 theses (read them here). Then, in Part 2, Carter argues that TCT has “biblical roots.” After defending theological interpretation in Chapter 3, Carter then argues Isaiah 40-48 presents God as “the Transcendent Creator” (Chapter 4), the “Lord of History” (Chapter 5), and Monotheism or God’s uniqueness (Chapter 6). Finally, in Part 3, Carter seeks to demonstrate that TCT is found in history and is Biblically based. In Chapter 7, he unpacks the thinking of various fathers. In Chapter 8, he argues at length that creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) is found earlier in the tradition and rightly deduced from the Bible. Finally, in Chapter 9, he concludes that the God of TCT is the God of the Bible. The epilogue concludes, “Why the Church Does Not Change Its Mind.” The title of the epilogue implies what may be the biggest problem in the book. Throughout Contemplating God, Carter makes it clear that TCT is the only orthodoxy and that it is required to even speak about God rightly. However, he also makes clear that it is incredibly difficult to understand, such that most theologians and pastors today—let alone the average layperson—cannot understand it (loc 1000, 1080, 1094, 6417, 6467). In this way, he sets theology and right knowledge of God far beyond the grasp of most Christians today or throughout history. By suggesting that any other position is sub-Christian, outside of the “Great Tradition,” or outside of what the “church” has believed, Carter makes it clear that orthodoxy, tradition, and the church are defined not by the believing community but by its most wealthy and intelligent members, the only ones who can afford and succeed in the sorts of education necessary to understand TCT. For me, this is unacceptable but a clear implication of the marriage of Platonism and the Bible.
A more in-depth review can be found on Teleioteti.ca, here (https://teleioteti.ca/?p=5202).
December 30, 2022
Carter argues that modernist theology (or what he calls “the liberal project”) holds to a pantheistic conception of God developed under the pretense of value-free historical-critical exegesis but in fact driven by massive unacknowledged metaphysical assumptions. Carter claims that the Bible itself—not only so-called Hellenized church fathers or certain Aristotelian medieval theologians—teaches that God is the transcendent Creator contra the immanent and relational God of modernist theology.
The heart of the book (Chapters 3-6: pp. 83-199) is a brilliant interpretation of Isaiah 40-48, the section of Isaiah focused on the polemic against the pagan gods. Carter uses Isaiah 40-48 to demonstrate that the classical understanding of God as the transcendent, immutable Creator who is above time, is rooted in Scripture not philosophy. In addition, Carter offers a powerful defense of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, which he rightly sees as “the central metaphysical doctrine” and the dividing line between the God of the Bible and pagan pantheism (Chapter 8: pp. 237-68). Carter’s conclusion is that the liberal project ultimately ends in neopaganism.
Overall, I thought the book was great, but I do have some negative things to say. First, there was a mismatch between my expectations and the reality. The title and subtitle, as well as the online pre-publication chatter, led me to expect that the book was going to be a positive exposition of the details of Trinitarian classical theism, developed in conversation with the Great Tradition. In reality, the book was an (at times) repetitious rant against modernist theology.
My second criticism has to do with the book’s relation to the elephant in the room. Why a critique of the liberal project now? Didn’t Machen and the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary expose the pagan metaphysic of modernism a century ago? I think it is obvious that Carter’s polemic isn’t only addressed to the mainline liberal project but has some closer enemies in view. It is only toward the end of the book (pp. 298-302) that these enemies come into view. Here Carter finally mentions recent intra-evangelical debates over “theistic mutualism,” a more relational version of theism undertaken by evangelicals, not liberals, seeking to qualify or revise traditional doctrines such as divine impassibility and immutability. Carter spends a few pages engaging Rob Lister’s version of theistic mutualism. But I did not find Carter’s comments here to contribute much to the conversation. He is unusually dismissive, calling these evangelical theologians “merely a conservative wing of the liberal project.” He writes them off as compromising with modernity to gain scholarly respect in the secular academy. Carter mentions James Dolezal’s book, All That Is in God, and calls it a “penetrating work,” but Dolezal’s critique is from the disciplines of historical and systematic theology. It would have been helpful if Carter had taken the time to interact with the likes of Lister from the discipline of biblical theology, e.g., martialing his brilliant work on Isaiah 40-48 in conversation with their exegesis. In my opinion, Carter missed an opportunity to make a helpful contribution to the intra-evangelical debate, engaging the exegesis and hermeneutical method of theistic mutualists in a substantive way.
The heart of the book (Chapters 3-6: pp. 83-199) is a brilliant interpretation of Isaiah 40-48, the section of Isaiah focused on the polemic against the pagan gods. Carter uses Isaiah 40-48 to demonstrate that the classical understanding of God as the transcendent, immutable Creator who is above time, is rooted in Scripture not philosophy. In addition, Carter offers a powerful defense of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, which he rightly sees as “the central metaphysical doctrine” and the dividing line between the God of the Bible and pagan pantheism (Chapter 8: pp. 237-68). Carter’s conclusion is that the liberal project ultimately ends in neopaganism.
Overall, I thought the book was great, but I do have some negative things to say. First, there was a mismatch between my expectations and the reality. The title and subtitle, as well as the online pre-publication chatter, led me to expect that the book was going to be a positive exposition of the details of Trinitarian classical theism, developed in conversation with the Great Tradition. In reality, the book was an (at times) repetitious rant against modernist theology.
My second criticism has to do with the book’s relation to the elephant in the room. Why a critique of the liberal project now? Didn’t Machen and the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary expose the pagan metaphysic of modernism a century ago? I think it is obvious that Carter’s polemic isn’t only addressed to the mainline liberal project but has some closer enemies in view. It is only toward the end of the book (pp. 298-302) that these enemies come into view. Here Carter finally mentions recent intra-evangelical debates over “theistic mutualism,” a more relational version of theism undertaken by evangelicals, not liberals, seeking to qualify or revise traditional doctrines such as divine impassibility and immutability. Carter spends a few pages engaging Rob Lister’s version of theistic mutualism. But I did not find Carter’s comments here to contribute much to the conversation. He is unusually dismissive, calling these evangelical theologians “merely a conservative wing of the liberal project.” He writes them off as compromising with modernity to gain scholarly respect in the secular academy. Carter mentions James Dolezal’s book, All That Is in God, and calls it a “penetrating work,” but Dolezal’s critique is from the disciplines of historical and systematic theology. It would have been helpful if Carter had taken the time to interact with the likes of Lister from the discipline of biblical theology, e.g., martialing his brilliant work on Isaiah 40-48 in conversation with their exegesis. In my opinion, Carter missed an opportunity to make a helpful contribution to the intra-evangelical debate, engaging the exegesis and hermeneutical method of theistic mutualists in a substantive way.
January 27, 2022
4.5 stars. It would be hard to overstate how much I loved Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition. This was a superb sequel, though I got bogged down in the middle. Here Carter does for theology proper what he did for hermeneutics in the previous book. I hope there will be many who follow the course Carter is charting with these books.
January 12, 2024
Carter, Craig. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
Even though I fully endorse Craig Carter’s Great Tradition project, there have been some areas I was hesitant about. One such area was the use of premodern exegesis. Not having yet read his book on that subject, I thought he meant something like allegorical interpretation and a disregard for the Bible’s Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. I was pleased to discover that he is quite attuned to the ANE context. Indeed, he is able to do something similar to what the Greek Fathers did at Nicea: he takes the pictures and language of the ANE and shows how prophecy corrects them.
In other words, in terms of his argument about Isaiah 40-48, we view the Bible’s relationship to the ANE, not as one of dependence, but as a polemical corrective, challenging both the pantheistic metaphysics of then and the naturalistic metaphysics of today.
I would normally in the course of a review analyze topics as they emerged from the book. I cannot do that with this book, as Carter is insistent on the phrase “Christian Platonism.” Since his phrase is prone to misinterpretation, we should define it. Carter explains: “Christian Platonism is a label that can be applied to the theological metaphysics that grows out of fourth-century pro-Nicene theology and becomes integral to classical Christian orthodoxy” (Carter 7). Because of late modernity’s captivity to philosophical naturalism and its erasure of a transcendent God, Carter feels the need to shock readers with something like Platonism.
What Went Wrong?
The Enlightenment did not give us knowledge; it gave us a new mythology. To be specific, it dressed ancient Babylonian cosmology in more scientific and mechanistic terms. That is bad enough. It is even worse when you take that mythology and rewrite the doctrine of God. Liberals are guilty of this, to be sure, but as Craig Carter makes clear, conservatives are not much better.
Mythological thought sees a continuity between god (or gods), man, and nature. There is an immanent “force” in nature that explains change. The Enlightenment never rejected this idea. In the 18th century, it understood the universe as a machine with the power of self-motion. In the nineteenth century, it exchanged the model of machine for that of organism. What it never rejected with the idea of a “power” in nature that does not need a transcendent God.
Pagan metaphysics, whether ancient or modern, viewed all of reality as part of one cosmic order. The attributes of God are then applied to the cosmos. This worldview is, in fact, quite consistent. Only the present is real in mythological thinking. Also emphasized is fertility and potency, forms of sympathetic magic. And if all reality is one and connected, then it is wrong to introduce boundaries within reality (e.g., male/female; creator/creation).
Even if modern-day conservatives rejected the more pantheistic aspects of mythological thinking, they never rejected the Enlightenment’s view of God, particularly in the pitting of God’s actions vs. God’s being. In other words, we can only know God by his actions, not by speculating into his being. Worse yet, this god can be found only in the historical process.
Trinitarian Classical Theism
Against this mythological view of God, Carter champions the historic doctrine of Trinitarian classical theism (hereafter TCT). Carter’s argument demands that we affirm both Trinitarianism and classical theism in one model. Classical theism without the Trinity will give you Deism. Trinitarianism without classical theism will give you only a god (or three gods) among other gods.
TCT is necessary for Christian orthodoxy as it generated key metaphysical doctrines: simplicity, aseity, and creation ex nihilo (Carter 49). TCT is also relevant for pastoral ministry: by focusing on God’s being, one can confidently claim that God is x (e.g., love) in his being. His being is trustworthy. Yes, this God acts in history, but if we have no assurance that he is steadfast and unchanging in his being, then we can never be quite sure he will always be for us.
TCT begins with God as the First Cause. Correlative with this claim is the one that God is Pure Act. Existence is part of his essence, otherwise God would need to receive his existence from something other than his essence. Everything in the universe is a mixture of act and potency. God has no potency; if he did he would have to be fully actualized from someone (something?) else. Even worse, if God was not pure act, then the hierarchical chain of motion could never begin, for anything with potency needs an unactualized Actualizer. Furthermore, since there is no change in God’s being, he must be eternal (as all things in time are subject to change). And since there is no potency, he must be immutable. Similar deductions would follow from these reflections.
Hermeneutics and Exegesis
The immediate rejoinder to any such project of “Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition” is the charge that said Christian Platonists will start reading allegories out of the text, which is fatal to any good hermeneutics. That is a real problem, but it is not a problem with Carter’s proposal. He says the Bible has its own metaphysical assumptions, and when we read naturalistic metaphysics into the text (e.g., any liberal commentary), we are just as guilty of mishandling the text. Does the Bible prove the metaphysics of the Great Tradition? It is not obvious that it does, but that should raise another question: which is closer to the metaphysics of the Bible: a view that holds that universals are real or a view that believes the cosmos is an organism that evolves?
It is true that one might reject both options, but if the reader is relatively conservative and holds to some form of the ecumenical creeds, then the Great Tradition metaphysics is inevitable. It is easy to “reject all things Platonic;” it is much more difficult to invent a brand new metaphysics on the spot.
The heart of this book is a sustained reflection on Isaiah 40-48. Isaiah is arguing for a certain view of God. Carter makes two specific claims: Yahweh is not a being among other beings, and the invisible realm is filled with countless beings (129). Some might bristle at Carter’s view that there are elohim besides Yahweh. If that makes one uncomfortable, we can just use Paul’s language in Ephesians 6: ἀρχάς, τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. As any good ANE writer knows, this implies some sort of hierarchy in the spiritual world. Yahweh, however, is not part of this hierarchy.
If classical theism should never be divorced from Trinitarianism, neither should it be divorced from Isaiah 40-48. Carter notes: “God is both the metaphysically absolute First Cause of all things and also the One who speaks and acts in history in order to judge the world and save his people” (139).
This underscores how radical a doctrine of creation ex nihilo is. Unlike ANE myths, in the bible creation is not rebellious. God does destroy Rahab (more on that later, perhaps), but not in the process of creation. Rahab in Psalm 74 refers back to the Exodus and the opening of the Red Sea (143).
Platonism Revisited
Carter notes that the fathers “accepted the Platonic concept of universals as the basis for the logical order discernible in creation, but through scholastic realism, they relocated them from a hard-to-define Platonic ‘third realm’ into the mind of God” (206). In a similar manner, the Fathers, following the Gospel, championed the Logos, not as a demiurge, but as a Creator; not as a mere structuring principle, but as someone who acted in history.
Carter summarizes his Christian Platonism with a discussion of Lloyd Gerson’s “Ur-Platonism.” For Gerson, all Platonic models incorporate five propositions: 1) antimaterialism, 2) antinominalism, 3) antimechanism, 4) antiskepticism, and 5) antirelativism (Gerson, 9-19, quoted in Carter, 290). Gerson’s criteria seem overly broad and ignore some of the more objectionable points of Plato’s worldview. Nonetheless, it does communicate what the Great Tradition is trying to say and can be appreciated for that.
Evaluation and Analysis
Carter’s most contentious point is his deliberate use of the term “Christian Platonism.” It is unlikely biblicists would reject his larger project, at least at the basic level. One might reject Thomism, but few can reject the idea that God is a First Cause without embracing some form of finite godism. It is Platonism, and specifically Carter’s emphasis on Platonism as such, that draws the most ire. I will admit I do not particularly like the term, but I understand his point. He wants to “shock” the reader, a reader perhaps long stuck in the mud of philosophical naturalism and materialism. I get it. I would have said it another way, but I will not quibble over terminology.
In any case, there is very little of Plato in the book. In fact, for those who have read all of Plato, there is not as much discussion on the realm of Forms as one might expect. Far more important for Carter’s project, on the other hand, is the prophet Isaiah. Carter devotes four chapters with a sustained analysis and exegesis of Isaiah 40-48. By contrast, Plato is mentioned on fourteen or so pages. By Christian Platonism, Carter clearly means a transcendent God who acts on his world without being reduced to the world. Could he have chosen a better term? Probably. Does his reasoning make sense? Yes.
More important than quibbles of terminology is Carter’s heroic defense of the historic doctrine of God. As he notes, the Christian world “recovered” the doctrine of the Trinity in the 20th century. That might not have been a good thing. Without simultaneously recovering classical theism, it gave us figures like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, Jurgen Moltmann, and others. Without a robust classical theism, God gets moved to history and the historical process. We are not saying one must champion a view of God as First Cause to avoid this problem, but it is hard to imagine what one would do, otherwise.
Works Cited
Carter, Craig A. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
Gerson, Lloyd P. From Plato to Platonism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013.
Even though I fully endorse Craig Carter’s Great Tradition project, there have been some areas I was hesitant about. One such area was the use of premodern exegesis. Not having yet read his book on that subject, I thought he meant something like allegorical interpretation and a disregard for the Bible’s Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. I was pleased to discover that he is quite attuned to the ANE context. Indeed, he is able to do something similar to what the Greek Fathers did at Nicea: he takes the pictures and language of the ANE and shows how prophecy corrects them.
In other words, in terms of his argument about Isaiah 40-48, we view the Bible’s relationship to the ANE, not as one of dependence, but as a polemical corrective, challenging both the pantheistic metaphysics of then and the naturalistic metaphysics of today.
I would normally in the course of a review analyze topics as they emerged from the book. I cannot do that with this book, as Carter is insistent on the phrase “Christian Platonism.” Since his phrase is prone to misinterpretation, we should define it. Carter explains: “Christian Platonism is a label that can be applied to the theological metaphysics that grows out of fourth-century pro-Nicene theology and becomes integral to classical Christian orthodoxy” (Carter 7). Because of late modernity’s captivity to philosophical naturalism and its erasure of a transcendent God, Carter feels the need to shock readers with something like Platonism.
What Went Wrong?
The Enlightenment did not give us knowledge; it gave us a new mythology. To be specific, it dressed ancient Babylonian cosmology in more scientific and mechanistic terms. That is bad enough. It is even worse when you take that mythology and rewrite the doctrine of God. Liberals are guilty of this, to be sure, but as Craig Carter makes clear, conservatives are not much better.
Mythological thought sees a continuity between god (or gods), man, and nature. There is an immanent “force” in nature that explains change. The Enlightenment never rejected this idea. In the 18th century, it understood the universe as a machine with the power of self-motion. In the nineteenth century, it exchanged the model of machine for that of organism. What it never rejected with the idea of a “power” in nature that does not need a transcendent God.
Pagan metaphysics, whether ancient or modern, viewed all of reality as part of one cosmic order. The attributes of God are then applied to the cosmos. This worldview is, in fact, quite consistent. Only the present is real in mythological thinking. Also emphasized is fertility and potency, forms of sympathetic magic. And if all reality is one and connected, then it is wrong to introduce boundaries within reality (e.g., male/female; creator/creation).
Even if modern-day conservatives rejected the more pantheistic aspects of mythological thinking, they never rejected the Enlightenment’s view of God, particularly in the pitting of God’s actions vs. God’s being. In other words, we can only know God by his actions, not by speculating into his being. Worse yet, this god can be found only in the historical process.
Trinitarian Classical Theism
Against this mythological view of God, Carter champions the historic doctrine of Trinitarian classical theism (hereafter TCT). Carter’s argument demands that we affirm both Trinitarianism and classical theism in one model. Classical theism without the Trinity will give you Deism. Trinitarianism without classical theism will give you only a god (or three gods) among other gods.
TCT is necessary for Christian orthodoxy as it generated key metaphysical doctrines: simplicity, aseity, and creation ex nihilo (Carter 49). TCT is also relevant for pastoral ministry: by focusing on God’s being, one can confidently claim that God is x (e.g., love) in his being. His being is trustworthy. Yes, this God acts in history, but if we have no assurance that he is steadfast and unchanging in his being, then we can never be quite sure he will always be for us.
TCT begins with God as the First Cause. Correlative with this claim is the one that God is Pure Act. Existence is part of his essence, otherwise God would need to receive his existence from something other than his essence. Everything in the universe is a mixture of act and potency. God has no potency; if he did he would have to be fully actualized from someone (something?) else. Even worse, if God was not pure act, then the hierarchical chain of motion could never begin, for anything with potency needs an unactualized Actualizer. Furthermore, since there is no change in God’s being, he must be eternal (as all things in time are subject to change). And since there is no potency, he must be immutable. Similar deductions would follow from these reflections.
Hermeneutics and Exegesis
The immediate rejoinder to any such project of “Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition” is the charge that said Christian Platonists will start reading allegories out of the text, which is fatal to any good hermeneutics. That is a real problem, but it is not a problem with Carter’s proposal. He says the Bible has its own metaphysical assumptions, and when we read naturalistic metaphysics into the text (e.g., any liberal commentary), we are just as guilty of mishandling the text. Does the Bible prove the metaphysics of the Great Tradition? It is not obvious that it does, but that should raise another question: which is closer to the metaphysics of the Bible: a view that holds that universals are real or a view that believes the cosmos is an organism that evolves?
It is true that one might reject both options, but if the reader is relatively conservative and holds to some form of the ecumenical creeds, then the Great Tradition metaphysics is inevitable. It is easy to “reject all things Platonic;” it is much more difficult to invent a brand new metaphysics on the spot.
The heart of this book is a sustained reflection on Isaiah 40-48. Isaiah is arguing for a certain view of God. Carter makes two specific claims: Yahweh is not a being among other beings, and the invisible realm is filled with countless beings (129). Some might bristle at Carter’s view that there are elohim besides Yahweh. If that makes one uncomfortable, we can just use Paul’s language in Ephesians 6: ἀρχάς, τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. As any good ANE writer knows, this implies some sort of hierarchy in the spiritual world. Yahweh, however, is not part of this hierarchy.
If classical theism should never be divorced from Trinitarianism, neither should it be divorced from Isaiah 40-48. Carter notes: “God is both the metaphysically absolute First Cause of all things and also the One who speaks and acts in history in order to judge the world and save his people” (139).
This underscores how radical a doctrine of creation ex nihilo is. Unlike ANE myths, in the bible creation is not rebellious. God does destroy Rahab (more on that later, perhaps), but not in the process of creation. Rahab in Psalm 74 refers back to the Exodus and the opening of the Red Sea (143).
Platonism Revisited
Carter notes that the fathers “accepted the Platonic concept of universals as the basis for the logical order discernible in creation, but through scholastic realism, they relocated them from a hard-to-define Platonic ‘third realm’ into the mind of God” (206). In a similar manner, the Fathers, following the Gospel, championed the Logos, not as a demiurge, but as a Creator; not as a mere structuring principle, but as someone who acted in history.
Carter summarizes his Christian Platonism with a discussion of Lloyd Gerson’s “Ur-Platonism.” For Gerson, all Platonic models incorporate five propositions: 1) antimaterialism, 2) antinominalism, 3) antimechanism, 4) antiskepticism, and 5) antirelativism (Gerson, 9-19, quoted in Carter, 290). Gerson’s criteria seem overly broad and ignore some of the more objectionable points of Plato’s worldview. Nonetheless, it does communicate what the Great Tradition is trying to say and can be appreciated for that.
Evaluation and Analysis
Carter’s most contentious point is his deliberate use of the term “Christian Platonism.” It is unlikely biblicists would reject his larger project, at least at the basic level. One might reject Thomism, but few can reject the idea that God is a First Cause without embracing some form of finite godism. It is Platonism, and specifically Carter’s emphasis on Platonism as such, that draws the most ire. I will admit I do not particularly like the term, but I understand his point. He wants to “shock” the reader, a reader perhaps long stuck in the mud of philosophical naturalism and materialism. I get it. I would have said it another way, but I will not quibble over terminology.
In any case, there is very little of Plato in the book. In fact, for those who have read all of Plato, there is not as much discussion on the realm of Forms as one might expect. Far more important for Carter’s project, on the other hand, is the prophet Isaiah. Carter devotes four chapters with a sustained analysis and exegesis of Isaiah 40-48. By contrast, Plato is mentioned on fourteen or so pages. By Christian Platonism, Carter clearly means a transcendent God who acts on his world without being reduced to the world. Could he have chosen a better term? Probably. Does his reasoning make sense? Yes.
More important than quibbles of terminology is Carter’s heroic defense of the historic doctrine of God. As he notes, the Christian world “recovered” the doctrine of the Trinity in the 20th century. That might not have been a good thing. Without simultaneously recovering classical theism, it gave us figures like Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, Jurgen Moltmann, and others. Without a robust classical theism, God gets moved to history and the historical process. We are not saying one must champion a view of God as First Cause to avoid this problem, but it is hard to imagine what one would do, otherwise.
Works Cited
Carter, Craig A. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
Gerson, Lloyd P. From Plato to Platonism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013.
August 4, 2021
Thank you to Baker Academic and Brazos Press for a complimentary copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.
Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism serves as a good introduction into the classical Christian tradition. Carter makes the case that a faithful expression of Trinitarian theology must utilize the historic church in its formulation of doctrine.
Carter takes a strong stand on what is coined "classical theism." Classical theism emphasizes the classical doctrine of God that utilizes Platonic and Aristotelian categories whilst doing so. Carter suggests that this is the normative expression of the church throughout its inception. Carter is careful preserve this formulation of theology proper over and against the more modern notions of God that emphasizes God's "relations" with creatures.
While this book is certainly worth reading, I was somewhat puzzled by the fact that Carter does allow for some sort of qualified passibility. Certainly, many modern theologians in various traditions would advocate for some sort of "soft" qualified passibility, but it was interested to see Carter take this position given how committed he is to classical theism. To be fair, in that same section, Carter insists that a "strong" passibility is in no way compatible with scripture and the great tradition.
Overall, it's worth a read if you are interested in seeing how the church throughout history has articulated theology proper and how the church utilized Platonic and Aristotelian categories and language in articulating these doctrines.
Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism serves as a good introduction into the classical Christian tradition. Carter makes the case that a faithful expression of Trinitarian theology must utilize the historic church in its formulation of doctrine.
Carter takes a strong stand on what is coined "classical theism." Classical theism emphasizes the classical doctrine of God that utilizes Platonic and Aristotelian categories whilst doing so. Carter suggests that this is the normative expression of the church throughout its inception. Carter is careful preserve this formulation of theology proper over and against the more modern notions of God that emphasizes God's "relations" with creatures.
While this book is certainly worth reading, I was somewhat puzzled by the fact that Carter does allow for some sort of qualified passibility. Certainly, many modern theologians in various traditions would advocate for some sort of "soft" qualified passibility, but it was interested to see Carter take this position given how committed he is to classical theism. To be fair, in that same section, Carter insists that a "strong" passibility is in no way compatible with scripture and the great tradition.
Overall, it's worth a read if you are interested in seeing how the church throughout history has articulated theology proper and how the church utilized Platonic and Aristotelian categories and language in articulating these doctrines.
March 12, 2021
Craig Carter has written a well-researched, exegetically informed monograph on classical theism in its historical expression and its modern deterioration. The thesis is clear - without the classical theism taught in Scripture and the Early Church, we are bound to drift towards mythology or pantheism. Carter’s organization is a bit scattered at times, but the clear outline of definition followed by exegesis and contemplation followed by a historical exploration builds a solid foundation for his critique of 19th and 20th century departures from classical theism towards a metaphysic that is substantially the same as the Ancient Near East. Carter’s careful exegesis of Isaiah 40-48 seems out of place but is actually critical to demonstrating the corrective-polemic of Scripture, especially since this is the corrective-polemic he argues is embodied in the Early Church’s approach to disputes on the nature of God. Carter’s monograph is philosophically, exegetically, and historically thought provoking while demonstrating a clear pattern of doxology flowing out of theological reflection.
July 10, 2021
This book is fantastic, highly recommend if you want a primer on the orthodox interpretation of God humbly derived from Scripture, as well as the history of this process of understanding, and its implications in a increasingly pagan modern context for the church in the West.
Read
December 1, 2023Worth a read. Can be a bit of a bear at points
February 10, 2022
How's this for a summary of the apostolic gospel: "The startling message proclaimed by the apostles and church fathers to the Greco-Roman world was that the God of the Jews and Christians is the God of the philosophers - that is, simple, immutable, eternal, self-existent and First Cause of the universe - and that this one has spoken through the prophets and become incarnate in Jesus Christ." Not convinced? Neither was I.
Lots to agree with along the way (and still my enemy's enemy!): Isaianic authorship of Isaiah, the priority of the Law for OT exegesis (Law, then Prophets, then Writings), creation from nothing, Oswalt's demolition of Baalism and an on-point application to its twenty-first century equivalents, the creation-creature divide and a wholesale renunciation of liberalism.
But at the end of the day, not great. If I had to pick one word to summarise this book: clumsy. Borrowed polemic, excluded middle, disappointingly thin exegesis, polemic-by-association. And behind it all, an astonishing willingness to see Christian theology as the work of describing the NT revelation of God as the more-or-less equal fulfilment of both the OT revelation of the LORD, and Athens' understanding of the First Cause.
Lots to agree with along the way (and still my enemy's enemy!): Isaianic authorship of Isaiah, the priority of the Law for OT exegesis (Law, then Prophets, then Writings), creation from nothing, Oswalt's demolition of Baalism and an on-point application to its twenty-first century equivalents, the creation-creature divide and a wholesale renunciation of liberalism.
But at the end of the day, not great. If I had to pick one word to summarise this book: clumsy. Borrowed polemic, excluded middle, disappointingly thin exegesis, polemic-by-association. And behind it all, an astonishing willingness to see Christian theology as the work of describing the NT revelation of God as the more-or-less equal fulfilment of both the OT revelation of the LORD, and Athens' understanding of the First Cause.
October 12, 2021
With this book, Carter is working to retrieve classic theism in the face of such competing views of God as theistic personalism and theistic mutualism. Overall, I would describe this book as a work in polemics. While insightful at times (esp. his clear argument against the Hellenism thesis), this book did not offer what I expected. Had he been less polemical (with the polemics repeated throughout) and more constructive, I would have enjoyed it much more. Probably the greatest highlight for me was his theological reading of Isaiah 40-48. I would rather give this book 3.5 stars, but unfortunately that isn't an option. I would recommend this book as an intermediate introduction to classical theism in conversation with the competing claims of modernity.
October 5, 2021
Insightful and generally helpful, but there's some straw man stuff here when he acts like the only alternatives are his theological exegesis or liberal historical-critical exegesis and basically ignores the last couple hundred years of conservative evangelical scholarship.
September 5, 2022
This should be required reading for all pastors in training. Chapter two contains 25 statements, and explanations of Theology proper that are pure gold. Chapter two is like a short theology proper textbook, and it is worth the price of this book several times over. What about the rest of this book? It’s pure gold. This will be a book to reread soon.
May 26, 2021
Carter has published a decent sequel to his first book, which focused on the recovering of precrticial exegesis and interpretation against some modern methods that tend to deny the supernatural or the like. In this work, Carter moves on to defend the need to have a doctrine of God that is rich in its theology. There is some overlap & carryover from the first book (which shouldn't be a surprise, since Carter is carrying his objections to some modern theology into this work).
I will admit that I did have some difficulty going into the book, as there were some elements that I found to be distracting (which I'll comment briefly on). Do be patient if that occurs, as I think the book does get a bit better. Polemics against what he calls modernism-neopaganism-polytheism-pantheism is present (as in the first work), though at times it can be distracting as Carter makes an point then suddenly jumps into arguing against such views. Along with such polemics, Carter does tend to paint with a wide brush that those who know the details will find to be distracting as well. While I do think that the polemics gets old at some points and some of the wide brushing to distracting, I do praise Carter for desiring to show how theology matters and that in an age such as ours, we shouldn't be blind to the influence of grand narratives and ideas that have shaped the modern world & how that affects our view of Scripture, God, ourselves, and all of creation as a whole.
The first part of the book was a bit bumpy in my opinion, while the second part of the book is where it really does shine - as Carter walks through the book of Isaiah and tries to show how some of the key elements of what is usually termed "classical theism" is present in the Holy Scripture. The third part of book then moves on to examine the early Church Fathers with the conclusions that were brought to fruition in the second part. Overall, this work does have some unevenness but is a decent book for someone who is a bit curious to see how some of the insights of "classical theism" is rooted in Scripture. The only thing I do find a bit disappointing is how Carter didn't do as much to show how some of the philosophical insights of various men can/are synthesized with biblical insights (though I guess one could look through the sources that Craig is dependent on for further reading to see how this was done).
I would rate the 3 parts of the book by saying that the 2nd part is the best, followed by the 3rd part, and the 1st part being last. Don't let the first few chapters to deter you but push forward toward the second part, where I think the book really provides good materials.
I will admit that I did have some difficulty going into the book, as there were some elements that I found to be distracting (which I'll comment briefly on). Do be patient if that occurs, as I think the book does get a bit better. Polemics against what he calls modernism-neopaganism-polytheism-pantheism is present (as in the first work), though at times it can be distracting as Carter makes an point then suddenly jumps into arguing against such views. Along with such polemics, Carter does tend to paint with a wide brush that those who know the details will find to be distracting as well. While I do think that the polemics gets old at some points and some of the wide brushing to distracting, I do praise Carter for desiring to show how theology matters and that in an age such as ours, we shouldn't be blind to the influence of grand narratives and ideas that have shaped the modern world & how that affects our view of Scripture, God, ourselves, and all of creation as a whole.
The first part of the book was a bit bumpy in my opinion, while the second part of the book is where it really does shine - as Carter walks through the book of Isaiah and tries to show how some of the key elements of what is usually termed "classical theism" is present in the Holy Scripture. The third part of book then moves on to examine the early Church Fathers with the conclusions that were brought to fruition in the second part. Overall, this work does have some unevenness but is a decent book for someone who is a bit curious to see how some of the insights of "classical theism" is rooted in Scripture. The only thing I do find a bit disappointing is how Carter didn't do as much to show how some of the philosophical insights of various men can/are synthesized with biblical insights (though I guess one could look through the sources that Craig is dependent on for further reading to see how this was done).
I would rate the 3 parts of the book by saying that the 2nd part is the best, followed by the 3rd part, and the 1st part being last. Don't let the first few chapters to deter you but push forward toward the second part, where I think the book really provides good materials.
December 15, 2023
A book that outlines the importance of a doctrine of God established
by Biblical exegesis and metaphysics critiqued by Scripture.
It is a defence of the transcendence of God and of Creation ex nihilo based on an exposition of Isaiah 40 - 48.
The book sets out how modern theology, even modern Reformed theology, has moved away from Biblical roots and embraced modernist metaphysics reducing God to being merely the most powerful actor in the universe or a force.
The thesis is that we face a choice between the Bible's teaching and metaphysics or a throwback to Mythology.
This book is not a fast read as it needs time to digest and thought upon.
by Biblical exegesis and metaphysics critiqued by Scripture.
It is a defence of the transcendence of God and of Creation ex nihilo based on an exposition of Isaiah 40 - 48.
The book sets out how modern theology, even modern Reformed theology, has moved away from Biblical roots and embraced modernist metaphysics reducing God to being merely the most powerful actor in the universe or a force.
The thesis is that we face a choice between the Bible's teaching and metaphysics or a throwback to Mythology.
This book is not a fast read as it needs time to digest and thought upon.
April 12, 2024
This, along with Carter’s companion volume Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition, was one of my most enjoyable reading experiences in a very long time. Both of Carter’s works are excellent, but Contemplating God W/ TGT is one of the best books i have ever read. What a feast in the doctrine of God
January 9, 2022
I think Carter’s second step in hermeneutics, after exegesis contemplation, is the one that we are not trained for. That’s when most read commentaries, isn’t it? We have been told to avoid things like allegory and sensus plenior, and Carter’s argument is that by doing so we forfeit the inheritance of theological interpretation. The problem with that is that we erode the inherited theology that rests on the hermeneutics of theological interpretation. I can tell you his argument is right having lived it.
The argument Craig Carter makes is that interpretation must be wiser than simply to function on the basis of modern prejudices. That you need to learn to meditate, and this is a skill that Carter is urging on us, in one way, by consulting the more ancient commentaries.
Because that is what they did.
The problem is that in order to meditate, you need a grasp of metaphysics, because that is the realm of meditation, and you need the guidelines of theological formulation because there is a cumulative reserve of correct interpretation. It is a problem because metaphysics are nowadays considered irrelevant, and we are trained to approach the text without that cumulative reserve of correct interpretation.
He further believes the problem is a problem with our whole civilization and traces it back to nominalism and voluntarism, and he believes these bring on the anti-metaphysical posture of the Enlightenment, which leads to an inadvertent recovery of the mythological pagan cosmology, which, as theologians adapt to that attitude, leads to theistic personalism and theistic mutualism, which is being taught in Evangelical seminaries such as the ones I have attended. (In the first seminary I attended, we were required to read both Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences and told that God might actually be in time. Fortunately, though I resisted him early, Richard Weaver won out. I must say that in that unexpectedly compendious place I was encouraged, with the aid of A. W. Tozer, into the reading many works of mystical devotion, which opened for me a more contemplative approach. In the second seminary I attended, in some ways less compendious, they used God with Us as a textbook till, I understand, they more recently were buying up the remaining copies to pulp it due to the ecclesiastical controversies it caused.)
Modern exegesis is about letting the meaning arise naturally from the text, rather than using the text as an entrance to a higher reality, as it was for Origen of old. The problem that Carter sees is that meaning does not arise. It is more accurate to say that we need to ascend through the text to a meaning to be found above. Or we supply it from dubious sources, smuggled in.
Modern exegesis foregrounds the mind of man, and Craig Carter argues that hermeneutics should be about understanding the mind of God, contemplating God. Not just the mind of God as a man of the 6th century BC understood it (although that may be better than the mind of God as a man of the 21st century AD understands it) but the mind of God as God reveals it beyond the temporal and cultural limitations of each writer’s circumstances, beyond any devising that from man arises.
I think he is strongest on his sections on Isaiah, and I think, while I don’t too much disagree with him, that he is weakest in his broad descriptions of the history of Western Civilization. He quotes the great Christopher Dawson, a man who was a great historian because he read and thoroughly digested exhaustively the primary sources for the history he was doing. Craig Carter has not done quite the same. But he has done a great deal, and there is a great deal of good in this book. I wonder if he isn’t doing something similar to but deeper than what David Wells was doing way back in his trilogy from the 90s. I look forward to the final volume.
The argument Craig Carter makes is that interpretation must be wiser than simply to function on the basis of modern prejudices. That you need to learn to meditate, and this is a skill that Carter is urging on us, in one way, by consulting the more ancient commentaries.
Because that is what they did.
The problem is that in order to meditate, you need a grasp of metaphysics, because that is the realm of meditation, and you need the guidelines of theological formulation because there is a cumulative reserve of correct interpretation. It is a problem because metaphysics are nowadays considered irrelevant, and we are trained to approach the text without that cumulative reserve of correct interpretation.
He further believes the problem is a problem with our whole civilization and traces it back to nominalism and voluntarism, and he believes these bring on the anti-metaphysical posture of the Enlightenment, which leads to an inadvertent recovery of the mythological pagan cosmology, which, as theologians adapt to that attitude, leads to theistic personalism and theistic mutualism, which is being taught in Evangelical seminaries such as the ones I have attended. (In the first seminary I attended, we were required to read both Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences and told that God might actually be in time. Fortunately, though I resisted him early, Richard Weaver won out. I must say that in that unexpectedly compendious place I was encouraged, with the aid of A. W. Tozer, into the reading many works of mystical devotion, which opened for me a more contemplative approach. In the second seminary I attended, in some ways less compendious, they used God with Us as a textbook till, I understand, they more recently were buying up the remaining copies to pulp it due to the ecclesiastical controversies it caused.)
Modern exegesis is about letting the meaning arise naturally from the text, rather than using the text as an entrance to a higher reality, as it was for Origen of old. The problem that Carter sees is that meaning does not arise. It is more accurate to say that we need to ascend through the text to a meaning to be found above. Or we supply it from dubious sources, smuggled in.
Modern exegesis foregrounds the mind of man, and Craig Carter argues that hermeneutics should be about understanding the mind of God, contemplating God. Not just the mind of God as a man of the 6th century BC understood it (although that may be better than the mind of God as a man of the 21st century AD understands it) but the mind of God as God reveals it beyond the temporal and cultural limitations of each writer’s circumstances, beyond any devising that from man arises.
I think he is strongest on his sections on Isaiah, and I think, while I don’t too much disagree with him, that he is weakest in his broad descriptions of the history of Western Civilization. He quotes the great Christopher Dawson, a man who was a great historian because he read and thoroughly digested exhaustively the primary sources for the history he was doing. Craig Carter has not done quite the same. But he has done a great deal, and there is a great deal of good in this book. I wonder if he isn’t doing something similar to but deeper than what David Wells was doing way back in his trilogy from the 90s. I look forward to the final volume.
October 30, 2024
Tremendous. I drank deeply from this book over the course of a few weeks and could feel its arguments taking root in my heart and mind. It is an extended argument for (and model of) disentangling one's theology from modernist philosophical assumptions.
The writing, though dense, flows very nicely throughout. Carter is a very capable prose writer--the clarity of his thought shines through and carries the reader through the deep waters of the more challenging intellectual work.
I was especially pleased (and surprised) to see Carter engaging significantly with the work of Dr. Michael Heiser. This was surprising because Carter's project is deeply tied to the historic creeds and confessions of the church, and Heiser's approach, although also critical of modernity and its inability to grasp the supernatural worldview of the Ancient Near East, is at times dismissive of the historic creeds and seems to embrace a more Biblicist approach (i.e. his podcast being named 'The Naked Bible').
And yet Carter recognizes that Heiser offers an important corrective to the standard evangelical approach to understanding the Bible's teaching on the divine council and idolatry-- themes which play a major role in the interpretation of Isaiah 40-48, the exegesis of which forms the heart of the book.
For those Protestants thinking through the issues of classical theism and the Trinity, wondering how modernity has affected contemporary evangelical theology, and how to recover something more faithful to the Scriptures and to previous eras of Christian thought, this book is a wonderful resource and I highly recommend it.
The writing, though dense, flows very nicely throughout. Carter is a very capable prose writer--the clarity of his thought shines through and carries the reader through the deep waters of the more challenging intellectual work.
I was especially pleased (and surprised) to see Carter engaging significantly with the work of Dr. Michael Heiser. This was surprising because Carter's project is deeply tied to the historic creeds and confessions of the church, and Heiser's approach, although also critical of modernity and its inability to grasp the supernatural worldview of the Ancient Near East, is at times dismissive of the historic creeds and seems to embrace a more Biblicist approach (i.e. his podcast being named 'The Naked Bible').
And yet Carter recognizes that Heiser offers an important corrective to the standard evangelical approach to understanding the Bible's teaching on the divine council and idolatry-- themes which play a major role in the interpretation of Isaiah 40-48, the exegesis of which forms the heart of the book.
For those Protestants thinking through the issues of classical theism and the Trinity, wondering how modernity has affected contemporary evangelical theology, and how to recover something more faithful to the Scriptures and to previous eras of Christian thought, this book is a wonderful resource and I highly recommend it.
May 28, 2022
This is a fine book on how the Modern Trinitarian Revival, is seriously flawed and has a lot of similarities to ancient pagan views of God. I was a bit shocked at this at first, but Professor Carter makes a good case for this. The Doctrine of God, is all important, and the serisouly flawed views of God current today, go a long way in explaining Western Culture's steady decline into neo paganism. The World influences the Christian Church way more than the other way around, since the enlightenment. I don't agree with every point Carter makes, but overall, his case is convincing and is a call to be very concerned about modern Theology. I have been so helped in my own faith by Jurgen Moltmann, that it was hard to read the many criticisms of Him, by Professor Carter. I think He was a bit harsh towards Moltmann. But his critique is hard to refute. One criticism I have of Carter's book is that, there are serious Historical reasons, for the attempt to redefine the Doctrine of God. Events like the Jewish Holocaust stands out. Where was/is the God of Israel in all of that Horror? Also the passing of 2000 years of human carnage called history, puts a question to the New Testaments promis of a soon return of Jesus Christ. Some of the Theological struggle, comes from issues like this. Still in the end, the Nicene classical teachings are true I believe, and He is right to poing this all out. So I recommend His book and I will be getting other books by Him, in the near future.
January 21, 2023
A very stimulating study on the importance of classical Theism as found in the Christian tradition, particularly prior to the Enlightenment and subsequent rationalistic approaches to studying God's word. Carter is engaging in a worthy project, and his writing style lets us into his journey. He is very widely read, and I appreciate his interaction with many authors. His overall description and prescription are worthy of consideration and further study.
June 29, 2023
Carter’s retrieval work on trinitarian classical theism is top notch— like a drink of fresh water in a desert of modern metaphysical approaches to Scripture. Carter successfully defends the Nicene doctrine of God and at the same time exposes the novel, inventive approaches to biblical interpretation not just in liberal circles but within evangelicalism at large.
July 29, 2021
Excellent work convincing me of the necessity of the classical Christian doctrine of God. His other book looks even better (Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition). I'm reading that one next.
November 20, 2021
4.5 b/c the section on Isaiah was unnecessary and his reliance upon Heiser was unappealing.
March 17, 2023
Fantastic. Not to be ignored.
December 19, 2021
Really great introduction to reformed Platonism. Carter takes a few evangelicals to task. I’m not sure what I think of this whole debate yet but Cater is an important voice in it. I’ll likely need to reread this with a few other works to get a handle on it.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews