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.

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 will be published on Teleioteti.ca on March 22, here.

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.