Theologia Unionis

The Reformed do not deny a communication; we simply deny a 1:1 switch-over between the two natures.    If the Reformed (and generally Western) position is not held, and the two natures communicate their propria to each other, then they lose any real human or divine identity.   Sure, this is a Western Christology.  We don't hide it.  Unfortunately, we do not see anchorites trying to understand what legitimate concerns the Reformed have.  None has said it better than Richard Muller,

The Christological problem follows the [epistemological issue]:  if the human nature of Jesus, as finite, is in capable in itself of comprehending the infinite knowledge of the theologia archetypal [think of the simple divine mind, admitting no real distinctions], then any equation of the theologia unionis [for our present purpose, think the communication of attributes; ] with archetypal theology must involve some alteration of the human nature of Jesus.  For Jesus to be possessed of an infinite divine wisdom according to his humanity, there would have to be either a communication of divinity to humanity or a transference of divine attributes to Jesus' humanity within the hypostatic union (Muller, PRRD I: 250]

Update on reading through Aquinas

I just finished part one of Thomas' Summa Theologiae.  While I fear postmodern spirtuality lingo as much as the next guy, reading Thomas truly is  a journey.  The way he uses theological distinctions is necessary for any Reformed Christian to understand.  On the other hand, he truly is a child of his age and heir to all the flawed scientific conclusions.

Part 1 was tough reading, though.  Part 2 deals with more theological matters, it would appear.  Should be faster reading.

Retractare and Summary

My friend Daniel Ritchie has offered his own version of retractare in the past.  I want to do mine.  These are in no particular order.

The Theonomy People
  They are to be commended for influencing Reformed scholars to go back to careful study of the Old Testament (Poythress said he wouldn't have written his work if it weren't for Rushdoony).  They are to be commended for their critique of absolute statism, but there are problems.  The post-theonomy (for lack of a better word, this would be the third generation theonomists) are probably guilty of violating the 9th commandment.  Their unceasing attacks on men like Michael Horton and others at Westminster Seminary California are uncalled for.  I disagree with Horton and Co.'s  social ethic, but the man is a minister in Christ's church and Horton has probably done as much as anybody in spreading the Reformed faith.  I admit; it's sometimes funny to watch D.G. Hart get riled up, but the falsely so-called "R2K" guys have majored on the majors:  The doctrine of worship and the church.  Modern American Theonomy, by contrast, has largely failed in this area.

1. As for my own position, I believe the Old Testament law can be used today when necessary.
2. This does not preclude natural law, but presupposes it (more below)
3. Theonomy is not the position of the Reformers; natural law is.  Yes, Bucer used the Mosaic judicials, but only because he saw them as part of his natural law heritage.  We should do likewise.

Van Til
I've gone back and forth on Van Til for some time now.  I think when it comes to Roman Catholicism and explaining what Reformed theology is, Van Til is as fine as anybody.  His lectures on "chain-of-being" theology are quite good.   I think Reformed people are better served by a mix of Reformed scholasticism and Common Sense Realism.

1. As for my own position, I think the TAG method is an open-door to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.   It explicitly attacks the foundations of knowledge and inadvertently relativises truth-claims.  No longer having a clear revelation from God, one has Tradition (as interpreted by a certain community).
2. As for a positive apologetic, I don't really care.  I think Anselm is interesting and his ontological argument has some subordinate value.

Eschatology
This is a difficult one.  I think the Reformers (and quite frankly, the entire church) were wise never to use the "millennial" terms in explaining what they believe.  More often than not, modern Reformed eschatological questions are more political than anything else.  Saying, "I am postmil" or "common grace amil" implies more than the timing of Christ's return.

1. As for my own position, I am certainly a Reformed historicist.  
2. I appreciate a lot of what Kim Riddlebarger has to say on Covenant and New Testament eschatology.  I've always liked Vos and Ridderbos.
3. Historic premillennialism, while having a respectful pedigree, simply entails too many difficulties.  Further, I have found that the deeper I dig into historic premillennialism, the harder it is to be Reformed.
4. I think it is more important to be clear on eschatological hermeneutics than on identifying a millennial position.

Politics
For around five years I've been a fairly staunch defender of limited monarchy.  That's still the case.  My only difference now is that I do not see the Bible requiring it (or any specific mode of government).  Each style of government has its strengths and weaknesses.

1. Monarchists (like myself) need to admit that 1 Samuel 8 does place some restrictive parameters on the glory of monarchy.
2. Republicans (small "r") need to admit that the Torah did provide (and I think expected) a monarchy.   If that's not the case, then why is Deuteronomy 17 in the Bible?  Nelson Kloosterman has made a fairly convincing case that there existed a possibility that Israel could have had a king and not sinned in asking so.  Here is how I think it would have worked:  the end of the book of Judges essentially begs for a monarchy.  Deuteronomy 17 had already provided for a shepherd-king (the Christological overtones are deliberate).  Had Israel wanted a shepherd to guide them, I believe God would have praised their request.  Further, biblical eschatology moves in the direction of monarchy, not republicanism.
3. I am an adherent of an Althusian-style natural law theory.  The problem many theonomists had was that their critics (and the theonomists themselves) had said, "Natural law OR God's law."  But this is where theonomists and their critics were wrong.  Natural law is God's law, provided natural law is defined as creation ordinances.  The problem here is the inferences people drew from that phrase.   I won't go into that now.  More to the point, Reformed natural law theorists could gladly appeal (and did!) to the Mosaic judicials.  God's law is morally just and should be consulted.  Theonomists, by contrast, never provided satisfactory accounts of the New Testament's modification of the Mosaic law.