Warren Revives Romish Scholasticism
Thomas B. Warren and a host of brethren who are searching for some kind of authority for their theories of denominationalizing the churches in their evangelism and benevolence have committed the same error committed by the Catholic Church in about the twelfth century. They think they have found authority for their practices in the philosophy of Aristotle. He is the inventor and chief proponent of the philosophy of the syllogism in logic. The Romanists could not find express authority for their theories and practices in the inspired Scriptures, hence they turned to the pagan philosophy of Aristotle for their proof. Warren and those who have decided that his "is the best argument in twenty years" cannot find their theory of churches' supporting a common function in the express precepts and examples of the Scriptures; hence, they have turned to Aristotle.
Their cry paraphrased is, "If you cannot find it in the Scriptures, make a syllogism to include it." Roy Deaver's report of the Douthitt-Warren debate has a good example of the importance they attach to the Aristotelian syllogism. This is from the Gospel Advocate, January 10, 1957:
"As a background for his affirmative material, Brother Warren discussed the value of a syllogism, pointing out that a syllogism is made up of two premises and a conclusion — the two premises leading to the conclusion . . . . Brother Warren stated that it was his task to prove that his syllogism was both valid and true . . . Brother Warren presented the following syllogism . . . In proof of the validity of this syllogism, Brother Warren challenged Brother Douthitt to show where this syllogism violates any of the rules of axioms governing a syllogism."
The Romish Trend And The Modern
The Romanists of the Scholastic period at first attempted to keep the pagan philosophy out of their religion. They tried to make a distinction. But in their attempt to defeat it by a knowledge thereof they became steeped in its teaching and were overwhelmed by it and began using it, accepting it as a major feature of their religious system. These statements from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary will emphasize this fact:
"The philosophical systems and speculative tendencies of certain medieval Christian thinkers who, working on a background of fixed religious dogma, sought to keep separate the spheres of religion and philosophy, of faith and reason, and by means of an aphoristic dialectic, to solve anew the general problems of philosophy . . . The results were that reason secured a place in the discussion of religious questions, and dialectic in theology, and the philosophical outlook was broadened to give due acknowledgement to Aristotle and to the Jewish and Arabian philosophers."
This is the kind of tragedy that has occurred in the work of Brother Warren. He has been placed in the list of rising stars of debaters among us. Announcement has been given that he is preparing himself to meet all comers on the forensic platform. Instead of depending upon his knowledge of the Bible and the strength of a thus saith the Lord" to defeat error, he has gone to the fountain of philosophy and logical devices invented by men. He has been overwhelmed by the very thing he set out to defeat. He needs to learn that a philosopher cannot be defeated with philosophy, nor can a "thus saith the Lord," in precept or example, be destroyed by a logical device of the philosopher.
J. S. Lamar, in Organon of Scripture, a book first published in 1860 and reprinted by Old Paths Book Club, discusses at length this first adoption of the philosophy of Aristotle, the Greek. Some of his statements are appropriate here because they describe with sharp clarity the modern embracing of the philosophy:
"And it was not long till the fondness for the subtleties of the Aristotelian logic and metaphysics had increased to such an extent that the clergy complained that 'scholars spent their whole time in disputation.' This unlooked-for result seems to have suggested a new idea to the infallible guardians of truth: if this powerful influence cannot be destroyed, let us appropriate it to our own use; let us make it the handmaid of the church . . . His (Aristotle's) philosophy became the main pillar of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and his logic the main instrument of its defense ....
"It assumed axioms without examination; made distinctions where there was no real difference; used terms without any real meaning ... Such an instrument is invaluable to the mere partisan. By its aid alone he can maintain dogmas however absurd, and give coloring to pretensions however extreme....
"When Martin Luther came upon the stage, the authority of Aristotle was equal or paramount to that of the Bible. Eugenius, Bishop of Ephesus, and after him Georgius Scholasticus maintained, says Brucker, that the opinions of Aristotle 'were consonant to the truest and best doctrines of the Christian religion, and were even more true'! . . . The Bible, the writings of the fathers, and the decrees of the Church, were therefore all explained by Aristotle, and forced by the alkahest of his dialectics to be dissolved and mingled into the mass of philosophical speculation." (pp. 116, 121, 128.)
Making An Axiom? Or A Dogma?
Warren has set himself to the making of an axiom. This is the reasoning from the specific to the general. It involves the examination of every specific. No specific can show a variation or the general term is false. No man can be sure of his axiom until he is sure that he has all the specifics. Though Warren seeks an axiom, he is creating a dogma. Their (Warren, Woods, et al) minor premise of their syllogism asserts the axiomatic nature of their theory. It says, "The total situation described in my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are scriptural." Some of the elements, listed by Brother Deaver, of Brother Warren's argument cannot be proved to be scriptural. But grant that those elements, or specifics, are scriptural, he has not listed all the elements, which, if considered, will negate his proposition.
No doubt, these matters are being considered in the more extensive review of Deaver's report, which will be found in the Gospel Guardian. But out of a dozen or more which could be mentioned not considered by Warren, note this one: One church's fulfilling her obligation to evangelize by giving assistance to another church to enable her to evangelize. He has not, nor will he, find any Scriptures which teach such a doctrine. But that is one of the elements essential to his proposition. He left it out.
There is a glaring deficiency in his arrangement of argument which he seeks to hide by a profuseness of words. He asserts in his minor premise that he has a total situation from constituent elements. But he makes no attempt to prove that he has all the constituent elements or a total situation. He seeks to cover that deficiency by going to great lengths in discussing some elements. But where is the evidence that he has a total situation under consideration? It is nothing more than mere assumption. That makes it a theory, not an axiomatic truth.
Brother Warren and all the rest of these modern "Scholastics" need to scuttle their human philosophical devices and return to a serious study of and simple faith in the Bible. They need to believe what they read there, do just what it says. That is sufficient for perfect Christianity. They will then have no need for nor respect for an Aristotelian philosophy of the Scriptures to justify tradition, dogma and practice. WE DO NOT NEED A REVIVAL OF SCHOLASTICISM, WE NEED A REVIVAL OF LIVING, BELIEVING AND TEACHING THE SIMPLE, POWERFUL, ALL-SUFFICIENT GOSPEL.