Aquinas Disagreement

[danekristjan]

Metaphysics
Natural law
His doctrine of God is more developed, though Turretin surpasses him on the decree.

That's all assuming his metaphysics, natural law, and doctrine of God are more biblical than Turretin et.al. though. Those categories may be more developed in a less biblical way than the reformed divines. That would be a safe assumption considering how unbiblical many of his other views are.

That's also not a dog against him necessarily. A product of his time. His unbiblical views were not for a lack of trying. He was a passionate exegete (c.f. His massive commentaries on many portions of scripture).

 

[alexandermsmith]

For the life of me, I have yet figure out what all the hubbub is about.

No offense but this argument- and I don't mean to single you out, others use it- comes across as deliberately obtuse. It's pretty clear what the disagreement is; both sides have made their case in no uncertain terms. You might think there is nothing wrong in reading Aquinas but in that case you're not a disinterested party but actively taking a side.

At the end of the day this comes down to whether or not we should be recommending Christians read a heretic to grow in their faith. Unless one thinks Aquinas is not a heretic, but that's a whole other problem.

 

[AT]

Reading Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism edited by van Asselt helped me understand the importance reason and mediaeval methodology in the Reformed tradition. There is not a load of Aquinas, but you get the idea that the Reformed did not do theology in isolation, but drew from the "great tradition", of which Aquinas among others was a part of. To simply say "read the Puritans" or something of that ilk is to ignore this important truth.

No one is recommending placing the Summae in the hands of a new Christian, but Aquinas is a giant who's influence on theology and particularly Protestantism cannot be ignored.

 

[Knight]

Metaphysics
Natural law
His doctrine of God is more developed, though Turretin surpasses him on the decree.

If I am not mistaken, you've engaged quite a bit with Eastern Orthodox apologists. What particularly is it that makes Aquinas' view more attractive to you than their - or others' - criticisms being sufficient to turn you off from him (granting, of course, that EOs have their own problems)?

 

[Taylor]

…this argument…

I made no argument. I literally have no idea what this debate is about. I’m simply stating a fact.

 

[danekristjan]

Reading Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism edited by van Asselt helped me understand the importance reason and mediaeval methodology in the Reformed tradition. There is not a load of Aquinas, but you get the idea that the Reformed did not do theology in isolation, but drew from the "great tradition", of which Aquinas among others was a part of. To simply say "read the Puritans" or something of that ilk is to ignore this important truth.

No one is recommending placing the Summae in the hands of a new Christian, but Aquinas is a giant who's influence on theology and particularly Protestantism cannot be ignored.

I think my only push back to this is: what would I possibly be lacking by reading the puritans and post reformation divines and NOT reading Thomas?
Again that is not to say we shouldn't read him, I just don't see any reason someone would need to go to Thomas for things they can get better said in more sound theologians.

 

[RamistThomist]

If I am not mistaken, you've engaged quite a bit with Eastern Orthodox apologists. What particularly is it that makes Aquinas' view more attractive to you than their - or others' - criticisms being sufficient to turn you off from him (granting, of course, that EOs have their own problems)?

He is much better on the Filioque

 

[RamistThomist]

I think my only push back to this is: what would I possibly be lacking by reading the puritans and post reformation divines and NOT reading Thomas?
Again that is not to say we shouldn't read him, I just don't see any reason someone would need to go to Thomas for things they can get better said in more sound theologians.

Thomas is better on the Filioque than anyone else

 

[alexandermsmith]

Is there anything wrong with being interested in philosophy?

Not necessarily. I question how useful it is to spend much time in worldly philosophy for its own sake. But that isn't the issue here. Aquinas isn't being read because he's an interesting philosopher, out of academic interest; he is being read, and promoted, as a useful Christian theologian and that is altogether different.

To those saying we should only read the Puritans, it is the Ressourcement guys like myself who are doing the serious reading of Perkins and Zanchi and Vermigli. The thebros aren’t. Check the book review section of Puritanboard and tell me what’s happening

I'm glad. Why not just stick with that then?

What I mean is simply that you are making assertions such as Puritan writings have a doctrine of God at least as good as Aquinas, without errors. I don’t doubt that is probably the case (having read several Puritans). But why should I take your word for it?

If I had just listened to the teachings of people from the start of my Christian journey, I would be a shallow dispensationalist who thought the rapture was next week.

I want to read from the breadth and depth of church history so I can understand how doctrine has been formed and formulated over time. I want to read Aquinas given his vast influence so that I can understand his arguments and see how he has influenced later thinkers.

I don’t think this is a fruitless endeavour. Perhaps I will see truths about God from a different perspective. Perhaps I will see the errors to beware of. Perhaps I will learn how to defend the faith better, or lead Romanists out of Rome. Perhaps I will understand how to reason better and approach things with a more informed and logical mind. Ultimately I am wanting to read Aquinas so that I might become a more fruitful servant of Christ.

Is following the permutations of doctrine, including the errors, really a profitable endeavour for the lay Christian? Perhaps instead of being made aware of the errors to avoid, you will become ensnared in those errors? Perhaps your faith will be harmed, not strengthened? How will you learn to lead Papists out of Rome by becoming learned in the Romish theologian ne plus ultra? Will you be able to deconstruct Aquinas? Find the fatal flaws?

 

[alexandermsmith]

I made no argument. I literally have no idea what this debate is about. I’m simply stating a fact.

Apologies. I thought you meant "I don't understand" in the sense of "I don't see the harm in reading Aquinas nor how anyone else could see any harm".

 

[alexandermsmith]

Reading Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism edited by van Asselt helped me understand the importance reason and mediaeval methodology in the Reformed tradition. There is not a load of Aquinas, but you get the idea that the Reformed did not do theology in isolation, but drew from the "great tradition", of which Aquinas among others was a part of. To simply say "read the Puritans" or something of that ilk is to ignore this important truth.

If someone has mastered the Puritans, the Scottish divines and the American divines (not to mention the Bible!) then fine, read Aquinas.

No one is recommending placing the Summae in the hands of a new Christian, but Aquinas is a giant who's influence on theology and particularly Protestantism cannot be ignored.

Are they not? I don't see this distinction in the discussions I'm seeing.

 

[alexandermsmith]

He is much better on the Filioque

I find the Bible is the best volume on the Filioque

 

[AT]

By "read the Puritans" standard, why must anyone read anything prior to the Reformation?

 

[danekristjan]

By "read the Puritans" standard, why must anyone read anything prior to the Reformation?

What "standard"?
No one MUST read anything. However, For your average Christian nothing will do more for their soul than those classic works of practical divinity produced by those godly men during the greatest move of God's Spirit in church history, the reformation and post reformation. I don't see how that can be argued.

There are of course many great works from before and after that. Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard, Athanasius, Thomas, etc etc. Still for the practical use of the average Christian, they pale in comparison to Calvin, Brooks, Gurnall, Rutherford, Sibbes, Turretin, Boston, etc etc etc etc.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I'm not sure any of the "safe" theologians mentioned from any time in history should be read with complete acceptance. Everyone one of them has an error somewhere. We would repudiate the possibility of Christian perfectionism in our walk. Why would we adopt something akin to it in writers of theology or, perhaps more appropriately, the product of their mind and pen?

Note: this is not a defense of Aquinas, per se. It is simply asking all of us to step back and consider any and all theologians we hold dear.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I'm not sure any of the "safe" theologians mentioned from any time in history should be read with complete acceptance. Everyone one of them has an error somewhere. We would repudiate the possibility of Christian perfectionism in our walk. Why would we adopt something akin to it in writers of theology or, perhaps more appropriately, the product of their mind and pen?

Note: this is not a defense of Aquinas, per se. It is simply asking all of us to step back and consider any and all theologians we hold dear.

I think the issue is that Aquinas was a heretic. Many that came before him were not, they had flaws, but not fatal flaws.

 

[AT]

I'm not sure any of the "safe" theologians mentioned from any time in history should be read with complete acceptance. Everyone one of them has an error somewhere. We would repudiate the possibility of Christian perfectionism in our walk. Why would we adopt something akin to it in writers of theology or, perhaps more appropriately, the product of their mind and pen?

Note: this is not a defense of Aquinas, per se. It is simply asking all of us to step back and consider any and all theologians we hold dear.

This was the point of my post (#43). Replace Aquinas with any pre-reformation theologian; and most of the critiques made would apply to them.

 

[RamistThomist]

I find the Bible is the best volume on the Filioque

My Eastern Orthodox friends say the same thing. Metaphysics is inescapable

 

[AT]

I find the Bible is the best volume on the Filioque

This particular argument has been answered to, not a few times in the span of the past few months.

 

[retroGRAD3]

My Eastern Orthodox friends say the same thing. Metaphysics is inescapable

So says you. Perhaps God didn't reveal more to us because he didn't want us going any deeper.

 

[RamistThomist]

So says you. Perhaps God didn't reveal more to us because he didn't want us going any deeper.

So says you. Any statement about reality is a metaphysical statement

 

[retroGRAD3]

So says you. Any statement about reality is a metaphysical statement

Okie dokie

 

[Knight]

He is much better on the Filioque

Does he respond to the argument that whatever is not common to all three persons ought to be a hypostatic property?

 

[Taylor]

Apologies. I thought you meant "I don't understand" in the sense of "I don't see the harm in reading Aquinas nor how anyone else could see any harm".

You’re good, brother; no apologies necessary.

My limited understanding is that this whole “Great Tradition” thing arose partly in response to the more harmful forms of biblicism that have resulted in aberrations in theology proper a la John Frame and Scott Oliphint. And I agree that there is a form of biblicism that, when it tries to approach Scripture apart from the lens of the Christian tradition, almost inevitably ends up in error and novelty. As Herman Hoeksema said, “It would be quite contrary to the will and providence of God, who establishes and keeps his church and the knowledge of his covenant in the line of continued generations, should the dogmatician attempt to start his dogmatic career without any prejudice. He must labor with the treasures he has already received and must attempt to enrich them.”

My problem is this: Why must it be either Oliphint or Aquinas? Is there not some balance? I understand Aquinas is important for theology proper. But in the end, as a confessional Presbyterian, I don’t understand the problem, because my subscription is not to Aquinas or John Frame—or even Calvin or Turretin, for that matter—but rather to the Scriptures as interpreted by the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

 

[AT]

My problem is this: Why must it be either Oliphint or Aquinas? Is there not some balance?

And that's what Reformed Forum seem to be doing. They are not Thomistic like Davenant or CredoMagazine but at the same time they are not going down the Theistic Mutualist path.

 

[retroGRAD3]

So says you. Any statement about reality is a metaphysical statement

I apologize if my last post was flippant. I guess my attitude at this point is, if I faithfully attend sound preaching, read my Bible daily, and read reformers, I believe my metaphysic will be fine. I have never been concerned enough that I need to go out and read everything Thomas wrote because I didn't feel the previous methods were sufficient.

 

[alexanderjames]

I think a good point was raised earlier, namely, shall we then disregard all of the early church because the Puritans were better?

(No one here is advocating Thomas over and against or at the expense of the Puritans. I don’t think anyone here either is mandating the study of Thomas.)

Side question for those opposed to Thomas Aquinas - do you regard him as being a false convert because of his heresy? What do you do with those in the early church who we would consider heretics by today’s standards?

 

[Taylor]

And that's what Reformed Forum seem to be doing. They are not Thomistic like Davenant or CredoMagazine but at the same time they are not going down the Theistic Mutualist path.

Yes, I love their work. Lane Tipton is doing the church a great service in preserving Dr. Van Til’s orthodoxy against his alleged successors who have deviated so severely from his thought in these matters.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I think a good point was raised earlier, namely, shall we then disregard all of the early church because the Puritans were better?

(No one here is advocating Thomas over and against the Puritans. I don’t think anyone here either is mandating the study of Thomas.)

Side question for those opposed to Thomas Aquinas - do you regard him as being a false convert because of his heresy? What do you do with those in the early church who we would consider heretics by today’s standards?

Yes to the false convert question. Either you believe salvation is by faith alone or you don't. That appears to be the dividing line in scripture. Why is that controversial on these boards? We all know the right answer.

 

[alexanderjames]

Seems like the first question of the OP has been answered as it’s worked itself out in this thread!