by Sam Waldron | Nov 26, 2019 | Apologetics
Calvin
and Aquinas Contrasted Yet More!
Fourth,
there is a very different view of the usefulness of philosophy espoused by
Thomas in contrast to Calvin. Thomas
cites with admiration “the philosopher,” Aristotle, throughout his works and
certainly in his treatment of the knowledge of the existence of God. This
statement in the opening pages of Summa Theologica is typical: “No one can
mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher
(Metaph. iv. lect. vi.) states concerning the first principles of
demonstration.” [1]
Calvin,
in contrast, denounces the value of philosophy and the schools.
Cold and frivolous, then, are the speculations of those who employ themselves in disquisitions on the essence of God, when it would be more interesting to us to become acquainted with his character, and to know what is agreeable to His nature. [2]
This disease affects, not only the vulgar and ignorant, but the most eminent, and those who, in other things, discover peculiar sagacity. How abundantly have all the philosophers, in this respect, betrayed their stupidity and folly! For, to spare others, chargeable with greater absurdities, Plato himself, the most religious and judicious of them all, loses himself in his round globe …. I speak exclusively of the excellent of mankind, not of the vulgar, whose madness in the profanation of divine truth has known no bounds. [3]
Fifth,
and consequently, Calvin sees little value in the theistic proofs brought
forward by scholastics like Thomas. This is, first of all, the case because men
are intuitively and immediately struck by the glory of God in creation in such
a way as to make the theistic proofs unnecessary.
As the perfection of a happy life consists in the knowledge of God, that no man might be precluded from attaining felicity, God hath not only sown in the minds of men the seed of religion, already mentioned, but hath manifested himself in the formation of every part of the world, and daily presents himself to public view, in such a manner, that they cannot open their eyes without being constrained to behold him. His essence indeed is incomprehensible so that his Majesty is not to be perceived by the human senses; but on all his works he hath inscribed his glory in characters so clear, unequivocal, and striking, that the most illiterate and stupid cannot exculpate themselves by the plea of ignorance. [4]
And, in the first place, whithersoever you turn your eyes, there is not an atom of the world in which you cannot behold some brilliant sparks at least of his glory. But you cannot at one view take a survey of this most ample and beautiful machine in all its vast extent, without being completely overwhelmed with its infinite splendour. [5]
Thomas
acknowledged that some men are incapable of either following or profiting from
his theistic proofs. Listen to what he
says:
Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes in Book 1 nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated. [6]
Calvin,
on the other hand, thinks this evidence is open even to those who are not
experts.
Of his wonderful wisdom, both heaven and earth contain innumerable proofs; not only those more abstruse things, which are the subjects of astronomy, medicine, and the whole science of physics, but those things which force themselves on the view of the most illiterate of mankind, so that they cannot open their eyes without being constrained to witness them. Adepts indeed, in those liberal arts, or persons just initiated into them, are thereby enabled to proceed much further in investigating the secrets of Divine Wisdom. Yet ignorance of those sciences prevents no man from such a survey of the workmanship of God, as is more than sufficient to excite his admirations of the Divine Architect … since the meanest and most illiterate of mankind, who are furnished with no other assistance than their own eyes, cannot be ignorant of the excellence of the Divine skill, … it is evident, that the Lord abundantly manifests his wisdom to every individual on earth. (1:5:2)
This
same emphasis is sounded a few paragraphs later. Here, however, Calvin explicitly decries the
need for long and laborious argumentations to prove the existence of God. If anything ever qualified as long and
laborious argumentation, it was surely Thomas’s “Five Ways.”
We see that there is no need of any long or laborious argumentation to obtain and produce testimonies for illustrating and asserting the Divine Majesty; since, from the few which we have selected and cursorily mentioned, it appears that they are every where so evident and obvious, as easily to be distinguished by the eyes, and pointed out with the fingers. (1:5:9)
Thomas,
of course, elaborates at some length his careful and technical demonstrations
of the existence of God as the foundation for his argument both in Summa
Theologica and in Summa Contra Gentiles. He says:
[5] Now, among the inquiries that we must undertake concerning God in Himself, we must set down in the beginning that whereby His Existence is demonstrated, as the necessary foundation of the whole work. For, if we do not demonstrate that God exists, all consideration of divine things is necessarily suppressed. [7]
Sixth,
not surprisingly as a result of all this, Thomas and Calvin interpret the
apologetic significance of Romans 1:19-20 very differently.
Thomas
sees this classic text as proof that the existence of God may be demonstrated to
men by philosophical arguments. In chapter 12 Aquinas is refuting the “opinion
of those who say that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated but is held
by faith alone.” In response he says: “Finally, it is shown to us by the truth in the words of
the apostle Paul: “for the invisible things of God… are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20).
Calvin,
on the other hand, sees Romans 1:19-20 as proof that all men (“even the most
stupid tribe”) know God intuitively or immediately in creation. He says:
The reason why the prophet attributes to the heavenly creatures a language known to every nation [Ps. 19:2 ff.] is that therein lies an attestation of divinity so apparent that it ought not to escape the gaze of even the most stupid tribe. The apostle declares this more clearly: “What men need to know concerning God has been disclosed to them, . . . for one an all gaze upon his invisible nature, known from the creation of the world, even unto his eternal power and divinity. [Rom. 1:19-20 p.] [8]
In
the foregoing I have compiled six, plain differences in the apologetic approach
of Thomas and Calvin to the existence of God.
Whatever we may think of finding a scholastic methodology in
Calvin, we do not find a Thomistic natural theology.
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica (Volume 1, Question 2, Article 1)
[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 2)
[3] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 5, Section 11)
[4] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 5, Section 1)
[5] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 5, Section 1)
[6] Summa Theologica (Volume 1, Question 2, Second Article)
[7] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (Book 1, Chapter 9, Paragraph 5)
[8] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 5, Section 1)
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by CBTSeminary | Nov 21, 2019 | Apologetics
More
Contrasts between Calvin and Aquinas!
Second,
Calvin emphasizes explicitly and repeatedly the effect of the fall on man’s
knowledge of God. Though men have a
naturally implanted knowledge of God given to them by and in creation, this knowledge
never develops into a “true” knowledge in the sense of a practical and
religious principle which leads them to worship God aright. Let me put that in my own words, but they are
words which, I think, rightly embody Calvin’s view. He believes that men have a natural
revelation of God, but that this natural revelation never results in a natural
theology which can guide them appropriately in worship or in life in general.
This emphasis is practically absent in Thomas.
Listen to Calvin:
It must also be remarked, that, though they strive against their own natural understanding, and desire not only to banish him thence, but even to annihilate him in heaven, their insensibility can never prevail so as to prevent God from sometimes recalling them to his tribunal. But as no dread restrains them from violent opposition to the divine will, it is evident, as long as they are carried away with such a blind impetuosity, that they are governed by a brutish forgetfulness of God. [1]
At length they involve themselves in such a vast accumulation of errors, that those sparks which enable them to discover the glory of God are smothered, and at last extinguished by the criminal darkness of iniquity. That seed, which it is impossible to eradicate, a sense of the existence of a Deity, yet remains; but so corrupted as to produce only the worst of fruits. Yet this is a further proof of what I now contend for, that the idea of God is naturally engraved on the hearts of men, since necessity extorts a confession of it, even from reprobates themselves. In a moment of tranquility they facetiously mock the Divine Being, and with loquacious impertinence in many derogate from his power. But if any despair oppress them, it stimulates them to seek him, and dictates concise prayers, which prove that they are not altogether ignorant of God, but that what ought to have appeared before had been suppressed by obstinacy. [2]
Third,
this very different assessment of the effect of the fall on man’s knowledge of
God comes to concrete expression in the very different use which Thomas and
Calvin make of a classic passage on the subject. I have in mind, of course, Psalm
53:1 which reads in part: “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no
God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is
no one who does good.” Both Thomas and
Calvin cite this text, but how different is the use they make of it!
Thomas
sees it as proof that the existence of God is not self-evident. He takes at
face value the fool’s assertion that there is no God. Aquinas says: “On the
contrary, no one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as
the Philosopher … states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But
the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally admitted: The fool
hath said in his heart, There is no God (Ps. Lii. 1). Therefore that God exists
is not self-evident.” [3]
Calvin,
on the other hand, takes it as evidence of the deep depravity of the fool. The fool denies a knowledge of God that is ineradicably
implanted in him. Here is Calvin’s comment in the Institutes on Psalm
53:1 with some context:
While experience testifies that the seeds of religion are sown by God in every heart, we scarcely find one man in a hundred who cherishes what he has received, and not one in whom they grow to maturity, much less bear fruit in due season. Some perhaps grow vain in their own superstitions, while others revolt from God with intentional wickedness; but all degenerate from the true knowledge of him. The fact is, that no genuine piety remains in the world. But, in saying that some fall into superstition through error, I would not insinuate that their ignorance excuses them from guilt; because their blindness is always connected with pride, vanity, and contumacy. [4]
David’s assertion, that “the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,” is primarily, as we shall soon see in another place, to be restricted to those who extinguish the light of nature and willfully stupefy themselves. [5]
[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 4, Section 2)
[2] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 4, Section 4)
[3] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
(Volume 1, Question 2, Article 1)
[4] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 4, Section 1)
[5] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 4, Section 2)
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Sam Waldron | Nov 13, 2019 | Apologetics
Aquinas’
Inadequate Views of Noetic Depravity
Van
Til and presuppositionalism object to Aquinas’s approach to natural theology
and apologetics. One major reason given for this is that Thomism exhibits an
over-confidence in fallen human reason. Does Thomas over-rate the ability of
human reason and under-rate the effects of noetic depravity (the depravity of
fallen man’s mind) in his natural theology?
I think he does, but this requires a little explanation, if we are to be
entirely fair to Thomas.
The
picture that many have of Thomas Aquinas as a typical, semi-Pelagian Roman
Catholic is certainly not correct. At key points on the doctrine of grace he
follows Augustine carefully and deserves in those respects to be regarded as a
strict Augustinian. This is, of course,
a huge problem for modern Roman Catholicism because of its clearly
semi-Pelagian tendencies.
Aquinas, in spite of
modern Thomists’ misconceptions, was thoroughly Augustinian in his view of
predestination. In his treatment of
predestination Aquinas answers a number of questions in the way that only
Augustine and his strict followers would answer. [1]
Here is a brief summary.
- “Whether Men Are Predestined by God?” Yes!
- “Whether Predestination Places Anything in the
Predestined?” No! (Men are passive in this matter.)
- “Whether God Reprobates Any Men?” Yes!
- “Whether the Predestined Are Chosen by God?” Yes!
- “Whether the Foreknowledge of Merits Is the
Cause of Predestination?” No!
- “Whether Predestination Is Certain?” Yes!
- “Whether the Number of the Predestined Is
Certain?” Yes!
- “Whether Predestination Can Be Furthered by the Prayers of the
Saints?” No, in that predestination is first determined regardless of the
prayers of the saints. Yes, in that the effect of predestination—salvation—can
be furthered by the prayers of the saints as a means of grace.
This last question and answer exactly parallels
Augustine’s argument in his book entitled, Of Rebuke and Grace (as do
all the others). Thomas echoes the anti-Pelagian teaching of Augustine.
Similarly, and not surprisingly, Thomas also
agrees with Augustine about what is now known as “irresistible grace.” Once again through his typical and very
analytical treatment Aquinas follows the course laid out by Augustine. [2] But
the pinnacle is reached when Aquinas teaches what amounts to effectual calling
or irresistible grace: “… since God’s intention cannot fail, according to the
saying of Augustine in his book on the Predestination of the Saints … that by
God’s good gifts whoever is liberated is most certainly liberated. Hence if God intends, while moving, that the
one whose heart He moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to
it …”[3]
With such evidence in front of us, we may
rather expect that Aquinas will follow out what we know as the Calvinistic
scheme by teaching the perseverance and preservation of the saints and the
other doctrines of grace. Sadly, this
assumption is not the case. Neither
Augustine, his strict follower, Gottschalk, nor Thomas Aquinas affirm the
preservation of the saints. Grace may be
lost unless one is also predestined to persevere. Once more Thomas Aquinas is a good
Augustinian when he says: “Many have meritorious works who do not obtain
perseverance …” [4]
Similarly, Aquinas also seems to have held
confused and imperfect views of total depravity. Sin, in fact, does not seem to occupy an
important place in Thomas’s writings. In
Gilson’s index there is no entry for sin, depravity, the fall, or folly. For a discussion of Thomas’s view of sin, one
must consult his doctrine of free will and grace. It is not surprising, then,
Thomas argues that natural light is sufficient for natural knowledge.
Consequently, human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin. [5]
The effects of this view of human nature become
evident in Thomas’s approach to the existence of God. In several places Thomas
argues that the existence of God is not self-evident because sinful men can
conceive that God does not exist, and if something is self-evident it cannot be
conceived by anyone as not existing. He
proves this by citing “the ancients,” that is, the ancient Greek philosophers.
He also cites the fact that the fool denies the existence of God.
Surprisingly, instead of attributing such
denials to the noetic depravity of men and the fact that they suppress the
truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), Thomas takes these statements of the fool
and the ancients at face value. He then uses them as an argument against the
self-evident character of the existence of God. Nothing could more pointedly
inform us of Thomas’s inflated view of the powers of fallen human reason.
Here are the quotes from Aquinas: “And,
contrary to the Point made by the first argument, it does not follow
immediately that, as soon as we know the meaning of the name God, the existence
of God is known. It does not follow first because it is not known to all, even
including those who admit that God exists, that God is that than which a
greater cannot be thought. After all, many ancients said that this world itself
was God.” [6]
Cf. also: “On the contrary, no one can mentally admit the opposite of what is
self-evident; as the Philosopher … states concerning the first principles of
demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition “God is” can be mentally
admitted: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Ps. Lii. 1). Therefore
that God exists is not self-evident.” [7]
Thus, despite the promising character of
Thomas’s views of predestination and grace, he falls short of truly
appreciating the total depravity of man including his reason. This in turn profoundly controls his approach
to apologetics and the theistic proofs. This is why Aquinas can say that the fool
and the ancients disprove the self-evident-ness of the existence of God. This
is clear evidence that Thomas indulged deficient views of human depravity.
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, Volume 1, Question 23, Articles 1-8.
[2] Summa Theologica, Volume 2,
Question 112, Articles 1-3.
[3] Summa Theologica, Volume 2,
Question 112, Articles 3.
[4] Summa Theologica, Volume 2,
Question 114, Article 9. Since the true
grace of regeneration was given through the sacrament of baptism, and it was
plain that not all the baptized persevered, no one committed to the notion of
baptismal regeneration in any sense could hold the Calvinistic view of the
perseverance of the saints.
[5] Summa Theologica, Volume 2,
Question 109, Article 2.
[6] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra
Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 11, Paragraph 3
[7] Summa Theologica, Volume 1,
Question 2, Article 1
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Nov 11, 2019 | Apologetics
Why
are we privileging Aquinas over Augustine?
One
of the first things that became very clear to me as I read Aquinas was that
with respect to the whole issue of apologetics and the proofs for the existence
of God, he does not agree with Augustine, Anselm, and many other Christian
theologians who preceded him. They
asserted (what Thomas denies) that the existence of God is self-evident or
naturally implanted in man. This is
evident in his whole approach to the subject.
Here is his description of the arguments of those who say that the
existence of God is self-evident in Summa Theologica Question 2, Article
2. (Note that Aquinas is presenting
views he rejects!)
Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word “God” is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word “God” is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition “God exists” is self-evident.
Objection 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition “Truth does not exist” is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn. 14:6) Therefore “God exists” is self-evident.”[1]
These
are descriptions of two well-known arguments for the self-evident-ness of the
existence of God. The first is Anselm’s
ontological argument for the existence of God.
The second is Augustine’s argument from the existence of truth. He does
not mention here that these arguments were brought forward not only by Anselm,
but by Augustine as well. This, however,
was clear to anyone acquainted with Augustine.
Augustine’s argument from truth is plain to see in Book 2 of his
treatise on The Free Choice of the Will.
Aquinas
denies that the existence of God is self-evident in both his Summa
Theologica and in his Summa Contra Gentiles and rejects the above
arguments. The five proofs are built, then, upon the denial of any innate
knowledge of God. Says Gordon H.
Clark:
Thomas faced two other contrasting views. One is that the existence of God is self-evident and neither needs nor is susceptible of proof from prior first principles. Those who hold this view argue that God has implanted in all men an elemental knowledge of himself. The idea of God is innate. On this showing any argument or so-called proof could be nothing more than a clarification of already present ideas; and such in effect was the nature of Augustine’s, Anselm’s and Bonaventura’s attempts. Now, in one sense Thomas is willing to admit that God’s existence is self-evident: it is self-evident in itself, it is self-evident to God; but it is not self-evident to us. God has not implanted ideas in the human mind, and all knowledge must be based on sensory experience.” [2]
For the substantiation of Clark’s assertions,
cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 2, Article 1; Summa
Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapters 10-12.
In these places he mentions other Christian theologians with whom he is
taking issue. Included among them are the ones he calls the Damascene and
Bonaventura.
All
of this is significant because it means that in favoring the classical
apologetics of Aquinas, contemporary Reformed theologians are selecting one
from among several historically “scholastic” positions. They are really crediting Aquinas over
Augustine. They are also privileging
Christian Aristotelianism over Christian Platonism. It is well-known that the idea of the self-evident-ness
of the existence of God appealed to Augustine, Anselm, and others because of
their preference for a form of Christian Platonism which emphasized the
importance of innate ideas over the Christian Aristotelianism of Aquinas which
favored the importance of sensory or empirical evidence.
My
point is not to argue for Christian Platonism—any more than I am arguing for
Christian Aristotelianism. It is only to say that in their rush to identify
Reformed Scholasticism with Aquinas, contemporary Reformed theologians may have
forgotten that there was a different and viable option available to our
Reformed fathers that did not involve the adoption of Aquinas’s view of natural
theology. That alternative was none
other than the view of the one who was recognized by Calvin and others as the
most important predecessor of the Reformation, Augustine himself. Scholastics
such as Anselm and Bonaventura did not reject Augustine’s views in the way
Aquinas did. They remained more faithful to the Augustinian tradition with
regard to the self-evident nature of the knowledge of God.
There
is certainly clear evidence (from the predominant number of times he quotes him
in the Institutes) that Calvin privileged Augustine. Calvin frequently cites Augustine by name and
generally positively. I think the number is 300 plus times in the Institutes.
Having searched I can find only three places where he cites by name Thomas
Aquinas. The references are not very
positive, but usually rather equivocal.
In spite of this, we are supposed to think that Calvin adopted Aquinas’s
view of apologetics and the theistic proofs rather than Augustine’s. This is a really suspect way to reason.
Why
are we privileging Aquinas over Augustine?
Furthermore, why must we privilege either Christian Aristotelianism or
Christian Platonism? Of course, I am not arguing that we return to the
Christian Platonism of Augustine. I am
saying, however, that there were certainly historical-theological alternatives
available to the Reformed Scholastics that did not involve a return to “the
classical apologetics” of Thomas Aquinas.
In
further posts I will demonstrate some of the mistakes that are involved in
privileging Aquinas’s views.
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Question 2, Article 2
[2] Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, 272-273.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Nov 7, 2019 | Apologetics
After
Reading Aquinas!
“Everyone”
knows that recently there has been quite a furor created by the claims of J. V.
Fesko (Reforming Apologetics—Retrieving the Classical Reformed Approach to Defending
the Faith), Keith Mathison (Christianity and Van Tillianism),
Richard Muller (Aquinas Reconsidered), and other critics of Van Til.
Their assertion is that Cornelius Van Til substantially misunderstood and/or
misrepresented Thomas Aquinas in the construction of his presuppositional
apologetics. In turn this exposes to criticism the supposed “Copernican”
revolution which presuppositionalism claimed to represent in the area of Christian
Apologetics.
As
part of my course on Apologetics for CBTS I begin with an historical
introduction to the subject. After that I delve deeply into the significance of
the major, relevant, biblical passages for Christian Apologetics and for the
major issues revealed by this historical introduction. Therefore, after lecturing on the contrast
between Justin Martyr and Tertullian in the Early Church period and before
coming to the contrast between Warfield and Kuyper in the Modern Church, I
lecture on the contrast between Aquinas and Calvin in what I call the period of
the Augustinian Church.
It
was the lecture on Aquinas that caused me concern. Of course, the contrast for which I argue between
Aquinas and Calvin is called into question by the advocates of Reformed
Scholasticism. But the bigger issue was the
propriety of the way that I (generally following Van Til’s lead) described
Aquinas’s views.
I
was encouraged, however, to see that I rarely quoted Van Til or his assessment
of Aquinas in this lecture. Rather, the
views of Gordon H. Clark, E. J. Carnell, and Kelly James Clark are much more
frequently cited. Substantially, they give the same account of Thomas Aquinas
as Van Til. Still, I felt that I was myself
too reliant on secondary sources for my description of Thomas Aquinas and not
well enough read in Thomas Aquinas to defend my treatment and description of
his “classical approach” to Apologetics. I determined to make sure that I had rectified
this before the lecture on Aquinas.
Thus, I read the relevant sections of Thomas Aquinas for myself before
giving this lecture.
I
procured and then scoured the relevant sections of his Summa Contra Gentiles
and Summa Theologica. This
reading caused considerable expansion of that lecture. It actually—in fact—expanded it into two
lectures. What it did not do, however, was significantly change my
understanding of Thomas Aquinas “Classical Apologetics” at all. I concluded that basically Van Til’s
presentation of Thomas was right.
This conclusion should not really surprise anyone. In his recent blog posts on the subject James Anderson points out that, even if Van Til was not deeply acquainted with Aquinas’ writings himself, he was at least using the exposition of Aquinas available from the premier Aquinas scholar of the 20th century. I refer to Etienne Gilson and his The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is what Anderson says: “I think it’s also fair to criticize Van Til for relying heavily on secondary sources and not engaging more directly with Aquinas’s works. Even so, Van Til engages frequently with Etienne Gilson, who was one of the leading authorities on Aquinas during Van Til’s career, so it’s not as though his secondary sources were dubious ones! If Van Til was interacting with Aquinas through the lens of Gilson and other contemporary scholars, then he was interacting with the interpretation of Aquinas that was dominant in his day.” [i] As I read Gilson, it was clear to me that his treatment was a closely accurate portrayal of Thomas Aquinas, his Christian philosophy, and his Apologetics.
In
the posts to follow I want to respond to the criticisms of presuppositionalism based
on the fascination with Aquinas among some contemporary Reformed scholars. I will point out several misguided and unhelpful
directions that are being taken in the current discussion of Aquinas and
Christian Apologetics.
[i] https://www.proginosko.com/2019/08/reforming-apologetics-thomas-aquinas/
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.