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 19, 2019 | Apologetics
Calvin
and Aquinas Contrasted
Richard
Muller is well-known for books like Unaccommodated Calvin. I had to read that book back in the days when
I was studying for my PhD. Muller’s
point (or at least one of his main points) was that the contrast between Calvin
and the Reformed Scholastics who followed him in the next century had been
overdrawn by many scholars in the 20th Century who had bought in to
the Calvin versus the Calvinists movement. Muller showed (I think
successfully.) that there were clear indications of a scholastic methodology in
Calvin that showed much more continuity with his Calvinistic successors and his
Medieval predecessors.
But now we are confronted with a much more specific claim. It is that Calvin was controlled not only by a methodology common to the Medieval scholastics, but that he adopted the Thomist views of natural theology and apologetics. Cf. J. V. Fesko’s Reforming Apologetics.
Sorry,
folks, as they say here in the South, That dog won’t hunt!
As I
said previously in this blog series, I recently read up on and then lectured on
Thomas Aquinas for my class in apologetics.
I immediately followed that with a lecture on Calvin’s masterful
treatment of the knowledge of God in Book 1, Chapters 1-9 of the Institutes. I think even a novice cannot fail to notice a
massive difference in the ethos of Thomas opening chapters in Summa
Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles. But this is not a superficial impression
without a substantial basis. In this
case the accessibility and biblicity of Calvin manifests a much different
approach to the subject of the knowledge of God than that of Thomas
Aquinas. Let me lay out the theological
contrasts between Thomas and Calvin.
First,
Calvin identifies himself with a theological tradition in regard to the
knowledge of God which Thomas rejects.
Thomas rejects the notion that the knowledge of the existence of God is
naturally implanted. He argues, as we have seen, that strictly speaking the
knowledge of God is not self-evident. He admits: “To know God exists in a
general and confused way is implanted in us …” Yet he says that this is “not to
know absolutely that God exists, just as to know that someone is approaching is
not to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter that is
approaching.”[1]
He goes on in the next article to assert: “Hence, the existence of God, in so
far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His
effects which are known to us.” [2]
Calvin,
on the other hand, declares explicitly and repeatedly that men have a natural
knowledge of God which they cannot evade or erase. He has much more in common
with the Christian Platonist tradition embodied in Augustine, Anselm, the
Damascene, and Bonaventura which affirmed that the knowledge of the existence
of God was innate or at least naturally implanted in men. Listen to Calvin’s statements on this
subject. Calvin’s language here is absolutely incapable of misunderstanding.
We lay it down as a position not to be controverted that the human mind, even by natural instinct, possesses some sense of a Deity. For that no man might shelter himself under the pretext of ignorance, God hath given to all some apprehension of his existence, the memory of which he frequently and insensibly renews; so that, as men universally know that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, they must be condemned by their own testimony, for not having worshipped him and consecrated their lives to his service. If we seek for ignorance of a Deity, it is nowhere more likely to be found, than among the tribes the most stupid and furthest from civilization. But, as the celebrated Cicero observes, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so savage; as not to be firmly persuaded of the being of a God. [3]
We read of none guilty of more audacious or unbridled contempt of the Deity than Caligula; yet no man ever trembled with greater distress at any instance of Divine wrath, so that he was constrained to dread the Divinity whom he professed to despise. This you may always see exemplified in persons of a similar character …. The impious themselves, therefore, exemplify the observation, that the idea of a God is never lost in the human mind. [4]
It will always be evident to persons of correct judgment, that the idea of a Deity impressed on the mind of man is indelible. That all have by nature an innate persuasion of the Divine existence, a persuasion inseparable from their very constitution, we have abundant evidence in the contumacy of the wicked, whose furious struggles to extricate themselves from the fear of God are unavailing. [5]
The
contrast between Thomas and Calvin on this matter is clear.
More
to come…
[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica (Volume 1, Question 2, Article 1)
[2] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra
Gentiles (Book 1, Chapters 10-12).
[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the
Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 1)
[4] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 3, Section 2)
[5] Institutes of the Christian
Religion (Book 1,
Chapter 3, Section 3)
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 15, 2019 | Apologetics
They
Just Keep Missing the Point
In my view those currently attacking Van Til and presuppositionalism are engaged in a gigantic enterprise of missing the point. They keep interpreting Romans 1:18-23 wrongly, over and over and again and again! To put it differently, they keep making the same exegetical mistake over and over again. They keep affirming that Romans 1 teaches that we can demonstrate the existence of God to men. They keep saying that men can know that God exists. But that is emphatically not what the passage says. It does not say that men can know God. It does not say that we can demonstrate to men who do not know God that God exists. It says that men do know God and that they do not need this demonstrated to them. It will probably do no good to quote the passage—since this false understanding is so deeply embedded in the thinking of Classical Apologists—, but let me do so one more time. Here is what Paul actually says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
Men
according to Paul not only may know God, they do know God. They know God
because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They know God because that which is known
about God is evident within them.
They know God because since the creation of the world His eternal power
and divine nature are clearly seen and understood. They know God because they are without
excuse. (Paul grounds their
accountability on the fact that they know God.
They are not simply potentially without excuse because they may come to
know God. They are without excuse
because they do know God.) Finally, they know God, because they sinfully
refused to honor Him or give thanks.
The
passage is clear. Men do not merely have the capability of knowing God after a
theistic proof is presented. They know
God before such a proof is presented.
Yes, this knowledge is through the things that are made, but this does
not mean that their knowledge of God is the result of a properly constructed
theistic proof. Their knowledge of God
is both mediated to them through creation and implanted in them by creation.
It
should not be surprising that his modern followers misinterpret Romans 1. They are simply following in the footsteps of
the identical mistake made by Thomas Aquinas.
Listen
to his argument in Summa Theologica Question 2, Article 2: “The Apostle
says: “The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made” (Rm. 1:20). But this would not be unless the
existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for
the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.” Thomas takes
(and the surrounding context of his assertion simply emphasizes this) Romans
1:20 to mean that the existence of God is not self-evident or implanted in man,
but can be demonstrated.
Listen
to Thomas in Summa Contra Gentiles, Chapter 12, which is entitled: “THE
OPINION OF THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED BUT
IS HELD BY FAITH ALONE.” Once more in
proving that the existence of God can be demonstrated, he brings up Romans
1:20. He says: “The falsity of this opinion is shown to us, first, from the art
of demonstration which teaches us to arrive at causes from their effects. Then,
it is shown to us from the order of the sciences. For, as it is said in the
Metaphysics [IV, 3], if there is no knowable substance higher than sensible
substance, there will be no science higher than physics. It is shown, thirdly,
from the pursuit of the philosophers, who have striven to demonstrate that God
exists. 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).”
Once more, it is clear that Thomas has misunderstood Romans 1. He thinks it means that one can “arrive at”
and “demonstrate” that God exists. I
have to say it again. This is not what
Romans 1:20 teaches. It teaches men do
know God. It is not something that they “arrive at” after it has been
demonstrated to them. To echo Paul’s
argument in Romans 1:18-21, if the knowledge of God is something to be arrived
at, then their being without excuse is something to be arrived at. According to Paul, all men are without excuse
precisely because they do know God without the necessity of demonstration.
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 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.