# A Richard Muller Critique



## bookslover (Mar 10, 2019)

For those of you who like a vigorous read and are theologically and philosophically oriented, let me recommend to you a new article by historical theologian Richard A. Muller. The title is "Reading Aquinas from a Reformed Perspective: A Review Essay." It appears as the lead article in the latest (November, 2018) issue of Calvin Theological Journal (CTJ 53.2 [2018]), pp. 255-288.

In a nutshell: two years ago, K. Scott Oliphant published his book, _Thomas Aquinas_. In his essay, Muller takes 34 pages to more or less completely eviscerate this book. He does so in a highly scholarly, academic way, as one would expect of Muller, but the devastation is pretty complete.

There are many points of disagreement with Oliphant. To pick just one example: Oliphant apparently (I haven't read his book) agrees with the common perception among the Reformed that Aquinas was more of a philosopher than a theologian, that Aquinas was interested in dragging Aristotle's views into Christianity. Muller says that, actually, this is backwards, that Aquinas was more theologian than philosopher; that, in fact, in his huge _Summa Theologica_, Aristotle is only mentioned twice. Muller also says that, contrary to Reformed suspicions about Aquinas, there are actually more links between Aquinas and the Reformers, and Reformed thought, than is generally assumed.

This is just one of many, many areas where Muller criticizes Oliphant's book. He goes on to say that Oliphant misunderstands and misinterprets Aquinas because his mentor, Cornelius Van Til, also misunderstands and misinterprets Aquinas. In his conclusion, Muller says that Van Til is one "who, by no stretch of the imagination, can be viewed as a competent analyst of the thought of Aquinas" (p. 288).

It's been awhile since I've read such a scholarly take-down of a book. But Muller has long-since demonstrated his credentials as a careful and erudite scholar, and his views should be considered seriously.

It's also interesting that the piece is part of what I think is a slowly growing trend in some Reformed circles to criticize Cornelius Van Til where it is felt he needs criticizing. Dr. John Fesko has a new book out, _Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 250 pages, in which he criticizes Van Til's approach to apologetics. (I just bought a copy and intend to read it soon.)

It's interesting and educational to read orthodox scholars re-thinking views on theological subjects, challenging settled opinions of the past.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 4


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

Muller is an excellent historian, but he as is no Theologian. He even says of himself in the preface of "The Study of Theology" that in Biblical studies that he is a "dabbler" at best. (p. xvii) Everyone needs to stay in his own lane here. When Van Til or Oliphint reads the bible he trusts in the Holy Spirit's legitimization of it. WCF 1.4. 
For Muller, _ “at least for our times, the historical investigation must precede the doctrinal statement and in fact supply the information from which the doctrinal statement takes its shape and on which it rests” (p. 99).: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Formulation_ (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 7; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. 
He goes on to say it is
"doctrinally arguable to attribute the accurate preservation of the text of Scripture to divine providence… . Historical investigation cannot, however, rest content with the doctrinal explanation but must look to the process of the transmission of the text and examine the techniques and procedures of the Masoretes, the monastic calligraphers of the church, and the scholarly editors of later centuries, and find in the actual practice of these people the historical grounds for arguing whether or not the text has been accurately preserved" 

Oliphant and Van Til approach scripture using analogia fide, Aquinas using Philosophy, though he may not give Aristotle the credit he deserved, his main man being Pseudo Dionysius, and Muller using historical data. I prefer the apologetic approach that trusts the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> but he as is no Theologian. He even says of himself in the preface of "The Study of Theology" that in Biblical studies that he is a "dabbler" at best. (p. xvii)



Exactly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 10, 2019)

bookslover said:


> There are many points of disagreement with Oliphant. To pick just one example: Oliphant apparently (I haven't read his book) agrees with the common perception among the Reformed that Aquinas was more of a philosopher than a theologian, that Aquinas was interested in dragging Aristotle's views into Christianity. Muller says that, actually, this is backwards, that Aquinas was more theologian than philosopher; that, in fact, in his huge _Summa Theologica_, Aristotle is only mentioned twice.



To be fair to Scott Oliphant (I speak as an avowed enemy of presuppositionalism), many of our Reformed forebears do fault Thomas Aquinas and other medieval scholastics for following Aristotle too closely on some matters. 



bookslover said:


> Muller also says that, contrary to Reformed suspicions about Aquinas, there are actually more links between Aquinas and the Reformers, and Reformed thought, than is generally assumed.



That observation is very true. The Reformers and post-Reformation Reformed divines generally adopted a critical appreciation for Thomas Aquinas. The modern rejection of Aquinas by the Van Tillians is one extreme, whereas the worship of Aquinas by some Reformed Thomists is another. 

In one Facebook discussion, which Jacob has alluded to elsewhere, I partially agreed with Scott Oliphant on Aquinas' exegesis and was met with "sad" reacts. Having read 14,000 pages of Thomas Aquinas (including all the commentaries on the Pauline epistles), you would think that I was at least tolerably well informed on the subject.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exactly.


He even cites Moises Silva ( I'm not knocking Silva, as I remember you recommended his work), "Has the Church Misread the Bible?", as a source to support a statement he makes that really strikes at the heart of the work of illumination by the Holy Spirit. Muller says, "Christian thinkers have* always* recognized, more over, the* difficulty* of moving from the text of scripture into the church's present with a doctrine and a preaching* relevant* to concerns of Christian congregations and Christian missions.* Nevertheless*,* despite these difficulties*, the church in past ages was* remarkably* successful in* its work." (Ibid p. 20)*
Isn't it *remarkable* that these un- or misinformed old guys could convince the church, and those to which it ministered, the ignorant masses, to believe what they said. I wonder how God pulled that off.* Remarkable!*


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

Richard, please don't think I am questioning you at all. I respect you and your opinion. You are much more qualified than I and have probably forgotten more than I will ever know. That, is why I must trust the Spirit.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 10, 2019)

bookslover said:


> He goes on to say that Oliphant misunderstands and misinterprets Aquinas because his mentor, Cornelius Van Til, also misunderstands and misinterprets Aquinas.



Bingo.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 10, 2019)

Aquinas does not need to mention Aristotle for his influence to be seen. His entire metaphysical foundation is rooted in Aristotle.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Muller is an excellent historian, but he as is no Theologian. He even says of himself in the preface of "The Study of Theology" that in Biblical studies that he is a "dabbler" at best. (p. xvii) Everyone needs to stay in his own lane here. When Van Til or Oliphint reads the bible he trusts in the Holy Spirit's legitimization of it. WCF 1.4.
> For Muller, _ “at least for our times, the historical investigation must precede the doctrinal statement and in fact supply the information from which the doctrinal statement takes its shape and on which it rests” (p. 99).: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Formulation_ (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 7; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
> He goes on to say it is
> "doctrinally arguable to attribute the accurate preservation of the text of Scripture to divine providence… . Historical investigation cannot, however, rest content with the doctrinal explanation but must look to the process of the transmission of the text and examine the techniques and procedures of the Masoretes, the monastic calligraphers of the church, and the scholarly editors of later centuries, and find in the actual practice of these people the historical grounds for arguing whether or not the text has been accurately preserved"
> ...



And Oliphant/Van Til are no historians. If Muller was doing constructive theology (he isn't here), then I would agree with you entirely. Otherwise it's not to the point. When Muller's doing historical theology, however, he is unmatched.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 10, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> And Oliphant/Van Til are no historians. If Muller was doing constructive theology (he isn't here), then I would agree with you entirely. Otherwise it's not to the point. When Muller's doing historical theology, however, he is unmatched.


Agreed! I love Muller historically! I don't like either side of that that debate.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Aquinas does not need to mention Aristotle for his influence to be seen.



Indeed. Assuming that citations alone = influence is historically fallacious.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 10, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Richard, please don't think I am questioning you at all. I respect you and your opinion. You are much more qualified than I and have probably forgotten more than I will ever know. That, is why I must trust the Spirit.



Bill, I thank you for the compliment, but I must trust the Holy Spirit as well. I'm no genius. I just have done a lot of reading over the years. I'm sure there are subjects where you know much more than I ever will. We're both just sinners saved by God's grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 10, 2019)

My critique of Muller is that all of his books are way too expensive.

Reactions: Like 7 | Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 10, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> My critique of Muller is that all of his books are way too expensive.



He is also a rather boring writer. Hides for cover.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 10, 2019)

Muller is great on finding out what Trecalus and Musclus meant. No point going to him for working with what the text actually says. His field isn't exegesis or constructive theology.

Oliphint was the wrong person to go after Aquinas. Thomas is just too powerful a thinker. But because he is a powerful thinker, you can't isolate and pick and choose from his theology. His Summa builds upon each question. For Thomas, there is a direct connection between the following beliefs:

1) Justification by infusion of grace (try spouting that one at Presbytery exams!)

2) Universal supremacy of the Pope

3) Purgatory

4) God is a cookie

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Muller is great on finding out what Trecalus and Musclus meant. No point going to him for working with what the text actually says. His field isn't exegesis or constructive theology.
> 
> Oliphint was the wrong person to go after Aquinas.



Is that because he is not a scholar of Thomas. With the field getting so broad who can? The problem is most scholars of Thomas/thomism are Thomists by conviction_. _They are Roman Catholics or in any case not going to dedicate their lives to studying someone they disagree in large part with. Wippel, Gilson, Maritain, Garrigou-Lagrange, and Benedict Ashley all disagreed with one another on their interpretations of Thomas but think/thought the world of him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 10, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Is that because he is not a scholar of Thomas.



Partly. I'm not saying Oliphint's general thrust is wrong. I'm sympathetic to it. But a couple hundred page refutation of Thomas ain't gonnna do it.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 10, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> God is a cookie


Excuse the ignorance but what does that mean?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 10, 2019)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Excuse the ignorance but what does that mean?



It is a reference to transubstantiation.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 10, 2019)

Ok, now that you said it it seems so obvious.


----------



## timfost (Mar 11, 2019)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Ok, now that you said it it seems so obvious.



If it makes you feel better this one also stumped me. We can blush together.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 11, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> For Thomas, there is a direct connection between the following beliefs:
> 
> 1) Justification by infusion of grace (try spouting that one at Presbytery exams!)
> 
> ...



So in other words, papists gonna pape.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 13, 2019)

bookslover said:


> It's also interesting that the piece is part of what I think is a slowly growing trend in some Reformed circles to criticize Cornelius Van Til where it is felt he needs criticizing. Dr. John Fesko has a new book out, _Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 250 pages, in which he criticizes Van Til's approach to apologetics. (I just bought a copy and intend to read it soon.)



Thankfully the whole van Til cult has passed my denomination by.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 13, 2019)

I'm glad to be in The Cult.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 13, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> ...the whole van Til cult...



Well, that was certainly unnecessary, not to mention libelous, as it implies that Van Til and those who follow and propagate his thought are something other than Christian. I hope I am misunderstanding you, and if I am not, I would encourage on your part either clarification or repentance.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

There are some of us--such as myself--who reject Van Til's apologetic methodology yet revere the fact he was a fine churchmen and outstanding preacher. And NT scholars were able to build on his insights (guys like Gaffin).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 14, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Well, that was certainly unnecessary, not to mention libelous, as it implies that Van Til and those who follow and propagate his thought are something other than Christian. I hope I am misunderstanding you, and if I am not, I would encourage on your part either clarification or repentance.



I would encourage you to lighten up and chill.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I would encourage you to lighten up and chill.



We weren't the ones who said "Van Til cult." 

To be fair, there are a number of quasi-cultic reconstructionists, but I seriously doubt that most OPC pastors are in a cult.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 14, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I would encourage you to lighten up and chill.



If this is your serious and genuine response to being addressed for such harsh language against brothers and sisters in the Lord, then my outrage is beyond justified.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 14, 2019)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Moderators- Quick question...if the majority of Reformed churches have deemed FV heresy why are we allowing people on the PB to stick up for a person who affirms FV doctrine. It seems it should be an open and shut case. It’s one thing to inquire about it and another to defend one of the main proponents of FV.



I think that you have posted in the wrong thread, brother. Should this post not be in the one about Doug Wilson?


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Mar 14, 2019)

Oops

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 15, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> If this is your serious and genuine response to being addressed for such harsh language against brothers and sisters in the Lord, then my outrage is beyond justified.



I think that Alexander is referring to what he sees as a "personality cult", which is a different thing to a cult in the sense of the JWs or the Mormons. He was not saying that the followers of CVT are not Christians. I agree, however, that we could probably have done without such rhetoric.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 15, 2019)

Yes that is what I was saying.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 15, 2019)

Cornelius Van Til should be treated as all scholars should be treated - praise and use the good stuff he wrote and criticize the things he wrote where you think he went wrong. Any scholar's published writings are fair game for both sides.

One thing Van Til should be admired for is that he was one of the first scholars writing in English (as far as I know) to criticize Karl Barth in print at book-length (_The New Modernism_, 1946).

On the other hand, Van Til is now undergoing criticism for his approach to apologetics, as I noted in my OP with both Richard Muller's review article and John Fesko's new book.

Like every other writer, Van Til can and should be admired for his achievements - but, like every other scholar, he is not beyond criticism.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Cornelius Van Til should be treated as all scholars should be treated - praise and use the good stuff he wrote and criticize the things he wrote where you think he went wrong. Any scholar's published writings are fair game for both sides.
> 
> One thing Van Til should be admired for is that he was one of the first scholars writing in English (as far as I know) to criticize Karl Barth in print at book-length (_The New Modernism_, 1946).
> 
> ...



That book by Fesko looks awesome. Does he take a straight forward classical apologetics line? I've never heard him on this topic. I've always been sceptical of him because of his involvement with Westminster Seminary California.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> That book by Fesko looks awesome. Does he take a straight forward classical apologetics line? I've never heard him on this topic. I've always been sceptical of him because of his involvement with Westminster Seminary California.



I've just started reading the book, so I don't have an answer to your question yet. Fesko, by the way, is leaving Westminster Seminary in California for Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 18, 2019)

bookslover said:


> I've just started reading the book, so I don't have an answer to your question yet. Fesko, by the way, is leaving Westminster Seminary in California for Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.



Sounds good. Is RTS solid?


----------



## bookslover (Mar 18, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Sounds good. Is RTS solid?



As far as I know, it's OK.


----------

