Protestant Acceptance of Thomas Aquinas

[bookslover]

On August 31, Owen Strachan (the author of that new book about Christianity and wokeness), authored two tweets:

"The Reformers, Puritans, Edwardseans, & Baptists all rejected the syncretistic philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Today, a tiny handful of evangelical scholars urges us to baptize Aquinas."

and

"The idea that Thomas Aquinas is anything remotely approaching a proto-Reformer, or friendly to early forms of Reformation convictions, should cause you to snort your morning coffee straight out of your nose."

The pushback on these two tweets (especially the first one) was immediate and forceful. Folks pointed out that (I'm summarizing), even while rejecting Aquinas's sacramentalism and his transubstantiationism, the Puritans, from John Owen on down, very much appreciated Thomas's writings, as did other Protestant writers. (In fact, an entire volume, entitled Thomism in John Owen, by Christopher Cleveland, was published in 2013.)

Other books that were pointed out to Strachan included Aquinas Among the Protestants, edited by Svensson and VanDrunen, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, by Norman Geisler, and the brand new Oxford Handbook of the Reception of Aquinas, edited by Matthew Levering (who specializes in Aquinas) and Marcus Plested.

(Separately, I found another of Levering's books: Aquinas the Augustinian.)

At the very least, Strachan's view of the relationship of Thomas's writings and Protestant theologians, from the Reformers on, isn't very nuanced. The relationship is more complicated and subtle than Strachan apparently thinks it is. The number of works studying the relationship of Thomas's theology and Protestant theology has grown significantly in the last 25 years. Judging by Strachan's tweets and the reaction to them, it looks like Strachan has some reading to do.

 

[RamistThomist]

It was hilarious watching everyone refute him all at once on Twitter.

 

[Zach]

My favorite response:

"The thing is if the guys you think finally got theology right, after 1500-1800 years, all spoke either English, Dutch, or German as their native language, it’s just starting to feel like… this is a cramped Christianity. And even if you think the Reformation is where things all went right for the first time, his read of the reformation dates to like 1955 in Glenside, Pennsylvania."

 

[alexandermsmith]

This is the guy who co-authored a book promoting the heresy of subordinationism.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Obviously, it is true that Thomas Aquinas was not Protestant and Reformed in his overall theology. No serious scholar would ever make such a ridiculous claim. Still, that is a very different thing from seeing significant areas of overlap between Aquinas and the Reformed scholastics. Of course, we should be careful of pushing such continuity too far. The likes of John Owen and Francis Turretin were nevertheless highly critical of Thomas at times, and I recall Owen denouncing those "who worship Thomas Aquinas next to God" (I believe that he said that in his misnamed Biblical Theology).

 

[RamistThomist]

 

[alexandermsmith]

Obviously, it is true that Thomas Aquinas was not Protestant and Reformed in his overall theology. No serious scholar would ever make such a ridiculous claim. Still, that is a very different thing from seeing significant areas of overlap between Aquinas and the Reformed scholastics. Of course, we should be careful of pushing such continuity too far. The likes of John Owen and Francis Turretin were nevertheless highly critical of Thomas at times, and I recall Owen denouncing those "who worship Thomas Aquinas next to God" (I believe that he said that in his misnamed Biblical Theology).

The best of the pre-Reformation scholars is found in the Protestant reformers, the Puritans &c. Ordinarily, therefore, it is safer to stick with the Puritans and their successors rather than wandering through mediaeval writers where, whilst there will be good to varying degrees, there will also be a lot of bad.

 

[chuckd]

My favorite response:

"The thing is if the guys you think finally got theology right, after 1500-1800 years, all spoke either English, Dutch, or German as their native language, it’s just starting to feel like… this is a cramped Christianity. And even if you think the Reformation is where things all went right for the first time, his read of the reformation dates to like 1955 in Glenside, Pennsylvania."

Don't forget French!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The best of the pre-Reformation scholars is found in the Protestant reformers, the Puritans &c. Ordinarily, therefore, it is safer to stick with the Puritans and their successors rather than wandering through mediaeval writers where, whilst there will be good to varying degrees, there will also be a lot of bad.

To fully understand the Reformers and Puritans, you have to understand (to some extent at least) the people whom they read and quoted in their writings. For example, one reason why there has been so much confusion in Reformed circles over theology proper in recent years is that the innovators did not understand the Augustinian/Thomistic background of the Reformed confessions on this point. Of course, I agree that more inexperienced believers would be better to read the Reformers and Puritans first before reading the Patristics and medieval theologians. Otherwise, they may be more at risk of embracing the errors of the latter authors.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This is not the subject per se, but what is driving the dredging up of old unconfessional unPresbyterian views of late as if it were some bombshell discovery that Presbyterianism and nonconformist puritanism had mighty opponents like Hooker and Davenant?

 

[Zach]

Don't forget French!

You're right. I believe she later added an additional tweet that read, "Apologies to M. Cauvin!"

 

[RamistThomist]

It's probably better to spend more time reading Turretin than Suarez, but if we say "Scholasticism bad only read Calvin and my Reformers," then we have the same methodology as Karl Barth.

 

[RamistThomist]

Terms like "being," "substance," "subsistence" didn't fall from heaven to be received by the godly in the Reformation (which, ironically, would be a Platonic view). They have a long pedigree in Patristic and Medieval studies. To try to do theology without them is to risk heresy (ESS, covenantal properties in God, etc).

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I think Strachan is reacting to a growing trend in Reformed circles that embraces Thomas too readily without giving sufficient heed to some of the serious problems in his doctrine. How he chose to express that on Twitter lacked nuance. However, I do find the trend toward Thomism troubling, and I'm happy to see some are pushing back.

 

[RamistThomist]

Does God have any potency in him?

 

[alexandermsmith]

To fully understand the Reformers and Puritans, you have to understand (to some extent at least) the people whom they read and quoted in their writings. For example, one reason why there has been so much confusion in Reformed circles over theology proper in recent years is that the innovators did not understand the Augustinian/Thomistic background of the Reformed confessions on this point. Of course, I agree that more inexperienced believers would be better to read the Reformers and Puritans first before reading the Patristics and medieval theologians. Otherwise, they may be more at risk of embracing the errors of the latter authors.

I think, nowadays, one can do pretty well sticking to the best of the Protestant writers. For the early Reformers and the Puritans the bulk of Christian writing was obviously pre-Reformation. Would it really be profitable for all Christians to read Aquinas' Summa when there are volumes and volumes of Puritan writings containing all that was good about Aquinas waiting to be read? I'm not saying don't read Augustine, or anything from the Patristics, or Bernard of Clairvaux (I've just started his sermons on the Song of Solomon and they're wonderful (though he occasionally uses terminology which whilst one can interpret it quite Biblically, within Romanism has particular meaning)) but one has to be careful and it is better to read these writers through the lens of the Protestant.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I think Strachan is reacting to a growing trend in Reformed circles that embraces Thomas too readily without giving sufficient heed to some of the serious problems in his doctrine. How he chose to express that on Twitter lacked nuance. However, I do find the trend toward Thomism troubling, and I'm happy to see some are pushing back.

Strachan isn't the one to do it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Would it really be profitable for all Christians to read Aquinas' Summa when there are volumes and volumes of Puritan writings containing all that was good about Aquinas waiting to be read?

It's not quite that simple. Few theologians can reach the heights of Thomas's Christology and Trinitarian theology. Read the Puritans. That's great. But if you are a mature student, you have to move on to at least Turretin (if you don't want to read Aquinas).

 

[NathanMoelker]

I think, nowadays, one can do pretty well sticking to the best of the Protestant writers. For the early Reformers and the Puritans the bulk of Christian writing was obviously pre-Reformation. Would it really be profitable for all Christians to read Aquinas' Summa when there are volumes and volumes of Puritan writings containing all that was good about Aquinas waiting to be read? I'm not saying don't read Augustine, or anything from the Patristics, or Bernard of Clairvaux (I've just started his sermons on the Song of Solomon and they're wonderful (though he occasionally uses terminology which whilst one can interpret it quite Biblically, within Romanism has particular meaning)) but one has to be careful and it is better to read these writers through the lens of the Protestant.

I'd put it this way. For the average lay person, You will certainly be better edified by Charnock on the Attributes then the Summa, and your time is probably best spent without Aquinas. But if someone intends to teach on theology proper, whether that be in writing or the pulpit, and plans to cut their study of the doctrine off at the Reformation, they simply are not equipped to fully addression the confessional understanding of the doctrine. As folks like Mueller have showed, Westminister occurred in a particular context, and cannot be separated from that context. Even for the lay person, struggling with something like the confessional statement that God is "without body, parts, or passions," cannot separate that affirmation from the scholastic context, even if they don't actually read Aquinas.

 

[NathanMoelker]

I think Strachan is reacting to a growing trend in Reformed circles that embraces Thomas too readily without giving sufficient heed to some of the serious problems in his doctrine. How he chose to express that on Twitter lacked nuance. However, I do find the trend toward Thomism troubling, and I'm happy to see some are pushing back.

Almost always, the people arguing against the use of Thomism tend to accompany those arguments with changes to the classical doctrine of God. (Frame, Oliphant (formerly), etc.). It seems that Strachan has some of these problems as well. Arguments against an unmoved mover becomes quickly an argument against a God that is "without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible," etc. As some above have said, those words have a particular meaning, and to divorce them entirely from scholasticism is to lose the meaning they had when they were written.

 

[RamistThomist]

The average lay person won't be reading Thomas, even if he wants to. A full set of Summa Theo. is hard to find (and very expensive). Moreover, it is very difficult. Strachan's fear, as is his theology, is misplaced.

 

[RamistThomist]

Which Reformed thinker today is saying we need to pay attention to Thomas on the sacraments or infused grace?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Which Reformed thinker today is saying we need to pay attention to Thomas on the sacraments or infused grace?

None of which I am aware. Conversely, the widespread ignorance of Patristic and medieval theology among ultra-Protestants has led to innumerable errors on theology proper, the Trinity, and Christology. Many of these people, when they read the Reformers and Puritans, only read them for what they say on soteriology. As a result, many have learned to be Calvinists before they have learned to be Christians.

 

[Solparvus]

As a result, many have learned to be Calvinists before they have learned to be Christians.

Could you expand on this statement? Sounds interesting.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jacob (to briefly digress from the OP), since you mentioned (in your post #13) the phrase "covenantal properties in God", here's a question I've wanted to ask you: in David Engelsma's book, Trinity and Covenant: God as Holy Family (RFPA 2006), he seems to have that view, affirming covenant being part of the eternal Essence. Have you read that? I do love Engelsma, but I can't follow him there.

Reading Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity opened my eyes and heart, and I am now, not only more enamored of my triune God, but it has helped my prayer life as well – helped me to know Him. I have also repented of using the term "three centers of consciousness", as you urged me to do! It has made me zealous to hold to classic, creedal trinitarian formulations. I can see why you love some of the Catholic and Orthodox theologians in that area.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Could you expand on this statement? Sounds interesting.

To be brief, many people know about the five points, but know next to nothing about more catholic doctrines. Is there any point in knowing about the five points if we know nothing about theology proper, the Trinity, Christology, or the Holy Spirit? Obviously, I am using hyperbole, but it is truthful hyperbole. There is an imbalance in doctrinal knowledge among many Reformed people that is simply not healthy. If someone said something heretical on theology proper or Christology, how many of us would even notice?

 

[Solparvus]

To be brief, many people know about the five points, but know next to nothing about more catholic doctrines. Is there any point in knowing about the five points if we know nothing about theology proper, the Trinity, Christology, or the Holy Spirit? Obviously, I am using hyperbole, but it is truthful hyperbole. There is an imbalance in doctrinal knowledge among many Reformed people that is simply not healthy. If someone said something heretical on theology proper or Christology, how many of us would even notice?

I see your point. Fully agreed.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob (to briefly digress from the OP), since you mentioned (in your post #13) the phrase "covenantal properties in God", here's a question I've wanted to ask you: in David Engelsma's book, Trinity and Covenant: God as Holy Family (RFPA 2006), he seems to have that view, affirming covenant being part of the eternal Essence. Have you read that? I do love Engelsma, but I can't follow him there.

Reading Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity opened my eyes and heart, and I am now, not only more enamored of my triune God, but it has helped my prayer life as well – helped me to know Him. I have also repented of using the term "three centers of consciousness", as you urged me to do! It has made me zealous to hold to classic, creedal trinitarian formulations. I can see why you love some of the Catholic and Orthodox theologians in that area.

I am aware that Engelsma said that. I don't think he is saying the same thing as Oliphint is. As I understand Engelsma, he is putting the covenant in the essence of God. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but Oliphint is trying to posit a new category. Classical theism has always said God has only essential properties in his essence. There are no accidental properties in God's essence because there is no unrealized potentiality in God. He is Pure Act. Oliphint, as I understand it, wanted to add a new category: covenantal properties but it always seemed to collapse back into accidental properties.

Yes, Barrett's book is outstanding.

 

[bookslover]

Strachan is a faculty member of a theological seminary in Conway, Arkansas. If these tweets are examples of the quality of his theological thinking, I'm nervous for that school's students. Here's hoping he's better when he's not on Twitter.

 

[Taylor]

Here's hoping he's better when he's not on Twitter.

Virtually everyone is worse on social media.