David Schaff on the Theology Thomas Aquinas

[C. M. Sheffield]

David Schley Schaff
(1852-1941)​

“In the teachings of Thomas Aquinas we have, with one or two exceptions the doctrinal tenets of the Latin Church in their perfect exposition as we have them in the Decrees of the Council of Trent in their final statement... The theology of the Angelic Doctor and the theology of the Roman Catholic Church are identical in all particulars except the immaculate conception... He who understands Thomas understands the mediaeval theology at its best and will be in possession of the doctrinal system of the Roman Church.”

David S. Schaff in Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (1960 reproduction of the 1907 edition), Vol. 5, pp. 662, 675, 754.

 

[Phil D.]

Encyclical Letter Of Our Holy Father By Divine Providence Pope Leo XIII. [On The Restoration Of Christian Philosophy]

…The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics [i.e. Protestants] and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results.

But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man—namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony.

_________________________________

​

SANCTISSIMI DOMINI NOSTRI LEONIS DIVINA PROVIDENTIA PAPAE XIII, EPISTOLA ENCYCLICA AETERNI PATRIS

…Ipsa quoque Concilia Oecumenica, in quibus eminet lectus ex toto orbe terrarum flos sapientiae, singularem Thomae Aquinati honorem habere perpetuo studuerunt. In Conciliis Lugdunensi, Viennensi, Florentino, Vaticano, deliberationibus et decretis Patrum interfuisse Thomam et pene praefuisse dixeris, adversus errores Graecorum, haereticorum et rationalistarum ineluctabili vi et faustissimo exitu decertantem.

Sed haec maxima est et Thomae propria, nec cum quopiam ex doctoribus catholicis communicata laus, quod Patres Tridentini, in ipso medio conclavi ordini habendo, una cum divinae Scripturae codicibus et Pontificum Maximorum decretis Summam Thomae Aquinatis super altari patere voluerunt, unde consilium, rationes, oracula peterentur.

Postremo haec quoque palma viro incomparabili reservata videbatur, ut ab ipsis catholici nominis adversariis obsequia, praeconia, admirationem extorqueret. Nam exploratum est, inter haereticarum factionum duces non defuisse, qui palam profiterentur, sublata semel e medio doctrina Thomae Aquinatis, se facile posse cum omnibus catholicis doctoribus subire certamen et vincere, et Ecclesiam dissipare. Inanis quidem spes, et testimonium non inane.

[Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, die 4 Augusti ann. 1879.]

 

[RamistThomist]

There are pros and cons with Thomas. Most people who attack him on the doctrine of God end up espousing heretical views on God and come close to denying simplicity. But he's wrong on sacraments et al. It's as simple as that.

 

[RamistThomist]

And to prove I am not a Thomist fanboi, I wouldn't go to Thomas on textual issues where Hebrew and Greek are involved.

 

[De Jager]

Encyclical Letter Of Our Holy Father By Divine Providence Pope Leo XIII. [On The Restoration Of Christian Philosophy]

…The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics [i.e. Protestants] and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results.

But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man—namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church. A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony.

_________________________________

​

SANCTISSIMI DOMINI NOSTRI LEONIS DIVINA PROVIDENTIA PAPAE XIII, EPISTOLA ENCYCLICA AETERNI PATRIS

…Ipsa quoque Concilia Oecumenica, in quibus eminet lectus ex toto orbe terrarum flos sapientiae, singularem Thomae Aquinati honorem habere perpetuo studuerunt. In Conciliis Lugdunensi, Viennensi, Florentino, Vaticano, deliberationibus et decretis Patrum interfuisse Thomam et pene praefuisse dixeris, adversus errores Graecorum, haereticorum et rationalistarum ineluctabili vi et faustissimo exitu decertantem.

Sed haec maxima est et Thomae propria, nec cum quopiam ex doctoribus catholicis communicata laus, quod Patres Tridentini, in ipso medio conclavi ordini habendo, una cum divinae Scripturae codicibus et Pontificum Maximorum decretis Summam Thomae Aquinatis super altari patere voluerunt, unde consilium, rationes, oracula peterentur.

Postremo haec quoque palma viro incomparabili reservata videbatur, ut ab ipsis catholici nominis adversariis obsequia, praeconia, admirationem extorqueret. Nam exploratum est, inter haereticarum factionum duces non defuisse, qui palam profiterentur, sublata semel e medio doctrina Thomae Aquinatis, se facile posse cum omnibus catholicis doctoribus subire certamen et vincere, et Ecclesiam dissipare. Inanis quidem spes, et testimonium non inane.

[Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, die 4 Augusti ann. 1879.]

Not a legacy that I would want.

Since Protestants and Roman Catholics do agree on certain tenets of the faith, perhaps his writings can be of use on certain points of doctrine. However, there are many other writers that I would exhaust before reading T.A., ones that have gone before and have probably have themselves read through T.A., and filtered through and taken what is profitable.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

But he's wrong on sacraments et al. It's as simple as that.

I would say it's more serious than merely being wrong on the sacraments. Aquinas taught that justification was the making of the sinner righteous by means of the sacraments of baptism and the Mass as well as by acts of penance.

In Summa Theologica, ii, 1, question 100, article 12, Thomas defines justification thus...​

...justification [properly so called] may be taken in two ways. First, according as man is made just by becoming possessed of the habit of justice; secondly, according as he does works of justice, so that in this sense justification is nothing else than the execution of justice. Now justice, like the other virtues, may denote either the acquired or the infused virtue... The acquired virtue is caused by works; but the infused virtue of the execution of justice is caused by God Himself through His grace. The latter is true justice, of which we are speaking now, and in respect of which a man is said to be just before God, according to Rom. 4.2.​

That's not just being wrong on the sacraments. That's being fundamentally wrong on how God justifies the sinner. Thomas fundamentally misunderstands the grace of God revealed in the gospel.​

 

[retroGRAD3]

I would say it's more serious than merely being wrong on the sacraments. Aquinas taught that justification was the making of the sinner righteous by means of the sacraments of baptism and the Mass as well as by acts of penance.

In Summa Theologica, ii, 1, question 100, article 12, Thomas defines justification thus...



That's not just being wrong on the sacraments. That's being fundamentally wrong on how God justifies the sinner. Thomas fundamentally misunderstands the grace of God revealed in the gospel.​

Yep, this is why I maintained Aquinas was a heretic (as the Bible defines a heretic, which is you get the gospel wrong). There are others that can teach us about the simplicity of God without the soul damning errors of Aquinas.

 

[retroGRAD3]

There are pros and cons with Thomas. Most people who attack him on the doctrine of God end up espousing heretical views on God and come close to denying simplicity. But he's wrong on sacraments et al. It's as simple as that.

I would like to know who these "most people" are. As far as I can tell, most orthodox protestants that attack Aquinas are doing it over the issues Pastor Sheffield is bringing up on salvation and justification, not his doctrine of God.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would like to know who these "most people" are. As far as I can tell, most orthodox protestants that attack Aquinas are doing it over the issues Pastor Sheffield is bringing up on salvation and justification, not his doctrine of God.

There is a certain ministry with a radio program that attacks him all the time. It bleeds over into the doctrine of God.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would say it's more serious than merely being wrong on the sacraments. Aquinas taught that justification was the making of the sinner righteous by means of the sacraments of baptism and the Mass as well as by acts of penance.

In Summa Theologica, ii, 1, question 100, article 12, Thomas defines justification thus...



That's not just being wrong on the sacraments. That's being fundamentally wrong on how God justifies the sinner. Thomas fundamentally misunderstands the grace of God revealed in the gospel.​

I know. I've read the Summa cover to cover. Thomas basically said the same thing found post-Council of Orange until the Council of Trent. That's why I said knowing the languages was so important and why I wouldn't go to him on lexical issues.

 

[RamistThomist]

that I would exhaust before reading T.A., ones that have gone before and have probably have themselves read through T.A., and filtered through and taken what is profitable.

Those writers would be Zanchi, Vermigli, Bucer, Turretin. I've exhausted Turretin many times.

Turretin vol 1, Review

Recent (that is, pre-1992 A.D.) Reformed theology can be sadly described as a generation arising “which knew not Turretin.” To paraphrase Galadriel in The Fellowship of the Ring: Some things that s…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Outline Turretin, Topic 3 (Doctrine God)

Part 1 Here. First Question: The Existence of God (Turretin goes through the standard pre-modern reasoning). Third Question: The Unity of God Turretin clarifies the question by saying God is one in…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Outline of Turretin, Topics 1 and 2

I read through Turretin a few years ago. Now I have time to do a more thorough study. On Natural Theology It is partly innate (derived from conscience) and partly acquired (I.3). God (and divine t…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Turretin volume 3

And so ends one of the two greatest works of Christian dogmatics. Turretin covers a number of issues that were existentially pressing for Protestants in the 17th century, both concerning salvation …

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Turretin vol. 2, review

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology vol 2. Hard to know where to start. Turretin is simply majestic. He was the greatest Reformed theologian of all time. Ideally, this review would …

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Turretin on the civil magistrate

A godly magistrate can call a council, for magistrates are nurse-fathers to the church (Isa. 49:21-23, p. 308). On The Civil Magistrate Thirty Fourth Question: What is the right of the Christian m…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Turretin vs. Doug Wilson on Calling

I do not know if Wilson has since gotten a legitimate calling and ordination from an established church body. But he explains in his own words. (I thank Rachel Miller for finding this. I also rec…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Turretin on celibacy and Rev 14

No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins FT offers the standard arguments…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[retroGRAD3]

There is a certain ministry with a radio program that attacks him all the time. It bleeds over into the doctrine of God.

We likely won't agree here, but I have listened to everything he has said on the topic as well as the responses to him. It seems like there is misunderstanding on both sides. There also seems to be a lot of strawmen and misrepresentations. However, even if I grant what you say about White is true, I don't believe he represents "most people". Also, most of the attack on Aquinas from him lately is not on the doctrine of God, but on the same things Pastor Sheffield is bringing up.

 

[RamistThomist]

We likely won't agree here, but I have listened to everything he has said on the topic as well as the responses to him. It seems like there is misunderstanding on both sides. There also seems to be a lot of strawmen and misrepresentations. However, even if I grant what you say about White is true, I don't believe he represents "most people". Also, most of the attack on Aquinas from him lately is not on the doctrine of God, but on the same things Pastor Sheffield is bringing up.

And I would agree for the most part if he hadn't said troubling things about kenosis and simplicity.

And I am *not* a Platonist and I do not like the direction that Carter and others are going. I've actually semi-officially critiqued guys like Boersma.

 

[retroGRAD3]

And I would agree for the most part if he hadn't said troubling things about kenosis and simplicity.

And I am *not* a Platonist and I do not like the direction that Carter and others are going. I've actually semi-officially critiqued guys like Boersma.

I am glad to hear the comment about Carter. That group's comments as of late have been concerning to me as well.

I will also agree White says things sloppy sometimes. However, upon listen to the explanations and clarifications that came later (the video you posted is pretty old now), he seemed to still be within the bounds of orthodoxy (even if very close to the boundary).

 

[RamistThomist]

And here is where I point out problems with Thomas on justification.

McCormack on Thomas on Justification

From Bruce McCormack’s essay “What’s at Stake in the Current Debate?” I do not intend this as a “refutation” of Thomas, nor is this McCormack’s larger goal in his essay. Thomas i…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[AT]

And I am *not* a Platonist and I do not like the direction that Carter and others are going. I've actually semi-officially critiqued guys like Boersma.

Is this a new development? I mean your distancing from the works of Carter and others? What's the problem?

 

[Taylor]

Jacob, have you ever been to the Greenville Theology Conference? I think you would enjoy next year's conference: Infinite Splendor: The Attributes of God for All of Life. Here is the lineup of speakers:

Dr. Joel Beeke (Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary)​

Dr. Scott Cook (Oconee Presbyterian Church of Seneca, SC)​

Dr. James Dolezal (Radius Theological Institute)​

Dr. Jonathan L. Master (Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary)​

Dr. Ryan M. McGraw (Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary)​

Dr. Fred Sanders (Bible Institute of Los Angeles)​

Pastor Decherd Stevens (Carlisle Reformed Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, PA)​

 

[RamistThomist]

Is this a new development? I mean your distancing from the works of Carter and others? What's the problem?

I've always held Plato at arms-length for theology. Yes, his dialogues are delightful reading. But I don't hold to his dualism. He says he got a lot of his teaching from Egypt, which should raise alarms.

I like Barrett because of his mighty and heroic refutation of the ESS heresy. I tried to do a study on this board about what constitutes the Great Tradition. That failed disastrously.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob, have you ever been to the Greenville Theology Conference? I think you would enjoy next year's conference: Infinite Splendor: The Attributes of God for All of Life. Here is the lineup of speakers:

Dr. Joel Beeke (Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary)​

Dr. Scott Cook (Oconee Presbyterian Church of Seneca, SC)​

Dr. James Dolezal (Radius Theological Institute)​

Dr. Jonathan L. Master (Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary)​

Dr. Ryan M. McGraw (Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary)​

Dr. Fred Sanders (Bible Institute of Los Angeles)​

Pastor Decherd Stevens (Carlisle Reformed Presbyterian Church of Carlisle, PA)​

Looks good. I know some people who need to hear these lectures.

 

[Taylor]

Looks good. I know some people who need to hear these lectures.

You should think about coming! I would love to meet you and treat you to some good South Carolina barbeque.

 

[Claudiu]

@RamistThomist - have you written anything on Aquinas (analogical view) vs. Scotus (univocal understanding)?

 

[RamistThomist]

@RamistThomist - have you written anything on Aquinas (analogical view) vs. Scotus (univocal understanding)?

Only indirectly. It's important to note that with Scotus we affirm a univocity of concepts, but with Aquinas an analogy of judgment. In other words, when God knows an apple and we know an apple, it's the same apple. That's univocity. How we predicate and apply the knowledge of the apple is not identical. It's analogical.

Let's take God's knowledge of things. And here I am on dangerous grounds because few, myself included, really understand what Scotus was saying. For Aquinas God knows all things in himself through one immediate act of knowledge. For Scotus, the "all things" has been moved outside of God. God knows them, not through himself, but simply as objects.

 

[Claudiu]

Only indirectly. It's important to note that with Scotus we affirm a univocity of concepts, but with Aquinas an analogy of judgment. In other words, when God knows an apple and we know an apple, it's the same apple. That's univocity. How we predicate and apply the knowledge of the apple is not identical. It's analogical.

Let's take God's knowledge of things. And here I am on dangerous grounds because few, myself included, really understand what Scotus was saying. For Aquinas God knows all things in himself through one immediate act of knowledge. For Scotus, the "all things" has been moved outside of God. God knows them, not through himself, but simply as objects.

Didn't the reformed orthodox pick up on that analogical bit from Aquinas? I'm thinking the creator/creature distinction here.

 

[RamistThomist]

Didn't the reformed orthodox pick up on that analogical bit from Aquinas? I'm thinking the creator/creature distinction here.

That's an open question. Willem Van Asselt believes it is the other way around. It was Scotus that allowed them to formulate the archetypal/ectypal distinction. I really don't know if that is true, but that's his claim. Others have argued that Asselt and Antonie Vos misread the Reformed orthodox on this point and that they aren't as Scotist as they make them out to be.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is this a new development? I mean your distancing from the works of Carter and others? What's the problem?

I'll back up for a bit. I've read too much of Heiser and Thomas Torrance to take the Platonic worldview seriously in terms of how to do Christian theology. If Einstein and Polanyi are true, then there isn't much hope for Platonic theology.

 

[Claudiu]

It's been a decade since I've read and meaningfully interacted with Aquinas and Scotus, so I'm a little rusty. What are the implications of their thought on revelation? I think you might have been touching on this when pointing out application. Our knowledge of God is dependent on God's self-revelation. This seemingly impacted Calvin and the reformers regarding epistemology in general, but also the content of that knowledge.

Looming in the back of my mind is this from Horton:

Neither being nor knowledge is ever shared univocally (i.e., identically) between God and creatures. As God’s being is qualitatively and not just quantitatively distinct from ours, so too is God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge is archetypal (the original), while ours is ectypal (a copy), revealed by God and therefore accommodated to our finite capacities. Our imperfect and incomplete knowledge is always dependent on God’s perfect and complete knowledge.

A covenantal ontology requires a covenantal epistemology. We were created as God’s analogy (image bearers) rather than as self-existent sparks of divinity; therefore, our knowledge is also dependent rather than autonomous. So there is indeed such a thing as absolute, perfect, exhaustive, and eternal truth, but this knowledge is possessed by God, not by us. Rather, we have revealed truth, which God has accommodated to our capacity.

Following Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), our older theologians therefore argued that human knowledge is analogical rather than either univocal or equivocal (two terms are related analogically when they are similar, univocally when they are identical, and equivocally when they have nothing in common). Take the word ball. There is no obvious connection between a formal dance and an object that I bounce. Thus, the use of the word “ball” in these different contexts is equivocal. However, in sports, “ball” is used analogically. Football and baseball are not the same games; even the balls they use are qualitatively different. Nevertheless, they are similar enough for them both to be called ball games. Only when I am comparing one baseball game to another is ball used univocally—referring to exactly the same thing.

When we say that God is good, we assume we know what good means from our ordinary experience with fellow human beings. However, God is not only quantitatively better than we are; his goodness is qualitatively different from creaturely goodness. Nevertheless, because we are created in God’s image, we share this predicate with God analogically. Goodness, attributed to God and Sally, is similar but always with greater dissimilarity. At no point is goodness exactly the same for God as it is for Sally. The difference is qualitative, not just quantitative; yet there is enough similarity to communicate the point.

God reveals himself as a person, a king, a shepherd, a substitutionary lamb, and so forth. These analogies are not arbitrary (i.e., equivocal), but they are also not exact correspondence (i.e., univocal). Even when we attribute love to God and Mary, love cannot mean exactly the same thing for a self-existent Trinity and a finite person. In every analogy, there is always greater dissimilarity than similarity between God and creatures. Nevertheless, God judges that the analogy is appropriate for his self-revelation. We do not know exactly what divine goodness is like, but since God selects this analogy, there must be a sufficient similarity to our concept of goodness to justify the comparison.

This doctrine of analogy is the hinge on which a Christian affirmation of God’s transcendence and immanence turns. A univocal view threatens God’s transcendence, while an equivocal view threatens God’s immanence.”—Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims Along the Way

 

[AT]

Heiser

I've been listening to Heiser of late. Brilliant stuff. Some of your old posts were helpful. I haven't read anything though. I don't know where to start. Any recommendations?

 

[RamistThomist]

I've been listening to Heiser of late. Brilliant stuff. Some of your old posts were helpful, along with @Regi Addictissimus's . I haven't read anything though. I don't know where to start. Any recommendations?

Unseen Realm is his classic. Supernatural is a dumbed-down version of it. It's good, but it doesn't have any argumentation. Heiser said that the publisher told him not to have any logical arguments in it because it would scare away the American reader!

 

[AT]

Unseen Realm is his classic. Supernatural is a dumbed-down version of it. It's good, but it doesn't have any argumentation. Heiser said that the publisher told him not to have any logical arguments in it because it would scare away the American reader!

Hmmm....it would make more sense to people outside of America and the West I think. I don't want to make too strong a statement, but there are a lot of what would be called "weird" stuff in the Scriptures. There seems to be this, ''ah this is nothing much, just..." attitude to them by Christians in general, and particularly the Reformed, whether it's the gods of Psa 82 or the witch of Endor. Heiser doesn't do that.