Reformed Forum on Natural Theology

[Deleted member 11889]

Classical apologists have no problem showing internal consistencies in a false worldview. Naturalists cannot account for abstract entities. That's not what "impossibility of the contrary" means. Impossibility of the contrary (or the strong, global form of TAG) makes a far stronger claim: it asserts that *no* worldview save Christianity can account for x, y, z. The simple problem is they can't possibly know that. They haven't examined every single worldview.

I mean, in one sense, the presup claim is true there. No other worldview can satisfactorily account for x, y, and z. I can make that assertion simply by nature of being a Christian, and if you can't make that assertion then there's really no point in being a Christian. It's not necessary to have to examine every other worldview.

On the flip side, unbelievers won't and can't grok that. Atheists and Muslims do believe that their worldview satisfactorily accounts for everything. Apart from the illumination of the Spirit, no one can understand that about Christianity. So one is reduced to pointless shouting at the unbeliever that he can't know anything apart from Christianity... which is something that the unbeliever can't know apart from Christianity.

 

[A.Joseph]

As to man's reason. Yes, man unaided can reason to God's existence. He can know that God is. He needs grace to become a believer. Remember, Thomas Aquinas was an absolute predestinarian. Also, unaided reason cannot get you to the Trinity.

“Aquinas was an absolute predestinarian.”

I had heard that. So would he fit the qualifications of a five point Calvinist (retroactively)? Did he believe Predestination and Grace are interconnected in the same manor a Reformed Calvinist does? Does he believe grace is applied in the same manner a Calvinist would?

 

[RamistThomist]

“Aquinas was an absolute predestinarian.”

I had heard that. So would he fit the qualifications of a five point Calvinist retroactively? Did he believe Predestination and Grace are interconnected in the same manor a Reformed Calvinist does?

I'm fairly certain he doesn't hold to limited atonement. However, Peter Lombard had made the distinction between sufficiency/efficacy on the atonement, and Aquinas would have followed Lombard on that point probably, and that can be incorporated by Reformed.

Remember that the free-will Jesuits opposed the Dominicans on God's grace. One of Thomas's later followers, Domingo Banez, held to divine premotion, which is as good as anything a Reformed person has said on predestination.

TA holds to a definite and certain number of the elect in the mind of God. How we receive grace, though, is quite different. We are infused with grace in baptism, and we cooperate with it throughout our lives. So while that would get him a speaking slot at Canon Press, it isn't Refomred.

 

[A.Joseph]

I'm fairly certain he doesn't hold to limited atonement. However, Peter Lombard had made the distinction between sufficiency/efficacy on the atonement, and Aquinas would have followed Lombard on that point probably, and that can be incorporated by Reformed.
Remember that the free-will Jesuits opposed the Dominicans on God's grace. One of Thomas's later followers, Domingo Banez, held to divine premotion, which is as good as anything a Reformed person has said on predestination.

TA holds to a definite and certain number of the elect in the mind of God. How we receive grace, though, is quite different. We are infused with grace in baptism, and we cooperate with it throughout our lives. So while that would get him a speaking slot at Canon Press, it isn't Refomred.

Hence, the dependency on the institutional church. But did Thomas teach (or hold to) the bolder portion or not? If so, Pastor Tipton is correct. https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/still-protesting-donum-superadditum
“Let’s think about Adam in the Garden of Eden prior to his fall into sin. I believe, as a Protestant, that when Adam sinned he lost original righteousness. However, the Roman church believes that, in addition to losing original holiness, he lost the donum superadditum or the super added gift. As I understand it, the donum superadditum was the grace of God that would bring harmony to Adam’s basic bodily appetites and the mind with its capacity for moral virtue. In other words, so long as Adam made use of the donum superadditum he was able to bring the appetites of the lower nature under the higher nature and thus Adam would be righteous. However, in the fall Adam lost the super added gift that would enable righteousness.”

Joe said, “I understand. But how does that disagree with what you believe as a Protestant?”

Peter was more than happy to answer, “Joe, according to Roman Catholic theology when a baby is presented for baptism the water becomes the agent whereby grace is infused into the baby.[1] This infused grace replaces the donum superadditum. In other words, infused grace places the baptized person in the place of Adam prior to the Fall.[2] Through this provision of grace the baptized person is now able to merit or earn righteousness and a final verdict of justification on the last great Day.”

Joe looked as if to say, “Go on.”

Peter said, “Joe, the Protestant believes that the Bible teaches something far different. The Bible does not teach that in Christ we have an opportunity to redo what Adam failed to do. We believe that Christ did what Adam failed to do and he even took the penalty for Adam’s failure.[3] He obeyed God and was justified on the basis of His obedience.[4] As we stand in Christ, this justification is imputed or reckoned ours by faith, which itself is a gift.[5] Joe, I am still protesting and until you recognize that salvation is the work of Christ alone from beginning to end you’ll never understand why. May God grant you eyes to see.”

 

[RamistThomist]

Hence, the dependency on the institutional church. But did Thomas teach (or hold to) the bolder portion or not? If so Pastor Tipton is correct. https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/still-protesting-donum-superadditum
“Let’s think about Adam in the Garden of Eden prior to his fall into sin. I believe, as a Protestant, that when Adam sinned he lost original righteousness. However, the Roman church believes that, in addition to losing original holiness, he lost the donum superadditum or the super added gift. As I understand it, the donum superadditum was the grace of God that would bring harmony to Adam’s basic bodily appetites and the mind with its capacity for moral virtue. In other words, so long as Adam made use of the donum superadditum he was able to bring the appetites of the lower nature under the higher nature and thus Adam would be righteous. However, in the fall Adam lost the super added gift that would enable righteousness.”

Joe said, “I understand. But how does that disagree with what you believe as a Protestant?”

Peter was more than happy to answer, “Joe, according to Roman Catholic theology when a baby is presented for baptism the water becomes the agent whereby grace is infused into the baby.[1] This infused grace replaces the donum superadditum. In other words, infused grace places the baptized person in the place of Adam prior to the Fall.[2] Through this provision of grace the baptized person is now able to merit or earn righteousness and a final verdict of justification on the last great Day.”

Joe looked as if to say, “Go on.”

Peter said, “Joe, the Protestant believes that the Bible teaches something far different. The Bible does not teach that in Christ we have an opportunity to redo what Adam failed to do. We believe that Christ did what Adam failed to do and he even took the penalty for Adam’s failure.[3] He obeyed God and was justified on the basis of His obedience.[4] As we stand in Christ, this justification is imputed or reckoned ours by faith, which itself is a gift.[5] Joe, I am still protesting and until you recognize that salvation is the work of Christ alone from beginning to end you’ll never understand why. May God grant you eyes to see.”

Most of that is pretty accurate. I don't think the last paragraph is correct. It reads like in Christ we are now the New Adam in a New Covenant of Works. There is a problem in the merit-based system of Rome, but that's not it.

My point was that Aquinas believed in absolute predestination. Is that in tension with his doctrine of grace? Probably, but he would likely respond that our asking God to do something is in tension with absolute predestination.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

Most of that is pretty accurate. I don't think the last paragraph is correct. It reads like in Christ we are now the New Adam in a New Covenant of Works. There is a problem in the merit-based system of Rome, but that's not it.

I don't follow - how do you get this out of the last paragraph?

 

[A.Joseph]

Most of that is pretty accurate. I don't think the last paragraph is correct. It reads like in Christ we are now the New Adam in a New Covenant of Works. There is a problem in the merit-based system of Rome, but that's not it.

My point was that Aquinas believed in absolute predestination. Is that in tension with his doctrine of grace? Probably, but he would likely respond that our asking God to do something is in tension with absolute predestination.

It’s more than that; Thomas was a synergist, no? Thomas appears to use predestination in a foreknowledge, prevenient grace sort of way…. Or at least leaves some room for it. He doesn’t espouse total depravity the way Calvin or Luther does.

 

[RamistThomist]

It’s more than that, Thomas was a synergist, no? Thomas appears to use predestination in a foreknowledge, prevenient grace sort of way…. Or at least leaves some room for it. He doesn’t espouse total depravity the way Calvin or Luther does.

Not necessarily. For Thomas God's knowledge is the cause of everything. Moreover, in God there isn't any "fore" or "after," so even if he were to say it is simply foreknowledge, it wouldn't change anything. In that case, foreknowledge would simply be knowledge, which we already noted is the cause of all things.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't follow - how do you get this out of the last paragraph?

It seems like it is saying that baptised man is in the same state as Adam in the garden, and that doesn't seem like Rome's belief.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

It seems like it is saying that baptised man is in the same state as Adam in the garden, and that doesn't seem like Rome's belief.

I thought you were referring to the last paragraph of the whole post, not the last paragraph of his summation of Roman Catholicism's view. My bad.

My understanding of Roman theology is that it does teach that baptism washes away original sin (as Rome defines it, of course), and so it does place us in a sort of pre-fall state where we are able to cooperate with God in the ongoing process of salvation (as Rome defines it, of course). I don't read that paragraph as saying we're exactly like Adam pre-fall, but just that with regards to salvation, it puts us back in a position of being able to keep it or lose it, as was the case for Adam (in Rome's conception).