Understanding Thomism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shadow Forge said:
If anyone can show me where Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Ambrose, Baxter, Tennant, etc praised Aquinas or Aristotle or Plato as being amazing and/or phenomenal philosophers/theologian then I shall publicly recant my statements.
Click to expand...
Beginning with his Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum (1534), a response to Robert Ceneau of the Sorbonne, Bucer cited both Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas as representative “sounder scholastics” who “follow Augustine.” Citing Aquinas’s Summa theologiae I-II, q. 114 a. 1 that “all man’s good is from God,” Bucer asserted that Aquinas agreed with Augustine (and Peter Lombard, II Sent. d. 28) that there is no merit without grace.

In his De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis, et disciplina reconciliatione & compositione (1542), Bucer again placed Aquinas among the sounder scholastics for his teaching regarding the necessity of grace for good works (citing Summa theologiae I-II q. 109 aa. 2, 3, 4, 6; q. 112 a. 3; q. 114, a. 1) and his doctrine of original sin (citing Summa theologiae I-II q. 83 a. 3)

Martin Bucer, Metaphrases et enarrationes perpetuae epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli, vol. 1: Metaphrasis et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Strasbourg: Wendelin Rihel, 1536), 385b. Cf. Sytsma, “Sixteenth-Century Reformed Reception,” 122, 134.

Calvin didn't praise Aquinas for the simple fact he did not have any first hand knowledge of Aquinas. Charles Raith II, “Calvin and Aquinas Reconsidered,” in Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, Matthew T. Gaetano, and David S. Sytsma (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 19-34.

That's good enough for starters. I can probably provide more when I get home. I already pointed you to van Mastricht, to which I got no interaction.
 
And wait until you see where the Reformer Zwingli said Hercules ended up. I actually disagree with Zwingli on this (since Hercules was a Nephilim), but it is illustrative of the difference between the Reformers and biblicists.
 
RamistThomist said:
And wait until you see where the Reformer Zwingli said Hercules ended up. I actually disagree with Zwingli on this (since Hercules was a Nephilim), but it is illustrative of the difference between the Reformers and biblicists.
Click to expand...
Well, I hope he discounts Minerva's role in creating the monster :)
 
RamistThomist said:
Beginning with his Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum (1534), a response to Robert Ceneau of the Sorbonne, Bucer cited both Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas as representative “sounder scholastics” who “follow Augustine.” Citing Aquinas’s Summa theologiae I-II, q. 114 a. 1 that “all man’s good is from God,” Bucer asserted that Aquinas agreed with Augustine (and Peter Lombard, II Sent. d. 28) that there is no merit without grace.

In his De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis, et disciplina reconciliatione & compositione (1542), Bucer again placed Aquinas among the sounder scholastics for his teaching regarding the necessity of grace for good works (citing Summa theologiae I-II q. 109 aa. 2, 3, 4, 6; q. 112 a. 3; q. 114, a. 1) and his doctrine of original sin (citing Summa theologiae I-II q. 83 a. 3)

Martin Bucer, Metaphrases et enarrationes perpetuae epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli, vol. 1: Metaphrasis et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Strasbourg: Wendelin Rihel, 1536), 385b. Cf. Sytsma, “Sixteenth-Century Reformed Reception,” 122, 134.

Calvin didn't praise Aquinas for the simple fact he did not have any first hand knowledge of Aquinas. Charles Raith II, “Calvin and Aquinas Reconsidered,” in Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, Matthew T. Gaetano, and David S. Sytsma (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 19-34.

That's good enough for starters. I can probably provide more when I get home. I already pointed you to van Mastricht, to which I got no interaction.
Click to expand...
Here is one more: Thomism in John Owen by way of illustrating that Owen read Thomas - and had his critiques (cf. Theologoumena).
 
“...our faith is not against nature but only above it. Thus Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa contra gentiles; thus Ramon Llull... [and] Philippe de Mornay...”– Johann Heinrich Alsted (Methodus SS. Theologiae [1634], I.ii, canon 3)

“Of the Scholastics, one should especially study those who have declared war on the Jesuits, such as the Dominicans, whom, since they choose a safe way in many cases, we often praise and follow.”— Paulus Voet, (1657), p. 2

“On numerous occasions, Battles cites Aquinas as the target of Calvin’s criticism when in fact the theology attacked by Calvin is at odds with Aquinas’s theology as well.” - Charles Raith II (p. 13).

“[In the study of philosophy] the erudition of the Greeks, which comprises the universal knowledge of nature, is necessary, so that you can discuss behavior fitly and fully. The most valuable are Aristotle’s Ethics, Plato’s Laws, the Poets…”— Philip Melanchthon (1518)

“Augustine & later, Aquinas, concluded that at first an eternal law dwelt in God who is the most perfect embodiment of reason, & by this reason, God rules the world & thus is the reason for all things that happen. Then,they argue,this reason was imparted to human beings” (Zanchi, On the Law in General).
“[God] is pure act without admixture of any potentiality, most simple, and most perfect.”Franciscus Junius (Theses Theologicae).

“He who follows mainly Aristotle as a guide, and aspires to one, simple and the least sophistic teaching, can now and then take on something from other authors, too.”— Philip Melanchthon, “On Philosophy” (1536)

“[Jean Baptiste] Gonet, perhaps the leading Dominican Thomist at the end of the 17th century, believed that major Reformed theologians had “embraced” Thomist views of grace and free choice.”— Matthew Gaetano, 312

“The existence of God is his very essence or whatness. For God is pure act.”– Rudolph Goclenius (Isagoge in Peripateticorum et Scholasticorum Primam Philosophiam, 1598, p. 10).

“I fully accord with Aquinas” – Westminster divine Anthony Tuckney, citing Thomas on faith and reason, Summa theologiae I, q.1, a.8 (Eight Letters, ed. Samuel Salter, 1753, p. 94).

“The natural law is that which is innate to creatures endowed with reason and informs them with common notions of nature, that is, with principles and conclusions adumbrating the eternal law by a certain participation.”– Franciscus Junius (1545-1602)

That is almost word for word Thomas Aquinas. See below:
Natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law (ST 1-2.91.2).
 
Charles Johnson said:
Isn't Hercules the Roman version of Heracles?
Click to expand...
More or less, but with the Romans copying the Greeks. So Hercules had no real claim to any basis as an actual ancient person like Heracles, though there is no way to ever prove such a claim, and the legend of Heracles was of course at the very least greatly embellished and semi-deified in Greek mythology. The legend of Romulus has a similar place in Roman culture - a legendary figure with a possible if not entirely likely basis as a historical person.
 
RamistThomist said:
“...our faith is not against nature but only above it. Thus Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa contra gentiles; thus Ramon Llull... [and] Philippe de Mornay...”– Johann Heinrich Alsted (Methodus SS. Theologiae [1634], I.ii, canon 3)

“Of the Scholastics, one should especially study those who have declared war on the Jesuits, such as the Dominicans, whom, since they choose a safe way in many cases, we often praise and follow.”— Paulus Voet, (1657), p. 2

“On numerous occasions, Battles cites Aquinas as the target of Calvin’s criticism when in fact the theology attacked by Calvin is at odds with Aquinas’s theology as well.” - Charles Raith II (p. 13).

“[In the study of philosophy] the erudition of the Greeks, which comprises the universal knowledge of nature, is necessary, so that you can discuss behavior fitly and fully. The most valuable are Aristotle’s Ethics, Plato’s Laws, the Poets…”— Philip Melanchthon (1518)

“Augustine & later, Aquinas, concluded that at first an eternal law dwelt in God who is the most perfect embodiment of reason, & by this reason, God rules the world & thus is the reason for all things that happen. Then,they argue,this reason was imparted to human beings” (Zanchi, On the Law in General).
“[God] is pure act without admixture of any potentiality, most simple, and most perfect.”Franciscus Junius (Theses Theologicae).

“He who follows mainly Aristotle as a guide, and aspires to one, simple and the least sophistic teaching, can now and then take on something from other authors, too.”— Philip Melanchthon, “On Philosophy” (1536)

“[Jean Baptiste] Gonet, perhaps the leading Dominican Thomist at the end of the 17th century, believed that major Reformed theologians had “embraced” Thomist views of grace and free choice.”— Matthew Gaetano, 312

“The existence of God is his very essence or whatness. For God is pure act.”– Rudolph Goclenius (Isagoge in Peripateticorum et Scholasticorum Primam Philosophiam, 1598, p. 10).

“I fully accord with Aquinas” – Westminster divine Anthony Tuckney, citing Thomas on faith and reason, Summa theologiae I, q.1, a.8 (Eight Letters, ed. Samuel Salter, 1753, p. 94).

“The natural law is that which is innate to creatures endowed with reason and informs them with common notions of nature, that is, with principles and conclusions adumbrating the eternal law by a certain participation.”– Franciscus Junius (1545-1602)

That is almost word for word Thomas Aquinas. See below:
Natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law (ST 1-2.91.2).
Click to expand...
And when philosophers seek the origins of laws in nature, what else are they doing but demonstrating the vestiges of God imprinted on human nature—an inquiry greatly conducive to instruction...Let us therefore love philosophy”

—Melanchthon, “On Aristotle” (1544; tr. A. Ben-Tov)
 
RamistThomist said:
And when philosophers seek the origins of laws in nature, what else are they doing but demonstrating the vestiges of God imprinted on human nature—an inquiry greatly conducive to instruction...Let us therefore love philosophy”

—Melanchthon, “On Aristotle” (1544; tr. A. Ben-Tov)
Click to expand...
stotle’s statement in the first book of his Ethics is well put and true: “Better it is to defend the truth than to be too much devoted to those who are our friends and relatives.” And this is, above all, the proper attitude for a philosopher.

— Martin Luther (LW 1:122)
 
RamistThomist said:
stotle’s statement in the first book of his Ethics is well put and true: “Better it is to defend the truth than to be too much devoted to those who are our friends and relatives.” And this is, above all, the proper attitude for a philosopher.

— Martin Luther (LW 1:122)
Click to expand...
“Plato had a very clear notion of God.” — Peter Martyr Vermigli (Comm. on NE I.6)
 
RamistThomist said:
“Plato had a very clear notion of God.” — Peter Martyr Vermigli (Comm. on NE I.6)
Click to expand...
Top 10 medieval sources referenced in Girolamo Zanchi’s Opera (vols. 1-4):

Thomas Aquinas (128 references)
“scholastici” (116)
John of Damascus (79)
Gregory the Great (25)
Durandus (14)
Bernard of Clairvaux (11)
Simon Portius (11)
Bede (10)
Averroes (9)
Marcilio Ficino (8)
Source: Kalvin Budiman, “A Protestant Doctrine of Nature and Grace” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2011), p. 42
 
RamistThomist said:
Top 10 medieval sources referenced in Girolamo Zanchi’s Opera (vols. 1-4):

Thomas Aquinas (128 references)
“scholastici” (116)
John of Damascus (79)
Gregory the Great (25)
Durandus (14)
Bernard of Clairvaux (11)
Simon Portius (11)
Bede (10)
Averroes (9)
Marcilio Ficino (8)
Source: Kalvin Budiman, “A Protestant Doctrine of Nature and Grace” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2011), p. 42
Click to expand...
“I believe that young minds need to be instructed chiefly with Aristotelian doctrine… Why? Because Aristotle’s Ethics should also be loved, because he alone saw and understood that the virtues are middle states.”

— Philip Melanchthon (Epitome of Moral Philosophy, 1538
 
Hello Talib, @Shadow Forge ,

I can appreciate your desire for simplicity; I share that desire. But there is a simplicity that is superficial, and a simplicity that is profound – such as God and Christ's is. His comprehension is infinite, and He can get to the essence of a matter with the utmost simplicity of language and expression.

As a Jew I like things concrete, not abstract; I do not have a philosophical mind. And yet there are aspects of the nature and operations of our triune God that are not abstractions but solid realities, such as inseparable operations in how the Persons of the Godhead work to effect our salvation, as well as the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all that exists.

I applaud your desire for simplicity. But not when it "dumbs down" perceiving what is actual and solid in God and how He is revealed in His word. There is the concept of "good and necessary consequence" (arrived at by my God-given reasoning mind) when talking of Scriptural truths, realities – where we may accurately deduce from Scripture what is said in God's word. We are to love God with all our hearts, minds, and strength. There are subtleties involved when talking of our knowledge of God, that are not philosophical but Scriptural, and God has created us with minds so as to know and love Him in ever-increasing depth.

(By the way, "stage cage" refers to new Christians, not unregenerate iconoclasts.)

As I said, I appreciate your desire for simplicity. But not if it is superficial and shallow to the extent of erroneously disregarding what is real and solid.
 
Last edited:
DanSSwing said:
I don't know where this came from, but it definitely did NOT come from Scripture. This is the elevation of pagan philosophy OVER Scripture, which specifically attributes to God multiple attributes (not parts), and the authors intended us to distinguish among those attributes.

"Jacob I have loved but Esau have I hated." Yet from God's perspective, His love is the same as His hate? This is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
Did God treat Jacob and Esau differently? Did He intend to do so? Did He know that He was doing so?
 
DanSSwing said:
Did God treat Jacob and Esau differently? Did He intend to do so? Did He know that He was doing so?
Click to expand...

The historic Christian faith made a distinction between real distinctions and notional distinctions. We must also keep in mind the distinction between ectypal and archetypal theology. We make notional distinctions about God's being. There are not real (res) distinctions in God, however.
 
An example of notional and modal distinctions.

Suarez: On The Various Kinds of Distinctions

Suarez, Francisco. On The Various Kinds of Distinctions. Trans. Cyril Vollert, SJ. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2013. Real distinction: this is the most basic distinction between thing and thing. Mental distinction: it doesn’t formally intervene between the things designated...
puritanboard.com puritanboard.com
 
Phil D. said:
More or less, but with the Romans copying the Greeks. So Hercules had no real claim to any basis as an actual ancient person like Heracles, though there is no way to ever prove such a claim, and the legend of Heracles was of course at the very least greatly embellished and semi-deified in Greek mythology. The legend of Romulus has a similar place in Roman culture - a legendary figure with a possible if not entirely likely basis as a historical person.
Click to expand...
I've read somewhere that Hercules/Heracles was Nimrod, or based on Nimrod...
 
Jason F. said:
I've read somewhere that Hercules/Heracles was Nimrod, or based on Nimrod...
Click to expand...

There is indeed much borrowing and therefore similarities in many cultural legends and mythology, with little available to establish a possible basis on historical personalities. I was simply trying to throw Zwingli a bit of a lifeline by suggesting he may have meant someone who wasn't entirely a mythical figure...
 
RamistThomist said:
“...our faith is not against nature but only above it. Thus Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa contra gentiles; thus Ramon Llull... [and] Philippe de Mornay...”– Johann Heinrich Alsted (Methodus SS. Theologiae [1634], I.ii, canon 3)

“Of the Scholastics, one should especially study those who have declared war on the Jesuits, such as the Dominicans, whom, since they choose a safe way in many cases, we often praise and follow.”— Paulus Voet, (1657), p. 2

“On numerous occasions, Battles cites Aquinas as the target of Calvin’s criticism when in fact the theology attacked by Calvin is at odds with Aquinas’s theology as well.” - Charles Raith II (p. 13).

“[In the study of philosophy] the erudition of the Greeks, which comprises the universal knowledge of nature, is necessary, so that you can discuss behavior fitly and fully. The most valuable are Aristotle’s Ethics, Plato’s Laws, the Poets…”— Philip Melanchthon (1518)

“Augustine & later, Aquinas, concluded that at first an eternal law dwelt in God who is the most perfect embodiment of reason, & by this reason, God rules the world & thus is the reason for all things that happen. Then,they argue,this reason was imparted to human beings” (Zanchi, On the Law in General).
“[God] is pure act without admixture of any potentiality, most simple, and most perfect.”Franciscus Junius (Theses Theologicae).

“He who follows mainly Aristotle as a guide, and aspires to one, simple and the least sophistic teaching, can now and then take on something from other authors, too.”— Philip Melanchthon, “On Philosophy” (1536)

“[Jean Baptiste] Gonet, perhaps the leading Dominican Thomist at the end of the 17th century, believed that major Reformed theologians had “embraced” Thomist views of grace and free choice.”— Matthew Gaetano, 312

“The existence of God is his very essence or whatness. For God is pure act.”– Rudolph Goclenius (Isagoge in Peripateticorum et Scholasticorum Primam Philosophiam, 1598, p. 10).

“I fully accord with Aquinas” – Westminster divine Anthony Tuckney, citing Thomas on faith and reason, Summa theologiae I, q.1, a.8 (Eight Letters, ed. Samuel Salter, 1753, p. 94).

“The natural law is that which is innate to creatures endowed with reason and informs them with common notions of nature, that is, with principles and conclusions adumbrating the eternal law by a certain participation.”– Franciscus Junius (1545-1602)

That is almost word for word Thomas Aquinas. See below:
Natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law (ST 1-2.91.2).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top