Understanding Thomism

[RamistThomist]

Aquinas delved into many of these areas that are God's business and the problems it caused him for doing so.

I am curious how you know this, since you began this thread based, upon your admission, on hearsay about Aquinas. In any case, the above is false. Aquinas did not speculate on the Trinity. Compared with Augustine, he was far more reserved. In fact, he is one of the VERY FEW Westerners to actually try to defend the Filioque.

 

[PapaGottlieb]

The point I was trying to make is that there are things that is ONLY known to God and that we should not delve into trying to understand them i.e. how the Trinity operates.

While I believe we should endeavor to take ourselves as far as the Bible allows, I understand that there is a wall, which God himself has appointed. An important prayer before approaching scriptural studies is that God would grant the grace of the Spirit's guidance in understanding all that is revelaed, while by that grace to limit my flesh's influence as I approach. When I sense my speculation kicking in, or that of whomever I'm reading (rarely Romish texts, though I do read medieval sermons here and there), I need to know to back away.

I hear your concern, though, as I have seen a young family leave a Reformed congregation because the father/husband began believing the Roman Catholic sources he was reading. He is now Anglican and blogging about heeding the authority of the "Church". However, I don't know what might have been done, unless we had forcibly taken his sources away from him.

 

[RamistThomist]

The point I was trying to make is that there are things that is ONLY known to God and that we should not delve into trying to understand them i.e. how the Trinity operates. This is where people get into trouble. With regards to the Three Forms of Unity, WCF, Apostle's/Nicene/Athansian etc.. I fully support.

The Bible does not define what a substance or essence is, at least not the way it is normally used. With that said, either such knowledge is known only to God and we have no business trying to use words like substance; or, that knowledge is available to us but it involves theological and metaphysical inferences. That is all Aquinas was doing.

 

[Solparvus]

I am the opposite in this position. I feel that certain areas of discussion need not to happen. Whether that be verbally or in writing. When it comes to the Trinity, it is simple. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and these 3 are distinct and are one. Very simple and mankind needs not to delve further as it is God's business to how the Trinity operates. Same thing with lapsarianism.. people should simply leave it alone as it is God's business. Aquinas delved into many of these areas that are God's business and the problems it caused him for doing so.

But even then that simple boldened statement leaves all sorts of room for error to couch itself in. There are any number of heretics who would subscribe to the statement as simply as you gave it.

For example, distinct, as in three distinct manifestations of the same God (oneness Pentecostals and modalists)? And when you say they are one, are they the same being, or do they just share common aspirations and thus are one (Mormons)? And seeing as Jesus said "The Father is greater than I," and He is called the only-begotten son, and it was given to Him to have life in Himself, is He a begotten god and perhaps a "mostly God" or perhaps a derived god (polytheism)? And is Jesus "god-ish," or is He fully God, and as much God as the Father?

If you study church history, you'll find that men who have suffered severely for their faith thought it important to answer questions like whether Jesus is homoiousios (like God) or homoousios (very God). The discussions got very technical. However, these men of martyr spirits prized precision and clear definition in how they think about God. It wasn't for academic's sake. They aspired to know God, to understand redemption, and to be holy.

 

[RamistThomist]

When it comes to the Trinity, it is simple. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and these 3 are distinct and are one.

Every Arian agrees with this statement.

Every Oneness Pentecostal agrees with this statement. Bishop TD Jakes approves.

 

[Shadow Forge]

Every Arian agrees with this statement.

Every Oneness Pentecostal agrees with this statement. Bishop TD Jakes approves.

Arians and Pentecostals are heretics. The Father Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal and I do not delve any further into that. When we try to put extreme fine points on the Trinity, this is where we fall into danger.

 

[RamistThomist]

Arians and Pentecostals are heretics. The Father Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal and I do not delve any further into that. When we try to put extreme fine points on the Trinity, this is where we fall into danger.

That's not originally what you said. I'm glad to hear you add more. It's not quite so simple now, is it? I'm not sure who you think is trying to "put too fine a point on it" (wait until you read Turretin). If you think Thomas is overly complex on the Trinity, that would require you a) to actually read him, b) interact with him, and c) present your findings to us. Many of us have read Thomas. See below:

Review: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

This is one of the great books of all time. It is basically a Q&A on various masters’ theses. It is relentless in its pursuit of logical questions (and of apparently inane tangents). T…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

The Trinity: The Mystery of the One God (White)

White, Thomas Joseph. The Trinity: On the Nature and Mystery of the One God. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2021. This is the best book ever written on the Trinity. Not…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Summa Contra Gentiles Book 1

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Contra Gentiles Book 1. trans. Anton C. Pegis. New York: Hanover House, 1955. In God there is no passive potency. With that one sentence one can deduce most of classical…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Trinitarian Christology of Thomas Aquinas

Legge, Dominic., O.P. The Trinitarian Christology of St Thomas Aquinas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. There are a few theology books which demonstrate complete mastery of a field. …

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Arians and Pentecostals are heretics. The Father Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal and I do not delve any further into that. When we try to put extreme fine points on the Trinity, this is where we fall into danger.

Dear Talib,

As I said in my previous comment, I think some greater definition and specificity on your part of what it is you are exactly opposing, would help others interact more directly with your concerns. For example (to add to the previous list):

(1) What is "Thomism" and a "Thomist"?

(2) What examples of "extreme fine points on the Trinity" are you referring to?

(3) What examples can you provide from Thomas where you think he "delved into many of these areas that are God's business"?

 

[Shadow Forge]

Dear Talib,

As I said in my previous comment, I think some greater definition and specificity on your part of what it is you are exactly opposing, would help others interact more directly with your concerns. For example (to add to the previous list):

(1) What is "Thomism" and a "Thomist"?

(2) What examples of "extreme fine points on the Trinity" are you referring to?

(3) What examples can you provide from Thomas where you think he "delved into many of these areas that are God's business"?

1. Thomism is the name given to the system which follows the teaching of Aquinas in philosophical and theological questions
2. When I state that, I am referring to how the Trinity operates from within, why they work the way the do, the philosophical guessings of it etc..
3. When I say God's business, I simply mean that there are areas where it is best to leave it alone. For example, lapsarianism. The Lord did things the way He did and I leave it at that. I do not go any further in that regard. Also, many people will get into the metaphysical and philosophical points of this or that which really does serve a purpose. Yes, my view is very simplistic and plain but I fear the Lord too much to jump through rabbit holes. I am NOT saying those that do are not fearful of God.

 

[RamistThomist]

1. Thomism is the name given to the system which follows the teaching of Aquinas in philosophical and theological questions

Which Thomism are you talking about?

• Neo-Scholastic Thomism.
• Cracow Circle Thomism.
• Existential Thomism.
• River Forest Thomism.
• Transcendental Thomism.
• Lublin Thomism.
• Analytical Thomism.

2/3. Could you provide examples from Thomas and show where he is guessing and presumably why that hurt the church?

 

[RamistThomist]

 

[DanSSwing]

The point I was trying to make is that there are things that is ONLY known to God and that we should not delve into trying to understand them i.e. how the Trinity operates. This is where people get into trouble. With regards to the Three Forms of Unity, WCF, Apostle's/Nicene/Athansian etc.. I fully support.

Nailed it.

 

[DanSSwing]

The Bible does not define what a substance or essence is, at least not the way it is normally used. With that said, either such knowledge is known only to God and we have no business trying to use words like substance; or, that knowledge is available to us but it involves theological and metaphysical inferences. That is all Aquinas was doing.

The worst I have heard recently is some Reformed Baptists claiming that divine simplicity, including the fact that God is not composed of parts, requires we accept that ad intra all of God's attributes are identical, i.e. His love is the same as His wrath. And worse, if you don't accept this as a necessary and proper inference of divine simplicity, then you're a heretic. Not sure if Thomas himself made this claim, but it's the same crowd pushing this.

 

[RamistThomist]

The worst I have heard recently is some Reformed Baptists claiming that divine simplicity, including the fact that God is not composed of parts, requires we accept that ad intra all of God's attributes are identical, i.e. His love is the same as His wrath. And worse, if you don't accept this as a necessary and proper inference of divine simplicity, then you're a heretic. Not sure if Thomas himself made this claim, but it's the same crowd pushing this.

That's fairly standard in Reformed writings until the 19th century. If there is no composition in God, and all that is in God is God, and God is One, then that conclusion is fairly hard to avoid.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

1. Thomism is the name given to the system which follows the teaching of Aquinas in philosophical and theological questions
2. When I state that, I am referring to how the Trinity operates from within, why they work the way the do, the philosophical guessings of it etc..
3. When I say God's business, I simply mean that there are areas where it is best to leave it alone. For example, lapsarianism. The Lord did things the way He did and I leave it at that. I do not go any further in that regard. Also, many people will get into the metaphysical and philosophical points of this or that which really does serve a purpose. Yes, my view is very simplistic and plain but I fear the Lord too much to jump through rabbit holes. I am NOT saying those that do are not fearful of God.

Thank you Talib for your initial answers. I fear, however, that they are yet still too general.

RE: (1) - When you oppose Thomism, are you referring to anyone that agrees with anything that Thomas has said, whether philosophical or theological? If not, then what degree or kind of "following" of Thomas are you against? Simply repeating his "system" or his "philosophy" or his "theology" will not answer the question. I understand he has a system and a philosophy and a theology, but it is unclear to me what exactly you think that system distinctly is (so as to separate it from others), along with what philosophical or theological opinions of his you are against.

RE: (2) - Sure, but can you provide a specific example from Thomas or Thomists on something they speak of related "to how the Trinity operates from within" that you are against? Otherwise, I don't really know what you are referring to and whether your initial opposition is to Thomas as it is to much of any major Christian Trinitarian theology that isn't distinctly Thomists. That's not an attempted insult, as much as it is an expression of my own lack of understanding of what it is you are exactly against.

RE: (3) - Right, but your object of opprobrium in your initial post, was to that of Thomas and Thomism, not lapsarianism . . . unless you are suggesting that all the Reformed that ever discussed the lapsarian question was because of Thomas' negative influence? If not, can you provide a specific doctrinal or philosophical example from Thomas where he "delved into many of these areas that are God's business"?

Kind regards,

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

1. Thomism is the name given to the system which follows the teaching of Aquinas in philosophical and theological questions

That is overly vague. Which of his teachings are followed in order to constitute "Thomism?" For example, if I agree with Thomas that the bible is the divinely inspired word of God, is that Thomism? What if I agree with him that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

2. When I state that, I am referring to how the Trinity operates from within, why they work the way the do, the philosophical guessings of it etc..

Thomas did not contribute any novel speculations on this matter. He did repeat Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity, that the Father is like a mind, the Son his self-conception, and the Spirit the love between the Father and the Son. I don't think it's great to take that as a factual, scriptural explanation of the Trinity, because the bible doesn't teach anything like that, but it's Augustine, not Thomas.
The medieval school committed to using metaphysics to speculate on the inner workings of the divine nature was chiefly Scotism, not Thomism.

3. When I say God's business, I simply mean that there are areas where it is best to leave it alone. For example, lapsarianism. The Lord did things the way He did and I leave it at that. I do not go any further in that regard. Also, many people will get into the metaphysical and philosophical points of this or that which really does serve a purpose. Yes, my view is very simplistic and plain but I fear the Lord too much to jump through rabbit holes. I am NOT saying those that do are not fearful of God.

I think we would all agree that there are areas that are not open to our investigation. But it would be more helpful to state a specific proposal as to what areas cannot be investigated, and how Thomas transgressed that, and in order to do that you'd have to read Thomas.

I have actually been fairly critical of the label "Reformed Thomist," because I don't think it's an accurate reflection of the primary theological influences on the Reformed tradition, and I disagree with Thomas on points like the authority of the church vs that of Scripture, justification, and the sacraments.
But it's not helpful to label sections of the Reformed Church, like R.C. Sproul, as "Thomist," and then write them off. It would be about as fair as me writing off Lane Tipton as a "kantian" because Van Til appropriated the transcendental argument from Kant.

 

[Shadow Forge]

That is overly vague. Which of his teachings are followed in order to constitute "Thomism?" For example, if I agree with Thomas that the bible is the divinely inspired word of God, is that Thomism? What if I agree with him that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Thomas did not contribute any novel speculations on this matter. He did repeat Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity, that the Father is like a mind, the Son his self-conception, and the Spirit the love between the Father and the Son. I don't think it's great to take that as a factual, scriptural explanation of the Trinity, because the bible doesn't teach anything like that, but it's Augustine, not Thomas.
The medieval school committed to using metaphysics to speculate on the inner workings of the divine nature was chiefly Scotism, not Thomism.

I think we would all agree that there are areas that are not open to our investigation. But it would be more helpful to state a specific proposal as to what areas cannot be investigated, and how Thomas transgressed that, and in order to do that you'd have to read Thomas.

I have actually been fairly critical of the label "Reformed Thomist," because I don't think it's an accurate reflection of the primary theological influences on the Reformed tradition, and I disagree with Thomas on points like the authority of the church vs that of Scripture, justification, and the sacraments.
But it's not helpful to label sections of the Reformed Church, like R.C. Sproul, as "Thomist," and then write them off. It would be about as fair as me writing off Lane Tipton as a "kantian" because Van Til appropriated the transcendental argument from Kant.

I have stated in previous posts that Thomas made valid points that people could agree on. However, that does not mean one should delve into all the teachings of Thomas. If y'all wish to comb through medieval scholasticism be my guest. I prefer not to.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I have stated in previous posts that Thomas made valid points that people could agree on. However, that does not mean one should delve into all the teachings of Thomas. If y'all wish to comb through medieval scholasticism be my guest. I prefer not to.

You seem to be moving the bar. The thread began with the suggestion that we shouldn't use any resources from R.C. Sproul.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have stated in previous posts that Thomas made valid points that people could agree on. However, that does not mean one should delve into all the teachings of Thomas. If y'all wish to comb through medieval scholasticism be my guest. I prefer not to.

You haven't said which Reformed person is delving into the bad teachings of Thomas Aquinas. In fact, you haven't dealt with Aquinas at all. You then made several inadequate statements of the Trinity, only to further refine them by using more metaphysical reflection.

 

[JvMill]

View attachment 10827

Oh no, not Credo…

 

[Shadow Forge]

You seem to be moving the bar. The thread began with the suggestion that we shouldn't use any resources from R.C. Sproul.

No I said that once I discovered RC had thomistic leanings, I pushed his work aside. I did not state that everyone should nor alluded to that. I also stated that I have learned a lot from RC and have much respect for him. When I hear James White and many others who have explicitly stated that thomism is a threat or becoming a threat in reformed circles, I lead credence to them. In my own words, aquinas, dante, decarte, plato, aristotle were heretical and are burning in hell for being heretics. Calvin and many others had to engage with philosophies to which Scripture warns against falling prey to, in order to nip it in the bud. In my mind, that does not give credence for all to dive into aquinas. Again, as I have stated in previous posts, I follow the rule of thumb that if it's Catholic, I do not study it. Call me what you will but I play the safe card when it comes to this area. This retrievalist movement of medieval scholasticism will end up doing far more harm than good.

 

[Rom]

When I hear James White and many others who have explicitly stated that thomism is a threat or becoming a threat in reformed circles, I lead credence to them.

Ironically, you are doing something part and parcel to the papist system, having implicit faith (WCF 22.2) in the teachings of men.

 

[RamistThomist]

When I hear James White and many others who have explicitly stated that thomism is a threat or becoming a threat in reformed circles, I lead credence to them.

White has his own problems regarding Christology and the Trinity, nor has he demonstrated any real knowledge of Thomas.

In my own words, aquinas, dante, decarte, plato, aristotle were heretical and are burning in hell for being heretics.

Wait until you find out how many favorable commentaries the Reformers wrote on Aristotle, essentially promoting the man.

Call me what you will but I play the safe card when it comes to this area.

Do you disagree with van Mastricht on this point?

I know you don't like to hear it, but you are in the cage stage. The Reformers did not follow your theological method.

 

[RamistThomist]

aristotle were heretical and are burning in hell for being heretics.

Strictly speaking, Aristotle was a pagan (sort of), not a heretic.

David Sytsma documents how you are wrong on this point and how the Reformers used Aristotle.

A Bibliography of Early Modern Protestant Ethics, ca. 1520-1750 (updated Aug. 27, 2020)

This is is a working bibliography of primary and secondary sources on early modern Protestant ethics, including both philosophical and theological works. Contents: (1) Works on Nicomachean Ethics and Ancient Moral Philosophy 1. Commentaries on

www.academia.edu

 

[Shadow Forge]

White has his own problems regarding Christology and the Trinity, nor has he demonstrated any real knowledge of Thomas.


Wait until you find out how many favorable commentaries the Reformers wrote on Aristotle, essentially promoting the man.


Do you disagree with van Mastricht on this point?

I know you don't like to hear it, but you are in the cage stage. The Reformers did not follow your theological method.

I guess cage stage lasts almost 40 years then. I have been against Catholicism and philosophy since 1986. Albeit I was extremely anti Christian as well until 11/2/2022. The devil tells the truth from time to time but that doesnt mean we should put him on a pedestal like so many of y'all do with philosophers. There is no doubt that the Reformers quoted many of these men as I have stated before that they do make valid points but one also has to consider the source. I have spent 90% of my life tearing down Christianity, churches, christians and christian families doing atrocious things. However, the Lord regenerated my heart and now those who I once called enemies are my friends. I stated in my initial post that I am not a scholar but I do know the dangers philosophy and Catholicism causes and how twisted people because of it. As the saying goes.. you do you.

 

[Shadow Forge]

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.

 

[DanSSwing]

That's fairly standard in Reformed writings until the 19th century. If there is no composition in God, and all that is in God is God, and God is One, then that conclusion is fairly hard to avoid.

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.

 

[DanSSwing]

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.

I don't even care if they DID praise them. I want to see how their philosophical conclusions can be derived from Scripture.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.

Is there anything in God that isn't God?

 

[RamistThomist]

you do you.

I'm actually doing what the Reformers did.