A Response to Dr. Scott Oliphint’s ReformCon 2016 Talk
By Dr. J. Thomas Bridges, I regret that I must break from my summer research to respond to Dr. Oliphint’s recent talk at the ReformCon
Menu
Menu
While there are different definitions of Thomism depending on whom you ask, as it relates to Southern Evangelical Seminary, Thomism or “Thomistic thinking” simply refers to the general agreement with the basic metaphysics, epistemology, and natural theology of thirteenth century Christian philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas. This is certainly one thing that makes SES unique as our co-founder Dr. Norman Geisler intentionally wove his Thomistic thinking throughout our integrated approach to theology, philosophy, and apologetics.
As such, our Thomistic thinking largely forms the foundation from which we do natural theology and much of our philosophical apologetics. In addition, it provides a very strong supportive structure for natural law, hermeneutics, and more which enables us to coherently speak truth to the cultural issues we face today. As Dr. Geisler has said,
"As a matter of fact, I find Aquinas’s philosophy to be a helpful prolegomena for evangelical theology. After all, Aquinas defended metaphysical realism, the correspondence view of truth, propositional revelation, classical apologetics, and classical theism—all of which are helpful to defending the evangelical positions. Indeed, one has to search hard, if not in vain, to find an evangelical philosopher who can match Aquinas in these areas."
The video below, while not the greatest quality, captures Dr. Geisler in a more intimate setting discussing his thoughts on Aquinas and evangelicalism. Thanks to SES alum Dr. Bill Roach for sharing this rare moment with us:
In recent years, following the publication of Evangelical Exodus by SES alum and former professor, Dr. Douglas Beaumont, a number of our (primarily) presuppositional brothers have raised some rather concerning critiques about Thomistic thought, specifically its alleged ties to evangelicals becoming Roman Catholic.
Notable brothers like Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, Dr. James White, Dr. Jeffery Johnson, and Dr. Owen Strachan have been very public in their critiques about the Thomistic thinking taught at SES. In books, videos, podcasts, and numerous tweets, these brothers (and others like them) have presented their concerns, and we have tried to respond to a number of them. In reality, however, these critiques are largely straw men and misunderstandings. In fact, such critiques are nothing new. Aquinas himself answered many of the modern objections leveled at his positions, and Dr. Geisler saw no necessary connections between his evangelical Thomism and Roman Catholicism as he penned his classic work Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences.
The following is a Christianity Today article, posted by permission, of a 2002 interview with Dr. Geisler responding to a critique of Aquinas given by Ronald Nash in 1974. There truly is nothing new under the sun!
In a 1974 Christianity Today article marking the 700th anniversary of Aquinas’s death, author Ronald Nash said some nice things about the deceased but ultimately judged his system of thought “unsuitable for a biblically centered Christian philosophy” and “beyond any hope of salvage.” Norman Geisler disagreed with that assessment then, and he disagrees with it now. We asked Dr. Geisler, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and author of Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal (Baker, 1991), for his evaluation of the Angelic Doctor.
He’s insightful, he’s incisive, he’s comprehensive, he’s systematic, he’s biblical, he’s devout, and he’s successful. By successful, I mean, first, how many other books are still being read 700 years later? Second, he single-handedly withstood the onslaught of intellectual Islam in the thirteenth century. He reversed the course of history.
Evangelicals have largely misinterpreted Aquinas, and they have placed on him views that he did not hold. Many people are concerned that he separated faith and reason, denied depravity (especially the effects of sin on the human mind), and stood for everything that “Roman Catholic” means to Protestants today. Let me take those concerns one by one.
Francis Schaeffer criticized Aquinas for giving rise to modern humanism and atheism by separating faith and reason. Aquinas would do cartwheels in his casket if he heard that!
He believed in the integration of faith and reason, not the separation. He made a distinction but no disjunction. Aquinas said that faith brings the highest kind of certainty and that reason, weak and fallen, cannot attain Christian faith.
Still, Aquinas held human reason in such high regard that some accuse him of denying depravity. He did not. He believed in original sin, he believed in the effects of sin on the mind, and he believed that the mind was so depraved that it could not know supernatural truths. God’s revealed truths could be accepted only by faith.
Even Martin Luther and John Calvin believed that the Roman Catholic church, up to the Council of Trent, was basically orthodox—a true church with sound fundamental doctrines as well as significant error.
Many of the Catholic beliefs that concern Protestants most were not declared dogma until long after Aquinas. For example, Aquinas denied the immaculate conception of Mary, and it was not declared dogma until 1854. Aquinas never believed in the bodily assumption of Mary, which was defined in 1950. Aquinas didn’t believe in the infallibility of the pope. That was not pronounced until 1870—600 years after Aquinas.
On the other hand, Aquinas held many beliefs associated with the Reformation. He upheld a version of sola scriptura. He believed in salvation by grace through faith—just look at his commentary on Ephesians 2:8-9.
John Gerstner, the late Calvinist theologian, went so far as to claim that Aquinas was basically a Protestant.
Read him! Quotes and excerpts in other people’s books don’t count, because many of his critics have taken him out of context. Get it from the horse’s mouth, or should I say the dumb ox’s mouth.
Aquinas is worth reading. He has stood the test of time. And even where he errs, you can learn more from the errors of a great mind than you can learn from the truths of a small mind. You can see a whole lot farther standing on the shoulders of giants.
People are rediscovering Aquinas as a biblical exegete. He wrote some of the greatest commentaries on the Bible—no one has surpassed his commentary on the Gospels to this day. He has 10 pages on John 1:1, and 78 pages on chapter one. He culls from the Fathers, from the second century up to the thirteenth century, and weaves them together in a continuous commentary.
After all, he was a member of the Order of Preachers. They had to preach the Bible every day and go through the entire Bible in three years.
We can learn from him in the way he answered Muslim Aristotelianism. He answered it by fighting bad ideas with good ideas, by fighting the pen with the pen, not the sword. We’re not going to win the battle of ideas by the sword. We’re going to win the battle of ideas with ideas—better ones, more logical ones, more consistent ones.
Second, we can learn how important it is to understand the philosophy of the day. It’s like 1 Chronicles 12:32 says, the men of Issachar “understood the times.”
Aquinas studied the philosophy of the day, which was Aristotle. He understood it better than his opponents, and he could use it to refute opponents who misused it. We need to do the same thing in every field.
First of all, his absolute, unconditional commitment to Christ. He was an extremely devout person. He spent hours in prayer and Bible reading and Bible study. His whole life had a biblical basis—just read his prayers.
In one Thomistic class I took at a Catholic institution, the professor would pray a brief part of one of Aquinas’ prayers before class. He would say, “Inspire us at the beginning, direct our progress, and complete the finished task within us.” Aquinas had such a succinct way of getting to the heart of an issue.
Here’s another of his prayers: “Give me, O Lord, a steadfast heart, which no unworthy affection may drag downwards; give me an unconquered heart, which no tribulation can wear out; give me an upright heart, which no unworthy purpose may tempt aside. Bestow on me also, O Lord my God, understanding to know you, diligence to seek you, wisdom to find you, and faithfulness that may finally embrace you, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
See the original Christianity Today article.
By Dr. J. Thomas Bridges, I regret that I must break from my summer research to respond to Dr. Oliphint’s recent talk at the ReformCon
Is Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES) a Catholic conversion factory? According to some it is. On February 3, 2022, James White, Jeff Johnson, and Owen Strachan made a video in
By Chris Van Allsburg, Recently, Reformed theologian and presuppositionalist K. Scott Oliphint [1] criticized Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES) for holding to the classical method in apologetics
By Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher and theologian, was a Roman Catholic. And there are a growing number of non-Catholic scholars who have
with Dr. J. Thomas Bridges
with Dr. Edward Feser
with Dr. Brian Huffling
Introduction Douglas Beaumont has edited a book that seeks to chronicle the experiences of many Evangelicals who have left Evangelicalism and joined the Catholic Church.
Drowning in the Wading Pool In this section, Beaumont characterizes his move away from Evangelicalism as “Wading Past Protestant Ports.” However, it seems more likely
Beaumont engages in a thought experiment: I eventually asked myself, “If every Christian who had ever lived came back to life next Sunday and went
See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Introducing a quote from Aquinas, Beaumont says, “Somewhere along the line I came across this quotation from
By Norman Geisler
Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher and theologian, was a Roman Catholic. And there are a growing number of non-Catholic scholars who have become Thomists. And some of these have become Roman Catholic. Is there a logical connection? Does Thomism lead to Catholicism? It is natural that one would want to examine this connection.
There are a variety of reasons why non-Catholics become Roman Catholic. Let’s examine some of them. There is the appeal of antiquity, unity, continuity, beauty, fraternity (or paternity), intellectuality, and a desire for certainty (see Geisler, Is Rome the True Church? chap. 8). Any one or more of these appeal to some evangelicals. It is noteworthy that none of these or combination of them is a valid test for truth.
Few evangelicals become Catholic because they became convinced by the study of Scripture that Rome is the true Church. Hardly anyone reasons his way to Rome purely by an objective study of the evidence. For example, one recent convert to Catholicism wrote, “My family is Catholic. They wanted me to return, and the Bible says we should honor our parents!” It is clear that none of these reasons is a good test for the truth of a religion for by the same logic one could argue for becoming a Hindu, Buddhist, or even an atheist, if their family belonged to that group. Or, one could become Eastern Orthodox, if he was looking for a tradition older than his.
We have weighed the many reasons some evangelicals have become Catholic (in Is Rome the True Church?), and almost no one said it was because their study of Thomistic philosophy led them there. As for the appeal of the intellectual tradition in Catholicism, I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from a Catholic (Jesuit) institution and have never once been tempted to become a Roman Catholic. I have used my scholarly training in both traditions to compare them (see Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences). My co-author Ralph MacKenzie and I both have Catholicism in our background. We have studied both sides carefully, and we see no reason to swim the Tiber.
One recent convert to Catholicism admits that it was not good reasoning that led him to Rome but faith. He said, “The false disciples only follow Jesus when they agree with his teaching. If I am very honest, the rationalism of my evangelical faith would have put me in the first camp (those who reject it because it is hard to understand) for I rejected the doctrine of the Real Presence based on theological arguments (It is a hard teaching), rather than placing my faith in Christ who taught it” (emphasis added). Of course, once one places his faith in the Roman system (for whatever reason), the rest is all part of a package deal.
Whatever the reason is that people become Catholic, I have never seen anyone make the case that Roman Catholicism flows logically from Thomistic philosophy. The reason for this is simple: there is no logical connection between them. Aquinas himself said there is no logical connection between Thomism and Roman Catholicism. Further, experience shows that there are many Thomists who are not Roman Catholic.
Aquinas believed that faith and reason were such distinct domains that even belief in God could not be an object of both faith and reason simultaneously.
Although Aquinas did not actually separate faith and reason, he did distinguish them formally. He affirmed that we cannot both know and believe the same thing at the same time. For “whatever things we know with scientific [philosophical] knowledge properly so called we know by reducing them to first principles which are naturally present to the understanding. All scientific knowledge terminates in the sight of a thing which is present [whereas faith is always in something absent]. Hence, it is impossible to have faith and scientific [philosophical] knowledge about the same thing.” (See Aquinas, Should Old Aquinas be Forgotten, chap. 5).
For Aquinas, the object of faith is above the senses and understanding. “Consequently, the object of faith is that which is absent from our understanding.” As Augustine said, we believe that which is absent, but we see that which is present. So we cannot prove and believe the same thing. For if we see it, we don’t believe it. And if we believe it, then we don’t see it. For “all science [philosophical knowledge] is derived from self-evident and therefore seen principles. . . . Now, . . . it is impossible that one and the same thing should be believed and seen by the same person.” This means “that a thing which is an object of vision or science for one, is believed by another” (ibid.). It does not mean that one and the same person can have both faith and proof of one and the same object. If one sees it rationally, then he does not believe it on the testimony of others. And if he believes it on the testimony of another, then he does not see (know) it for himself.
Nonetheless, “this does not prevent the understanding of one who believes from having some discursive thought of comparison about those things which he believes.” Discursive thought, or reasoning from premises to conclusions, is not the cause of the assent of faith. Nonetheless, such reasoning “can accompany the assent of faith.” The reason they are parallel but one does not cause the other is that “faith involves will (freedom) and reason doesn’t coerce the will” (ibid.). That is, a person is free to dissent even though there may be convincing reasons to believe.
Reason accompanies but does not cause faith. “Faith is called a consent without inquiry in so far as the consent of faith, or assent, is not caused by an investigation of the understanding.” Commenting on Ephesians 2:8-9, Aquinas contends that “free will is inadequate for the act of faith since the contents of faith are above reason. . . . So, reason cannot lead someone to faith” (ibid., emphasis added). At best, reason is the preamble to faith in God and in Christ. So, the Christian Faith as such does not follow logically from philosophy—even Thomistic philosophy. The best philosophy can do is to prepare the way for faith, but it does not logically lead to faith, let alone to a particular faith like the Roman Catholic Faith.
A philosophical argument contains no premises borrowed from faith. It stands on its own two philosophical “feet.” Further, according to Aquinas, unique doctrines of the Christian Faith (such as the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ) are not the result of human reason. No rational process, no matter how sophisticated, can attain to these unique Christian doctrines. They are not contrary to reason (since there is no contradiction in them), but they go beyond reason. Given this difference between what can be known by reason and what can be known only by faith, it is obvious that Thomistic philosophy does not lead logically to Roman Catholicism.
Not only is there no logical connection between Thomism and Catholicism, but historically there is no actual connection for many Thomistic philosophers have not been Roman Catholic. Eric Mascal was an Anglican Thomist. David Johnson is a Lutheran Thomist. John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul, and Arvin Vos are Reformed Thomists. Win Corduan and myself are Evangelical Thomists. Thomas Howe, and Richard Howe are Baptistic Thomists. Joseph Holden is a Calvary Chapel Thomist. Mortimer Adler saw no contradiction in being a Jewish Thomist for many years (before he became a Catholic), and so on. There are many more.
It is true that a number of evangelical Thomists have become Roman Catholic (e.g., Thomas Howard, Jay Budziszewski, and Frank Beckwith). However, none of them did so because the philosophical principles of Thomism drove them there. The truth is that there is no logical connection between them. Thomistic philosophy as such does not logically or philosophically lead to Roman Catholicism, any more than it leads to being a Presbyterian or a Baptist. So, if a Thomist becomes a Roman Catholic, it is not because of any philosophical necessity arising out of Thomism.
This is not to say that some evangelicals who do not have a very deep liturgical, aesthetic or intellectual history are not attracted to Catholicism. Some are, but some are also attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy or Anglicanism. But many remain content with their evangelical faith—and that for good reasons. Converted Catholic Chris Castaldo expressed this in his book Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic when he rejoiced in the sense of liberation from ritual and guilt he never had in Romanism. Tens of thousands of former Catholics who have become evangelical were attracted by the personal, Bible-based experiences evangelicalism provided with the simple Gospel message and a personal relation with Christ they obtained through it.
I have a strong background in Catholicism, having been trained in two Jesuit institutions with a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. However, there are several basic reasons that I have not been attracted to Catholicism. First, I am satisfied with being an evangelical doctrinally, experientially, and philosophically. Second, I have not seen any convincing reasons biblically or otherwise to tempt me to become Roman Catholic. Third, my systematic study of Catholicism has convinced me that it is based on unbiblical and unreasonable grounds. Fourth, I have never had the tendency to confuse lace and grace, or to connect ritual and reality very closely. Finally, there are some Catholic doctrines and practices that I find unbiblical and even distasteful such as, purgatory, praying for the dead, indulgences, venerating images, praying to Mary, venerating Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary, worshipping the consecrated host, and the infallibility of the Pope—to mention a few.
Even though there is no logical connection between Thomistic philosophy and Catholicism, I have found many philosophical and even theological similarities between evangelicalism and Thomistic philosophy that make it attractive to me as an evangelical.
Aquinas was a pre-Trentian Catholic, part of what may be called the “Old Catholic Church” with which Episcopalians would be happy on most counts. As such, Aquinas was not committed to the immaculate conception of Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary, the infallibility of the Pope and a number of other Roman Catholic idiosyncracies. Further, Aquinas was committed to sola Scripture, exposition of Scripture, and other characteristic doctrine of Protestanism (see Geisler, Aquinas, ibid., chap. 4). His basic Bibliology (minus the Apocrypha), Prolegomena, Apologetics, Theology Proper, and Christology are compatible with evangelicalism.
As a matter of fact, I find Aquinas’s philosophy to be a helpful prolegomena for evangelical theology. After all, Aquinas defended metaphysical realism, the correspondence view of truth, proposition revelation, classical apologetics, and classical theism—all of which are helpful to defending the evangelical positions. Indeed, one has to search hard, if not in vain, to find an evangelical philosopher who can match Aquinas in these areas.
But what we know of as “Roman” Catholicism today, with its belief in works being necessary for salvation, the veneration of and prayers to Mary, the worship of the consecrated host, buying indulgences, Purgatory, adding apocryphal books (in supports praying for the dead) to the inspired Scripture, and bowing to the infallibility of the Pope, simply cannot compete with the simplicity of the evangelical Gospel: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). And, “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has [right now] eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has [already] passed from death unto life” (Jn. 5:24).
So, my attraction to Thomism is somewhat like my attraction to C.S. Lewis. There are many things I like about Lewis’s views, e.g., his apologetics, his belief in absolute truth and morals, his classical theism, his defense of New Testament miracles, his affirmation of the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation of Christ, his belief in the resurrection of Christ, eternal punishment (Hell). However, there are also some of Lewis’s beliefs which I do not accept, e.g. his denial of some Old Testament miracles, his belief that the OT contains myths and errors, and his belief in evolution, and in Purgatory. But none of these hinder my acceptance of the many positive values I find in Lewis. But in spite of my acceptance of all these positive features in Lewis, I have never been tempted to become an Anglican (as he was).
Likewise, many protestant identify closely with the writings of St. Augustine, but would not think of throwing out his philosophy entirely because he claimed to be a Catholic, accepted books of the Apocrypha, believed in baptismal regeneration, and other Catholic teachings.
So, in spite of the many positive aspects of Aquinas’s beliefs, I have never been thereby tempted to become an Anglican—or even an Episcopalian. One can profit by the positive philosophical views of Lewis without buying into negative religious views. Why throw the baby of truth out with the bath water of error in the name is Aquinas or Lewis?
While we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts to evangelicalism out of the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. There are literally tens of thousands of Catholics in South America who have become evangelical. Some countries (like Brazil) are nearly a third Catholic now. Also, tens of thousands of these Catholic converts end up in one of the large evangelical churches where they are singing God-centered praise music and being taught the Word of God. This is something that Rome with all its layers of tradition has lost. Once they find that works are not a necessary condition for salvation (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:3-6) but that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, they make great evangelical Christians. They realize that we can’t work for grace but that we do work from grace. Once they learn that we can have eternal life now (John 5:24) by faith and do not have to work for it or wait until they die, they are exuberant.
I for one welcome the Thomistic renewal in evangelicalism. In a world of experientialism, a shot of Thomistic “rationalism” is more than welcome. Likewise, Thomism is a good antedote for the New Age mystisim that has penetrated some of evangelicalism. In addition, the Angelic Doctor’s emphasis on objective truth and propositional revelation is a sure cure for Barthian existentialism that has infiltrated the evangelical view of Scripture. As Reformed Thomist John Gerstner put it, “God wants to reach the heart, but he does not want to bypass the head on the way to the heart.” Thomism can definitely help in this department. Last but not least, Thomistic metaphysics is the only solid answer to the drift into Open Theism and process views of God. Of course, Rome is not home soteriologically (salvation) or ecclesiologically (church), but Thomism does embrace important truths in Prolegomena, Apologetics, Theology Proper, and Metaphysics which evangelicals desperately need today. In brief, there is too much good in Aquinas’s views to be singing “Should Old Aquinas be Forgotten!”
Dr. Geisler is the author of Should Old Aquinas Be Forgotten? Many Say Yes but the Author Says No. (Bastion Books:2013), Is the Pope Infallible: A Look at the Evidence (Bastion Books:2012), Is Rome the True Church? A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway Books:2008), and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Academic:1995).
