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
Skip to contentWhile 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
