SAET Blog

Thomas Aquinas Posts

  • May 10, 2012 by Jason Hood

    How Not to Argue for Premillennialism

    The Evangelical Free denomination recently modified its doctrinal statement, led by Greg Strand, Bill Kynes, and others. They did a fine job on this, and you can read the results in the book Evangelical Convictions.

    The Canadian branch recently revised their doctrinal statement also and eliminated the requirement of premillennial eschatology in keeping with essentials. The Americans attempted the same but were unable to do so (see Strand’s interview with Ed Stetzer). Too many of the older guard of that denomination have been taught that amil and postmil views were tantamount to liberalism. For instance, the postmil approach was favored by social gospelers who failed to take human sin seriously; the amil interpretation of Revelation (which is suspicious because it takes a symbolic approach and therefore, so the argument runs, does not take scripture literally) has been favored by non-evangelical interpreters in recent years.

    Admittedly, guilt by association is rhetorically powerful; but it’s also about the worst argument imaginable for a doctrine. It fails to note that the modern missionary movement spearheaded by Carey, Judson, and others was fueled by postmil expectation; and something like the amil position was held by Augustine, Aquinas, Bernard, Luther, and Calvin.

    Should we associate premil theology and interpretation with, say, Jim Jones or David Koresh?

    Categories: Bernard | Calvin | Eschatology | General | Jason Hood | Martin Luther | Revelation | Thomas Aquinas | biblical studies

    2 Comments

  • November 9, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

    Barth on Apologetics and Doubt

    When it comes to apologetics, Barth (who says he is indebted to Anselm’s Proslogion on this matter) insists we must not suppose that we stand as a neutral observer, adding up the pros and cons of God’s existence. This is precisely because there is no place we can stand outside of God — above God — to  judge him. The “God” that we would  prove in this way cannot be the true God, for the true God is not subject to human judgment. Thus we do not argue from a neutral place to the existence of God, but rather from the existence of God toward other conclusions. God is the first principle that we assume in faith, who in turns makes sense of all other principles .   He goes on to talk about how doubt can never be put to rest as long as we suppose ourselves able to stand in judgment over God.

    “The doubter cannot free himself from doubt, even by persuading himself to will to doubt no more, even by performing this sacrificium [i.e., utilizing the intellect]. And the doubter cannot free other doubters from their doubt be exacting this sacrificium from them –  perhaps by making it convincing, perhaps by inducing them to perform it themselves. He must not be a doubter at all if help is to come to him and through him to others. But that means that he must not think that he can choose and that therefor he can help himself and others. He must be bound already to the Word of God. Any desire to bind himself (emphasis mine) to the Word of God can only demonstrate to himself and others that in fact he is not yet bound. And any supposed certainty, built on a desire for this self-binding, will only show his actual uncertainty to himself and others. Binding by the Word of God (emphasis mine) must take place at the beginning (CD, II.I, p.9).

    That bit about doubt strongly resonates with me,  and has rich pastoral implications that I need to think more carefully about — not only for others, but even more chiefly for myself. God binds himself to us through the Word Made Flesh. We do not bind ourselves to him via our intellect.

    Thomas shares a similar sentiment when he writes, “[Sacred doctrine] does not argue in proof of its principles, which are articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else” (Summa, I.I. 8). And I recall Lewis writing something along the lines of, “I do not believe in the Sun because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

    As I understand it, this basic insight about faith as a first principle is the chief starting point of Reformed Epistemology.

    Categories: Apologetics | General | Gerald Hiestand | Karl Barth | Thomas Aquinas

    1 Comment

  • October 30, 2010 by Gerald Hiestand

    Thomas on Predestination and the Love of God

    I’m giving this next season of study to reading through Thomas’ Summa. I’ve not read much of Thomas, nor many works about him. But I have read Garrigou-Lagrange’s book Predestination, which details Thomas’ understanding of grace and predestination.  The first half of his book provides a historical summary of the doctrine of predestination (not unlike McGrath’s treatment of justification in Iustitia Dei). The second half provides a synthesis of his own treatment of the topic (which is basically Thomistic). A couple of thoughts on the book/topic for those who might be interested…

    First, Garrigou-Lagrange demonstrates quite clearly that Augustine and Thomas were in basic agreement on the subject of predestination. That is, both Augustine and Thomas maintained the absolute gratuity of predestination prior to merits (either foreseen or actual). In fact, the divergence between Augustine and Thomas seems to be more related to present day Augustinians and Thomists than to the original Doctors themselves. The differences between the two seem minor enough that Garrigou-Lagrange doesn’t spend more than a couple of pages on them. Garrigou-Langrange, being Catholic, also works hard to distance both Augustine and Aquinas from Calvin and Luther. In my mind, this is mostly a reflection of Garrigou-Lagrange’s pre-Vatican II Catholic loyalties. From my reading of Augustine, Calvin and Luther (and now Thomas via Garrigou-Lagrange), the differences between the four theologians seem mostly semantic rather than substantive.

    Second, I was intrigued by the emphasis on love that is woven throughout the Thomistic interpretation of unconditional election. Garrigou-Lagrange interprets Thomas — and indeed the whole subject — from what he terms Thomas’ principle of predilection – “that no created being would be better than another unless it were loved more by God.” This means that for Thomas election presupposes love. Why does God choose the elect for salvation and pass over the non-elect? Because he loves the elect with a greater love. Protestant expressions of Augustine on predestination (as seen in Luther and Calvin) do not typically contain this emphasis on the love of God. We heirs of the Reformation tend to use predestination as a doctrine that humbles and chastises (following Paul in Romans 9), and less as a doctrine that assures us of God’s love. Calvin and Luther are surely correct in their emphasis. But I appreciate the Thomistic emphasis of love, particularly in as much as he also finds continuity with Paul.

    This emphasis on love is based upon a significant implication of Thomas’ doctrine of predilection — God does not love everyone equally. A remarkable statement to make in the face of popular evangelicalism, but from what I read in scripture here and here (along with others passages), a true statement. In fact, I believe the failure of evangelicals to grapple with the reality that God does not love everyone equally causes us to loose sight of the love of God in our doctrine of election. If God loves everyone equally, then love cannot be his motive in election. Thus, as stated above, we Reformed types tend to use the doctrine of predestination almost exclusively as club to beat down human self-sufficiency. Thomas’ (and I think Augustine’s) doctrine of predestination brings a helpful balance.

    Whatever the case, I’m convinced the doctrine of election is meant to both humble us, as well as assure us of God’s deep love for us. So the next time you preach about predestination, don’t just use it to bludgeon sinful pride. Do that, but also use it as a balm that assures the believer of God’s timeless, eternal pursuit. In love, he predestined us… Thomas helps us Protestants remember a neglected — and richly pastoral — emphasis of predestination.

    Categories: General | Gerald Hiestand | Predestination | Thomas Aquinas

    2 Comments