A Revival Of Logic
Why Protestants Are Thinking (The Neo-Thomistic Doctrine)

"Early in the 19th century in Italy certain Catholic professors of philosophy began to see in Thomas Aquinas's teaching basic principles that might resolve the problems associated with Kantian and Hegelian Idealism, British Empiricism, current Rationalism, Skepticism, and Liberalism. By 1850, neo Thomism or neoscholasticism began to be heard through the writings of Gaetano Sanseverino in Naples, Matteo Liberatore in Rome, and the Jesuit periodical Civilita Cattolica founded in Naples in 1850. These efforts were brought to a head by Josef Kleutgen in Germany, Henri LaCordaire in France, Zeferino Gonzales in the Philippines and Spain, and Tommaso Zigliara and Pope Leo XIII in Italy. The charter of this neo Thomism was Leo's Aeterni Patris (1879). Through subsequent encyclicals, Leo exemplified the applicability of Thomistic ideas to contemporary problems. All subsequent popes, including John Paul II, reiterated the need for a Christian philosophy based on Thomistic principles.

The rise of Modernism in the Roman Catholic church after 1900, however, resulted in a multiplicity of ecclesiastical condemnations, a legislated Thomism, and a failure to realize the hopes of Leo XIII. Despite this and two world wars, much fruitful work was accomplished by outstanding scholars, numerous periodicals, and editors of historical texts, including the critical edition of the works of Aquinas (the Leonine Edition). Among the great number of modern scholars who called themselves Thomists (but not neo Thomists or neoscholastics) were Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Martin Grabmann, and Yves Congar."

With the rise of Hyper-Fundamentalism, a reaction against Aquinas and neoscholasticism occurred in the 1960s. While some have erroneously pointed to the the Second Vatican Council, which turned people's minds toward social rather than doctrinal issues, the true culprit was the Voluntaristic style emphasized by fundamental zealots.

This brings us to the ray of light which I have been itching to write about: Neo-Thomism.
This twentieth century revival of Thomas Aquinas' thoughts differs from the original philosophy, in that it undergirds Protestant theology more firmly, while not at the expense of much Roman theology (only in some areas of ecclesiology.)

"The metaphysical distinctive of neo Thomism may be found in its insistence on the maxim that 'existence precedes essence.' For that reason (it has been claimed) that Thomism is the original existentialism. Put simply, this means that one has to know that something exists before one knows what it is, and before one knows that something exists, one has to accept that anything exists. This latter conviction is not the result of a rational deduction; it is an immediate awareness. Thus the act of being, apprehended in a direct intuition, precedes its various modalities.

This apprehension of being leads the Thomist to posit the existence of God via the cosmological argument. For even though the reality of being is an inescapable fact, it is not a logically necessary truth. Being exists, but need not exist. Thus being is inherently contingent, and its contingency makes it finite. If it exists in view of having no inherent necessity to do so, it must be caused to exist. Also, the very forms which being assumes are due to the interplay of various causes; and the fact of change, so characteristic of being, must be the result of causal actions as well. Thus being is bounded by causes wherever it appears.

However, since it is a logical absurdity for anything to cause itself, there must be an external cause of being. Now if that cause is also finite, we have not grounded finite being yet, and it still should not exist. A chain of finite causes would carry the same problem with it. Hence the Thomist posits an original uncaused cause of all being, viz. God. It must be noted that this argument is based on the metaphysical necessity for a cause of being, not on a need for explanation, as would be the case with Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason.

The understanding of God as unconditioned necessary existence goes far in providing the basis for Thomistic natural theology. For if God is uncaused, he is unlimited. Then he contains all perfections infinitely; e.g., he is all - good, omnipresent, omniscient, all - loving, perfect person, etc. There can be only one such God, since a God who possesses all perfections cannot differ from any other God who would also possess all the identical possessions. Thus Thomists feel confident that their philosophical arguments concern the same God whom they worship in church.

Thomism understands the relationship between God the Creator and the created order to be analogical. God is the source of all being, and finitude participates in his being, but only with limitations. In the matter of applying language to God, predication proceeds analogically as well. Language is derived from the finite world. But then it is applied to God with the understanding that he is the source of all named properties and that he posseses all those properties without limitation. For example, one may apply the word "love" to God, even though it is a word learned within human finite relationships, because God is pure love and the originator of all human love.

The insistence on being over essence also makes itself felt in Thomism's understanding of the human person. Thomism avoids both a Platonic mind - body dualism and a reductive materialism. With the understanding of the soul as the form of the body, the human is seen as a unit, composed of soul and body in mutual dependence. Thus, for instance, cognition combines both the physical / empirical (sensation) and the spiritual (abstraction). Thomistic writings have consistently defended the dignity and integrity of human personhood, particularly against totalitarian ideologies."

While some argue that Thomism (even Neo-Thomism) is a purely Catholic doctrine, we at the WBI Study Centre would disagree.

"In theology Thomism has usually been linked to conservative expressions of orthodox doctrines, partially due to the close dependence on Aquinas's own formulations. Since the Second Vatican Council it has lost much ground in Catholic circles to philosophies of more recent origin, e.g., phenomenology or process thought, due to a certain impatience with Thomism's supposedly outmoded Aristotelianism. At the same time there has been some movement in evangelical Protestantism to adopt Thomistic philosophical principles for purposes of apologetics and theological enhancement, e.g., by Norman L Geisler."

W Corduan
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

"But we fear that the dispensationalist method of interpretation does violence to the unity of Scripture and to the Sovereign continuity of God's purposes, and cavalierly leaves out of account a major portion of the apostolic teaching - that, chiefly, of the Acts and the Epistles - as unrelated to the perspective of the Old Testament authors."
Philip E. Hughes, Interpreting Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 104.

The Pillar & Ground of Truth
Nominalism, Voluntarism, & Thomism continued...

If you have not read the article entitled Catholic Protestantism, you should check it out before reading this article.

The purpose of this article (Pillar & Ground of Truth) is to emphasize that Thomistic doctrines were not suppressed by the doctrine of the Reformation.

When I speak of Thomistic doctrine, I do not point to clearly established Catholic doctrine or dogma, but rather, the idea laid down by Thomas Aquinas which attempts to comprehend Christian doctrine through a realistic & comprehensive intellectual sense. Aquinas incorporated much of Aristotle's logic into his efforts to either elucidate or simplify his Theology.

This same concept, I argue, is seen in the writings and practices of the Reformers, although we may be tempted to misinterpret their stance, since they were fighting the sensless doctrines of their time, and attempting to elevate the importance of Faith (Sola Fide).

It has been argued by some that, among the various doctrinal implications of the Reformation was the influence of Voluntarism, however I think that those who truly hold to the key doctrines of the Reformation (i.e., those who call themselves Reformed) would disagree.

For instance, Matthew Henry, when commenting on God's love for the "Gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob," says that His love was, in particular, for His "Houses of Doctrine." (Not the Voluntaristic style of Modern Evangelicals, who purport God's supposed love for all men.) Here, the distinctives of discernable doctrine are elevated and respected.

Charles Spurgeon, a definite proponent of Reformed Theology, when speaking on the same passage (Psalm 87:2) speaks of the doctrine of the Church, and how she is the Ground & Pillar of Truth. He argues that the authority of this position hinges on particular doctrines, not some voluntaristic "feeling" with no legitimate foundation.

Clearly, these are not men who would seek to root out the theological or intellectual implications of the doctrine of the Church.
It was certainly said of John Gill that there was no "greater learned man in all of England" while he lived. In "A Tercentennial Appreciation" of John Gill (Edited by Michael A.G. Haykin) it is said of Gill that he was the "doyen of High Calvinism in the transatlantic Baptist community of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."

As we look at some of the highlights of Gill's theological career, we quickly realize the extent of his Intellectual prowess and the theological nuances which composed his person. For instance, if we were to peruse his extensive published works, we would immediately be made aware of his trinitarian theology, soteriological views, Baptist ecclesiology, and his use of Scripture.

Time would fail me to speak of the Puritan views of doctrine and intellectual illumination, while clearly following established Reformation Theology.

Certainly, then, it is illogical to claim that the Reformed Tradition engenders or encourages Voluntarism, but seems, indeed, to do quite the opposite.

For a defense of Gill's scholasticism, I suggest clicking this ARTICLE.

Catholic Protestantism
Fundamentalists Linked to Reformers?

I read an article on Nominalism & Voluntarism recently. The article argued in favour of what it called "Catholic Protestantism."
Sound like an oxymoron? It did to me too, although the author attempted to make it sound plausible. This is basically what was argued (I won't say who did the arguing):
'The original postulates of the Reformation have severed the link of Faith & Reason where man & God are concerned. This is why Evangelicals today deny any Intellectual Discernment & push only the will, only Spirit-leading, or some other spiritualized intution rather than the capacity to rationally discern.'

I am revolted. Let me rant for a moment and then I'll calm down and stop breaking things.

Here is the problem with this thought: they are attempting to link the Reformation to the universal concept (intentio secunda).
However, the Universal Concept has as its object internal representations...which means that the role of the universals is to serve, merely as a label; i.e., to hold the place in the mind of a multitude of things to which it can be attributed.

So, while - resultantly - I agree that Evangelicals (what I might call hyper-fundamentalists) probably ignorantly derive their contempt of Biblical Scholarship or Intellectual Discernment from some deviation of the Reformation (the urge that each individual know God personally), I would also say that Occam's Conceptualism applied here becomes very subjective.

Why? Because, when the abstract concepts reach the individual thing itself (as it exists in nature) the Universal no longer applies.
Ergo; voluntarism MAY be a RESULT of the Protestant Reformation, but the fundamental postulates could not have been what they may have inadvertently produced.

So, while I agree that Nominalism and Voluntarism are not the same thing (as the author tries to prove), and that Thomism was encouraged directly by several Reformers, as well as indirectly by others (Martin Luther once said: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason..."). I think that the ultimate conclusion falls short of the truth. The principles guiding the Reformation did not themselves (on the whole) encourage Voluntarism.

John Calvin, for instance, has been accused of total denial of philosophy. While it is true, that this reputation is rather well-earned, in another way, Calvin's consideration, knowledge, and use of philosophy in his own work refutes an obscurantist representation left by a surface-level reading.
A closer reading of Calvin's magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, along with his commentaries and treatises demonstrates that instead of denying the importance of philosophy, Calvin generally seeks to set philosophy in what he regards as its proper place.

In this sense, there is no need to "re-visit" Catholic Protestantism (or visit it in the first place), since the Reformers weren't attempting to pull away from Thomism. They had strong affinity with Aquinas, and in many respects, with Aristotle himself. However, I wholeheartedly agree that Fundamentalist Evangelicals need to re-evaluate their approach to Biblical Scholarship/intellectual discernment.

Galileo once said something to the effect of: 'I do not believe that the Creator who endowed us with the faculties of reason and intellect intended us to forgo their use.'

Worse & Worse?
Claiming the Promise of the Kingdom

Modern Evangelical America tells us that times for the Church are getting darker. They purport the message that things are getting worse and worse, and that soon, the End shall come, and the Antichrist shall rule (*let the lightning crash*).
The popular idea is that all is spiraling downward toward the final moment when the "Great Tribulation" shall come, and the church will be "raptured" away.

I'll bet some folks thought similarly, that things were getting grim for Christians on October 30th, 1517. However, the next day, a fellow named Martin Luther surprised them by nailing his 95 thesis to the door of the Castle Church.
Funny how - in the midst of all that darkness - he sparked a Reformation, shaking the whole of Chirstendom forever.

I'll bet some doom-n-gloom folks thought that things were nearing the end for the Protestants when George Wishart was tried by the Catholic Church and burned for "heresy."
Until this funny little fellow who had been following Wishart around, acting as his bodyguard (holding a double-bladed sword) decided to take up the cause and became a Protestant Minister. His name was John Knox.

American Evangelicals today are aggravated because their attempts to "evangalize" American culture have been frustrated. A lesson in History shows us that Christians in America and England felt a similar frustration in 1730.

As G. R. McDermott points out, "They, too, had failed to reform their societies after decades of political and social effort. Preaching endlessly for moral reformation elicited boredom and contempt; reducing standards for church membership brought in more people but few conversions; and political leaders paid lipservice to...religion while furthering the secularization of society."

Rough times? It was for Jonathan Edwards when he was refused admission to preach in a Northampton church. If Hal Lindsay had been there, he might have told us it was the end. Jonathan Edwards, however, stepped onto his Father's tombstone (yes, he really did) and began to preach.
Imagine it: standing there on the tombstone, the rain begins to fall, and two or three people passing stop to listen to this man speak. Is he drunk? They wonder. What is he doing out here in the graveyard? Then two or three more are motioned over. Someone pokes their head out of the church; Is that really John out there preaching?
His pages begin to curl in the rain, his clothes are soaked, his voice is muffled by thunder, but the crowd gathers...
Enter stage right: The Great Awakening.

So, the next time some premillenialist tells you that things are getting "worse and worse," or that evil is just a "sign of the times..."
Remember, that all it takes for things to go from worst to best, is a rainy place to speak. Perhaps an unknown follower. Or how about one little fellow with a hammer, a thesis, and a devotion to God?

Moment of Conversion
What Is Up With Modern Evangelicals?

The early to mid 1900's have seen an escalation of theological nuances which are either ridiculous, or truly heretical. Among these, we find the "importance" of issues such as Numerology, End-times "date" calculation, an unbelievable amount of codes and hidden cryptograms pointing to secret gospels or doctrines, and the one issue which has been bugging me the most: Point of Conversion Experiences.
I'd give you the Scriptural text for the basis of this "Conversion Experience," except that it doesn't exist.
Never (until the mid 1900's) do you find Orthodox Theologians advocating this sort of experiential situation. Even many more recent Theologians cannot point to their exact moment of conversion. For instance: C. S. Lewis tells us that he only knows that he left his home not believing that Christ was the Son of God, and arrived at his destination believing.
Point of conversion? Not sure, but Lewis affirms that he was definitely converted.
What about John Gill? At the age of twelve, Gill heard a sermon on the text, "And the Lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9). It was not until seven years later that young John made a public profession when he was almost nineteen years of age.
Point of conversion? Not sure, but Gill affirms that he was definitely converted.
What about Augustine of Hippo?
Hilary of Poitiers?
Basil the Great?
Clement of Alexandria?
Ignatius of Antioch?
Irenaeus of Lyons?
Justin Martyr?
For every one of them who has a story of conversion, there are one or two who have no story or experience which they can share.
And why? Because a conversion experience is not needful to truly be saved.
For instance: Sir Walter Scott writes to us that he can never recall a time in which he did not believe as he finally came to in his later years. We know this to be true of much of Scotland, since the Kirks were - at one time - bound together internally very tightly. The infrastructure of the Scottish Kirks has continued to astound economists to this day. (See: proftellsall.blogspot.com for an article on the subject.)
Thus, it stands to reason that Scott may not be able to recall a time at which he doubted the validity of the gospels, since he was taught them from his youth up.
What of the account of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch? Was the eunuch saved while he read Isaiah? When he desired some man to explain it to him? When Philip explained it? When he verbally affirmed his belief?
My own story is similar. As the son of a Minister, I was always (as far as I can recall) familiar with the gospels, and never doubted their validity.
I am not suggesting that I was always a Christian, not at all. Simply that I cannot point to a specific date and say, "here, I was converted."
In this sense, I think the Presbyterians like me, under the misconception that I endorse Covenant Salvation.
But the idea is actually this:
Can I testify of the exact moment of my salvation? No.
Can I testify that I am indeed saved, and affirm all that is true according to the Scriptures? Yes.
Is it required by Scripture that I provide this exact date or moment? Not at all.
Ultimately, the requirement is not a Roman's Road outline, nor is it an evangelical outburst of emotion. It is not a "moment" of salvation, nor is it a whispered prayer at an altar.
It is an inworking of redemptive grace from the Father. It is a work which He alone can do.

The Reasoning of Evangelical America

I'll admit it upfront: I am not what we might consider a modern "evangelical." This means that you probably won't find me pounding on your door on any given day, to instruct you to pray the Roman's Road Prayer. (Doesn't mean, however, that I don't believe in being a witness.)
The situation in my mind is - however - one that concerns the inconsistencies in Evangelical Theology. The problem lies when they try to cross over from (abstract) Theology into (corporeal) Practicality.
Here's a for-instance or two...

Evangelical: "Jesus is coming soon."
Me: "Bet you invested in your company 401k."

Evangelical: "The end is near."
Me: "Planning for your child's college? Bet so."

Evangelical: "The Signs of the Times are everywhere. We should be ready."
Me: "Been out to eat lately?"

Evangelical: "He is at hand!"
Me: "Re-roofing your house, eh?"

In otherwords - The Premillenialist philosophy (theology) says one thing, and practically, they do another; because it simply wouldn't be reasonable or comfortable to live as if tomorrow, the Antichrist were coming.
My temptation was to stop writing here...to leave the hypocrisy splayed wide open, and point the righteous finger at the Evangelical world, however, I would not be doing my duty as an honest theologian if I did.
Therefore I must confess that the hypocrisy is not one-sided. Amillinial proponents (as well as us Posts) often run a-foul of this sort of hypocrisy as well.
In our case, it is the reverse:

We say: "Usher in the Kingdom."
Problem: We live like Premillenialists.

We say: "The Golden Age is dawning."
Problem: We could care less about Dominion.

Ultimately, the situation looks like this: The Premils ought to either act on their end-times doom and gloom, or change their theology to match ours.
And we ought to either change our theology (which we shouldn't), or we ought to begin to live with Dominion in mind. This means taking a fresh look at how we live, how we work, how (and why) we water our yards and rake our leaves.

The Scriptures say: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion..."
We say: "It's time to get to work."