Thomas Aquinas

Great Thinkers

by K. Scott Oliphint, Michael A.G. Haykin (Foreword)

"The prince and master of all Scholastic doctors," Thomas Aquinas has profoundly impacted thinkers both inside and outside the Roman Catholic Church for more than eight hundred years.

Scott Oliphint's unique study focuses on Aquinas's dualistic approach to the natural and revealed knowledge of God and his use of Aristotelian metaphysics. Oliphint provides a response to this methodology in the context of historic Reformed thought and the doctrines of revelation and Scripture.

Pastors, theologians, philosophers, and students will benefit from Oliphint's clear, precise, and succinct analysis—as well as from his forceful critique.

Genres: Philosophy, Biography

168 pages, Paperback

Published November 30, 2017

About the author

Dr. K. Scott Oliphint Is professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is a graduate of West Texas State University (B.A., 1978) and Westminster (M.A.R., 1983; Th.M, 1984; Ph.D., 1994). An ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Dr. Oliphint served in pastoral ministry in Texas before coming to Westminster in 1991. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith; Reasons For Faith; Revelation and Reason; "Epistemology and Christian Belief," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2001); "Something Much Too Plain to Say," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2006).

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oliphint, K. Scott. Thomas Aquinas. Presbyterian & Reformed.

P&R’s Great Thinkers Series has many excellent books in them. This is not one of them. Strangely enough, despite its many errors, it is worth getting. It is relatively inexpensive and is filled with numerous passages from Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. That is why you should get this book. You should also read Richard Muller’s critique of this book as you work through it.

I do not want to give a point-by-point analysis, since such analyses tend to turn into essays. I will simply state Oliphint’s reading of Aquinas in light of the current discussions of Aquinas. In conclusion, I will call attention to some problematic areas of Oliphint’s thought.

Pros

In terms of clarity, it is well-written and can be read in a few sittings. Even if Oliphint gets most of his subject wrong, at least he introduces readers to Aquinas, provided they move on to better sources. Oliphint also has several other strengths. He is aware of the thorny problems that modal logic and analytic philosophy have raised for metaphysics. Indeed, he has capitalized on them elsewhere (cf. Reasons for Faith).

Introduction

To his credit, Oliphint makes it clear there can be no rapprochement between the Reformation and Thomism: “significant aspects of Thomas’s thought…cannot be incorporated” into Reformed theology (Oliphint 22). That is ominous, but we quickly move to better material: the distinction between the principle of existence and the principle of knowledge. He ends the chapter with a summary of Aquinas’s life.

The Foundation of Knowledge

Oliphint reads Thomas as saying that natural reason provides the structure of knowledge upon which special revelation provides the superstructure. Is that a fair reading of Thomas? Maybe. Muller has criticized Oliphint’s reading of the Praeambula Fidei. The reader can judge who is correct.

Oliphint has a long section on Aquinas’s reading of John 1:9 and whether God’s existence is self-evident. The best thing to do is simply read Richard Muller’s critique of this section.

Metaphysics

Oliphint has a very good section on metaphysics–not necessarily Thomas’s metaphysics, for I do not think he is a good reader of Thomas, but on modal metaphysics. Ironically, Oliphint came very close to some important discussions the Reformed Scotists of the Utrecht School have on freedom and necessity. For Oliphint, following, of all people, Muller, there is the necessity of the consequence, which is a hypothetical necessity, and the necessity of the consequent thing, an absolute necessity. For the former, a condition can be attached to it and it will still remain a necessity. This move, which Oliphint understandably cannot develop here, offers some fascinating suggestions for free human choices.

What does the above have to do with Thomas Aquinas? I do not know. It was a worthwhile section, though.

Criticisms

Oliphint’s section on Aquinas’s doctrine of simplicity was like a small cloud the size of a man’s hand. Whether one thinks he did a good job here, these were the views that would later get him in trouble–and not just from Thomists. On another note, he called the Luis de Molina a Thomist. I…um…yeah, I got nothing.

Conclusion

This volume will remain a black mark on this series. That is unfortunate. If you want a decent exposition of Thomas’s thought, do no get a Van Tillian to write it. By the same standard, I cannot be trusted to write a sympathetic survey of Van Tillianism, and no publisher should ask me to do that.

[David Haines · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have never read a book so filled with errors, based on obvious misreadings and misunderstandings, about the thought of 1 single thinker. This book is only worth having as an example of how not to write an introduction to the thought of Thomas Aquinas. I will be writing more about this book in later writings.

[Jimmy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first book in the Great Thinkers series published by Presbyterian and Reformed. It is written by Christian theologian and apologist K. Scott Oliphint in which he examines and critiques the thought of medieval philosopher and apologist Thomas Aquinas. In this series introduction Nathan Shannon tells us the threefold goal for each volume in the series: First it is intended to be academically informed. Second it seeks to maintain a high standard of biblical and theological faithfulness. Third the series aim is to be accessible for readers without unnecessary difficult jargons and vocabulary.


It would be of course impossible to cover all of Aquinas’ theology in a work that is a 168 pages. As the author made it clear in the beginning of the introduction Aquinas composed over sixty works during his short lifetime and these included multi-volume sets. Instead given the task at hand this work has the modest goal of looking at two specific area of Thomas’s thought: the first being Aquinas view of the knowledge of God and second being Aquinas view of God. These two areas are covered in chapter two and three respectively while the first chapter served as an introduction to Aquinas. I thought Oliphint was wise in covering these two areas as these are foundational in shaping the rest of Aquinas’ theological and philosophical method and readers get a better grasp of Aquinas’ methodology. Of these chapters the longest was chapter three in which the chapter was nearly half of the book. The chapter covered a lot of ground looking at both Aquinas’s arguments for the existence of God and also what his actual view of God was.

I learned a lot from this work. Each chapter was jam packed with information and food for thought. In the beginning of chapter two Oliphint gave a good presentation and critique of Thomas’ particular idea of what is self-evidencing and also Aquinas’ rejection of the knowledge of God being self-evidencing. It always baffles me when apologists don’t take into account Romans 1 in how they pursue apologetics, theology and philosophy; likewise as Oliphint demonstrated Aquinas was weak as an exegete with other passages of Scripture and he pretty much neglected Romans 1 and its implications.

I enjoyed the discussion of Aquinas’ epistemology in reciprocal relationship with his metaphysics. I enjoyed this since those who are epistemologically conscious would know that the two fields are inter-related and that they both shape one another. The inter-relationship of metaphysics and epistemology is not a popular theme today given our age’s overall dislike of metaphysics but this was an important theme of Cornelius Van Til, who was the father of Presuppositional Apologetics and the author’s mentor. Oliphint in the book also noted Thomas’ own foundationalism although he stated that this is to be understood differently than modern foundationalism.

There were also things that I assumed about Aquinas that the book corrected me on. For instance I always thought Aquinas believed in two different modes of knowledge but the work mentioned that lesser known is Aquinas’ third way of knowing. This third way of knowing is more obscure and indirect and is somewhat ambigious and wasn’t viewed as highly by Aquinas, hence he talked more about the other two way of knowing truth about God. The book also confirmed somethings that I have read in secondary sources about Aquinas but would like to see a quote directly from Aquinas concerning his view. Here I appreciated that Oliphint quoted Aquinas to show his view of faith presupposes natural knowledge and also grace presupposes nature, etc.

What I most enjoyed about this book is Oliphint’s critique of Aquinas. I thought Oliphint did a good job showing how Aquinas improperly interpreted and misapplied John 1:9 in order to justify his epistemology. Some of his critique also gave good examination of the philosophical assumptions such as that of Aquinas’ five ways of knowing God’s existence.

In light of the recent discussion about God’s divine simplicity and the role of Aquinas’ dependence on Aristotle and the theological method of scholasticism this work would be a welcome contribution to the discussion as Oliphint spends a lengthy portion on divine simplicity since this is one of Aquinas’ important doctrine that he holds to. This work critiques Aquinas’ version of divine simplicity and argues for something more faithful to a biblical view of divine simplicity. The latter portion of chapter three’s discussion of divine simplicity is probably the most rigorous and difficult part of the book.

Overall I recommend this book although I think the book could have avoided a little more technical jargon which was one of the stated intent of this series. I realize that sometimes certain terminology is unavoidable but I can’t help but to wonder if Oliphint enjoys quoting Latin phrases a little too much even from his other writings. There is a glossary at the end of the book which is helpful.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reformed critique of Aquinas

This is a great example of biblical exegesis in a robust assessment of a great thinker. This is very clear from a reformed perspective. A valuable and at times sympathetic assessment as well. Great series.

[Sam Nesbitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

In his installment into Presbyterian and Reformed’s Great Thinkers series, K. Scott Oliphint writes a critical introduction to Thomas Aquinas’s doctrines of knowledge and existence. More specifically, Oliphint seeks to not only introduce Thomas’s understanding of the relationship between reason and faith, philosophy and theology, and Thomas’s doctrine of God’s existence as a supreme, simple being, but also to critique Thomas’s position from a Reformed, biblical perspective, especially as understood by the thought of Cornelius Van Til.

First, Oliphint summarizes Thomas’s position for both major doctrines. Importantly, Oliphint finds one particular interpretation of Thomas’s thought to be correct as opposed to others, namely the so-called traditional position that Thomas’s praeambula fidei are governed by a philosophically neutral reasoning process, on which theological reasoning is built upon. This process of natural reasoning is especially seen in Thomas’s five ways (i.e., traditionally interpreted arguments or proofs for the existence of God). This natural reasoning approach, moreover, poses major difficulties for later theological doctrines, such as the simplicity of God. If attempting to articulate and defend the simplicity of God solely in the categories of natural reason, one simply does not have the methods to consistently maintain the orthodox doctrine of simplicity. In order to do so, argues Oliphint, one needs to appeal to divine revelation, which is in turn to deny the methodology of natural reason. In Oliphint’s critical judgment, therefore, Thomas’s understanding of the relationship between essence and existence, the analogy of being, and the methodology of Thomas’s theology all point to an uncritical reliance upon Aristotelian categories. Ultimately, Thomas’s theology is intrinsically fractured by “two ultimately incompatible principia – the neutrality of natural reason, on the one hand, and the truth of God’s revelation, on the other” (126). Thomas Aquinas, therefore, poses more as a danger to proper theological and apologetic method for a properly biblical position, which is best articulated within the Reformed tradition.

It is widely known that this volume is controversial in its interpretation of Thomas. The following section of this review will therefore incorporate an essential review of the book, namely Richard Muller’s review essay. Before getting into critiques, I will first list some of the stronger elements of the book.

First, the book is very readable and actually presents some of the more difficult concepts in relatively clear writing. Not all sections are equally comprehensible, but Oliphint does overall a good job at rearticulating difficult concepts so as to best help the reader understand what he is exactly arguing.

Second, the book’s more systematic arguments can be appreciated and agreed with. For example, Oliphint’s discussion on apologetic methodology, wherein he provides a dialogue between a humanist and a Thomistic Christian, generally exemplifies the problematic tendencies of apologetic methodologies that allow the unbeliever’s criteria of rationality to go unchallenged. Whether this discussion is properly connected to Thomas, however, is another question. Additionally, although some of the details may be problematic, as Muller points out, one can generally appreciate how the doctrine of the Trinity impacts the doctrine of simplicity as Oliphint argues.

Third, although it is not the purpose of this book, the reader is introduced to important discussions in theological and apologetic methodology and the doctrine of God. This is especially seen in Oliphint's interactions with Alvin Plantinga and Eleanore Stump.

Now, as for critical matters we can first utilize Muller’s essay. Muller makes it abundantly clear that Oliphint’s historical methodology is majorly wanting. Muller makes several observations, including that Oliphint insufficiently develops the state of the question regarding Thomistic doctrine, especially seen in his not only overreliance upon McIrney, but also in his selective use of McIrney who has written points that work against Oliphint’s arguments. In a similar vein, Muller points out that Oliphint seems to conveniently overlook points in Thomas’s writings that work against his thesis, especially as it pertains to Thomas’s understanding of reason and revelation.

In addition to historiographical criticisms, Muller takes Oliphint to task in many of his interpretations of Thomas, such as how the principle of analogy relates to essence and existence, and how the preambles to faith ought to be read in the context of the Summa. Some of Muller’s broader criticisms toward Oliphint and Van Til, however, are not as strong as his others, but this is also due largely to Oliphint. Unfortunately, Oliphint utilizes Van Tillian categories and concepts without fully articulating all of the qualifications needed to best understand the nature of the Van Tillian position as a whole. This is most likely due to space restrictions, but this is seen primarily in his invocation of the ontological Trinity and in his claim that the unbeliever can have no true knowledge of God. Muller makes the common objection to Oliphint’s appeal to the ontological Trinity that contends Oliphint is conflating metaphysics and epistemology here. For Van Til, however, the ontological Trinity is a thoroughly epistemological doctrine, despite its name, so Oliphint’s failure to explain this makes Muller's objection easy to make. For Oliphint’s claim that unbelievers know nothing true about God, this true insofar as one is emphasizing Van Til’s understanding of antithesis as informed by Romans 1:19–23. But two crucial qualifications that also come from Van Til are his understanding of common grace and the principle-practice distinction. The unbeliever, in one sense, knows true things about God, not only in the sense of ethical repression and epistemological self-deception, but also in a formal or superficial sense, that God is a Creator or that God is all-powerful. The latter insights come not only from general revelation, but also common grace, even though these claims by the unbeliever may be ultimately insufficient or unwarranted from his own epistemological principles or worldview. Additionally, what is means for the believer and unbeliever to know something is a loaded question for Van Til as well, and can be easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. Because of this, Oliphint’s quick appeal to Van Tillian concepts and categories makes his arguments liable to easy critique.

We can conclude with a couple general observations concerning this work and Muller’s response. First, I think a deep issue in Oliphint’s interpretation of Thomas is that Oliphint reads post-Kantian categories into per-Kantian figures. Muller does not state this point with these words, but he essentially makes the same point in his review. This is significant, however, because a similar error is made by critics of Van Til, namely that critics often read pre-Kantian tendencies and expectations into the post-Kantian thought of Van Til. Many objections and impasses would be avoided if these lines of continuity and discontinuity were kept in mind.

Second, Van Tillians ought to concede that Van Til at least was critiquing a particular reception of Thomas in a Neo-Thomist context and then wrongly attributed this directly to Thomas. In particular, Van Tillians should not argue that Thomas uncritically appropriated Aristotle to the extent of corrupting his entire Christian theology. This concession is not a defeat, however, for the same exact argument is made from Van Til’s critics except in terms of idealism. Van Til argues that Thomas corrupted his theology by utilizing concepts, categories, and principles that derive from Aristotelianism. Van Til’s critics argue that Van Til corrupted his theology by utilizing concepts, categories, and principles that derive from idealism. Both sides ought to recognize that by utilizing the same argument towards each other, they are actually working against their own position. Instead, the argument itself ought to be removed from both sides, unless the position can be exhaustively demonstrated, whether for Van Til or Thomas, which seems unlikely, if not impossible.

Third, Muller’s critique of Oliphint’s misreading of Thomas’s understanding of natural reason possesses a certain level of irony in that if it is the case that natural reason functions within the realm of sacra doctrina, then this would seem to implicitly affirm the deeper philosophical and theological argument from Van Til concerning the role of faith and presuppositions on epistemology in general. The historical critique, therefore, seems to give leverage to Van Til’s more important systematic and apologetic position.

In the end, the most devastating critique against this book is that it is a book that claims to be about Thomas Aquinas, but it simply is not. It is a book not only critiquing a particular interpretation of a particular reception of Thomas, but also this particular interpretation has not gone unchallenged by fellow Thomists. Because of this, Oliphint can come off as misinformed at best and misleading at worst. Muller’s critical review is helpful in pointing out historical and historiographical errors, but he can also make too broad claims concerning Van Tillianism as well. Where more work needs to be done is on how Thomas has been interpreted amongst the Neo-Thomists and how Neo-Thomism was received and understood in Reformed contexts. This kind of study would be fruitful not only for further understanding the reception of Thomas’s thought, but also for current debates surrounding Van Til and his critique of Thomas.

[Benjamin Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oliphint is definitely right that Aquinas is too influenced by Aristotle in his epistemology, particularly in the peripatetic axiom and in his view of the power of natural reason to understand God. Scripture should be our final authority in defining God. But I think he still underestimates how helpful Aquinas can be once a proper principium cognoscendi is put in place. Particularly in Aquinas' 5 proofs as well as his doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Seeing scripture as our final authority does not imply that philosophers such as Aristotle are wrong in various metaphysical insights such as act and potency or the distinction between essence and existence. It seems odd to me that Oliphint recognizes the common grace extended to the minds of man, yet seems to deny that natural man can be enabled by common grace to have true insights about the nature of reality and God (Though he doesn't deny this explicitly).

The God that Aristotle describes certainly is not the God of the Bible, but there are some aspects of the God He describes that comport with the Biblical description (His unity, eternality, omnipotence etc). But in terms of the edification of the Church and building up the Body of Christ, this work does no harm and is largely helpful, even if it is too cautious. Also, I'd recommend reading Coppleston's summary as an introduction to Aquinas' thought before reading this, especially since Oliphint does not discuss the ethics of Aquinas.

[Tyler Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

I gave this book a 3 star review not because of any shortcoming in Oliphant's thoughts or writing. It simply was a little misleading of a title. I was expecting an laymen's introduction to Thomistic thought and Thomas' life. This book drops you in the deep end of philosophical debate and quantum metaphysics and latin jargon. Oliphant's critique is masterful and does a wonderful job exposing Aquinas' principia and demonstrating how his incorrect starting place led to so such un-Christian conclusions.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oliphant provides another solid volume in this series. His covenantal apologetic approach offers a great perspective through which to view Thomist error, specifically his position on the neutrality of reason.
ARC provided.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an introductory work

This book requires some prior exposure to Thomas. Ali’s—whether you agree or disagree with him—some exposure to the writings of Cornelius Van Til would be helpful.

[Erik Anderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as “introductory” as I would like. More technical in places then felt necessary given the aim of the book. But solid and ultimately helpful in arguing for a reformed foundation of revelation over against pure natural reason.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some dense wading into Thomistic debates, but overall a helpful critique of Thomas' thought in two key areas: his epistemology, and his doctrine of God. In each case, Oliphint demonstrates how Thomas' system has foundational flaws.

[Timothy Dragan · Rating 1 out of 5]

All I can really say is that I was left extremely disappointed at an extremely poor attempt to introduce and discuss Thomas Aquinas' thought. I was surprised the publishers even gave the go ahead on it. All that was displayed was Oliphint's misunderstanding of Aquinas based on the same reason why Aquinas continues to be misunderstood among Protestants since the 20th century––Cornelius Van Til's writings on Aquinas.

I was going to write a review until I came across Richard Muller's review of Oliphint's Thomas Aquinas. I found it so well written, that I did not see the need to rewrite my own review which would have pointed out the same things. So I will simply quote two parts and provide links to Muller's review.

Here Muller points out a great irony:
"'If we begin with biblical revelation, however (something that Thomas's natural theology cannot do) we can begin with, instead of the categories of esse and id quod est, the one essence of God as three hypostases, or subsistences. In other words, we can begin, contrary to Aquinas, with the ontological Trinity. With these biblical categories in view, we are able to affirm both that God's essence is who he is and that there is no possibility that he could be otherwise, and that each of the three subsistences can and does act as that one essence (p. 109).'

Pace Oliphint, distinction between essentia and subsistentia is not directly given in biblical revelation. It took the church more than three centuries after the close of the canon to arrive at this terminological solution to the problem of divine triunity. Aquinas, moreover, both confesses the doctrine and meditates at length on the issue of one essence in three subistences or hypostases. It is not clear why the post-biblical distinction between essence and subsistence, as used to explain the biblical issue that God is One and is also Father, Son, and Spirit, is any more "biblical" than the distinction between esse and id quod est, as used to explain the biblical point that God is Who He is."

And conclusion:
"There are, in sum, several fundamental problems with Oliphint's work on Aquinas that stand in the way of the book serving a useful purpose. The first of these problems is simply that Oliphint's argumentation evidences major misreadings and misunderstandings of the thought of Thomas Aquinas on such issues as the relation of reason and revelation, the noetic effects of sin, the praeambula fidei, the analogia entis, the nature and character of the proofs of the existence of God, and the relation of the doctrine of divine simplicity to the doctrine of the Trinity. The second, related problem is that his argumentation rests largely on the thought of Cornelius Van Til, who by no stretch of the imagination can be viewed as a competent analyst of the thought of Aquinas. The end-result of their readings is a mangled interpretation of Aquinas that impedes genuine access to his thought and actually stands in the way of legitimate interpretation. Third, inasmuch as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Reformed Orthodoxy in general are largely in agreement with Aquinas on issues of epistemology, natural theology, doctrine of God, and, indeed, apologetics, Oliphint's and Van Til's views at best stand at the margin of what can be called Reformed and, at worst, create a kind of sectarian theology and philosophy that is out of accord with the older Reformed tradition and its confessions."

Part 1: https://www.reformation21.org/article...
Part 2: https://www.reformation21.org/article...
Part 3: https://www.reformation21.org/feature...