What do you think?
Rate this book
Saving Natural Theology from Thomas Aquinas
In this much-anticipated follow-up to The Failure of Natural Theology, Jeffrey D. Johnson seeks to separate the reality of natural theology from the Greek philosophy-laden counterfeit advanced by Thomas Aquinas and others.
Johnson endeavors to show how classical apologetics became tainted with the introduction of Greek philosophy. Though Aquinas was not the first to seek to syncretize the pantheistic notions flowing out of Athens with the ontologically distinct and self-contained God who personally revealed himself in Jerusalem, he is one of the most influential and well-known perpetrators of this school of thought. He and pagan philosophers throughout the ages have suppressed, twisted, and perverted what has been communicated in natural revelation. They rejected what they knew in their hearts by attempting to formulate their own explanation of God and instead created an abstract being that is not the personal caretaker and judge of the universe. Such a god is not the God of natural revelation, and in fact, is no God at all.
Thus, in this short treatise, Johnson presents the problems in Aquinas's version of natural theology. He not only explains why Greek philosophy is unsavable but also points to the apostle Paul's rejection of it. Finally, he discusses various Reformers who have rejected Aquinas's natural theology.
Ultimately, Johnson shows that if natural theology can be saved (and he believes it can be), it must be saved from Thomas Aquinas.
Johnson endeavors to show how classical apologetics became tainted with the introduction of Greek philosophy. Though Aquinas was not the first to seek to syncretize the pantheistic notions flowing out of Athens with the ontologically distinct and self-contained God who personally revealed himself in Jerusalem, he is one of the most influential and well-known perpetrators of this school of thought. He and pagan philosophers throughout the ages have suppressed, twisted, and perverted what has been communicated in natural revelation. They rejected what they knew in their hearts by attempting to formulate their own explanation of God and instead created an abstract being that is not the personal caretaker and judge of the universe. Such a god is not the God of natural revelation, and in fact, is no God at all.
Thus, in this short treatise, Johnson presents the problems in Aquinas's version of natural theology. He not only explains why Greek philosophy is unsavable but also points to the apostle Paul's rejection of it. Finally, he discusses various Reformers who have rejected Aquinas's natural theology.
Ultimately, Johnson shows that if natural theology can be saved (and he believes it can be), it must be saved from Thomas Aquinas.
- GenresTheologyPhilosophy
63 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 17, 2021
7 people are currently reading
34 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey D. Johnson
30 books68 followersJeff is the author of several Christian books, including the Amazon #1 Bestseller, The Church: Why Bother?
He is pastor/teacher of Grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas, a community where he also resides with his wife Letha and their two sons, Martyn and Christian.
Jeff graduated from Central Baptist College in Bible and earned his M. Rel. in Biblical Studies. He earned his Th.D in Systematics from Veritas Theological Seminary.
Along with his pastoral and publishing ministry, Jeff is a sought-after conference speaker and contributes regularly to the Reformed Baptist Blog.
He is pastor/teacher of Grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas, a community where he also resides with his wife Letha and their two sons, Martyn and Christian.
Jeff graduated from Central Baptist College in Bible and earned his M. Rel. in Biblical Studies. He earned his Th.D in Systematics from Veritas Theological Seminary.
Along with his pastoral and publishing ministry, Jeff is a sought-after conference speaker and contributes regularly to the Reformed Baptist Blog.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 10, 2022
A much-needed primer on Thomas Aquinas.
March 8, 2022
A helpful and basic introduction on the dangers of incorporating Greek philosophy in biblical theology. A lot of good primer material to do your own digging outside of this little book, especially the last chapter on theologians who rejected Aquainas’s natural theology. If your presuppositional and not tied completely down to systematics, the thesis makes sense and is extremely important. I plan on reading Johnson’s main work “The Failure of Natural Theology” to do more digging.
March 10, 2022
Great follow up to his previous book.
January 21, 2024
Firstly, Johnson is very close friends with Owen Strachan, which slashes his credibility.
He does a good job explaining Aristotle's Metaphysics but he does not do a good job explaining how Aquinas takes all of Aristotle's Metaphysics into his theology. His main argument rests on Aquinas' use of the term "unmoved mover" but he does not understand how Aquinas uses the term "unmoved mover."
In Aquinas' writing, the term "unmoved mover" is used as God as having no one above Him to move him, that God is the uncaused first cause. Aquinas also refers to the unmoved mover as the Prime Mover, whereas Aristotle refers to his god as the final mover.
He also tries to use multiple quotes from Luther, Calvin, Owen, Melancthon, Zwingli and others, to try to say Thomas is bad but Thomas is not mentioned at all in any of their quotes going against Scholasticism. Those quotes, when understood in their proper context, affirm against late medieval scholasticism, as in, what came after Aquinas for the next 300 years. But no, they do not apply to Aquinas.
Thomism is more than fair game to critique but if it is going to be critiqued, it needs to be done better than this.
He does a good job explaining Aristotle's Metaphysics but he does not do a good job explaining how Aquinas takes all of Aristotle's Metaphysics into his theology. His main argument rests on Aquinas' use of the term "unmoved mover" but he does not understand how Aquinas uses the term "unmoved mover."
In Aquinas' writing, the term "unmoved mover" is used as God as having no one above Him to move him, that God is the uncaused first cause. Aquinas also refers to the unmoved mover as the Prime Mover, whereas Aristotle refers to his god as the final mover.
He also tries to use multiple quotes from Luther, Calvin, Owen, Melancthon, Zwingli and others, to try to say Thomas is bad but Thomas is not mentioned at all in any of their quotes going against Scholasticism. Those quotes, when understood in their proper context, affirm against late medieval scholasticism, as in, what came after Aquinas for the next 300 years. But no, they do not apply to Aquinas.
Thomism is more than fair game to critique but if it is going to be critiqued, it needs to be done better than this.
December 29, 2021
Natural theology has been a highly discussed topic as of late, and this book couldn’t have come at a better time. I was very impressed with how the author dealt with the topic at hand. This book was hard to put down and it was hard not to constantly highlight things that I was reading. The author in this book deals with the problems of natural theology through its foundation, scripture, and church history and he presents a very well-thought-out case. Now, this isn’t to say that he full outright rejects natural theology but the author shows that if natural theology is argued from a Thomas Aquinas perspective then it's ultimately a failure. I think this book will open a lot of eyes and I think this book is necessary to understand the debate that is taking place today in regards to natural theology.
December 24, 2021
This short book is a helpful guide to the major issues with natural theology. Johnson does a fantastic job of illustrating what nature can reveal to creatures about God, and articulates well how natural revelation cannot lead to salvation despite what Aquinas taught. A great and short read.
April 15, 2023
Similar to Johnson's previous book on "Natural Theology" this book is very bad and deceitful. This book is not a safe guide to the topic and significantly is not an accurate representation of the other individuals who's positions are mentioned.
In terms of his principles Johnson builds a lot on his insistence that all "natural revelation is immediate" Johnson believes that nothing God reveals in nature is to be deduced, rather we must know it all instantly. He presents no exegesis for this point rather he uses 3 quotes, one from Beeke & Smalley, one from Bavinck and one from Calvin - I don't have Beeke and Smalley but neither Bavinck nor Calvin meant what Johnson uses them for. Removing this point the rest of Johnson's case collapses.
But the stand out issue is the dishonesty the misuse of Calvin and Bavinck on the above point is an important example but there are many more. Towards the end of the book Johnson lists out numerous theologians who apparently join him in rejecting all greek philosophy, those familiar with the works of these theologians will know Johnson is wrong. To demonstrate his dishonesty, here is one example on pages 44-47 of Turretin's Institues of Elenctic theology Turretin argues that theology should use philosophy, as part of his argument he responds to objections and seeks to guard against misuse of philosophy. Paragraph 4 of this argument is as follows, I have put in bold the part that Johnson quotes to "prove" that Turretin rejected greek philosophy:
"Philosophy is used either properly and in the abstract for the knowledge of things human and divine (as far as they can be known by the light of nature), or improperly and in the concrete for a collection of various opinions at variance with each other (which the philosophers of different sects held). In this latter sense, we acknowledge that ,it contains many errors and that it is of no use but of the greatest harm. Thus Paul condemns it (Col. 2:8). But in the former sense, its uses are many. In passing, we give only the more general."
In terms of his principles Johnson builds a lot on his insistence that all "natural revelation is immediate" Johnson believes that nothing God reveals in nature is to be deduced, rather we must know it all instantly. He presents no exegesis for this point rather he uses 3 quotes, one from Beeke & Smalley, one from Bavinck and one from Calvin - I don't have Beeke and Smalley but neither Bavinck nor Calvin meant what Johnson uses them for. Removing this point the rest of Johnson's case collapses.
But the stand out issue is the dishonesty the misuse of Calvin and Bavinck on the above point is an important example but there are many more. Towards the end of the book Johnson lists out numerous theologians who apparently join him in rejecting all greek philosophy, those familiar with the works of these theologians will know Johnson is wrong. To demonstrate his dishonesty, here is one example on pages 44-47 of Turretin's Institues of Elenctic theology Turretin argues that theology should use philosophy, as part of his argument he responds to objections and seeks to guard against misuse of philosophy. Paragraph 4 of this argument is as follows, I have put in bold the part that Johnson quotes to "prove" that Turretin rejected greek philosophy:
"Philosophy is used either properly and in the abstract for the knowledge of things human and divine (as far as they can be known by the light of nature), or improperly and in the concrete for a collection of various opinions at variance with each other (which the philosophers of different sects held). In this latter sense, we acknowledge that ,it contains many errors and that it is of no use but of the greatest harm. Thus Paul condemns it (Col. 2:8). But in the former sense, its uses are many. In passing, we give only the more general."
January 31, 2022
This is a super short read. Johnson, a reformed presuppositionalist and fellow 1689’r, highlights some of the controversy surrounding Aquinas’ use of natural theology. Unfortunately, I think there are way too many quotes from secondary sources than from primary sources, and given the entire body of work produced by Aquinas, I would’ve like to have seen more interaction as well as historical context in this work. This work seemed a bit repetitious of quickly drawn conclusions and witty quips, such as “Aquinas looked to a pagan philosopher rather than looking to God.” This short work is not a closer and in depth look into Aquinas’ full perspective on this issue, nor does Johnson address how and why many of the Reformers were positively helped by Aquinas’ thinking.
JV Fesko’s “Reforming Apologetics” in my opinion does more justice in addressing the controversies and his book strikes a different chord and conclusion.
At the same time, Johnson does highlight another one of his works, “The failure of natural theology” which is a critical appraisal of the philosophical theology of Aquinas. I’ve not read that to know whether there is more interaction with Aquinas’ sources.
Overall, short and easy read. This work will introduce the reader to the disagreements surrounding Aquinas and his construction of natural theology. It definitely should not be the first and final book in the reader’s quest to fully understand the issues surrounding Aquinas’ influence on natural theology.
JV Fesko’s “Reforming Apologetics” in my opinion does more justice in addressing the controversies and his book strikes a different chord and conclusion.
At the same time, Johnson does highlight another one of his works, “The failure of natural theology” which is a critical appraisal of the philosophical theology of Aquinas. I’ve not read that to know whether there is more interaction with Aquinas’ sources.
Overall, short and easy read. This work will introduce the reader to the disagreements surrounding Aquinas and his construction of natural theology. It definitely should not be the first and final book in the reader’s quest to fully understand the issues surrounding Aquinas’ influence on natural theology.
Read
February 20, 2022Johnson seeks to make a distinction between a natural theology based on natural revelation rather than natural science, which he claims is done by Greek philosophy and later scholastic philosophers. One big question I kept having throughout is: if natural science conclusions of the created order are true, what is that other than natural revelation? Or another way to ask this, what is natural revelation if it is not what we observe to be true of the created world?
Very confusing, bizarre thesis.
Very confusing, bizarre thesis.
January 8, 2024
This book greatly clarifies Johnsons’s previous book about natural theology
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews