Customer Reviews

Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Some may pass over Aquinas because he is the "Angelic Doctor" of the Catholic Church, but his philosophy is indispensable to Protestants as well when contemplating biblical inerrancy, the nature of evil, and the relationship between free will and grace. Geisler's book is the best introduction I could find, clearer than Chesterton's and less dense than Gilson's (though both are also indispensable).

The phrase "Should Old Aquinas Be Forgot" graces the the cover of Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, by Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, c. 1991). The author's a prolific (more than 30 books), controversial (one of my friends gets hypertension at the sound of Geisler's name), peripatetic (every time I hear of him he's affiliated with yet another school of some sort) scholar who resides somewhere on the fundamentalist fringes (he's a graduate and one-time faculty member of Dallas Theological Seminary) of Evangelicalism! Yet however one regards him, Geisler's a brilliant guy whose work's worth considering.
Quite honestly, I mention Geisler's work on St. Thomas not for its intrinsic worth but for the mere fact someone like him would write it. Better studies of Thomas Aquinas have been written. (If you're curious consult works by Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Josef Pieper, M.-D. Chenu, or (best of all) G.K. Chesterton). Geisler's study of Thomas deals adequately with the subject, though more in the fashion of a professor's lecture notes than a fully-digested exposition. But what interests me is the harmony Geisler finds between St. Thomas and the kind of American "evangelicalism" he and R.C. Sproul represent. Sproul, incidentally, says of Geisler's work: "This is 'must reading' for every thinking Christian. I am thrilled by this careful analysis of St. Thomas."
Geisler glances at a whole host of American evangelicals who have disparaged Aquinas and finds them largely ill-informed and off-target in their criticism. I thoroughly agree: statements by the likes of Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer, and Arthur Nash illustrate some fundamental misunderstandings of "The Angelic Doctor." I always wondered, when reading some of Francis Schaeffer's assaults on Aquinas years ago, if he'd actually read him or was just using some of his seminary professors' lecture caricatures as the final word on St.Thomas. A hardy handful of evangelicals, Geisler says, "a strong but too often silent minority [e.g. John H. Gerstner, Arvin Vos, R.C. Sproul] among us who are directly dependent upon Aquinas for our basic theology, philosophy, and/or apologetics" (p. 14), must more openly espouse Aquinas' views. In this they obviously imitate C.S. Lewis, finding Aquinas a fertile field for healthy theological vineyards.
Geisler argues there are eight contributions Aquinas can make today. "First, Aquinas's view of nature and interpretation of Scripture is helpful in the current debate on inerrancy and hermeneutics" (p. 21). A Fundamentalist Aquinas is not, but he has a lofty appreciation for Scripture's divine inspiration. "Second, Aquinas can help us build a solid theistic basis for doing historical apologetics" (p. 21). "Third, Aquinas, can provide a philosoph¬ical answer to the growing influence of the finite god of process theology" (p. 21). "Fourth, Thomistic analogy seems to be the only adequate answer to the problem of religious language" (p. 22). We must refer to God either univocally, equivocally, or analogically, and the final option is the only one suitable for Christian theology. "Fifth, the value of Aquinas in over¬coming the separation of the God of reason and revelation" (p. 22) cannot be ignored. "Sixth, Aquinas makes a major contribution in the area of epistemology," (p. 22), for his sophisticated dis¬tinctions between the active and passive intellects, his balanced emphasis on both empirical learning and rational thinking, provide a viable modern theory of knowledge. "Seventh, Aquinas's answer to the relation of faith and reason is a surprising synthesis of the best elements of rationalism and existentialism" (p. 22), for both faith and reason must be properly blended in a viable theology. "Finally, Aquinas addresses reconciliation of human freedom and di¬vine sovereignty . . . the nature of divine and human law . . . and the problem of evil" (p. 22).
After a brief discussion of Aquinas' life and an overview of his thought, Geisler considers such subjects as "The Bible," "Faith and Reason," "God's Nature," "Evil," and "Law and Morality." If you're familiar with Thomas, Geisler's not too difficult to follow. If you're not, however, I suspect his often abstract and abbreviated presentations will leave you with lots of unanswered questions. So you'd be wise simply to read Aquinas first and then turn to Geisler's interpretation of him!
In my opinion, we who consider John Wesley and James Arminius our theological mentors should take note of Geisler's appreciation for Aquinas, since in many ways he's one of our finest forebears! If we're neither Calvinistic nor Pelagian when debating the question concerning the freedom of the will, we'll find useful Thomas' defensible middle ground. If we believe grace perfects nature, as we suggest when we preach holiness, we side with Thomas, not Luther or Calvin. When we rely upon the Bible as the fully-inspired Word of God, we discover it's Thomas, not Barth or Bultmann, who supports us. So if someone like Geisler, operating out of the Reformed perspective, finds Aquinas worthwhile, how much more should we Wesleyans!

In this exciting and illuminating introduction to Thomas Aquinas, Dr Geisler seeks to dispel evangelical myths and to persuade an evangelical readership of the relevance and importance of St Thomas to many areas of current debate such as the role of apologetics, the existence and nature of God, religious language and the nature of reality.

Evangelicals new to Aquinas should find much to attract them through Geisler's scholarly introduction. Those better acquainted with Saint Thomas should also find fresh insights from Dr Geisler's unique perspective as an evangelical who gained his doctorate at the Loyola University, Chicago in 1970 and who has studied Aquinas for over thirty five years.

The main body of the book is divided into 12 chapters. The first three are introductory chapters covering the contemporary relevance of Aquinas, his life and an overview of key themes in his work. The following 9 chapters then take each of these themes in more depth, namely the Bible, faith and reason, the first principles of knowledge, Reality, God's nature, God's existence, religious language, evil and Law and morality. Finally there is a short epilogue and a number of helpful appendices for reference.

Particularly noteworthy is his first major theme of `The Bible' in chapter 4. Here Geisler elucidates an area seldom commented on in Thomistic scholarship before the 2005 publication of Weinandy, Keating, and Yocum's: Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to his Biblical Commentaries . Few evangelicals will have been aware that Aquinas shares their high view of Scripture, including a belief in inerrancy. Geisler is careful to explain however that this does not entail a `dictation' doctrine of inspiration for Aquinas, for whom there is no nature/grace divide. On the contrary, God prepares the lives, culture and intellect of the human authors so that their words became the words of God, in harmony with their natural dispositions. Aquinas agrees with the later Reformed position (against later Roman Catholic teaching), in placing the authority of Scripture above that of `doctors' of the church whose authority is at best only `probable.' Geisler points out that Aquinas' emphasis on the `literal' understanding of Scripture (correctly understood) as the normative sense also prepared the way for later Reformers.

In his introduction, Geisler begins by identifying the roots of evangelical suspicion of Thomas Aquinas in the writings of such evangelical `greats' as Francis Schaeffer, Cornelius Van Til (Schaeffer's tutor), Gordon Clark, E.J.Carnell and others. Together these scholars accused Aquinas of opening up the doors to secular humanism through a `Christianised Aristotelianism' which allegedly divided nature and grace, faith and reason in an unbiblical dualism.

This indictment is similar to the one laid on Duns Scotus by the Radical Orthodox theologians , except that the evangelicals trace the blame further back to Aquinas himself. Geisler however would acquit the Angelic Doctor, arguing that these charges are largely based on ignorance of what Aquinas actually said. He points out that in fact, ironically, Aquinas, in key areas held a position almost identical to that of the very theologians who attack him! The chief difference is that Aquinas had invariably thought more profoundly on these matters. It is for this reason that Geisler recommends, (in words borrowed from Bernard of Chartres), that evangelicals sit on the shoulders of this giant, one once known as the `Dumb Ox,' in order to gaze further in their vision of God.

The controversial issue of the relationship between faith and reason is carefully expounded in chapter 5 where Geisler shows how, for Aquinas, faith is based on the authority of Scripture. Reason, while providing evidence that God exists is not the basis for faith in God which requires an assent of the will to the revelation of God. Some truths, such as the incarnation and the Trinity cannot be known by reason and need revelation, nevertheless believers should still reason about their faith (eg using analogies) and for their faith, against the sceptics. Geisler rebuts the charge of evangelicals like Schaeffer who claimed that Aquinas did not believe that the intellect was fallen and needed grace . However his proof texts only demonstrate the latter and not the former point. Geisler's use of Aquinas' citation of Augustine, intended to prove the former, actually shows grace being denied because of sin, rather than being given because of sin. Geisler could have made a better case by citing passages in which Aquinas speaks directly of the necessity of God's help for human nature both before and after the Fall, The consequence of the `corrupt nature' is that: "many disorders occur in the reason." This is nuanced by the fact that Aquinas did not regard the noetic effects of sin to be as great as its moral effects:

"human nature is more corrupt by sin in regard to the desire for good, than in regard to the knowledge of truth."

A central area in which Aquinas has come under fire from some evangelicals has been in his teaching on the analogical nature of religious language. It has been argued that without a univocal element this reduces to equivocation and scepticism. Geisler points out the inconsistency of these same critics who employ less than univocal language about God in their own theology. He could have added that Van Til actually reappropriates the term `analogy' in his own theory of knowledge. At the same time Geisler defends Aquinas by showing how he explicitly denies that speech about the Divine should be understood in an equivocal sense.

One fact Geisler fails to mention is that some Thomists such as David Burrell and Herbert McCabe argue for a largely apophatic reading of Aquinas' doctrine of analogy.

"Aquinas displays his religious discipline most clearly by the ease with which he is able to endure so unknown a God."

For Burrell, (influenced heavily by Wittgenstein), "analogous terms are at root equivocal" Primarily in view of Aquinas' doctrine of God's simplicity, Burrell concludes that "Properly speaking, nothing can be said of God." Traditional evangelical critics of Aquinas could seize on these comments to support their position and Geisler fails to address these concerns adequately. His solution to how analogy escapes equivocation appears to go beyond the textual evidence through interpreting Aquinas' doctrine of analogy to include a `use of univocal concepts' which are then applied analogically. Aquinas seems to contradict such an understanding in the following passage from the Summa:

" But God has no connection with material things, as regards either natural genus or logical genus; because God is in no genus, as stated above (Question 3, Article 5). Hence through the likeness derived from material things we can know something positive concerning the angels, according to some common notion, though not according to the specific nature; whereas we cannot acquire any such knowledge at all about God."

He makes the unsubstantiated claim that Aquinas would have agreed with Duns Scotus on this point but even the scholars he cites to support this interpretation (without page references) do not appear to express analogy in these terms.
There is no unambiguously univocal element in Aquinas' teaching on analogy. The reason for this fact reveals a glaring omission or misunderstanding by Geisler of Thomist theology. The ground of analogy for Aquinas lies not in any univocal concepts or definitions but in the Neo-Platonic idea of participation. This means that the creaturely analogue participates in the analogate as an effect which participates in its transcendent Cause. Therefore the qualities of the effect preexist preeminently in their Cause. This includes the quality of `being' which is only applied secondarily and derivatively to creatures, but applies literally to God. The Divine Cause itself does not participate in anything extrinsic to itself because of its aseity. It has no genus.

This oversight by Geisler results in some uncharacteristically sloppy expressions in his 7th chapter on `Reality', where he argues that for Aquinas, "God is an infinite kind of being" and that:

"God and creatures then, can differ in their very beings, since they are different kinds of beings."

This way of speaking about God implies that He belongs to a higher category called `Being' which Aquinas explicitly denies . Rather God is his own Being, the `To Be' of Exodus 3:14 in which creatures `live and move and have their being' only by participation. God is unique in that in Him the particular name and essence are one. (like saying that Socrates is his own humanity which makes no sense for creatures)! According to Aquinas' understanding of Divine simplicity, God's existence is his essence. The result of not applying this aspect of Thomist theology means that Geisler erroneously argues that for Aquinas, "there is more than one reality." But again it would seem that for Aquinas, reality would be a synonym for truth of which there is only one Truth. God in his simplicity is that Truth (Reality) in which creatures participate.

In spite of these shortcomings there is much to commend in this helpful and clearly structured book. A particularly interesting section for those engaged in epistemology is the chapter on `First Principles' (chapter 6), which explains some of Aquinas' profound ideas very accessibly. Aquinas shows how there are basic axioms of human thought without which thought itself would be impossible, namely the principles of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, causality and finality. They could be used to support a `weak foundationalism' such as that later advocated by Thomas Reid (1710-1796) in response to Hume's scepticism.

Some may criticise Geisler for not giving a `balanced' critique of Aquinas. He only describes the incompatibilities of Aquinas' teachings with the evangelical position in a cursory one page epilogue. But there are plenty of other books which deal with these discrepancies and clearly this is not the aim of Geisler's book. In my opinion, Geisler on the whole successfully argues the case for a positive appraisal of Aquinas from an evangelical perspective.

At just under £20 this book is excellent value for money, written in a concise and highly readable format, with helpful appendices and bibliographies after each section pointing students both to the primary sources and to more in depth academic works on Aquinas for further study.

This is by far the best introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas written by a committed Evangelical Christian. I'm a Catholic myself, but I found Geisler's commentary on Thomas to be invaluable. Geisler covers the major Thomistic issues, including a brief biography of Thomas, the first principles, the interpretation of Holy Scripture, the proofs of God's existence, the doctrine of analogy, a Thomistic theodicy explaining the problem of evil, and much more.

What I found especially helpful in this book was Geisler's description of the attributes of God, as expressed by Thomas. God's Pure Actuality is covered in detail, as well as the attributes that follow from it, e.g., God's immutability, eternality, unity, omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness.

What we discover by reading Geiser (and Thomas himself, of course!) is that these issues remain as relevant today as they did during the thirteenth century. This is a must read for any Thomist, or for anyone who is interested in Thomism!

I was somewhat disappointed reading this book. Basically it was a superficial introduction to the thought of Aquinas. I wish I would have read an intro by Gilson or Maritain, instead. In the first chapter, entitled "The Contemporary Relevance of Aquinas," Geisler reviews the negative opinions of Aquinas formulated by evangelical theologians. In the Epilogue, he distances himself from Aquinas on matters such as transubstantiation, the canon of Scriptures, the sacraments, the view of the Church: I wish he had done that at greater length, so as to fulfil the purpose of his book's title.
What Geisler does well, is to summarize some of Thomas' epistemology. Thus, we learn that the first principles of knowledge according to Aquinas are:
1.The principle of identity (being is being)
2.The principle of non contradiction (being is not nonbeing)
3.The principle of the excluded middle (either being or nonbeing)
4.The principle of causality (nonbeing cannot cause being)
5.The principle of finality (every being acts for an end)
Epistemologically speaking, principle n. 2 means that it is
impossible for contradictory statements to be simultaneously true; if one is true, the other is necessarily false. Principle n. 3, tertium non datur, means that a proposition cannot be true and false simultaneously in the same sense. Aquinas upheld the primacy of principle n. 2. The other principles are dependent aspects of n. 2. The first principles are undemostrable, but true.
There are four answers to MONISM:
a)Atomism
b)Platonism
c)Aristotelianism
d)Thomism
Geisler does a fair job in expounding some of the main Thomstic tenets.In the univocity of being, things are either unrelated or identical; but through an analogy of being, it is possible to account for multiplicity. If our judgements about God are neither totally the same (univocal), not totally different (equivocal), then they must be similar (analogous).
The essence (whatness) and existence (isness) of all creatures, are distinct, but are one and the same in God. When people say that the universe had no real beginning they are affirming a dubious idea: an ungrounded infinite regress is tantamount to affirming that the existence in the series arises from nonexistence, since no cause in the series has a real ground for its existence.
Bernard de Chartres once said: "We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants, so as to see more and further than they do; not as a result of our own sharpness of vision or bodily height, but because we are carried aloft and elevated on their gigantic stature." (Quoted in Chenu, Toward Understanding St. Thomas (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1964).