Most of my readers are familiar with BaptistFire.com, the conservative Baptist website that is, sadly, likewise rabidly anti-Reformed, grossly one-sided, and anonymous as to who is involved in promulgating its articles. Well, a number of folks have gotten together to launch www.StrangeBaptistFire.com, a website which will debunk the constantly misleading, imbalanced, and often easily refuted materials posted on BaptistFire.com. Now,

   Over the last few years I’ve focused on current popular Catholic apologists, that is, those whose names you may hear on Catholic Answers, or find on The Journey Home. In order to be familiar with Catholic argumentation, the best way to do so is to actually hear them make their own arguments and interpretations of Catholic doctrine.    I purchase their

This is a follow up to Part 1 in this blog series where I will go through the works of John Owen detailing where he has mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I hope that this series is helpful.In this second part, I would like to look at a couple of different types of usage that we find. First will be some cases where there is an editorial footnote that mentions Thomas Aquinas. Secondly, there will be a mention of a story that Thomas wrote about. Again, note that these first two posts do not deal with Owen’s usage of Aquinas in the Hebrews volumes. I believe I will begin working through those in part 5, I believe.As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, 20 books out of the 36 works do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas. The first part covered 5 of those 36 mentions and this post will cover an additional 6.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas in Editorial FootnotesIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 03, Part 1 – Pneumatologia”, we have the following mention in Chapter 5. In a discussion of “disputes managed by some of the ancients” which Owen saw as “altogether needless”, the editor refers us to where both Aquinas and Ambrose discussed this. The context does make it appear that Owen had Aquinas in mind here as you can see from the footnote.The same work is assigned to both as causes of a different kind — it is assigned to the Holy Spirit as the active, efficient cause, who by his almighty power produced the effect. And the disputes managed by some of the ancients (350) about “de Spiritu Sancto” and “ex Spiritu Sancto” were altogether needless; for it is his creating efficiency that is intended. And his conceiving is ascribed to the holy Virgin as the passive, material cause; for his body was formed of her substance, as declared before. And this conception of Christ was after her solemn espousals to Joseph, and that was for various reasons; Footnote 350: For example, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Third Part, ‘Treatise on the Incarnation,’ q. 32, point 2. Reply to Objection 1: Christ’s body, through not being consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, cannot properly be said to be conceived “of” [de] the Holy Ghost, but rather “from [ex] the Holy Ghost,” as Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. ii.): “What is from someone is either from his substance or from his power: from his substance, as the Son who is from the Father; from his power, as all things are from God, just as Mary conceived from the Holy Ghost.”And in “Owen’s Works, Volume 03, Part 2 – Pneumatologia”, Owen mentioned the schoolmen and there is a footnote defining what Scholasticism is and who some of them were.Schoolmen: Scholasticism is a method of critical thought taught in medieval universities in Europe c. 1100-1700. Practitioners were called “scholastics” or “schoolmen.” They included Aquinas, Anselm, Abelard, Scotus, Bernard of Clairvaux, et al.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 1 – Display of Arminianism” we have two mentions in Chapter 14 of Aquinas in footnotes only (later we will see him mentioned in the text along with other footnotes to the Summa).In this first one, Owen stated that Diego Alvarez demonstrated something the schoolmen “universally consented to this truth” about. And in the footnote, it is just stated that Aquinas’ commentaries were often used in opposition to Molinism.So certain is God of accomplishing all his purposes, that he confirms it with an oath: “The LORD of hosts has sworn, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand,” Isaiah 14:24. And indeed it would be a very strange thing if God intended what he foresees will never come to pass. But I confess this argument will not be pressing against the Arminians, who question that prescience of God. Yet, they should also observe from the Scripture that the failing of wicked men’s counsels and intentions is a thing that God is said to “deride in heaven,” as in Psalm 2:4. He threatens them with it. “Take counsel together,” he says, “and it shall come to nothing; speak the word, and it shall not stand,” Isaiah 8:10. See also chapter 29:7-8. And shall they be enabled to recriminate, and cast a similar aspersion on the God of heaven? No, surely. Says St. Austin, “Let us take heed that we are not compelled to believe that Almighty God would have anything done which does not come to pass.” 149 The schoolmen have universally consented to this truth, also, as shown by Alvarez, Disput. 32, pro. 3. 150 Footnote 150: Probably Diego Alvarez (1550-1635), who represented the Dominicans in a dispute concerning the heretical teachings of the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina (from whom ‘Molinism’ arose, c.1558). A debate ensued (Congregatio de Auxiliis) that didn’t end until 1607 when the Dominicans and the Jesuits agreed to disagree. By decree of the Inquisition in Dec 1611, intended to keep the peace between these two factions, no book could be published pro or con about efficacious grace without the consent of the Holy See. That prohibition lasted through most of the 17th century – although Thomas Aquinas’ commentaries were often quoted by the Dominicans in opposition to Molinism.In this second example from Chapter 14, the Summa is given as an example where Aquinas was citing Augustine and discussing how the number of the elect is set. It would appear that Owen does have Aquinas in mind by the language used by Owen and that provided in the editorial footnote.The article is clear that the object of this predestination is some particular men chosen out of mankind; that is, it is an act of God that concerns some men in particular. It is taking them aside, as it were, from the midst of their brothers, and designing them for some special end and purpose. The Scripture also abounds in asserting this truth, calling those who are so chosen a “few,” Mat 20:16 – which must denote some certain persons; and the “remnant according to election,” Rom 11:5; those whom “the Lord knows to be his,” 2Tim 2:19; men “ordained to eternal life,” Acts 13:48; “us,” Rom 8:39; those whose names are “written in the Lamb’s book of life,” Rev 21:27. All of these verses and various others, clearly prove that the number of the elect is certain – not only materially, as the Arminians say, that there are only so many [unspecified persons], but formally also: they are these particular persons and no others, which cannot be altered. 160 The very nature of the thing itself so demonstrably evinces it, that I wonder that it could possibly be conceived of under any other notion. To apprehend an election of men that is not circumscribed to particular persons, is such a conceited, Platonical abstraction, that it seems strange for anyone to dare profess to understand that there can be predestination, and yet none are predestined; an election, and yet none are elected; a choice among many, and yet none are left or taken; a decree to save men, and yet salvation by that decree is destined for no one man – either in deed or in expectation.161 In a word, asserting that there can be a purpose of God to bring men to glory, which stands inviolable, even though no one ever attained the purposed end, is such a riddle that no Oedipus can unfold it.Footnote 160: Aquinas Summa Theologica, Quest 23, Predistination; Art. 7 Obj. 3: Augustine says (De Corr. et Grat. 13): “The number of the predestined is certain, and can neither be increased nor diminished.” I answer that, The number of the predestined is certain. Some have said that it was formally, but not materially certain; as if we were to say that it was certain that a hundred or a thousand would be saved; not however these or those individuals. But this destroys the certainty of predestination; of which we spoke above (Article 6). Therefore we must say that to God the number of the predestined is certain, not only formally, but also materially. It must, however, be observed that the number of the predestined is said to be certain to God, not by reason of His knowledge, because, that is to say, He knows how many will be saved (for in this way the number of drops of rain and the sands of the sea are certain to God); but by reason of His deliberate choice and determination.Mention of story that Thomas Aquinas wrote aboutIn both “Owen’s Works, Volume 08 – Sermons to the Nations” (Sermon 1) and “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 1 – Display of Arminianism”, we see that Owen related a story that Thomas wrote about. As his wording is quite similar in both volumes, I will just cite from Volume 10, Chapter 11 below.It is true, indeed, that some of the ancient fathers, before the rising of the Pelagian heresy, had so put on Christ, as Lipsius put it, that they had not fully put off Plato. They unadvisedly released some speeches seeming to grant that various men before the incarnation, who were living “according to the dictates of right reason,” might be saved without faith in Christ. This is well-shown by the learned Casaubon in his first Exercitation on Baronius. But let this be accounted part of that stubble which shall burn at the last day, with which the writings of all men who are not divinely inspired may be stained. It has also since (and what has not?) been drawn into dispute among the wrangling schoolmen. And yet (which is rarely seen) their verdict in this particular almost unanimously affirms the truth of it. Aquinas tells us a story of the corpse of a heathen that was to be taken up in the time of the Empress Irene and her son Constantine; he had a golden plate on his breast, in which was this inscription: “Christ is born of a virgin, and I believe in him. O sun, you shall see me again in the days of Irene and Constantine.” But the question is not whether a Gentile believing in Christ may be saved, or whether God revealed himself and his Son extraordinarily to some of them. For shall we straiten the breast and shorten the arm of the Almighty, as though he might not do what he will with his own? The question is whether a man may come to heaven by the conduct of nature, without the knowledge of Christ,? This is the assertion which we condemn as a wicked, Pelagian, Socinian heresy. We think it was well said by Bernard, “That many laboring to make Plato a Christian, prove themselves to be heathens.”

Recently, Carl Trueman has stated the following: “I had a breakthrough on John Owen when I realized how often he cited Thomas Aquinas in his marginal notes in his texts. Struck me as odd.”With this in mind, I would like to begin looking through just how extensive this usage really is, since this is a topic that tends to be brought up often.As a bit of a preliminary, I have been utilizing the epub version of the 35 books of Owen available at monergism.org. This way, you can feel free to look for yourself and compare my results without cost. Secondly, I have attempted to compile my list using the Banner of Truth volume numbers (which were not part of the listing at monergism.org) as closely as I could match the book with the contents of the Banner of Truth editions. Finally, regarding how I determined whether Thomas was mentioned, I performed several searches such as searching for “Aquinas”, “Thomas”, and even “Angelic Doctor” (as Owen referred to him in only one work) and reviewing the context.Before I get to the content of the post below, I wish to provide a list of the 19 books out of the 35 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And to give you an idea of how long this blog series may be, from the other 16 books there are only 26 mentions of Thomas Aquinas (5 of which will be covered in this post). Finally, I would note that this does not count Owen’s “Biblical Theology” in the list. In that book, Aquinas is mentioned often and with sharp disagreement. I will have a post covering some of that book as well.Books With No Mention of Thomas AquinasChurch OfficersThe Excellency of ChristAn Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 6 – 8:1 – 10:39The Lord’s Supper Fully ConsideredOwen’s Works, Volume 01 – The Glory of ChristOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 1 – The Work Of The Holy Spirit In PrayerOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 2 – The Work of the Holy Spirit in RegenerationOwen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 2 – Evidences of FaithOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 1 – Mortification of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 2 – Of TemptationOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 3 – The Remainders of Indwelling Sin in BelieversOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 4 – The Forgiveness of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 1 – Apostasy from the GospelOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 2 – The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually MindedOwen’s Works, Volume 12 – A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and GraceOwen’s Works, Volume 13, Part 2 – Duties of Christian FellowshipOwen’s Works, Volume 15, Part 2 – Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and UnityOwen’s Works, Volume 16, Part 1 – The True Nature of a Gospel ChurchWalking Humbly With GodIn this first part, I want to look at some of the mentions of Thomas Aquinas (outside of the 7 volumes on Hebrews) where John Owen was including Thomas in a list of others who subscribed to a certain viewpoint on various doctrines. Let us take a brief look at this type of reference to Thomas.In “A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity” we find Owen saying that Aquinas was among those schoolmen who many Lutheran authors (with whom Owen agreed) were stating had an improper view of the satisfaction of Christ as it relates to pardon of sin. Owen even said that the belief of Aquinas opened a way for the Socinian error on the same matter:To the Reader: The Lutherans who have managed these controversies, as Tarnovius, Meisnerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; and it hath well and solidly been of late asserted among ourselves on the same foundation. And as many of these authors do expressly blame some of the schoolmen, as Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Tataretus, for granting a possibility of pardon without satisfaction, as opening a way to the Socinian error in this matter; so also they fear not to affirm, that the foregoing of this principle of God’s vindictive justice indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, doth not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. However, I suppose men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend unto contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 1 – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith” we find Thomas also listed among others who held to a viewpoint with which Owen disagreed. It is of great note here is that Owen accuses Thomas of being so beholden to Aristotelian philosophy that they followed him even on their doctrine of justification. He said that Thomas ought to be no guide for us on the doctrine of justification.“General considerations: The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts in our justification, especially as unto our believing, or the acting of that faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use of many metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now in the same way, and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? He that shall deny that there is more spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts and minds of believers (which is the life and soul of teaching things practical), than in the most accurate philosophical expressions, is himself really ignorant of the whole truth in this matter. The propriety of such expressions belongs and is confined unto natural science; but spiritual truths are to be taught, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” God is wiser than man; and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge of evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than the wisest of us all. And other knowledge of or skill in these things, than what is required of us in a way of duty, is not to be valued.It is, therefore, to no purpose to handle the mysteries of the gospel as if Hilcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with all the Sententiarists, Summists, and Quodlibetarians of the old Roman peripatetical school, were to be raked out of their graves to be our guides. Especially will they be of no use unto us in this doctrine of justification. For whereas they pertinaciously adhered unto the philosophy of Aristotle, who knew nothing of any righteousness but what is a habit inherent in ourselves, and the acts of it, they wrested the whole doctrine of justification unto a compliance wherewithal.Next, we find in “Owen’s Works, Volume 11 – The Doctrine of the Saint’s Perseverance Explained and Confirmed” that Owen had some lengthy discussions in his Preface about beliefs that Thomas Bradwardin and Thomas Aquinas held to. It was only in this work that Owen referred to Thomas as the “Angelical Doctor” – as the context shows, he was not using this as a title with approval. Owen states that Bradwardin and many following him had tried to get multiple Popes to issue some sentence against the Pelagianism which was creeping into the Roman Church. Owen would summarize it by stating that “setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.” Basically, even though there were some “deviations” (such as implicit faith and the efficacy of the sacraments – i.e. baptism regenerated a person and made that person an actual believer, though possibly not one of the elect), there were some things that the current Pope, Innocent X, should have been able to use from those schoolmen which could be used to combat rising Pelagianism in the Church of Rome. The following 3 sections of quotations are all from the Preface and are all close to each other in the same discussion, but they are not consecutive.Preface to the Reader: With this earnestness, above three hundred years ago, did this profoundly learned man [Bradwardin] press the popes to a determination of these controversies against the Pelagians and their successors in his schools. The same suit hath ever since been continued by very many learned men (in every age) of the communion of the church of Rome, crying out for the papal definitive sentence against the Pelagian errors crept into their church; especially hath this outcry with supplication been renewed by the Dominican friars, ever since the Jesuits have so cunningly gilded over that Pelagian poison, and set it out as the best and most wholesome food for “”holy mother”” and her children. Yea, with such earnestness hath this been in the last age pursued by agents in the court of Rome, that (a congregation de auxiliis being purposely appointed) it was generally supposed one while that they would have prevailed in their suit, and have obtained a definitive sentence on their side against their adversaries. But through the just vengeance of God upon a pack of bloody, persecuting idolaters, giving them up more and more to the belief of lies, contrary almost to the expectation of all men, this very year, 1653, Pope Innocent X., who now wears the triple crown, conjured by the subtlety and dreadful interest of the Jesuits in all nations that as yet wonder after him, by a solemn bull, or papal consistorian determination, in the case of Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, hath turned the scales upon his first suppliants, and cast the cause on the Pelagian side. But of that whole business elsewhere.I shall not perplex the reader with the horrid names of Trombet, Hilcot, Bricot, Sychet, Tartaret, Brulifer, nor with their more horrid terms and expressions. Let the one Angelical Doctor [i.e., AQUINAS] answer for the rest of his companions.That this man, then (one of the great masters of the crew), abode by the principles of him before insisted on, may quickly be made evident by some few instances clearing his judgment herein.And this assertion of the Angelical Doctor is notably confirmed by Didacus Alvarez in his vindication of it from the exception of Medina, that we make use of habits when we will, and if men will make use of their habitual grace, they may persevere without relation to any after grace of God. Saith he, “Respondetur, habitibus quidem nos uti cum volumus, sed ut velimus illis uti, prærequiritur motio Dei efficax, præmovens liberum arbitrium, ut utatur habitu ad operandum, et operetur bonum, præsertim quando habitus sunt supernaturales; quia cum pertineant ad superiorem ordinem, habent specialem rationem, propter quam potentia mere naturalis non utitur eisdem habitibus, nisi speciali Dei auxilio moveatur,” Alvar. De Aux. lib. x. disput. 100. Though received graces are reckoned by him as supernatural habits, yet such as we act not by, nor with, but from new supplies from God.Having laid down this principle, Thomas proceeds to manifest that there is a special grace of perseverance bestowed by God on some, and that on whomsoever it is bestowed, they certainly and infallibly persevere to the end, pp. quest. 109, a. 10, c.; and Contra Gent. lib. iii. he proves this assertion from p. 6, 1 Pet. 5:10; Ps. 16.But, to spare the reader, I shall give you this man’s judgment, together with one of his followers, who hath had the happiness to clear his master’s mind above any that have undertaken the maintenance of his doctrine in that part now controverted in the church of Rome; and therein I shall manifest (what I formerly proposed) what beamings and irradiations of this truth do yet glide through that gross darkness which is spread upon the face of the Romish synagogue;—referring what I have farther to add on this head to the account which, God assisting, I shall ere long give of the present Jansenian controversies, in my considerations on Mr Biddle’s catechisms, a task by authority lately imposed on me.The second principle this learned schoolman insists on is, that this gift of perseverance is peculiar to the elect, or predestinate: Disput. 104, 1, Con. “”Donum perseverantiæ est proprium prædestinatorum, ut nulli alteri conveniat.”” And what he intends by “”prædestinati,”” he informs you according to the judgment of Austin and Thomas: “”Nomine prædestinationis ad gloriam, solum cam prædestinationem intelligunt (Augustinus et Thomas) qua electi ordinantur efficaciter, et transmittuntur ad vitam æternam; cujus effectus sunt vocatio, justificatio, et perseverantia in gratia usque ad finem.”” Not that (or such a) conditional predestination as is pendent in the air, and expectant of men’s good final deportment; but that which is the eternal, free fountain of all that grace whereof in time by Jesus Christ we are made partakers.And in the pursuit of this proposition, he farther proves at large that the perseverance given to the saints in Christ is not a supplement of helps and advantages, whereby they may preserve it if they will, but such as causes them on whom it is bestowed certainly and actually so to do; and that, in its efficacy and operation, it cannot depend on any free co-operation of our wills, all the good acts tending to our perseverance being fruits of that grace which is bestowed on us, according to the absolute unchangeable decree of the will of God.This, indeed, is common with this author and the rest of his associates (the Dominicans and present Jansenians) in these controversies, together with the residue of the Romanists, that having their judgments wrested by the abominable figments of implicit faith, and the efficacy of the sacraments of the new testament, conveying, and really exhibiting, the grace signified or sealed by them, they are enforced to grant that many may be, and are, regenerated and made true believers who are not predestinated, and that these cannot persevere, nor shall eventually be saved. Certain it is, that there is not any truth which that generation of men do receive and admit, but more or less it suffers in their hands, from that gross ignorance of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, the power whereof they are practically under. What the poor vassals and slaves will do upon the late bull of their holy father, casting them in sundry main concernments of their quarrel with their adversaries, is uncertain. Otherwise, setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.The above citations where Aquinas was listed among others by John Owen are all of the ones of that type outside of those in some of his volumes on Hebrews. As you can see above, there were three works of this type. In two of them, Owen was clearly opposed to Aquinas. And in the third example, Owen thought that Bradwardin and Aquinas could be useful only insofar as being able to help combat Pelagianism in the Roman Church.

Recently, Carl Trueman has stated the following: “I had a breakthrough on John Owen when I realized how often he cited Thomas Aquinas in his marginal notes in his texts. Struck me as odd.”With this in mind, I would like to begin looking through just how extensive this usage really is, since this is a topic that tends to be brought up often.As a bit of a preliminary, I have been utilizing the epub version of the books of Owen available at monergism.org along with comparing these with the Banner of Truth volumes (which yields 36 total books). This way, you can feel free to look for yourself and compare my results without cost. Secondly, I have attempted to compile my list using the Banner of Truth volume numbers (which were not part of the listing at monergism.org) as closely as I could match the book with the contents of the Banner of Truth editions. Finally, regarding how I determined whether Thomas was mentioned, I performed several searches such as searching for “Aquinas”, “Thomas”, and even “Angelic Doctor” (as Owen referred to him in only two works) and reviewing the context.Before I get to the content of the post below, I wish to provide a list of the 20 books out of the 36 works which do not have any mention of Thomas Aquinas (not even in editorial footnotes). And to give you an idea of how long this blog series may be, from the other 16 books there are only 36 mentions of Thomas Aquinas (5 of which will be covered in this post). Finally, I would note that this does not count Owen’s “Biblical Theology” in the list. In that book, Aquinas is mentioned often and with sharp disagreement. I will have a post covering some of that book as well.Books With No Mention of Thomas AquinasChurch OfficersThe Excellency of ChristAn Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. 6 – 8:1 – 10:39The Lord’s Supper Fully ConsideredOwen’s Works, Volume 01 – The Glory of ChristOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 1 – The Work Of The Holy Spirit In PrayerOwen’s Works, Volume 04, Part 2 – The Work of the Holy Spirit in RegenerationOwen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 2 – Evidences of FaithOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 1 – Mortification of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 2 – Of TemptationOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 3 – The Remainders of Indwelling Sin in BelieversOwen’s Works, Volume 06, Part 4 – The Forgiveness of SinOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 1 – Apostasy from the GospelOwen’s Works, Volume 07, Part 2 – The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually MindedOwen’s Works, Volume 09 – Sermons to the ChurchOwen’s Works, Volume 12 – A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and GraceOwen’s Works, Volume 13, Part 2 – Duties of Christian FellowshipOwen’s Works, Volume 15, Part 2 – Evangelical Love, Church Peace, and UnityOwen’s Works, Volume 16, Part 1 – The True Nature of a Gospel ChurchWalking Humbly With GodIn this first part, I want to look at some of the mentions of Thomas Aquinas (outside of the 7 volumes on Hebrews) where John Owen was including Thomas in a list of others who subscribed to a certain viewpoint on various doctrines. Let us take a brief look at this type of reference to Thomas.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 02, Part 3 – A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity” we find Owen saying that Aquinas was among those schoolmen who many Lutheran authors (with whom Owen agreed) were stating had an improper view of the satisfaction of Christ as it relates to pardon of sin. Owen even said that the belief of Aquinas opened a way for the Socinian error on the same matter:To the Reader: The Lutherans who have managed these controversies, as Tarnovius, Meisnerus, Calovius, Stegmannus, Martinius, Franzius, with all others of their way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; and it hath well and solidly been of late asserted among ourselves on the same foundation. And as many of these authors do expressly blame some of the schoolmen, as Aquinas, Durandus, Biel, Tataretus, for granting a possibility of pardon without satisfaction, as opening a way to the Socinian error in this matter; so also they fear not to affirm, that the foregoing of this principle of God’s vindictive justice indispensably requiring the punishment of sin, doth not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. However, I suppose men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend unto contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 05, Part 1 – The Doctrine of Justification by Faith” we find Thomas also listed among others who held to a viewpoint with which Owen disagreed. It is of great note here is that Owen accuses Thomas of being so beholden to Aristotelian philosophy that they followed him even on their doctrine of justification. He said that Thomas ought to be no guide for us on the doctrine of justification.“General considerations: The Holy Ghost, in expressing the most eminent acts in our justification, especially as unto our believing, or the acting of that faith whereby we are justified, is pleased to make use of many metaphorical expressions. For any to use them now in the same way, and to the same purpose, is esteemed rude, undisciplinary, and even ridiculous; but on what grounds? He that shall deny that there is more spiritual sense and experience conveyed by them into the hearts and minds of believers (which is the life and soul of teaching things practical), than in the most accurate philosophical expressions, is himself really ignorant of the whole truth in this matter. The propriety of such expressions belongs and is confined unto natural science; but spiritual truths are to be taught, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” God is wiser than man; and the Holy Ghost knows better what are the most expedient ways for the illumination of our minds with that knowledge of evangelical truths which it is our duty to have and attain, than the wisest of us all. And other knowledge of or skill in these things, than what is required of us in a way of duty, is not to be valued.It is, therefore, to no purpose to handle the mysteries of the gospel as if Hilcot and Bricot, Thomas and Gabriel, with all the Sententiarists, Summists, and Quodlibetarians of the old Roman peripatetical school, were to be raked out of their graves to be our guides. Especially will they be of no use unto us in this doctrine of justification. For whereas they pertinaciously adhered unto the philosophy of Aristotle, who knew nothing of any righteousness but what is a habit inherent in ourselves, and the acts of it, they wrested the whole doctrine of justification unto a compliance wherewithal.Next, we find in “Owen’s Works, Volume 11 – The Doctrine of the Saint’s Perseverance Explained and Confirmed” that Owen had some lengthy discussions in his Preface about beliefs that Thomas Bradwardin and Thomas Aquinas held to. It was only in this work and in Volume 14, on “True and False Religion” that Owen referred to Thomas as the “Angelical Doctor” – as the context shows, he was not using this as a title with approval. Owen states that Bradwardin and many following him had tried to get multiple Popes to issue some sentence against the Pelagianism which was creeping into the Roman Church. Owen would summarize it by stating that “setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.” Basically, even though there were some “deviations” (such as implicit faith and the efficacy of the sacraments – i.e. baptism regenerated a person and made that person an actual believer, though possibly not one of the elect), there were some things that the current Pope, Innocent X, should have been able to use from those schoolmen which could be used to combat rising Pelagianism in the Church of Rome. The following 3 sections of quotations are all from the Preface and are all close to each other in the same discussion, but they are not consecutive.Preface to the Reader: With this earnestness, above three hundred years ago, did this profoundly learned man [Bradwardin] press the popes to a determination of these controversies against the Pelagians and their successors in his schools. The same suit hath ever since been continued by very many learned men (in every age) of the communion of the church of Rome, crying out for the papal definitive sentence against the Pelagian errors crept into their church; especially hath this outcry with supplication been renewed by the Dominican friars, ever since the Jesuits have so cunningly gilded over that Pelagian poison, and set it out as the best and most wholesome food for “”holy mother”” and her children. Yea, with such earnestness hath this been in the last age pursued by agents in the court of Rome, that (a congregation de auxiliis being purposely appointed) it was generally supposed one while that they would have prevailed in their suit, and have obtained a definitive sentence on their side against their adversaries. But through the just vengeance of God upon a pack of bloody, persecuting idolaters, giving them up more and more to the belief of lies, contrary almost to the expectation of all men, this very year, 1653, Pope Innocent X., who now wears the triple crown, conjured by the subtlety and dreadful interest of the Jesuits in all nations that as yet wonder after him, by a solemn bull, or papal consistorian determination, in the case of Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, hath turned the scales upon his first suppliants, and cast the cause on the Pelagian side. But of that whole business elsewhere.I shall not perplex the reader with the horrid names of Trombet, Hilcot, Bricot, Sychet, Tartaret, Brulifer, nor with their more horrid terms and expressions. Let the one Angelical Doctor [i.e., AQUINAS] answer for the rest of his companions.That this man, then (one of the great masters of the crew), abode by the principles of him before insisted on, may quickly be made evident by some few instances clearing his judgment herein.And this assertion of the Angelical Doctor is notably confirmed by Didacus Alvarez in his vindication of it from the exception of Medina, that we make use of habits when we will, and if men will make use of their habitual grace, they may persevere without relation to any after grace of God. Saith he, “Respondetur, habitibus quidem nos uti cum volumus, sed ut velimus illis uti, prærequiritur motio Dei efficax, præmovens liberum arbitrium, ut utatur habitu ad operandum, et operetur bonum, præsertim quando habitus sunt supernaturales; quia cum pertineant ad superiorem ordinem, habent specialem rationem, propter quam potentia mere naturalis non utitur eisdem habitibus, nisi speciali Dei auxilio moveatur,” Alvar. De Aux. lib. x. disput. 100. Though received graces are reckoned by him as supernatural habits, yet such as we act not by, nor with, but from new supplies from God.Having laid down this principle, Thomas proceeds to manifest that there is a special grace of perseverance bestowed by God on some, and that on whomsoever it is bestowed, they certainly and infallibly persevere to the end, pp. quest. 109, a. 10, c.; and Contra Gent. lib. iii. he proves this assertion from p. 6, 1 Pet. 5:10; Ps. 16.But, to spare the reader, I shall give you this man’s judgment, together with one of his followers, who hath had the happiness to clear his master’s mind above any that have undertaken the maintenance of his doctrine in that part now controverted in the church of Rome; and therein I shall manifest (what I formerly proposed) what beamings and irradiations of this truth do yet glide through that gross darkness which is spread upon the face of the Romish synagogue;—referring what I have farther to add on this head to the account which, God assisting, I shall ere long give of the present Jansenian controversies, in my considerations on Mr Biddle’s catechisms, a task by authority lately imposed on me.The second principle this learned schoolman insists on is, that this gift of perseverance is peculiar to the elect, or predestinate: Disput. 104, 1, Con. “”Donum perseverantiæ est proprium prædestinatorum, ut nulli alteri conveniat.”” And what he intends by “”prædestinati,”” he informs you according to the judgment of Austin and Thomas: “”Nomine prædestinationis ad gloriam, solum cam prædestinationem intelligunt (Augustinus et Thomas) qua electi ordinantur efficaciter, et transmittuntur ad vitam æternam; cujus effectus sunt vocatio, justificatio, et perseverantia in gratia usque ad finem.”” Not that (or such a) conditional predestination as is pendent in the air, and expectant of men’s good final deportment; but that which is the eternal, free fountain of all that grace whereof in time by Jesus Christ we are made partakers.And in the pursuit of this proposition, he farther proves at large that the perseverance given to the saints in Christ is not a supplement of helps and advantages, whereby they may preserve it if they will, but such as causes them on whom it is bestowed certainly and actually so to do; and that, in its efficacy and operation, it cannot depend on any free co-operation of our wills, all the good acts tending to our perseverance being fruits of that grace which is bestowed on us, according to the absolute unchangeable decree of the will of God.This, indeed, is common with this author and the rest of his associates (the Dominicans and present Jansenians) in these controversies, together with the residue of the Romanists, that having their judgments wrested by the abominable figments of implicit faith, and the efficacy of the sacraments of the new testament, conveying, and really exhibiting, the grace signified or sealed by them, they are enforced to grant that many may be, and are, regenerated and made true believers who are not predestinated, and that these cannot persevere, nor shall eventually be saved. Certain it is, that there is not any truth which that generation of men do receive and admit, but more or less it suffers in their hands, from that gross ignorance of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, the power whereof they are practically under. What the poor vassals and slaves will do upon the late bull of their holy father, casting them in sundry main concernments of their quarrel with their adversaries, is uncertain. Otherwise, setting aside some such deviations as the above mentioned, whereunto they are enforced by their ignorance of the grace and justification which is in Jesus Christ, there is so much of ancient candid truth, in opposition to the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians, preserved and asserted in the writings of the Dominican friars, as will rise up, as I said before, in judgment against those of our days who, enjoying greater light and advantages, do yet close in with those, and are long since cursed enemies of the grace of God.The above citations where Aquinas was listed among others by John Owen are all of the ones of that type outside of those in some of his volumes on Hebrews. As you can see above, there were three works of this type. In two of them, Owen was clearly opposed to Aquinas. And in the third example, Owen thought that Bradwardin and Aquinas could be useful only insofar as being able to help combat Pelagianism in the Roman Church.

Head out on Friday (I keep saying Lord willing, and I mean that), so hopefully our next edition will be on the road, possibly on Monday. Played segments from a video from the pastor of “Zootown Church” in Missoula, Scott Klaudt where he repeated a whole string of utterly indefensible falsehoods about the Reformation, Rome, etc., and then played a brief portion of Trent Horn’s second rebuttal in his debate with Gavin Ortlund on sola scriptura, looking specifically at the common error of ignoring the diversity in Rome while focusing upon it amongst “Protestants.” If you would like to help support this upcoming trip, please pray for my health (not starting off on the best foot, I have to admit), and support the Travel Fund here. Thank you!
[embedded content]

Had a most enjoyable time on the program today reviewing various elements of the presentations made by Steve Gregg in support of synergism over against monergism. I trust I was fair, yet firm, and that the clips I played were of sufficient length to accurately portray Gregg’s position on the topics addressed. I only got to John 6:37, and will

   For those interested, we will be covering three texts of Scripture on Thursday: John 6, Romans 8/9, and Ephesians 1. Each will have 8 minutes to provide their exegesis of the text; then we will have four minutes of cross-ex each, then three minute conclusions before moving on to the next text. I know, not a lot of time, but

We made it all the way through the cross-examination portion of the debate today, waiting, breathlessly, for the “painfully obviously” demonstration of the unbiblical nature of the arguments made against Rome’s veneration of Mary, saints, and angels. We haven’t encountered it yet. Today, though, we did get a fair amount of discussion of ultimate authorities, and saw, once again, the

Dr. Jeffrey Johnson has written another excellent book dealing with the issue of the utilization of Greek Philosophy as the lens through which a Christian must look in order to have a “Classical” understanding of God. Dr. Johnson’s concern is for the believer to not feel that he must place undue emphasis on certain Greek Metaphysical and Philosophical notions. As the title states, Dr. Johnson is introducing what he calls “Biblical Classical Theism” as it is contrasted with what he refers to as “Philosophical Classical Theism.”In Part One, “The God of Natural Revelation”, Dr. Johnson relates to us the ways that God has revealed Himself in Nature. “Natural revelation is the efficacious communication of God in all His creative works whereby He clearly, instantaneously, continuously, and freely reveals Himself to all humanity.” God has told us specific things in an effective way in his Creation. Moving into Part Two, “Pagan Philosophy”, Dr. Johnson discusses how philosophy (i.e. Natural Theology) cannot ultimately give us the answers to HOW God can be a personal God who is also transcendent over His creation. Part Three is about “The God of Christian Philosophy” and outlines various ways that Christians have sought to reconcile Philosophy with both Natural and Special Revelation. We see chapters on Christian Platonism, Christian Rationalism, and Christian Existentialism. These lead into the discussion of “Philosophical Classical Theism.” There are certainly some contradictions involved in attempting to reconcile Philosophy and Revelation. Two of the primary issues are that Natural Theology cannot account for creation ex nihilo or that God can actually have “free will”.In Part Four, Dr. Johnson comes to a discussion of “Special Revelation” and its necessary and primary place in man’s understanding of the being of God. Pagan Philosophy simply cannot account for certain truths in Scripture. Some of these were mentioned above. Also, the Trinity is a doctrine understood from Special Revelation. The doctrine of the Trinity is a wrench in the Philosophical notion of an unmoved mover – we can see Biblically that there are descriptions of ad intra relations among the Persons of the Godhead. Dr. Johnson stated the following in referring to others in the past who have spoken of an intra-Trinitarian love:“The Westminster Divine, Daniel Burgess (1645-1713), stated: ‘The infinite glory of the divine persons, shines in their relations one to the other… their blessedness consist in their loving, and being loved of one another.’” and “Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) claimed: ‘If the divine nature had not afforded in having in it three persons really distinct, knowing, rejoicing in, glorying of, and speaking unto each other, there had not been a perfection of blessedness.’”The final chapters (19 and 20) on “The Relational God of Scripture” and “The Sufficiency of Scripture” are must-read chapters in this current discussion. I will end this review with something Dr. Johnson stated in Chapter 19:“There is only one God, and that is the God of the Bible. It is He who made us (Gen. 1:27). It is He who speaks to us (Gen. 1:28). It is He who commands us (Gen. 1:29). It is He who entered a covenant with us (Gen. 2:15-17). It is the One who exiled us, sinners, from His presence (Gen. 3:24) who sent His only Son to redeem us from our sins and bring us back into His presence (John 3:16). How does the Bible define God? To ask this question is to ask how God defines Himself, for the Bible is God’s Word. If we want to know God, this is all that matters. The so-called wise men of this world will say what they will about the nature of God, but the only thing that matters is what God says about Himself.”