James White, August 11, 2023August 11, 2023, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Misc, Mormonism, Personal, Racialism, The Dividing Line, Theology Matters Started off showing my newly “dyed” Bible texts, following the process laid out by Jeffery Rice in this video, and then took calls on Rushdooney, Alma Allred (Mormonism), recognizing novel and soon to be abandoned ideas in theology, wokeness in the Assemblies of God, and dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses on the eternality of Jesus. Also, we had one Modalistic caller who tried to say Martin Luther denied the Trinity. Here is an article debunking that mythology.
[embedded content]

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.

This is a follow up to Part 1 and Part 2 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 third part, I would like to look at two different types of usage. First will be a couple of disagreements in which Thomas is mentioned alone, not in a list of others. Second, there are what appear to be a few points of agreement, one where Thomas is mentioned alone and another among a few others. Also note that these first three 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.As I mentioned previously, there are 20 of the 36 works that 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 two parts covered 11 of those 36 mentions and this post will cover an additional 4. At this point, the 15 mentions of Aquinas only span 8 books. Counting the 20 without mentions, this is 28 of the 36 books which we will have covered by the end of this post.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas where Owen disagreed with himIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 03, Part 1 – Pneumatologia”, Owen offers a disagreement with Thomas regarding the means of revelation.1. Prophecy: The distinct outward manners and ways of revelation mentioned in the Scriptures may be reduced to three heads: 1. Voices; 2. Dreams; and 3. Visions.And there are two incidental adjuncts of it: 1. Symbolic actions; and 2. Local movements.The schoolmen, following Aquinas, 22. q. 174, a. 1, commonly reduce the means of revelation to three heads, for there are three ways by which we come to know anything — 1. By our external senses; 2. By impressions on the fantasy or imagination; and 3. By pure acts of the understanding.So God revealed his will to the prophets in three ways —1. By objects of their senses, such as audible voices;2. By impressions on the imagination in dreams and visions;3. By illustration or enlightening of their minds.But because this last way expresses divine inspiration, I cannot acknowledge it as a distinct way of revelation by itself — for it was absolutely necessary to give an infallible assurance of mind in the other ways also.In “Owen’s Works, Volume 12 – The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated”, he relates a discussion between Franken and Socinus regarding “a twofold religious worship”. Owen, of course, disagreed with the assertion by Thomas Aquinas that the same worship is due to an image of Christ or a crucifix that is due to Christ.XIX: The next argument of Franken, whereby he brought his adversary to another absurdity, had its rise from a distinction given by Socinus about a twofold religious worship;—one kind whereof, without any medium, was directed to God; the other is yielded him by Christ as a means. The first he says is proper to God, the other belongs to Christ only. Now, he is blind that doth not see that, for what he doth here to save himself, he doth but beg the thing in question. Who granted him that there was a twofold religious worship,—one of this sort, and another of that? Is it a sufficient answer, for a man to repeat his own hypothesis to answer an argument lying directly against it? He grants, indeed, upon the matter all that Franken desired,—namely, that Christ was not to be worshipped with that worship wherewith God is worshipped, and consequently not with divine. But Franken asks him whether this twofold worship was of the same kind or no? to which he answered, that it was because it abode not in Christ, but through him passed to God. Upon which, after the interposition of another entangling question, the man thus replies unto him: “This, then, will follow, that even the image of Christ is to be worshipped, because one and the same worship respects the image as the means, Christ as the end, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, from whom you borrowed your figment.” Yet this very fancy Socinus seems afterward to illustrate, by taking a book in his hand, sliding it along upon a table, showing how it passed by some hands where truly it was, but stayed not till it came to the end: for which gross allusion he was sufficiently derided by his adversary. I shall not insist on the other arguments wherewith on his own hypothesis he was miserably gravelled by this Franken, and after all his pretence of reason forced to cry out, “These are philosophical arguments, and contrary to the gospel.” The disputation is extant, with the notes of Socinus upon it, for his own vindication; which do not indeed one whit mend the matter. And of this matter thus far.Mentions of Thomas Aquinas where Owen agreed with himIn “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 2 – The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”, Owen brings up an objection to free Grace that is made by Arminians in his day. Looking back over this one, Owen actually does mention Thomas here as being in line with Augustine and Calvin’s objections to the matter.Chapter 21: First, That which is now by some made to be a new doctrine of free Grace is indeed an old objection against it. That a non-necessity of satisfaction by Christ, as a consequent of eternal election, was more than once, for the substance of it, objected to Austin by the old Pelagian heretics, upon his clearing and vindicating, that doctrine, is most apparent. The same objection, renewed by others, is also answered by Calvin, Institut. lib. 2, cap. 16; as also divers schoolmen had before, in their way, proposed it to themselves, as Thom. 3. g. 49, a. 4. Yet, notwithstanding the apparent senselessness of the thing itself, together with the many solid answers whereby it was long before removed, the Arminians, at the Synod of Dort, greedily snatched it up again, and placed it in the very front of their arguments against the effectual redemption of the elect by Jesus Christ. Now, that which was in them only an objection is taken up by some amongst us as a truth, the absurd inconsequent consequence of it owned as just and good, and the conclusion deemed necessary, from the granting of election to the denial of satisfaction.And, finally, in “Owen’s Works, Volume 10, Part 1 – Display of Arminianism”, Owen is discussing God’s secret and revealed wills and how there must be some distinctions. This section starts with a quotation that can be found in Thomas and Owen also agrees with how Thomas says that the revealed will can only metaphorically be called God’s will as it is a sign of His will.Chapter 5: “Divinum velle est ejus esse,” 130 say the schoolmen: “The will of God is nothing but God willing;” it does not differ from his essence “secundem rem,” in the thing itself, but only “secundem rationem,” in a relation to the thing that is willed. The essence of God being a most absolute, pure, and simple act or substance, his will can only and simply be one; we ought to make neither division nor distinction in it. If what signifies God’s will was always taken properly and strictly for the eternal will of God, then the distinctions that are usually made about it, are distinctions about the signification of the word, rather than the thing itself.In this regard, these distinctions are not only tolerable, but necessary, because without them it is utterly impossible to reconcile some places of Scripture that are seemingly repugnant to one another. In the 22nd chapter of Gen, verse 2, God commands Abraham to take his only son Isaac, and offer him for a burnt-offering in the land of Moriah. Here the words of God declare some will of God to Abraham, who knew it ought to be performed, and thought little but that it should be. Yet, when he actually addressed himself to his duty, in obedience to the will of God, he received a countermand in verse 12, that he should not lay his hand upon the child to sacrifice him. The event plainly manifests that it was the will of God that Isaac should not be sacrificed; and yet notwithstanding, by reason of his command, Abraham beforehand seemed bound to believe that it was well-pleasing to God that he should accomplish what he was enjoined to do. If the will of God in the Scripture is conceived of in only one way, then here is a plain contradiction. Thus God commands Pharaoh to let his people go. Could Pharaoh think otherwise? No. Was he not bound to believe that it was the will of God that he should dismiss the Israelites at the first hearing of the message? Yet God affirms that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not allow them to depart until God had showed his signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. To reconcile these and similar places in Scripture, the ancient fathers and schoolmen, along with modern divines, affirm that the one will of God may be said to be diverse or manifold with regard to the various ways by which he wills things to be done, and in other respects. Yet, taken in its proper signification, God’s will is simply one and the same. The common distinction between God’s secret will, and his revealed will, is such that all the other distinctions may be reduced to these two; and therefore I have chosen to insist upon it.The Secret Will of God is his eternal, unchangeable purpose concerning all things which he has made, to be brought to their appointed ends by certain means. He himself affirms that “his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure,” Isaiah 46:10. Some call this the absolute, efficacious will of God, the will of his good pleasure, which is always fulfilled. Indeed this is the only proper, eternal, constant, immutable will of God, whose order can neither be broken nor its law transgressed, so long as there is neither change nor shadow of turning with him. Jas 1.17The Revealed Will of God does not contain his purpose and decree, but our duty – not what he will do according to his good pleasure, but what we should do if we would please him; and this will, consisting of his word, his precepts and promises, belongs to us and our children, so that we may do the will of God. Now this, indeed, is to< qelhto >n rather than to< qe >lhma – that which God wills, rather than his will – but what we call the will of a man is what he has determined shall be done: “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life,” says our Savior, John 6:40; that is, this is what his will has appointed. Hence it is called “voluntas signi,” or the sign of his will. It is only metaphorically called his will, says Aquinas; 131 for inasmuch as our commands are the signs of our wills, the same is said of the precepts of God. This is the rule of our obedience, the transgression of which makes an action sinful; for hJ aJmarti >a ejstia, “sin is the transgression of a law;” such a law is given to the transgressor to be observed. Now, God has not imposed on us the observation of his eternal decree and intention (his secret will); and as it is utterly impossible for us to transgress or frustrate it, we would be unblamable if we should. A master requires of his servant to do what he commands, not to accomplish what he intends, which perhaps he never revealed to him. No, the commands of superiors are not always signs that the commander would have the things commanded actually performed, but only that those who are subject to his command are obliged to obedience, as far as the sense of that extends. “Et hoc clarum est in praeceptis divinis,” says Durand,132 etc. – “And this is clear in the commands of God,” by which we are obliged to do what he commands. Yet it is not always his pleasure that the thing itself, in regard to the event, should be accomplished, as we saw before in the examples of Pharaoh and Abraham.Footnote 130: Aquinas, p. q. 19, ar. ad. 1.Footnote 131: Aquin., q. g. 19, a. 11, c.