The problem with depending on the rationalism of Thomas Aquinas: Analysis of the book, "Evangelical Exodus" by Scott Oliphint

Video begins around 12:20.

This was a very good analysis of why so many students and and teachers at Southern Evangelical Seminary (founder Norman Geisler) have left Evangelicalism and converted to Roman Catholicism.

Analysis of the rationalism of Thomas Aquinas and the book "Evangelical Exodus" (Edited by Douglas M. Beaumont, Ignatius Press, 2016)

Addendum:  (June 11, 2016)
Dr. White's comments on the Dividing Line Program of June 10, 2016 (from around 18 minute mark to 43 minute mark) about the Evangelical Exodus book, Norman Geisler, Southern Evangelical Seminary, Thomas Aquinas, Oliphint's lecture, and Roman Catholicism are a good addition to Oliphint's lecture. 

Dr. White emphasized other issues such as the bondage of the will vs. freedom of the will (Monergism vs. Synergism) and the Sacramentalism of Thomas Aquinas.  (Aquinas was the one called upon by the Pope to defend the 1215 dogma of Transubstantiation.  Aquinas lived from 1225- 1274 AD, but he is the one who explained the earlier dogma of 1215. )  Also, the fact that the SES students are not exposed much at all to the best of the Reformation thinkers - Luther on the Bondage of the Will, Calvin, others - those Calvinists are avoided by Geisler and SES and so the emphasis on Aquinas and the autonomous freedom of the human will, seems to have filled that vacuum.

Dividing Line Program of June 10, 2016 :

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2016/06/10/arminian-loses-psalm-3310-11-ses-rome-comma-johanneum/

Three parts to that DL:
1. An Arminian writer skips Psalm 33:10-11 (beginning to 18:00) 
2. Evangelical Exodus, Geisler, Oliphint, Thomas Aquinas, Roman Catholicism ( around 18.00 to 43.00)
3. Issues about the Textus Receptus, Textual Criticism, 1 John 5:7-8, some Reformed Christians who believe the Textus Receptus Greek text is the best (TR Onlyism); and how that attitude will not equip people to deal with atheists, skeptics, Muslims, JWs, Mormons, etc. who will eat their lunch if they try and bring a TR Only ism attitude into the real world in evangelism and apologetics.  (43:00 to the end)

Translations of the Word “Alone” in Romans 3:28 Previous to Luther

Over on the Carm boards, I came across the following:

 Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

This is particularly funny. This quote has shown up in a 1001 places on the internet, never with any more supporting context. And, a good many times it is posted by our friend James Swan who works with James White, the notorious Catholic hater. The fact that 'faith alone' appears side by side in the works of a few Catholic doctors does not mean this is the "faith Alone" Martin Luther taught. In fact, if St. Thomas had indeed meant for it to be faith alone, why all these many centuries hasn't this come forward till now. And why didn't St. Thomas Aquinas repeat "faith alone" in his Commentary on Romans. I'm reading it now, there is little "faith alone". What we read St. Thomas say is that faith is formed in love, something far from alone.

Maybe you would be kind enough to get more than a few phrases on either side of the cited lines so we can see the content, I'm sure you have access to it, you didn't say it was obtained from any other source. Where did it come from?
JoeT


Here was my response:

I appreciate that you referred to me as "friend." Previous to this I had the feeling that you were most antagonistic to anything I post. It also appears from your recent comments that when I do take a moment or two to post on CARM, some of these occurrences you consider "good many times." It's nice to know you are a "friend" and you appreciate some of my posts as "good." 

You did though make a few tedious errors in your recent comment (and I'm only pointing them out now that I know we're friends). First, I am not (nor have I ever been) employed by James White, but I have written articles for him on his aomin.org site (and I could still if I so choose) I am not paid for any of my contributions to his web site, I never have been paid by him. Second, James White is not a "notorious Catholic hater." Don't take my word for it, Simply ask Father Mitch Pacwa (he's endorsed at least one of Dr. White's books).

In regard to the actual substance of your comments: the Aquinas quote that makes it's way around the Internet (which I probably helped popularize) was from Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361. He's on your side, not mine. If you don't own this scholarly Roman Catholic work, you can actually view pages 360-361 by going over to Amazon and use their "Look Inside" feature. 

In regard to the contexts for those comments by Aquinas as cited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer: I'm not fluent in locating contexts for Aquinas like I am Reformation materials. However, I did take a few minutes to try to track the contexts down for you. I will certainly appreciate any corrections on the context locations (as we explore our new friendship!)

1. "Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law)."

I found the context for this quote on this link: Biblica. Super Epistulam ad Timotheum Primam. Feel free to read through the entire treatise. The paragraph the quote comes from can be searched for in the link: 

"Sed apostolus videtur loqui de moralibus, quia subdit quod lex posita est propter peccata, et haec sunt praecepta moralia. Horum legitimus usus est, ut homo non attribuat eis plus quam quod in eis continetur. Data est lex ut cognoscatur peccatum. Rom. VII, 7: quia nisi lex diceret: non concupisces, concupiscentiam nesciebam, etc.; quod dicitur in Decalogo. Non est ergo in eis spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis.

2. “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b):

I found the context for this quote on this link. Scroll to page 45. I also found it here.

Deinde *** dicit ei vero, etc., ostendit qualiter se habeat merces aeterna ad fidem, dicens ei vero qui non
operatur, scilicet exteriora opera, puta quia non habet tempus operandi, sicut patet in baptizato statim mortuo, credenti in eum qui iustificat impium, scilicet in Deum, de quo dicitur infra, VIII, 18. Deus qui iustificat, reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam, id est, ut per eam iustus dicatur, et iustitiae praemium accipiat, sicut si opera iustitiae fecisset, secundum illud infra, X, 10 corde creditur ad iustitiam, et hoc secundum propositum gratiae Dei, id est, secundum quod Deus proponit ex gratia sua homines salvare. Infra VIII, 28: his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt sancti. 

3. “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

I found the context, here.

Infra IV, 9: conversi estis ad egena elementa, id est, gratiam non conferentia, neque gratiam in se continentia. Sacramenta vero novae legis, licet sint elementa materialia, non tamen sunt elementa egena, quia in se gratiam continent, unde et iustificare possunt. Si qui autem in veteri lege iusti erant, non erant iusti ex operibus legis, sed solum ex fide Christi, quem Deus proposuit propitiatorem per fidem, ut dicitur Rom. III, 20. Unde et ipsa sacramenta veteris legis non fuerunt nisi quaedam protestationes fidei Christi, sicut et nostra sacramenta, sed differenter, quia illa sacramenta gratiam Christi configurabant quasi futuram; nostra autem sacramenta protestantur quasi continentia gratiam praesentem.

I don't believe these references are from the "Parma ed" as cited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, but they do appear to be the contexts.

You say, "The fact that 'faith alone' appears side by side in the works of a few Catholic doctors does not mean this is the "faith Alone" Martin Luther taught." Perhaps you missed this In my previous comment. I stated, 

It is entirely possible Luther’s understanding of 'faith alone' differs from those before him, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the thrust of Romans 3:28 implies “alone.” Others previous to Luther may have differed in theological interpretation, yet saw the thrust of the words implied “alone.” Hence, as a translator, Luther holds company with others, and cannot be charged with a mistranslation. If he’s guilty of such a charge, so are many before him.

In other words, my new friend, I grant that Aquinas probably didn't understand justification the same way as Luther. However, Aquinas appears to have read Romans 3:28 in a similar way. So when your compatriots want to charge Luther with mistranslating Romans 3:28, pointing to Fitzmyer list of those previous to Luther is to simply demonstrate that other besides Luther see "alone" as implicit in the meaning of that verse.

Addendum
Here are the pages from Fitzmyer:

Aquinas: There is no hope of justification, but only by faith...We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law

Here's an interesting Aquinas tidbit from an old discussion list:

Et sie exponit Glossa. Sed Apostolus videtur loqui de moralibus, quia subdit quod lex posita est propter peccata, et haec sunt praecepta moralia. Horum legitimus usus est ut homo non attribuat eis plus quam quod in eis continetur. Data est lex ut cognoscatur peccatum. Roman., vii, 7: Quia nisi lex diceret,non concupisces (quod dicitur in Decalogo) concupiscentiam nesciebam. Non est ergo in eis spec justificationis, sed insola fide. Roman., iii, 28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis.

"But the Apostle seems to be speaking about morals, because he adds that the law was set forth because of sin, and the law consists of moral precepts. The proper use of these precepts is that man not attribute to them more than what is contained in them. The law was given so that sin might be recognized. As Romans 7:7 says, "Unless the law were saying, 'Do not covet,' (which the Decalogue says), I would not have known about covetousness. In the precepts, therefore, there is no hope (spec=spes?) of justification, but only by faith. As Romans 3:28 says, "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law."

Thomas Aquinas, "Epistola I Ad Timotheum", "Lectio III" in *Opera Omnia*, Volume 21: *Commentarii in Epistolam Ad Corinthios 1 In Caeteras Omnes Epistolas S. Pauli.* Paris: Apud Ludovicum Vives, Bibliopolam Editorem, 1876, page 456.