I appreciated some of the issues raised in this piece by Hervey. Thomas and Thomism have certainly been in the air as his memory and a set of larger questions concerning Roman Catholicism are being debated. In these unsettled times as Protestants and Evangelicals thirst for so-called Christian Civilisation, there's a desire to find some kind of historical and cultural continuity. Protestantism falls short in this regard, and as such many are looking farther back to a time that at least seems to be more cohesive. Whether it was something to celebrate or not is debatable. After all, error can (in theory) be coherent, and paganism can create cohesive societies.
Additionally there have been some heated debates over the Trinity and questions of mutability. For my part I see simply old philosophical debates being re-hashed and yet it's interesting, especially as one outside the circle of combat.
There is some truth to the claim that theology has shifted. Contrary to how many Confessionalists would present a portrait of continuity with the original Reformers, there was shift in thinking, method, and emphasis.
Later debates unsettled the very nature of epistemology and this becomes a more poignant question as one moves into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For some, Thomism represents a solid marker, a sure guide in the realm of epistemology to the point that some Confessionalists even reckon Thomas a Christian – which again testifies to their embrace of progressive orthodoxy. For if I were in 2023 to espouse true Thomism in their midst I would be decried a lost and hell-bound heretic. If Thomas were alive today they would condemn him. How is this sound thinking apart from a progressive orthodoxy framework? If they refuse the concept then Thomas is not a Christian. If they embrace it, they undermine the foundations of Confessionalism. The only way to save the narrative is to make Confessionalism into a Second Pentecost and the Confessions at that point have to be treated as canon. Many in fact do this – though they will not admit it.
For me the answer is simple – God's grace is greater than I can know or understand but I have no reason to believe Thomas is anywhere other than in Sheol-Hades awaiting a future Gehenna. The Christ of Thomas was no more the Christ of Scripture than was Aristotle's Prime Mover equivalent to God the Father. Hervey is right to emphasize the fact that Thomas taught idolatry. As such he has no part in Christ's Kingdom.
And yet in High Middle Ages the same theology makes one a solid Biblically-founded Christian – so says the likes of John Frame and John Gerstner. I found it interesting that Sproul was omitted as his ghost all but hovers over the discussion. Sproul was well known for his appreciation of Thomas, a point that was evident with his embrace of so-called Classical Apologetics.
And I say this not as a Van Tillian (for I am not) but as one who goes much further and embraces the anti-philosophical (even fideist if I am willing to own the label) positions of men like Kierkegaard and Pascal. In fact I'm more or less with Montaigne and believe that philosophical scepticism in destroying epistemology and philosophy in general opens the door to embrace revelation and faith – even necessitates as the only alternative is nihilism. This position can also be highly problematic if understood within certain frameworks and assumptions.
For those who rest in Thomas (as it were) and Hervey gently hints at this – the problem is that Thomas is literally the foundation stone of what must be called an Anti-Christ system. The entire Catholic structure of soteriology and its system of empty man-made works rests on his philosophical musings – and in addition (as pointed out) Thomas has a great deal of blood on his hands as his system called for and sanctioned the capture and execution of dissenters.
This cannot be ignored. It's like the elephant in the room when all of these scholars bandy about and debate questions regarding the nature of theology, epistemology, and apologetics. We also shouldn't ignore it when certain Protestant theologies call for the same.
I appreciate Hervey's distinction between using Thomism in an approving manner versus those who go further and celebrate him. The former are in error, the latter are blind and dangerous to themselves and others.
What a confusing mess this has all created – on this issue someone like James White comes down on the right side but you can be sure for many of the wrong reasons and certainly with many wrong-headed conclusions. If you could tear him away from preening in front of the mirror, you might even get him to see some of these points.
There are larger questions here too – ones that no one wants to revisit. Hervey calls for a kind of selected use of Thomas – an impossibility in the Roman system. But one might raise this point with regard to some of the ecumenical councils whose pronouncements are treated as deutero-canonical even by many Protestants. How can one embrace these councils in part on a very limited scope of issues and yet absolutely reject the rest of their work? That's what happens and it's a problem that everyone has chosen to ignore. The same is true when it comes to the embrace of Thomas.
And Hervey is right – the early Reformers (with their humanist impulses) were not terribly interested in Thomas. In many respects he was emblematic of what they were trying to combat, a theology they were trying to undo.
But then the name of Zanchi is invoked and despite the arguments of Richard Muller and others, a distinction needs to be made – one that at times they'll even begrudgingly admit.
There was a shift with the rise of Protestant Scholasticism and the approach of Confessionalist Orthodoxy. Aquinas was re-embraced at least in part. He was not celebrated but a great deal of the old Scholastic methodology was re-employed in order to flesh out a more holistic system – so necessary to create Confessionally-shaped societies. The pilgrim-antithesis of the New Testament won't do for their purposes.
One wishes Hervey's rather pointed and yet sound warnings had been heeded all those centuries ago. Rome is rotten to the core and the Confessional tradition all but testifies to this – in terms shocking to many today and yet in reality not quite as assertive as they might have been.
Ranging a little closer in the direction of modernity, it should be noted that despite denials, there is a degree of continuity between the Aristotelian scholastic tradition and Enlightenment Empiricism. Aristotle relied a great deal more on logic, deduction and what we today might call thought experiments rather than the scientific-experimental approach of later times. And yet in the primary realms of epistemology the two camps share a confidence in the primacy of man and his senses and in what it is possible to determine from the study of nature.
This is not to compliment Thomism or Empiricism (and its Positivist offspring in today's Scientism) but rather to show the same fundamentally flawed epistemological root is still generating its rotten fruits – now in a host of permutated forms.
One need not embrace all of Van Til's thought to find Hervey's sharp rejection of Thomas and Thomism refreshing
But what is the alternative? For Christian culture builders and those who would attempt to find a modus vivendi with the Western cultural tradition, the idea of recasting all of law, art, philosophy and the like is not only daunting but highly undesirable.
One might say the breaking of Christendom has left many traumatized. And with it the rejection of modernity and/or postmodernity leaves many floundering and unable to engage.
It's clear enough that a lot of the practical thinking has been outsourced to political actors and they have filled this void within the Church and thus (to add chaos to confusion) we find an eclectic epistemological and ethical center coupled with a series of cultural myth-narratives that simply cannot hold – even when it is mislabeled as a Christian or Biblical worldview.
The pilgrim-exile status of the New Testament Christian with all its implications is clearly unsettling and very upsetting.
And so amid the instability and the desire for solid ground, one might speak of the almost irresistible draw of Rome for such people – and that means Thomas, or we might say it starts with him.
It's worth pointing out that if the civilisational concern or impulse is actually removed from the equation (which a closer read of the New Testament will produce) then Thomas is no longer necessary or attractive and he will be rightly seen (as argued by Hervey) an idolater, the purveyor of a false gospel, and the defender of an evil system – an enemy to all who would follow the Christ of the New Covenant.