The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Regeneration and Aquinas

I was reading an article on the Highway by RC Sproul called Regeneration Precedes Faith.
In that article I was surprised that he referenced Thomas Aquinas as believing that regeneration precedes faith.
He said that, but he did not quote Aquinas.
Can anyone confirm this?

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

Dunno if Acquinas actually held to faith following regeneration since the Catholic Church officially rejects that view. However, it is widely known that R.C. Sproul, Sr. had a real fascination with Aquinas. He has been strongly criticized for this, whether the criticism was justified or not. But, what difference does it make if Aquinas did believe that faith followed regeneration? The RCC is semi-Pelagian at best. Aquinas' alleged views have no weight to argue that the RCC is orthodox.

This might not be a popular opinion, but if a person's teaching is tainted by any serious theological error, then I am extremely reluctant to quote him or (especially) her, especially without some sort of disclaimer. I don't want to imply any kind of endorsement of any of these errors, almost all of which I believe to be at least borderline heresy.

I don't want to mention specific names, but these in my mind would include those who advocate:

* Arminian or semi-Pelagianism (IMO these compromise the Gospel)

* Romanism / Papacy / Mariolatry

* Anti-Trinitarianism including Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, etc.

* Feminism / Egalitarianism

* Montanism, continuationism strictly defined, "fallible prophecy," extrabiblical revelation, "contemplative prayer," and the like

* Racism, "woke-ism," leftism, socialism, communism, Marxism, Caesaropapism, etc.

* Abortion or any other form of mass murder

* Legalism / Antinomianism (IMO, two sides of the same coin - denial of Christ's ability to fully save)

* "Word of Faith" / Prosperity Gospel

* Sexual aberration including but not limited to fornication, sodomy, "gay marriage," adultery, divorce other than for adultery, and (controversially even among the Reformed) contraception in the general case.

* "Christian Hedonism"

* Anything less than a high view of Scripture as God's inerrant, complete, sufficient, and final Word

* Anything else that diminishes, by intent or by effect, the Glory of God

* Anything else inconsistent with salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, according to Scripture Alone and for the Glory of God Alone.

* Anything else inconsistent with the Bible's teaching on Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited/Particular Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.


I'm not saying each of these is equally problematic. Some are more so than others.

I also am NOT saying that those who hold to any of these teachings are not necessarily saved, or used by God for His purposes. It's not my place to judge either of these things. Yet, each and every one of them is, in my view which I believe I can defend from Scripture, rotten fruit. And we are to judge fruits. The Church has spoken clearly and repeatedly to each of these issues, arguably with a few very modern exceptions, and has judged them as inconsistent with the revealed Truth of God.

Also, generally, those who fall into these errors have in common an insufficient view of God's Word, and, therefore, of God as well. So you won't often see them in isolation. The person who decides to reject biblical teaching in one important area, will most commonly reject it in others also. Often leading to complete apostasy and denial of even the barest essentials of the Faith.

I want no part in helping, even inadvertently, to promote any such error.

I think perhaps you are missing the point. If indeed Aquinas did believe that regeneration precedes faith. Then despite the fact the RCC considers him one of their best theologians; never the less he disagrees with the official RCC teaching on the subject.

I doubt Sproul would agree with Aquinas on a lot of subjects. Never the less, on this subject it would seem like Aquinas agreed with Augustine.
As you probably are aware, Augustine is also considered to be one of the RCC best theologians ever; yet the Reformers claim his writings were very influential in their theology.

Again, at this point I have no idea if Sproul was correct about Aquinas view on the subject.

Tom

Sorta humorous that the Roman State Church likes to "own" Augustine. No different really than the PCUSA and other alleged "Reformed" denominations/churches claim they own the Westminster Confession of Faith to which they have little to no use. And similarly, how many "Evanjellycals" insist that they believe in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide but actually deny those statements vehemently when you try to explain what they mean historically.

Yes, it is humorous.
I have found that many really do not truly understand what Augustine believed and what Sola-Scriptura and Sola-Fide actually means.

Tom

It seems to be the "Sola" part that Romanists and semi-Pelagian evangellyfish don't get, or more precisely, won't admit, though it is taught throughout Scripture.

They will cheerfully admit that salvation is by Grace, but also by works, hence, not by Grace alone.

That it is by Faith, but also by works; hence not by Faith Alone.

In Christ but not Christ alone . . . must have the (Roman) church also, must have altar calls, must have sinners' prayers, etc., etc.

According to Scripture but not Scripture alone (must have our Traditions); and for the glory of God, yet not the glory of God Alone, for the (Roman) church, or the evangelist, or the "special personal revelation" must get their share of glory also.

Without the Solas, unfortunately, we do not have the biblical Gospel, but, rather, just another man-made religion that cannot save, but can give false assurances to poorly taught or untaught people that they are saved when in fact they are not.

From my most recent studies, although Thomas Aquinas was viewed Roman Catholics as one of their best theologians ever. It appears, to me that much like Augustine before him and Calvin after him, Aquinas believed in Double Predestination and other things Roman Catholics don't.

To me this really points to the fact despite Roman Catholics claims and Papal declarations; they are not as doctrinally monolithic through their history as they would like everyone to believe.

Tom