Scott Oliphint - The Problem of Thomistic Foundations for Apologetics

[@humblesmith]

Methinks you should read Part 1, Q1, A1 of the Summa. If Thomas does anything, he builds upon prior conclusions he has made. Everything else he says is built upon the very first question. This lecture seems to not realize what Thomas says at the very beginning, which is the same mistake that Van Til made.

[@Zombiefann]

Dr. O is the bomb

[@georgemay8170]

Thank you for your words. I don't know nor necessarily care about knowing all that Thomas wrote in his Summas; but, I do appreciate his greatness in pointing out his failure to use natural revelation as a bridge to seeing God. This means that for we who believe in the righteousness of Christ alone is with all believers who can only see God in Christ when it is the Holy Spirit who gives us the gift of faith to believe the propositions which have been recorded by the Prophets and the Apostles whom God has chosen to actually see and receive dictation of who He is.

[@billhesford6098]

Yes, many today see aliens as a result of studying nature and science. We see what we want to see in nature.

[@hermandadiberoamericanadem7268]

Oliphint´s main point is to illuminate his audience about the problems we find in Classical or Thomistic Apologetics.

[@lightoftheword6110]

It seems clear to me that there is a movement afoot in reformed Theology to de-legitimize any apologetic method except the Van Til method, and to establish this method as " the Reformed method ". I pray that someone proves me to be wrong in this assertion. How I pray I'm wrong!

[@johnmartin1335]

[42:40] - scripture is the self authenticating norm of all life and thought . . . Q - Where does scripture make the above statement, or something similar to the above statement? 2 Tim 3:16 does not say the scripture is self authenticating. Q - How does scripture self authenticate when no text can self authenticate? Q - How does a self authenticating scripture interact with the authority of the Church?

[@lightoftheword6110]

I think the objective is to portray Thomas as " sinful " by " bowing at the altar of autonomy and neutrality ", and then to link anyone else that uses Thomistic assertions ( R.C. Sproul for example ) as being " guilty by association ". Greg Bahnsen, in the book " Always Ready ", comes out of the gate attempting the same equation ( Commonality =neutrality= autonomy=sin ).

[@joohasdad82]

Could someone also explain what he's saying about proposition, and relating it to subject and predicate?

[@joohasdad82]

Can someone explain in simpler terms what the problems were with Thomistic Foundations? Thanks in advance!

[@GeoGrover]

Thomistic foundations for apologetics treats the claims of Christian truths as if they must be established by the light of pure or "neutral" reasoning without divine revelation. In other words, this approach assumes that it's possible to reason apart from the light of the Bible. It assumes that it's possible to come to the truth of the of Bible as a conclusion, without directly consulting the Bible for our our standards of argumentation used to reach that conclusion. On this basis it is thought only then after establishing the Bible as relevant by a Bible-less argument do we making the Bible the "light to our path". The Biblical approach realizes that any light that reason has is itself only possible by virtue of the fact that God's light is what makes our reasoning capacity have any light or traction. "In your light we see light." Psalm 36:9 In other words it would be impossible to come to correct conclusions about anything unless we first begin with Scriptural truth and allow God's insight to to illuminate our path--that is to shape our interpretation of the world. When we start from the position which pretends that the Bible may or may not be true, or that it might be irrelevant to some investigations of truth (namely the truth of the Bible), we will never end up concluding that the Bible is the only indispensable and infallible standard by which truth is, considered, evaluated, determined or known.

[@jimnewl]

​@TheTanniyn I suppose it's a waste of time to point out that you've completely misstated Thomas' position in order to set it up as a straw man to be knocked down. Natural reason is not something opposed to revealed truth. The two cannot be in conflict, inasmuch as there is one God and therefore one truth that has its source in him. The truths of mathematics, for example, are neither opposed to, nor in addition to, the truths of revelation, but are simply a part of his creation that happen to be accessible to the unaided human reason. As such, there is no necessity for God to reveal these truths to us, except perhaps in revealing their ultimate metaphysical foundation in God--for example, in showing that the many depends not just logically, but actually, on the existence of the one. Nowhere does St. Thomas state--because in no measure does St. Thomas believe--that the truths of revelation are to be tested against the truths attained by natural reason--as, for example, modern atheists do who attempt to make Physics the highest science and declare that because all they see and study is matter in motion, therefore there is no God. What St. Thomas believes is that there can be no conflict between nature and revelation, and because there cannot, the truths of natural reason can be used to illuminate the truths revealed to us by revelation. This is no more controversial than saying that man may employ his reason in order to understand what God has communicated to us--something you do every time you read and ponder what a Scriptural verse means. What he DOES NOT mean, however, is what you hold as, not only a first principle, but THE first principle of all Deformed theology, and that is that one must bring one's preconceived 'druthers--one's demands about what must be found within the text--to the text a priori, which is then to be interpreted in light of those 'druthers, thereby imposing a meaning that is actually foreign to, and opposed to, the true meaning. Luther enshrined this irrational, anti-rational method as the go-to method for all anti-Catholics when he openly confessed that his overweening motivation as a theologian was a desperate desire to be sure of his own salvation. Whether the kind of security he demanded to have was actually taught in the Bible was not to be questioned. It was to be assumed at the outset as true, and all Scripture subsequently twisted and interpreted into submission (even if that meant, among other things, excising whole books from the canon). Reason was thereby put at the service of sinful pride. Man's demands were elevated above God's gift. This is the same general method that was followed by Calvin and others, and it is the reason for the rejection of Thomas' perfectly sensible, God-centered method. Thomas' method results in objective, defensible truths and real understanding about God. The Protestant method results merely in personal pleading lacking divine approbation--pleading that also happens to be, in the main, false.

[@ParaSniper2504]

Oliphint and his brother were both from a Roman Catholic background.

[@Degasbm]

this is one of the most biased Thomistic analysis I've ever heard

[@BRNRDNCK]

So what? Everyone is biased. That says nothing.

[@Gisbertus_Voetius]

@@BRNRDNCK I agree.

[@jimnewl]

​@@BRNRDNCKI think what he meant was "dishonest."

[@oneluv66]

Someone suggested I watch this video to hear what’s wrong with Thomism, 30 minutes in not a single criticism just summary of Aquinas. Word of advice for videos like this, you should properly lay out a brief summary of your actual criticism, then lay out summary of his work for those unfamiliar with them, and go into more detail.

[@fernandohernandez4567]

Do this and commit a Straw person fallacy.

[@Thomasrice07]

Properly merged together

[@palomnikgreshnik6687]

The biggest impression Scott Oliphant conveys in these lectures is that nobody is correct except for Scott Oliphant. He calls himself Reformed, but everything he says insinuates that he wants to be a Pope.

[@lightoftheword6110]

I believe we are witnessing a sad time in Reformed Theology; a time when a certain group of apologists, led by Scott Oliphint, are attempting to " purge " reformed Theology of any apologetic method except Covenantal ( Van Til ). The strategy is becoming quite clear to me; stigmatize Classical Apologists by linking them to Thomas Aquinas, thus linking them to the formula commonality=neutrality=autonomy=sin, and thus rendering them irrelevant to reformed Theology going forward. If this is the case, it is both unfortunate and unnecessary, and is disturbing, disruptive , and divisive. If we in Reformed Theology do " Bible Apologetics ", we will find no mandate for Van Til Apologetics, to the exclusion of any and all other Apologetic methods, and to demand such a mandate, and seek to materialize that perceived mandate by above stated means is, in my estimation, violating one of the hatreds of God; sowing discord among brethren. If there were to be a debate held, that had as the proposition " Covenantal Apologetics is the only Biblically and Reformed authorized Apologetic method" , I would totally oppose it, Biblically and historically. If I am wrong in this assertion, then someone needs to show me specifically why I am wrong.

[@vilicus77]

The simple fact is that no matter how much Christians banter and debate over which apologetic strategies to deploy, non believers, like myself, just one one piece of actual solid evidence that the supernatural exists. Drop the philosophy, the presuppositions, and rhetoric and just bring real evidence. I haven't seen it yet. Real evidence would actually convince people.

[@bobpolo2964]

You reject the existence of the biblical God?

[@cabeto821005]

Define evidence

[@BRNRDNCK]

You don’t believe in the supernatural? How do you prove anything at all?? What is induction? What is uniformity in nature? What is objective truth? Why can you intelligently perceive the universe? You’re a fool to reject God because you can’t answer any of these questions without him, yet you comment as if someone hasn’t brought you the evidence you need, presupposing all of the problems I just presented don’t exist. That’s why the Bible says you’re a fool.

[@vilicus77]

@@BRNRDNCK You wrote, "You don’t believe in the supernatural? How do you prove anything at all??" What does the concept of the supernatural have to do with induction? That doesn't even make sense. What supernatural? All we can observe is the natural world. Induction and scientific investigation is purely naturalistic.

[@BRNRDNCK]

@@vilicus77 How in the world is induction naturalistic? Your job wasn’t to ask me about how it applies to the supernatural, even though that’s an easy question; your job was to justify it on your own worldview. Do you want another try at any of the questions I posed?