Journal: Christian Apologetics Journal
Volume: CAJ 05:2 (Fall 2006)
Article: A Thomistic Reply To The Reformed Objection To Natural Theology
Author: Barney H. Corbin

CAJ 5:2 (Fall 2006) p. 65

A Thomistic Reply To The Reformed
Objection To Natural Theology

Barney H. Corbin

Barney H. Corbin is a candidate for the Master of Arts in Religion degree at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC and the Master of Arts in philosophy at Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA.

St. Thomas Aquinas is seen by many as the exemplar natural theologian. It is perhaps for this reason that many Protestant thinkers associate the fate of natural theology itself with either the success or failure of Thomistic philosophy. Both from within and without the Christian Church, many seek to either disprove Thomas’ premises or cast them aside as irrelevant. Thinkers often take parts of Thomas’ corpus out of context and then interject modern presuppositions which are not in the original text or a part of the intent thereof. Since a full treatment of this systematic error is beyond the scope of this article, I will address only one particular contemporary case, Plantinga’s false attribution of “classical foundationalism” to Thomistic thought.

To illustrate Plantinga’s error it will be necessary to first understand his notion of what he calls “classical foundationalism” and how

CAJ 5:2 (Fall 2006) p. 66

he makes his subsequent attribution of it to Thomas. Since much of the Protestant rejection of Thomistic philosophy is a consequence of this and other like misapplications, I hope to show that if Thomas does not hold the false views attributed to him, then the entirety of his works should not be summarily rejected. In short, if Thomas is not in error in regard to his epistemology, then his natural theology deserves to be considered on to its own merits and not treated prejudicially. As there is no problem with being a Thomist in matters of philosophy and a Protestant in matters of faith, it is not a question of competing traditions. After all, theology and philosophy each have their own way of knowing and treating reality. The reformed position of certain “Calvinist-Analysts” as Henry B. Veatch calls them,1 does not speak for the Protestant tradition as a whole, and should not be allowed to speak for them as a whole on this issue. This fact becomes more evident when one finds that the Calvinist-Analyst epistemology is the product of modern and postmodern (i.e., hypermodern) assumptions that are at odds with the objective nature of Christendom, and Thomistic philosophy.

It is the task of this undertaking to demonstrate the error of ascribing to Thomas a kind of theological rationalism wherein he is guilty of reducing faith to reason via some form of foundationalism. And, because the so-called “Reformed” epistemology continues to gain favo...