I think you're perhaps overstating your case a bit.
First off, you seem to be arguing that anyone who anywhere arguably advocates for what arguably constitutes idolatry should be categorically ignored as a false teacher. This seems. . . overinclusive. Let's just assume, for the purposes of argument, that your description of how Scripture treats idolatry is accurate. Idolatry is hardly the only sin that falls into the category of "false teaching" that Scripture treats in that manner. Sexual deviancy comes immediately to mind. But Scripture takes a pretty dim view of false teachers across the board, regardless of their error. The position you take here would seem to require you to dispense with a vast swath of theologians on the same grounds. I don't think you can limit that condemnation solely to 2C violations. If you're going to cut Sproul, etc., some slack as "fallible men," you should be willing to do the same for Aquinas.
Second, I think your distaste for Rome is also overstated. You're treating it as if it were a monolithic, homogenous tradition. Which, ironically enough, is giving the Vatican's own rhetoric far too much credit. As you yourself say, it's really hard to pin down exactly what Rome stands for--which is a problem in and of itself, to be sure. But the mere fact the Aquinas is Catholic, and Rome has some problems, isn't really a good reason to denigrate his thought entirely. Luther and Calvin both found him far too useful for that.
A far more compelling reason to keep Rome at arm's length is the fact that the Vatican has been run by corrupt sexual predators for the better part of a century. . . .
“You seem to be arguing that anyone who anywhere arguably advocates for what arguably constitutes idolatry should be categorically ignored as a false teacher.”
No. But Aquinas didn’t “arguably” advocate for what “arguably constitutes idolatry.” He explicitly taught the propriety of worshipping and praying to inanimate objects, inc. a block of wood and a cave.
“Idolatry is hardly the only sin that falls into the category of "false teaching" that Scripture treats in that manner. Sexual deviancy comes immediately to mind.”
Agreed. “Sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality” are the first works of the flesh that Gal. 5:19-21 lists as marks of those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
“The position you take here would seem to require you to dispense with a vast swath of theologians on the same grounds.”
The position I take here – that those whose lives are marked by the works of the flesh alluded to above and who are, as such, known by their fruits – does indeed require dispensing with more people than just Aquinas, and I do so without apology. I’m not sure that “a vast swath of theologians” accurately describes the number, but there are certainly other people who have been discredited and exposed by their impenitent works of the flesh. Barth and Yoder come to mind, the former a longtime, impenitent adulterer and the latter a womanizer/predator.
“I don't think you can limit that condemnation solely to 2C violations.”
I don’t, and neither should anyone else.
“If you're going to cut Sproul, etc., some slack as "fallible men," you should be willing to do the same for Aquinas.”
Whether someone deserves slack depends on the circumstances and the offense. Sproul didn’t tell people to commit idolatry or some other sin that leads people astray and provokes God to an ‘uproot your kingdom and give you over to destruction and slavery’ level of wrath. Aquinas did, and he is still being appealed to as an authority on that point: Rome’s catechism appeals to his theory of how worship works to justify images (sec. 2132, FN 71). (Another example of her inconsistency: the catechism says image veneration differs from worship given to God, but then quotes Aquinas, who uses “worship” without qualification; and the Latin original in the Summa section quoted mentions ‘latria’ there, which is worship given to God. Compare the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org), which says “worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (latinized, latria).”)
“But the mere fact the Aquinas is Catholic, and Rome has some problems, isn't really a good reason to denigrate his thought entirely.”
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. My point was that an obsession with Aquinas is leading to keeping bad company now. The Center for Classical Theism/Credo crowd have no qualms commending Roman authors, and in fact gave their 2023 award for best new book in dogmatics to a Romanist. And recall that in some respects Rome is much worse now than in Aquinas’ day, both doctrinally (papal infallibility, serious issues about Mary) and morally (what you mention in your last sentence).
“Luther and Calvin both found him far too useful for that.”
I’d be interested to see where Luther mentions Aquinas approvingly at all, much less where he used him plentifully. Ditto Calvin. Searching for “Thomas” or “Aquinas” in the Institutes yields only a handful of mentions. He alludes to him on free will on p. 348, but later says things like “even the schoolmen admit, (Thomas, Part 1, Quest. 83, art. 3,)” and directly refutes Aquinas on the foreknowledge of merit as the cause of predestination, saying “nor let us be detained by the subtlety of Thomas” and “were we to make a trial of subtlety, it would not be difficult to refute the sophistry of Thomas” (p. 1162, Monergism PDF version).
Tom- thank you for taking this topic on. I appreciate your flagging Sproul and Gerstner on this as well. I’ve not faired well when I say such things. And as a member of a PCA church with actual carved wooden doors to the sanctuary with images of Christ, I may be an idolater of complicity (I have raised this issue to the Session countless times - do I get absolution?). My question. Is What About Augustine? My reformed understanding has been shaped by him. But doesn’t he also raise potentially idolatrous issues? Keep at it! Your are appreciated.
Men like Sproul, Geisler, Gerstner (and for that matter, Trueman, Richard Muller, some of the Credo folks) have done an awful lot of good, but they are still fallible men, and I think this is one point on which they have particularly shown their fallibility. To be clear, there is a big difference between having purported images of Christ in one's building and worshipping said images. I believe the first is wrong, but no Presbyterians I have ever heard of actually pray to or worship stained glass windows (or drawings, paintings, etc.) of the clean, well-groomed, pale European men who are purported to represent our Lord in his first advent.
But as I noted here (and more than once elsewhere), Aquinas really did commend praying to and worshipping images of Christ and the cross with latria, which is Rome's term for worship given to God. Even some Romans object to that: John Owen quotes Robert Bellarmine calling such a thing "idolatricall" (a phrase worth recycling for today). All which is to say I don't believe you or anyone else at your church are culpable of idolatry, though some interior re-decorating would be well-justified.
As for Augustine, he certainly had some issues - he defended the use of state persecution against the Donatists, for example - but I do not recall him defending image worship along the lines of Aquinas and medieval Rome. Can you give me a source or a quote for what you have in mind
I think you're perhaps overstating your case a bit.
First off, you seem to be arguing that anyone who anywhere arguably advocates for what arguably constitutes idolatry should be categorically ignored as a false teacher. This seems. . . overinclusive. Let's just assume, for the purposes of argument, that your description of how Scripture treats idolatry is accurate. Idolatry is hardly the only sin that falls into the category of "false teaching" that Scripture treats in that manner. Sexual deviancy comes immediately to mind. But Scripture takes a pretty dim view of false teachers across the board, regardless of their error. The position you take here would seem to require you to dispense with a vast swath of theologians on the same grounds. I don't think you can limit that condemnation solely to 2C violations. If you're going to cut Sproul, etc., some slack as "fallible men," you should be willing to do the same for Aquinas.
Second, I think your distaste for Rome is also overstated. You're treating it as if it were a monolithic, homogenous tradition. Which, ironically enough, is giving the Vatican's own rhetoric far too much credit. As you yourself say, it's really hard to pin down exactly what Rome stands for--which is a problem in and of itself, to be sure. But the mere fact the Aquinas is Catholic, and Rome has some problems, isn't really a good reason to denigrate his thought entirely. Luther and Calvin both found him far too useful for that.
A far more compelling reason to keep Rome at arm's length is the fact that the Vatican has been run by corrupt sexual predators for the better part of a century. . . .
“You seem to be arguing that anyone who anywhere arguably advocates for what arguably constitutes idolatry should be categorically ignored as a false teacher.”
No. But Aquinas didn’t “arguably” advocate for what “arguably constitutes idolatry.” He explicitly taught the propriety of worshipping and praying to inanimate objects, inc. a block of wood and a cave.
“Idolatry is hardly the only sin that falls into the category of "false teaching" that Scripture treats in that manner. Sexual deviancy comes immediately to mind.”
Agreed. “Sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality” are the first works of the flesh that Gal. 5:19-21 lists as marks of those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
“The position you take here would seem to require you to dispense with a vast swath of theologians on the same grounds.”
The position I take here – that those whose lives are marked by the works of the flesh alluded to above and who are, as such, known by their fruits – does indeed require dispensing with more people than just Aquinas, and I do so without apology. I’m not sure that “a vast swath of theologians” accurately describes the number, but there are certainly other people who have been discredited and exposed by their impenitent works of the flesh. Barth and Yoder come to mind, the former a longtime, impenitent adulterer and the latter a womanizer/predator.
“I don't think you can limit that condemnation solely to 2C violations.”
I don’t, and neither should anyone else.
“If you're going to cut Sproul, etc., some slack as "fallible men," you should be willing to do the same for Aquinas.”
Whether someone deserves slack depends on the circumstances and the offense. Sproul didn’t tell people to commit idolatry or some other sin that leads people astray and provokes God to an ‘uproot your kingdom and give you over to destruction and slavery’ level of wrath. Aquinas did, and he is still being appealed to as an authority on that point: Rome’s catechism appeals to his theory of how worship works to justify images (sec. 2132, FN 71). (Another example of her inconsistency: the catechism says image veneration differs from worship given to God, but then quotes Aquinas, who uses “worship” without qualification; and the Latin original in the Summa section quoted mentions ‘latria’ there, which is worship given to God. Compare the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org), which says “worship called forth by God, and given exclusively to Him as God, is designated by the Greek name latreia (latinized, latria).”)
“But the mere fact the Aquinas is Catholic, and Rome has some problems, isn't really a good reason to denigrate his thought entirely.”
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. My point was that an obsession with Aquinas is leading to keeping bad company now. The Center for Classical Theism/Credo crowd have no qualms commending Roman authors, and in fact gave their 2023 award for best new book in dogmatics to a Romanist. And recall that in some respects Rome is much worse now than in Aquinas’ day, both doctrinally (papal infallibility, serious issues about Mary) and morally (what you mention in your last sentence).
“Luther and Calvin both found him far too useful for that.”
I’d be interested to see where Luther mentions Aquinas approvingly at all, much less where he used him plentifully. Ditto Calvin. Searching for “Thomas” or “Aquinas” in the Institutes yields only a handful of mentions. He alludes to him on free will on p. 348, but later says things like “even the schoolmen admit, (Thomas, Part 1, Quest. 83, art. 3,)” and directly refutes Aquinas on the foreknowledge of merit as the cause of predestination, saying “nor let us be detained by the subtlety of Thomas” and “were we to make a trial of subtlety, it would not be difficult to refute the sophistry of Thomas” (p. 1162, Monergism PDF version).
Tom- thank you for taking this topic on. I appreciate your flagging Sproul and Gerstner on this as well. I’ve not faired well when I say such things. And as a member of a PCA church with actual carved wooden doors to the sanctuary with images of Christ, I may be an idolater of complicity (I have raised this issue to the Session countless times - do I get absolution?). My question. Is What About Augustine? My reformed understanding has been shaped by him. But doesn’t he also raise potentially idolatrous issues? Keep at it! Your are appreciated.
Men like Sproul, Geisler, Gerstner (and for that matter, Trueman, Richard Muller, some of the Credo folks) have done an awful lot of good, but they are still fallible men, and I think this is one point on which they have particularly shown their fallibility. To be clear, there is a big difference between having purported images of Christ in one's building and worshipping said images. I believe the first is wrong, but no Presbyterians I have ever heard of actually pray to or worship stained glass windows (or drawings, paintings, etc.) of the clean, well-groomed, pale European men who are purported to represent our Lord in his first advent.
But as I noted here (and more than once elsewhere), Aquinas really did commend praying to and worshipping images of Christ and the cross with latria, which is Rome's term for worship given to God. Even some Romans object to that: John Owen quotes Robert Bellarmine calling such a thing "idolatricall" (a phrase worth recycling for today). All which is to say I don't believe you or anyone else at your church are culpable of idolatry, though some interior re-decorating would be well-justified.
As for Augustine, he certainly had some issues - he defended the use of state persecution against the Donatists, for example - but I do not recall him defending image worship along the lines of Aquinas and medieval Rome. Can you give me a source or a quote for what you have in mind