One of the most common critiques of Thomas Aquinas to be found in contemporary Protestant theology and apologetics is that Aquinas either outright denies the noetic effects of sin (that is, the effect of original sin on the human intellect) or at least minimizes the noetic effects of sin. Francis Schaeffer, for example, explicitly states, “In Aquinas’s view the will of man was fallen, but the intellect was not.” This critique, that Aquinas’s incomplete understanding of the noetic effects of sin opened the door to an unwarranted confidence in the ability of the human intellect to somehow infer the existence of God from nature, appears to be a fairly recent development in the history of Reformed critiques of Aquinas, finding its roots, according to some, in the work of Herman Dooyeweerd. In his 1959 book Roots of Western Culture, Dooyeweerd describes the scholastic view, of which Aquinas was apparently the “Prince,” as suggesting that the fallen “human ‘nature,’ which is guided by the natural light of reason, was not corrupted by sin and thus also does not need to be restored by Christ. Human nature is only ‘weakened’ by the fall.”

Even though some scholars (both Catholics and Protestants) have attempted to correct this misinterpretation of Aquinas, the misunderstanding persists and maintains its popularity in many Protestant circles. This can be seen clearly in the recent publications of K. Scott Oliphint, who states,

During the Middle Ages, insufficient attention was given, in general, to the problem of sin as it relates to our reasoning process…. Because the effects of sin were thought to be less extensive in their application to us (as compared with Reformation thought), in that sin was not seen as radically affecting our reasoning, there was an improper view of the faculty of reason, especially with respect to reason’s ability to understand and discern God’s revelation and his existence. Reason was regarded as fairly well intact, even after the fall, such that all men followed the same basic rules of thought.

These claims are summarized in his 2017 book on Aquinas: “what the medievals, including Thomas, neglected to incorporate in their theological system was the radical effect that sin has on the mind of fallen man.” Oliphint does not stray far from Cornelius Van Til, who portrays the Roman Catholic view of the noetic effects of sin as follows: “According to this view the disturbance is endemic to human nature because man is made up, in part, of nonrational elements. To the extent that man consists of intellect, he does not and cannot sin. The ‘disturbance’ in man’s make-up is not due primarily to any fault of his own.” Whether or not some Roman Catholic theologians may have affirmed such a claim, we will argue that Aquinas did not.

It is the primary purpose of this article to provide a much-needed corrective to these all-too-common and continually repeated misinterpretations of Aquinas that continue to be promoted by contemporary Protestant theologians and apologists. In this article I show not only that Aquinas clearly states that human nature in its entirety (i.e., both intellect and will) is affected by sin, but also that his approach can be adopted by Protestant theologians without sacrificing Protestant particularities. First, I overview Aquinas’s approach to human nature and faculty psychology. Second, I turn to his understanding of sin (actual and original) in order to show not only that he clearly thinks that man is totally depraved (such that original sin affects even reason), but that his views concerning the nature and transmission of original sin entail that man is totally depraved. Aquinas’s understanding of the interrelation of the intellect and will is essential for a proper understanding of his claims concerning the noetic effects of sin. In the process, I show how Aquinas’s articulation of the effects of sin on the entire human nature includes not only intellect and will, but all of those faculties that can be moved by the will to act. Read more»

David Haines | “Thomas Aquinas on Total Depravity and the Noetic Effects of Sin” | Themelios 48.2

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Post authored by:

• Heidelblog

  

  The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

  More by Heidelblog ›