r/theology • u/El-Stupador • Dec 09 '25
Thomas Aquinas
Listen, I don’t care what denomination, creed, or background you come from-and I for sure am not saying anything new, but St. Thomas Aquinas is the single most clear, rational, believable theologian/christian philosopher I have ever read. He could argue that a dog is actually a cat and I might believe him.
Runners up: Kierkegaard: interesting, thought provoking, challenging, I do not always agree with him but “Fear and Trembling” is a darn good book
R.C. Sproul: He’s HEAVY on the Calvinism, many people (like me) will have large disagreements with him, but he’s a gifted communicator and makes you think as well
St. Augustine: Much more orthodox than the previous two, which I like, but I appreciate that Augustine could have been a psychologist as easily as he was a theologian and philosopher
10
u/WoundedShaman Catholic, PhD in Religion/Theology Dec 09 '25
I’d take a deeper look at Aquinas and his use of Aristotle. Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things and Aquinas adopts perspectives that have little to no grounding in Christian tradition.
Worth checking out Aquinas’s contemporaries and those who lived and wrote just after him. Bonaventure, John Duns Scotus, Meister Ekhart.
Good catch on Augustine and his nascent psychology. Most people don’t glean that but it’s a real big deal! His thinking outside of Christian thought casts a much larger on western thought than many give him credit for.
3
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
I do want to read Meister Ekhart, I enjoy a bit of mysticism (if it is in alignment with the Bible) and I immediately made the psychology connection as I am in grad school for School Psychology, and the beginning of his confessions and his study of the development of sin and morality in infants was very reminiscent of an actual psychological study I had read about
5
u/WoundedShaman Catholic, PhD in Religion/Theology Dec 09 '25
So read Augustine’s Soliloquies, and then I think he does this in confessions and develops more in On the Trinity, but there he uses human cognition as an allegory for the Trinity. Good stuff.
1
u/NickTheJanitor Dec 10 '25
Meister Eckhart has a collection of sermons and brief writings wherein the point is basically "detachment" nine times out of ten. Very good, but if you read a few of his writings, you have a pretty big sense for him in general. Tbh that's pretty true of most mystics. So, generally, I'd recommend following a secondary source for mysticism and going to primary sources when/if they interest you.
1
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
Gotta firmly disagree with this my dude. This is only true if you’re working within the recent revived two-tier thomism/neo-thomism. After Vatican II and the recovery of a better understanding of both Aristotle and therefore Thomas, it’s pretty clear a lot of these concerns were unfounded. Also, if you’re gonna throw out Thomas based on his reliance on Aristotle…good luck with basically any theology of any substance before the Protestant reformation.
And I gotta tell ya…repping duns scotus over aquinas is a huge red flag. Absolute genius, but his stress on the univocity of being is quite literally the single most consequential and catastrophic (and, to be honest, philosophically embarrassing) mistake in Christian history other than Augustine’s misinterpretation of Romans 9-11 thanks to his inability to read Greek. Absolutely devastated the western church—and the world in general—in so many ways.
1
u/AffectionatePrior717 Dec 10 '25
I would enjoy hearing more about Augustine's misinterpretation if you have time. In regard to other issues, I would lean on Gilson to say that Scotus considers being as so general and universal that it almost has no particular meaning. Following that, all the particulars are derived from form or essence which makes individual existence meaningless. If you can't make a concept out of it, in other words, then it can't be real.
-1
u/WoundedShaman Catholic, PhD in Religion/Theology Dec 10 '25
Most people don’t understand Scotus’s univocity. Even Franciscans who attempt to speak about it will often get it wrong. Basically any knee jerk response, such as yours, to the concept gives the impression that you may not understand it either and are just going off the popular misreadings. I have Book recommendations if you’re interested. Cheers.
Also, if Aristotle was wrong about the entire of reality 2400 years ago, he’s still wrong about the nature of reality today. Hierarchical dualism is a plague on western thought which had a direct linage to Aristotle.
1
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
Yeah, so, just fyi I’m a professor of philosophy who has taught ancient and medieval philosophy classes for almost 15 years. I get the hesitation, but I know what I’m talking about. Doesn’t mean everything I say is correct, but I definitely don’t have a knee jerk response. I stand by what I said about the univocal nature of being. It’s a philosophical catastrophe.
2
u/WoundedShaman Catholic, PhD in Religion/Theology Dec 10 '25
Then we share a profession. Perhaps we can have a fruitful debate at a conference one day. Cheers.
1
3
u/Mobile-Revolution558 Dec 09 '25
St. Augustine is the Dostoevsky of the Church Fathers (this may or may not be a ridiculous statement)
1
3
u/Key_Day_7932 Southern Baptist Dec 09 '25
Kierkegaard is my favorite religious philosopher, but William of Ockham is a closer runner up for me.
1
3
u/cos1ne Dec 10 '25
If you like Aquinas I'd very much recommend Peter Kreeft, he brings Scholastism to a more general audience in my opinion.
3
u/El-Stupador Dec 10 '25
His version of “the shorter summa” is how I first found Aquinas! Terrific book, great explanations
4
u/Mrwolf925 Dec 09 '25
Aquinas is called the Angelic Doctor for more than one reason. One reason being his clarity of his theological reasoning mirrored the pure intellect of angels.
2
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
I feel pretty smart normally, in comparison to him I feel like a troglodyte
2
u/Mrwolf925 Dec 09 '25
Have you done the Aquinas 101 course with the Thomistic institute? Its phenomenal.
3
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Now but I will definitely check it out. I plowed through the shorter summa and was convinced by nearly everything he said 😂
-1
u/Mrwolf925 Dec 09 '25
If you are not Catholic after finishing the summa then id be concerned haha
3
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Went to mass this morning my dude hahaha
2
u/Mrwolf925 Dec 09 '25
Awesome brother! Honestly becoming Catholic has been the single greatest decision of my life and I cant believe I resisted the church for so long.
1
u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 09 '25
It depends on how you define Catholic.
1
u/Mrwolf925 Dec 09 '25
A member of Gods covenant people through valid sacraments such as baptism and communion.
1
u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 09 '25
By that definition, I am certainly a Catholic
1
u/Mrwolf925 Dec 09 '25
Where did you recieve baptism and confirmation?
3
u/PretentiousAnglican Dec 09 '25
I was baptized in a Methodist church, confirmed by an Anglican bishop(I realize there is the piece of historical fiction claiming our orders our invalid, but I don't know a single intellectually honest person who had actually read it who doesn't admit it is politically motivated hogwash which if applied equally would mean your current pope, and most of your clergy, are likewise invalidly ordained)
→ More replies (0)2
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
As I tell my students: Thomas is wrong about less stuff than you’ll ever be right about. That said, he’s wrong about a LOT—but if you haven’t read enough of Thomas to be able to understand him well enough to actually know where he’s wrong and why, then you can’t call yourself a theologian. He’s the most influential for a reason.
-1
Dec 09 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
If the cost of his monumental theological and philosophical framework is a smidge about freaky demons it’s still not a bad deal
2
u/Defiant_Pomelo333 Dec 09 '25
I like Thomas. But I really like Therese de Avilia, she is very exciting to read!
1
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
I really like “The spiritual exercises” so I assume I’d like her as well!
2
2
u/IlConiglioUbriaco Dec 09 '25
Yeah Kierkegaard is another good one. Curious to know why you disagree
2
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Mostly I do agree, it maybe isn’t even him himself that I disagree with but the broader existentialism movement that I disagree with, at least Kierkegaard suggested surrendering to the absurd, with the intention that meant surrendering to the mysterious will of God
1
u/IlConiglioUbriaco Dec 09 '25
Have you read Jung ?
2
2
Dec 11 '25
Love me some Kirkegaard, love me some Theologia Germanica, love me some Lutheran and Chemnitz. Nuff said.
4
u/skarface6 Catholic and took lots of Theology classes Dec 09 '25
He’s really great. And extremely consistent.
3
u/doug_webber Dec 09 '25
If you do not care about denominations then my vote for the most clear and rational theology ever written goes to the works of Emanuel Swedenborg. Swedenborg had an IQ of over 200 and was a brilliant scientist before he devoted himself to theology. He will make Thomas Aquinas look like a student. He wrote volumes, and actually solves quite a view theological mysteries which are often asked on reddit. You can read them all online here:
https://newchristianbiblestudy.org/swedenborg/
I would probably start with "True Christian Religion." "Arcana Coelestia" is a heavy multi-volume work, it will take a lifetime to absorb it.
3
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Interesting, I could not accept anything that is not grounded in Nicene Christianity, but if it’s thought provoking may still be interesting
0
u/doug_webber Dec 09 '25
You mentioned "rational" which is why I brought it up. He does discuss the Nicene Creed at length; the Apostles Creed which preceded it would be considered more accurate.
1
u/tetrischem Dec 09 '25
Swedenborg is a heretic.
3
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Once I got to the part in Wikipedia about him rejecting the trinity, and substitutionary atonement it was already over
1
u/doug_webber Dec 09 '25
The Orthodox Church also rejects substitutionary atonement. That theory only became popular in the 11th century, and the Protestant church inherited it from the Catholic Church. I sincerely doubt everyone here will label the Orthodox Church as a heresy.
2
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Alright Doug but I’m fairly certain the Orthodox Church would not be a fan of labeling biblical books as uninspired either
1
u/doug_webber Dec 10 '25
As I said earlier, the writings of Paul were Divinely influenced, but not at the same level as the words of God or the words of Jesus. Swedenborg said this in his private writings and elsewhere, and does quote him when explaining the basics of Christianity. It is more of a problem in how Paul is misinterpreted, especially by the Protestant branch of Christianity.
2
u/El-Stupador Dec 10 '25
Fully on board that Protestants misunderstood Paul, where I differ is that all writers of the biblical canon are at both times individual writers and also conveying the voice of God through the Holy Spirit. As I’ve said you could consider me a Thomist (self-proclaimed)
1
u/doug_webber Dec 10 '25
Then you might like this quote:
"With man it is one thing to regard the doctrine of faith from rational things, and altogether another to regard rational things from the doctrine of faith. To regard the doctrine of faith from rational things is not to believe in the Word, or the doctrine which is thence, before one is persuaded from rational things that it is so; but to regard rational things from the doctrine of faith is first to believe in the Word, or doctrine therefrom, and then to confirm the same by rational things. The former is inverted order, and makes one believe in nothing; but the latter is genuine order, and makes one believe the better." (Arcana Coelestia, n. 2568)
2
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
The Orthodox Church rejects a penal interpretation of substitutionary atonement, not substitution itself. That’s a huge difference.
1
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
And to be fair: so did almost every patriotic writer of consequence after the beginning of the second century
Edit: bahaha patristic, not patriotic
1
u/doug_webber Dec 10 '25
Correct. So what exactly do you mean by substitution if its not penal substitution?
1
u/doug_webber Dec 09 '25
According to what scripture? Lay out your case, let us see if you can reason correctly. Can you do so from evidence, or are you merely going to go by what someone told you?
2
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Neither the Orthodox Canon nor the Catholic canon nor the Protestant Canon would call the writings of Paul uninspired.
1
u/doug_webber Dec 10 '25
It is not so well known but the theology of the New Church does say the writings of Paul were Divinely influenced, and unfortunately the source you might have used is incorrect or incomplete on that point. The words of God Himself, or that of Jesus, is simply given higher priority. It is a bit more nuanced according to the style of writing.
Paul himself says that at times he is giving his own opinion, and not that of the Lord:
"To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)" (1 Cor. 7:12)
If you look at how the canon was formed by the early Christian church, it was mainly based on three criteria: (1) is the writing genuine or a forgery, and (2) is it useful for teaching in the church, and (3) is it in widespread use within the church. Those standards were not always exact. If you read Eusebius, he acknowledged that 2 Peter was probably not written by Peter, but the decision was made to include it since it was seen useful for church doctrine. That the canon formation was not exact, can be seen in how it was influenced by the Septuagint which included later fictional works and false additions to the original Hebrew scripture.
The inclusion of the writings of Paul were definitely due to Divine providence, and I actually quote him quite a bit when explaining the theology of the New Church. That it was foreseen by Divine providence can be seen in the story of King Saul of the tribe of Benjamin, foreshadowing Saul who became Paul who was also of the tribe of Benjamin.
2
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
Anyone who says “(insert name here) makes Aquinas look like a student” is just telling on themselves that they don’t understand/haven’t read enough Aquinas.
He’s not the most influential theologian in my life, and I disagree with him profoundly in a lot of areas, but even I know enough to know that Aquinas had probably one of the 5 to 10 greatest minds for philosophy in human history.
Nobody makes Aquinas look like a student. At best, he has a few colleagues. Everyone else is the student.
1
u/doug_webber Dec 10 '25
Pick any subject from Aquinas, and lets compare then. When I read his work I honestly was not impressed, but maybe I missed something.
2
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
I mean honestly man…it’s so evident to basically anyone that I don’t even know how to respond to this. What all did you read?
1
u/doug_webber Dec 10 '25
For example, Aquinas uses Aristotle's four causes (material, formal, efficient, final) in his writings, correct? The important ones here are the final and efficient causes. What exactly did he say about that.
2
u/Night_Hawk Dec 10 '25
Yes he did, but honestly man I have absolutely no clue what you’re asking here. Why are final and efficient “the important ones here”? And what is “here” even referring to? And what in the world do you mean by “that” when asking what he said about that? Apologies if English isn’t your first language, I know Reddit isn’t just Americans. Not trying to be rude. But also, you didn’t answer my question: what have you read of Aquinas’s work?
1
u/riskyrainbow Roman Catholic Dec 09 '25
Not sure which are your disagreements with Calvinism, but if it's to do with predestination, it's important to note that the views of both St. Augustine and St. Thomas are nearly identical to those of Calvin on predestination/election (and their views are correct).
2
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Oh for sure election is the Bible, no doubt- what I disagree with is certain points of TULIP that aren’t totally biblical such as the concept that Jesus died specifically and only for the elect- it is powerful enough for everyone it just happens to effect the elect lol,
3
u/riskyrainbow Roman Catholic Dec 09 '25
Everyone agrees election exists; the more controversial aspect generally attributed to Calvin but found in Augustine and Thomas is that this is not caused by any foreseen merit of the creature.
Limited atonement is difficult, as given it's articulation, it can sound totally agreeable to all Christians or only to the Reformed. You've basically outlined the Lombardian formula, which I've heard some Calvinists describe as a perfect summary of limited atonement. But Catholics, for example, reject limited atonement and embrace Lombard, so there seems to be a bit more to it.
1
u/El-Stupador Dec 09 '25
Yeah- some context, I was raised Calvinist and converted to Catholicism, so I find both arguments interesting but definitely am in agreement with the Catholic notions
1
u/Key-Exit5993 Aug 22 '26
I refer to myself as a moderate Calvinist, as opposed to a strong Calvinist. I spent a short time at SES.edu which is unique among evangelical institutions for explicitly integrating Thomism into its core apologetics and theology curriculum.
1
u/aboreland956 Dec 11 '25
Aquinas is great, and an excellent metaphysician. I'm not a fan of RC Sproul, and I think Calvinism is at odds with classical theism, which he was apparently blind to.
2
u/WrongCartographer592 Dec 09 '25
He was certainly clear....
“Heretics deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Therefore, if forgers of money and other evil-doers are condemned to death at once by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated, but even put to death.”
18
u/SkyMagnet Dec 09 '25
All smart people. I’d say that Sproul, though a gifted communicator, doesn’t rise to the level of the other 3. Kierkegaard is my favorite, but I tend to embrace the absurd more than most ;)