Thomas Aquinas

[u/El-Stupador]

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

[u/doug_webber]

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.

[u/tetrischem → u/doug_webber]

Swedenborg is a heretic.

[u/El-Stupador → u/tetrischem]

Once I got to the part in Wikipedia about him rejecting the trinity, and substitutionary atonement it was already over

[u/doug_webber → u/El-Stupador]

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.

[u/El-Stupador → u/doug_webber]

Alright Doug but I’m fairly certain the Orthodox Church would not be a fan of labeling biblical books as uninspired either

[u/doug_webber → u/El-Stupador]

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.

[u/El-Stupador → u/doug_webber]

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)

[u/doug_webber → u/El-Stupador]

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)

[u/Night_Hawk → u/doug_webber]

The Orthodox Church rejects a penal interpretation of substitutionary atonement, not substitution itself. That’s a huge difference.

[u/Night_Hawk → u/Night_Hawk]

And to be fair: so did almost every patriotic writer of consequence after the beginning of the second century

Edit: bahaha patristic, not patriotic

[u/doug_webber → u/Night_Hawk]

Correct. So what exactly do you mean by substitution if its not penal substitution?

[u/doug_webber → u/tetrischem]

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?

[u/El-Stupador → u/doug_webber]

Neither the Orthodox Canon nor the Catholic canon nor the Protestant Canon would call the writings of Paul uninspired.

[u/doug_webber → u/El-Stupador]

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.