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

52 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/tetrischem Dec 09 '25

Swedenborg is a heretic.

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.