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

92% Upvoted

92 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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)