Recent Papers: Aquinas' Example for Faith and Thinking Today

I want to apologize for not writing here more often. Parenting, ministry, and studies get most of my time these days. I did, however, want to share some of my recent papers for your reading pleasure. In sharing this, I hope to give you window into where my studies have taken me recently. God bless you!

Introduction

            In his day, Thomas Aquinas sought God’s truth wherever it could be found, and that pursuit often led to breaking from the established norms which were emerging in Christian intellectualism. In his own time, civil and religious authorities were vying for power over the other. Despite being a cousin to the reigning emperor, Aquinas’ prominent family was also able to secure him an open door to serving as abbot for a prominent monastery. However, Aquinas was determined to become a friar, solidifying a life of begging and teaching. His desire was to know the truth, and pursuing such truth would shape the future of Christian theology.

Despite being known for his affinity for Aristotle, this paper will argue that Aquinas went beyond what Aristotle could claim about the immortality of the soul, displaying a reverence for the Bible which Aristotelian philosophy could not display on its own. In doing so, Aquinas showcases a commitment to the trustworthiness of the Scriptures which Christians today would do well to return to in arguing for Christian responses to secular science. Protestants would do well to rediscover the man himself, reading his own words and arguments. When the particulars of Aquinas’ time are displayed, the reader will see that such a time in the church is strikingly close to Christianity in the West: holding a dominant position which is fading, being challenged by secular and religious opponents, and struggling against the very power it holds in society. From such a time, Aquinas sought the truth wherever it could be found, provided Christian dialogue to the re-emergence of Aristotle in education, and produced a timeless example of thinking through everything possible from a Christian perspective. His teaching on how the soul and body correlate display a commitment to the Word of God and an honest pursuit of truth where it can be found. Aquinas provides an intriguing discussion on the human being that is still ongoing.

Biography

            By the time of Aquinas’ birth, Christendom was shattering. The church of the 13th century was struggling against the power of emperors and kings, a divide between realms of authority never imagined when Charlamagne was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800 AD. Now, as M. C. D’Arcy writes of the 1200s, “The Papacy and the Empire alike dreamed of universal jurisdiction.”[1] While personal ambition and political maneuvering of church and state figures could be seen as facets to such struggle, the chief combatant to Christendom at this time was the rise of Arabic influence. Josef Pieper records, “For a long time the Arab world, which had thrust itself into old Europe, had been impressing Christians not only with its military and political might but also with its philosophy and science.”[2] Christendom had lost its monopoly on attraction and message. It had been caught flat-footed in developing philosophy and answering other religions apologetically.

One answer to this enemy came through Holy Wars, also known as Crusades. These battles were infamously fought within Palestine for recovering Christian land, but many battles were also fought within the Empire itself to combat heresy. An integral battle for understanding Aquinas’ life was the Albigensian Crusade. In southern France, a group known as the Cathars had combined ancient Manichean teachings with a disdain for the corrupt clergy of the Catholic church.[3] When Catholic missionary efforts failed, violence began against the Cathars and lasted for twenty years. During this violence, Spanish church leaders St. Dominic and Bishop Diego, would form a new mendicant order in southern France calling for theological debate as a missionary strategy, surrendering to a life of poverty as witness to a humility in sharp contrast with the corrupted church leadership of the time.[4] Through the Dominican order, as it would come to be known as, enemies of the Church were treated humanely, arguments from opponents were heard, and Scripture was used to discover the truth in correcting errors. This was a revolutionary creation at a time: “They practiced poverty in the literal sense: the poverty of beggars. Furthermore, they devoted themselves to Bible study and science; the rules of the order even stipulated that for the sake of study members could be excused from canonical prayers – a dispensation unthinkable in the Benedictine Order.”[5] When Aquinas expressed a determination to join the Dominican Order and become a friar, his family was disgusted.

Aquinas was the youngest child of a family within the ruling class of southern Italy in 1225 indicative of the split between church and state at the time. His parents were of Germanic roots, and his father Landulf served as Count of Aquino at the behest of Frederick II, Aquinas’ cousin who would soon become Holy Roman Emperor. Pieper writes, “Thomas did not spring from the soil of the classical Roman Empire; he stemmed from the new tribes which had overwhelmed and taken possession of [it], first as barbarian invaders, then as ‘occupiers,’ and finally as docile pupils and the historical heirs of Rome.”[6] His early movements speak further to the challenges of the time. At age five. he would be sent to learn at the Abbey of Monte Cassino, only to flee to Naples ten years later as the tensions between Pope and Emperor increased. Pieper states, “Monte Cassino was not merely a Benedictine abbey; it was also a citadel on the border between the imperial and the papal territories.”[7] The family had hoped for Aquinas to eventually become abbot at Monte Cassino, a position then considered lucrative and powerful as opposed to the origins of monasticism.[8] However, the move to Naples led Aquinas to come in contact with the new Order of Friars Preachers, also known as the Dominicans after St. Dominic.[9] 

By age nineteen, Aquinas intended to join the Friars. His family, appalled by the decision, captured Aquinas and held him captive for close to a year in the family castle Roccasecca. During this time, his brothers wished to tempt him by hiring a prostitute, providing a persuasion from a life of poverty and celibacy. Upon seeing her, Aquinas pulled a fiery stick from the fireplace to chase her away.[10] Most likely at the behest of his mother and sisters, Aquinas was allowed to escape from the imprisonment to save face for the family from him joining the Order. With his release, Aquinas traveled to the University of Paris to join the Dominican Order.

Aquinas arrived in Paris in 1245, the very year that his eventual mentor, Albertus Magnus, joined the faculty of the university. Early in his studies, Aquinas became known as the ‘Dumb Ox.’ G. K. Chesterton writes that Aquinas earned the name for being tall, bulky, and slow to learn coursework: “It is clear that, before long, even his imposing stature began to have only the ignominious immensity of the big boy left behind in the lowest form.”[11] While the students mocked him, however, Albertus saw Aquinas’ potential and drew him to use it. D’Arcy states, “Without the inspiration of Albert he might have remained the placid and ‘dumb ox’ his friends thought him to be. Albert knew better; Thomas became his beloved disciple, as dear to him in death as in life.”[12] A shared appreciation for deep thinking kindled this connection. Albertus, also known as Albert the Great, introduced Thomas to other schools of philosophy while developing Aristotelian thought himself. Feser writes, “The works of Aristotle had during the preceding century become once again available to scholars in the Latin West, which had led to a renewed interest in his philosophy, and Albert was at the time the foremost thinker of this Aristotelian revival.”[13] Aquinas would follow Albert to Naples before taking a teaching position of his own in Paris in 1252. He would eclipse his teacher and mentor in influence, combining Aristotelian thought with Catholic theology in ways no one had yet accomplished.

Aquinas’ teaching career would place him on the move constantly, spending time in Paris, Naples, and Rome. During this period, Aquinas would write many of his Quaestiones Disputatae, displaying a commitment to listening thoroughly to opponents before answer with his opinions. He took the time to answer objections which could be raised against his positions individually. Aquinas had reached a prominent position in teaching near the middle of the 13th century, just as universities were growing in influence, but his commitment to being a friar reigned supreme. Pieper writes, “It is true that he gave up his teaching chair at the University of Paris as early as 1259 embarking instead upon a life of wandering that lasted until his death and never permitted him to remain longer than two or three years in the same place and in the same position.”[14] While his travels would include mandatory teaching roles as commanded by the Church, Thomas kept the ideals of poverty and missionary effort in correcting error central. His first major work written at this time, Summa Contra Gentiles, was directed at correcting the errors of Jewish, Muslim, and pagan philosophy. It was clear that Thomas had one task upon his mind which could not happen in a prestigious chair at Paris: “the task of presenting, whether by teaching or writing, the whole of the Christian view of the universe.”[15]

Aquinas’ most well-known work, Summa Theologica, did not begin to be written until 1265. The book would remain incomplete at his death in 1274. Aquinas intended the Summa to be an introductory book into the world of Christian philosophy. Other works produced by Aquinas late in his life centered upon correcting those who took Aristotle’s philosophy too far or abused it, such as in the case of thinkers following the Muslim philosophy of Avveroes. Feser details how these later works set the stage for the development of Thomism after his life: “He took a middle position between Averroism and Augustinianism, seeking to avoid the extremes of the former while showing that the key elements of the latter tradition could be incorporated into a broadly Aristotelian worldview.”[16] Aquinas left no pupil at the time of his death as Albert had in him, passing away at the age of 49.

Because of the amount of writing Aquinas left at his passing, it can be easy to dilute the importance of Christianity to him. While being most known as an Aristotelian, Aquinas also wrote commentaries on the Bible – more commentaries than he produced on Aristotle, including most of the New Testament. While Aquinas loved philosophy and digging for truth, his supreme love was Jesus Christ. Martin Grabmann recognizes of Thomas’ writing, “Christ is, for Thomas, the origin and sum total of all wisdom.”[17] Commenting on Colossians 2:1-4, Thomas writes, “Is our intellect filled by knowing Christ? I say that it is because in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”[18] In his commentaries on the Bible, Aquinas proves to be more than an Aristotelian devotee. He cites Augustine, John Chrysostom, and other Christian writers, showing the same devotion and love for the gospel which the later Reformers will show appreciation for. While recognizing Aquinas as an intellectual, one must not forget his reality as a Christian thinker who never sought worldly riches or fame, though they were readily available to him.

A Primer on Aristotle’s View on the Soul

            In focusing particularly on Aquinas’ view of the soul, the theories put forth by Aquinas display those most dependent on Aristotelian thought for source material in his philosophy. Aquinas’ affection for Aristotle was impressed upon him by Albert the Great, the most well-known voice on Aristotelian philosophy at the time.[19] The Catholic Church had barred the works of Aristotle from being studied within the Empire, hegemonizing the Neo-Platonic influences prevalent of the time. However, the University of Paris, given the fracturing of Aquinas’ time, was defiant against the Church and welcomed study of Aristotle’s writing.[20] Aquinas’ interest in Aristotle’s view of the soul was likely triggered by the widely read commentary which Avveroes had delivered on Aristotle’s De Anima.[21]  Correcting Avveroist views comes up often in his writing on the soul. Michael Scot’s 1220 translation of Avveroes’ Great Commentary on the De Anima from Arabic to Latin was also the earliest translation of Aristotle’s own work into Latin. Ralph McInerny writes, “Embedded in the text of the commentary was the text being commented on, the De Anima of Aristotle.”[22] A new writing from Aristotle was now readily available along with commentary.

The heart of all of Aristotle’s philosophy is distinguished by what is potential and what is actual. Nothing is actual unless it was first in potency. Aristotle’s view of the soul, articulated from what could be observed, is understood as the acts or expressions of the body: “It is necessary, then, that for the soul to be substance as form of a natural body that has life potentially. But substance is actuality. Therefore, it is the actualization of such a body.”[23] Aristotle, contrary to Plato, believed the soul and body had to combine to be one substance. In providing an example, Aristotle provides a picture of a wax stamp: “We should not inquire whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or, in general, the matter of a given thing and that of which it is the matter.”[24] Despite this close connection, Aristotle did believe the soul and the body were two distinct realities. It was common for early philosophy to consider the soul as the mover of the body, but Aristotle went beyond others by suggesting that the soul was affected by the body rather than the soul directing the body alone: “It is clear that the affections of the soul are enmattered accounts… This is why it already belongs to the natural scientist to get a theoretical grasp on the soul, either all soul or this sort of soul.”[25] Whereas Plato held that the soul and body were two independent substances, Aristotle held the human being to only be a substance when soul and body were united; the soul was form and the body was matter. The body played a crucial part in directing the soul.

The immortality of the soul was a significant roadblock for Aristotle’s theory. The Philosopher writes, “The soul neither exists without a body nor is a body of some sort.”[26] Physicalism, a view which denies the reality of a soul, was not within the realm of possibilities for ancient philosophers, but Aristotle struggles to reconcile this close union between body and soul with immortality: “That the soul is not separable from the body – or that certain parts of it are not, if it naturally has parts – is quite clear.”[27] To handle this discrepancy, Aristotle divided what could be observed of the acts of the soul into parts or faculties: perception, nourishment, desire, movement, and thought.[28] The Philosopher used the perceptive faculty, specifically the intellectual or understanding aspect of it to make an attempt at justifying immortality. In his standard potential and actual format, Aristotle argued that the soul had a potential intellect and an agent (actual) intellect: “There is one sort of understanding that is such by becoming all things, while there is another that is such by producing all things.”[29] The Philosopher claimed that the agent intellect, by which knowledge came into existence for the soul, “it alone is immortal and eternal, and without this it understands nothing.”[30] In attempting to provide an alternative to Plato’s immortal soul existing apart from the body, Aristotle offered more questions than answers. His views invited the denial of anything lasting into eternity, and for such the Catholic church had barred his works from being studied.

Aquinas on the Soul

            A proper balance of Aquinas’ teaching on the soul can be kept by remembering his religious commentaries while reading philosophical works. Without a balanced approach, one could easily claim that Aquinas has abandoned the teaching of Scripture for acceptance within philosophy from other religions that was growing within universities like Paris. However, a quick judgment neglects to see the discipline Aquinas took in dividing topics of discussion. Aquinas himself discussed the different approaches the philosopher and the believer take in viewing things: “Human philosophy considers them as they are, so that the different parts of philosophy are found to correspond to the different genera of things. The Christian faith, however, does not consider them as such; thus, it regards fire not as fire, but as representing the sublimity of God, and as being directed to Him in any way at all.”[31] One could choose to take this statement as separating religious life from study. It could be that Aquinas wished to check his faith at the door when entering the academy, but this conclusion ignores the entire body of Aquinas’ writing. Thomas embodies the picture of answering the philosophical debates of his age from a Christian perspective where the arguments are already being waged. Three items are in view for showing how Aquinas is a faithful model for engaging philosophical treatises on the mind: his detail in furthering Aristotle’s view, his religious messages pertaining to the soul, and his response to Avveroes on the soul from a biblical perspective.

Aquinas’ Addition to Aristotle

            One of Aquinas’ top qualities was an ability to give time for understanding an argument made. His commentaries on the works of Aristotle show this attention to detail well. Aristotle divides the perceptive faculty of the soul (what the senses receive and transmit) from the intellect, stating that the intellect does not have a bodily organ as all the other faculties do.[32] To demonstrate this, the Philosopher shows that the over-exertion of the senses leads to a loss of ability, whereas stretching the intellect does not: “When the intellect understands something highly intelligible, it does not understand what is inferior to these less than before, but more so. For whereas the sensitive faculty is not found apart from the body, the intellect is separate.”[33] So what does Aristotle have in mind when discussing the intellect? It is “that by which the soul thinks and grasps things.”[34] As with all of Aristotle’s theories, the faculty would then possess a potential intellect and an active intellect. That which a human does not understand remains in the potential intellect while information understood is considered active intellect.

Aquinas, commenting on the immateriality of the intellect, writes, “He is speaking here of the intellect by which a soul understands and forms opinions. Thus he excludes from this context the Mind of God, which, far from being potential, is a certain actual understanding of all things.”[35] While God’s intellect is never potential (for in Aquinas’ view, God is pure act), the human intellect is a mixture of potential and actual understanding. When cross-referenced with his own works, Aquinas can be found following Aristotle’s view of the soul point for point but adding to Aristotle’s views with biblical thinking. Being the only faculty of the soul which does not require an organ, Thomas agrees with Aristotle in stating that the intellect is the only portion of the soul which survives death. He writes, “Forms cannot exist before their matter. The soul then, (not all of it, but only its intellectual part) will survive its matter.”[36] Aquinas explains, “Those whom Scripture records as having been brought back to life, possessed the same knowledge after this event that they had possessed before. Therefore, the knowledge of those things which a man possesses in this life is not taken away from him after death. Consequently, the separated soul can understand through species acquired before death.”[37] Aquinas answers the questions left behind by Aristotle with biblical doctrine, pointing to their resolve in the resurrection to come when Christ returns.

Aquinas’ Religious Writing on the Intellect

In his own writings, Aquinas will combine ideas from Aristotle while remaining true to the theology of the Bible. In commenting on the Holy Spirit in the Apostles’ Creed, he writes, “The Holy Spirit enlightens the intellect, since all that we know, we know through the Holy Spirit.”[38] In writing his own treatise for the soul, Aquinas begins to answer the question of immortality right from the start, showing a marked contrast from how Aristotle addressed the issue. The intellect plays a significant portion within the many treatises Aquinas offers on the soul: “Since this intellectual light pertains to the nature of the soul, it comes from Him alone by Whom the nature of the soul is created. Now God alone is the creator of the soul, and not some separated substance which we call an angel.”[39] However, Aquinas needs to reconcile Aristotle’s view of the soul with physical death and resurrection.

For Aquinas, God’s being answers the gaps of how Aristotle’s immortal intellect works after death:

Now in order to solve this problem the fact must be borne in mind that the soul, being lowest in the order of intellectual substances, participates in intellectual light or in intellectual nature, in the lowest and weakest measure. For in the first intelligence, namely, God, intellectual nature is so powerful that He understands all things through one intelligible form, namely, His own essence. Inferior intellectual substances, on the other hand, understand through many species; and the higher each of these substances is, the fewer forms it possesses, and the more potent is its faculty of understanding all things through those few forms.[40]

Due to man being ranked lower than God and the angels in spiritual existence, Aquinas opines that how the Lord sustains man while out of the body is an ontological mystery for man due to a low intellectual power. Human beings have the lowest souls which possess an intellectual faculty.[41] By default, in Aquinas’ opinion, the human intellect being the lowest intellect necessarily means it possesses the least intellectual power. God and angels, beings without material bodies, possess greater intellectual power in appropriate degrees. Because it is possible for God and angels to exist outside of material bodies, the human intellect can exist outside of the body too. Commenting on John 17:3, Aquinas relates the eternal life Jesus offers to living at the highest degree: “The intellect in act is identified with the thing understood in act. Since then intellectual understanding is living activity, and to understand is to live, it follows that to understand an eternal reality is to live with an eternal life. But God is an eternal reality, and so to understand and see God is eternal life.”[42] Knowing God, as Christ came to make possible for reconciled sinners to do, is the pinnacle of being a human in Aquinas’ mind.

            By explaining the ontological reality of the intellectual faculty, Aquinas’ commentaries on the Scriptures take shape. Understanding the human intellect only happens by contrasting it with God’s intellect, and humans have a natural bent to understanding themselves due to experience as humans. In commenting on the opening verses of the Gospel of John, Aquinas contrasts the word of man with the Word of God: “So as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, the formation is not yet complete. … Our word is first in potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act.”[43] Mankind experiences change of opinions and understanding with the introduction of new or contradictory information. God, however, never receives new information. Whereas humans have a potential to gain new understanding, God cannot have potential, for He is pure act. For Aquinas, the Scriptures exhaust all which God has done, is doing, and will do. Nothing remains which God could potentially do; all that remains is what God has already promised to do. By relating the intellectual differences between God and man, Aquinas magnifies the glory of God through explaining the human soul.

            Aquinas’ teaching on the resurrection assumes a close correlation to the material reality humans already understand and experience. Commenting on the Apostles’ Creed, he writes, “It will be the same body as it is now, both as regards its flesh and its bones. … ‘For this corruptible must put on incorruption’ [1 Cor 15:53]. And likewise … ‘And I shall be clothed again with my skin; and in my flesh I shall see my God’ [Job 19:26].”[44] Aristotle never wrote concerning a resurrection or life after death; Aquinas’ understanding of the resurrection of the dead reveals a theological endeavor from an Aristotelian commitment. On the differences between the fallen body and the redeemed body, Aquinas sticks to what is explicit from the Bible:

Since the body will be incorruptible and immortal, there will no longer be the use of food or of the marriage relations: “For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the Angels of God in heaven” [Mt 22:30]. This is directly against the Jews and Muslims: “Nor shall he return any more into his house” [Job 7:10].[45]

As for the wicked, Aquinas writes, “The bodies of the damned will not be brilliant: ‘Their countenances shall be as faces burnt’ [Is 13:8]. Likewise they shall be passible, because they shall never deteriorate and, although burning eternally in fire, they shall never be consumed: ‘Their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched’ [Is 66:24].”[46] Far from being allegorical, Aquinas shows a commitment to reading the Bible as literal as possible where appropriate, seeking to understand it according to the experiences of life and being which God created man within.

Aquinas’ Response to Avveroes

            Aquinas was not the only commentator for Aristotle. As it was referenced above, Avveroes, a Spanish philosopher of the Islamic Golden Age, had written a popular commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima a generation prior to Thomas. Now translated into Latin, the philosopher’s views not only challenged academic thought, but religion as well. In understanding the soul, Aquinas devotes much attention to defeating the opinions held by Avveroes and his followers. It is striking to see Aquinas begin his formal response to Avveroist thought not from philosophical points, but from theology: “There is no need now to show that the foregoing position is erroneous because [it is] repugnant to Christian faith: a moment’s reflection makes this clear to anyone. … We intend to show that the foregoing position is opposed to the principles of philosophy every bit as much as it is to the teaching of faith.”[47] Theology always came before philosophy for Aquinas.

            Avveroes believed Aristotle to teach that all mankind shared one possible intellect, and that the possible intellect existed separate from the body. Aquinas writes, “He seeks to maintain that what Aristotle calls the possible, but he infelicitously calls the material, intellect is a substance which, existing separately from the body, is in no way united to it as its form, and furthermore that this possible intellect is one for all men.”[48] Aquinas displays a unique frustration with Avveroes not found towards other opponents. The reason for this appears to be how his teaching undercuts the gospel: “Take away from men diversity of intellect, which alone among the soul’s parts seems incorruptible and immortal, and it follows that nothing of the souls of men would remain after death except a unique intellectual substance, with the result that reward and punishment and their difference disappear.”[49] If all men share one intellect, individuality vanishes. Further, Avveroes’ teaching results in the death of the soul with the death of the body. Avveroes’ conclusions from Aristotle’s philosophy contradicted Scripture, and Aquinas was determined to show that Avveroes had misunderstood Aristotle and betrayed Christianity.

            Avveroes represents an early struggle against physicalism, where no reality exists outside of the material. While still committed to using terms like soul, the philosopher and his followers’ teaching run parallel with arguments made for the absence of a soul. Aquinas comments, “A further question might be asked: If intellect does not understand without the phantasm [thought], how can the soul have an intellectual operation after it is separated from body? The questioner ought to know that it is not the natural philosopher’s task to solve this question.”[50] In short, Aquinas recognized the limited scope that non-theological sources could address. Though Aquinas loved philosophy, he knew faith had to hold first place. Avveroes’ teaching deified the intellect: “On their reasoning it follows that there is only one intellect in the whole world, not only for men. Therefore not only is our intellect a separate substance, it is also God Himself, and the plurality of separated substances is wholly swept away.”[51] In his attempt to comment on Aristotle, Avveroes lost the Creator-creation distinction. By not allowing the distinctions Aquinas recognized from Scripture, the argument could be made that intellect was deity rather than the God of the Bible who created the intellect of man. Aquinas saw God’s act in creating separate intellects in each person through experience: “There is one thing that is understood by me and you, but it is understood by means of one thing by me and by means of another by you, that is, by different intelligible species, and my understanding differs from yours and my intellect differs from yours.”[52] Using Aristotelian philosophy properly and incorporating theology from Scripture, Aquinas restored how to think Christianly about man’s being.

            The greatest result of Aquinas’ arguments against Avveroes is the refutation of false doctrine. Though recognized today as the greatest philosopher of the Islamic Golden Age, Aquinas insinuates that Avveroes claimed Christian faith.[53] Avveroes, however, allowed for his philosophical teaching to contradict what he held by faith: “Through reason I conclude necessarily that intellect is numerically one, but I firmly hold the opposite by faith.”[54] This statement contradicts everything Aquinas understands about the pursuit of knowledge:

He thinks faith is of things whose contrary can be necessarily concluded; since the only thing that can be necessarily concluded is a necessary truth whose opposite is false and impossible, it follows from this statement that faith is of the false and impossible, which not even God can bring about and the ears of the faithful cannot bear. He does not lack the high temerity to presume to discuss what does not pertain to philosophy but is purely of faith, such that the soul suffers from the fire of hell, and to say that the teaching of the doctors concerning these things should be reprobated. By equal right one could dispute concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation and the like, concerning which he speaks only in ignorance.[55]

For Aquinas, faith leads the way, with philosophy and the pursuit of knowledge supplying where Scripture does not address. This is not to say that Aquinas did not find Scripture sufficient, but he understood that the Bible’s purpose was to lead the reader to salvation: “It was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation.”[56] While this quote may lead Protestants to squirm, the reader should recognize the affinity Aquinas does show for revelation over discovery. Science had a place in human endeavor, but Aquinas always put the things revealed by God as the priority.

Approaching Aquinas Today

            Aquinas’ teaching would go on to become the heart of Catholic theology after his death at the age of forty-nine. His life would end before finishing the Summa Theologiae, his most famous work. Of the contributors to what would become scholastic theology, Aquinas would be premier. Aquinas would be remembered in Catholic history as the Angelic Doctor, being given sainthood in the Catholic Church in 1323, fifty years after his death. It is no surprise, then, to find that the Reformers of the sixteenth century despised scholastic theology, none more than Martin Luther. Whereas Aquinas represented an early introduction of Aristotelian philosophy to theology, Luther’s time represented the canonization of Aristotle into Catholic theology. Writing the Disputation against Scholastic Theology in 1517, Luther declared, “Briefly, the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light.”[57] However, it appears that Luther was viewing Aristotle incorrectly. Within the philosophical theses provided in the Heidelberg Disputation, Luther claims, “It was easy for Aristotle to believe that the world was eternal since he believed that the human soul was mortal.”[58] As shown above, this opinion is false. While Aristotle struggled to explain how the soul survived physical death, he never stated that the soul died with the body. Leonardo de Chirico writes, “Rather than having an immediate and direct acquaintance with Thomas’s works, Luther had read Thomas through secondary sources.”[59] Though Luther never quotes or attacks Aquinas directly, his disdain for Aristotle and scholastic theology places him directly in Luther’s crosshairs.

            The times in which the Reformers lived required a strong stance against Catholic doctrine for its abuses. However, the explicit circumstances which the early Protestants faced have changed, and the need for a rigorous theological philosophy like that which Aquinas pursued is evident. Due to the sheer amount of content that Aquinas left behind for study opens him up to critical evaluation. It would be foolish to believe that one could agree with every word Aquinas ever penned. However, Aquinas provides a powerful example of how to engage with topics of interest to the secular world from a Christian perspective. Given his personality and upbringing, Aquinas displayed a love for knowledge wherever it could be found, and it was clearly for the sake of knowledge itself rather than for the sake of worldly gain or influence. His prominent family could have given him money and power without the need of further education or place within the Catholic church. Before he was a philosopher, he was a friar, seeking to correct false doctrine through debate while others picked up arms, all while begging to receive his daily sustenance. He did not introduce Aristotelian philosophy to Christian theology, but he exhausted the possible influence Aristotle could have on Christians faithfully further than anyone else could have or did. Aristotle’s influence in the Catholic church maximized through him, but the influence was arriving before Aquinas came to Paris. It appears that some Protestants are ready to approach Aquinas again for the wisdom he may depart, and the ontology of the soul and body together appears to be his chief contribution.

            A close-knit dualism of man’s body and soul is needed to handle issues like mental health and transgenderism today. Aquinas’ argument for the soul as the form of the body has received renewed interest today, such as in The Logic of the Body by Matthew Lapine. Lapine writes, “Aquinas’s psychology is valuable because it is holistic, integrating physiological observations from Galenic medicine. The physiological aspect of his psychology, within his category of sense appetite, qualifies the extent to which emotions are rational and voluntary.”[60] The author recognizes “the intellect may not operate by means of a corporeal organ, but it always operates in conjunction with sense.”[61] Lapine offers what De Chirico calls an eclectic or nuanced approach to Aquinas which other writers of the Reformed tradition have taken, such as John Owen, Francis Turretin, and Herman Bavinck.[62] Another prominent voice for including Thomas’ view of the soul is J. P. Moreland.[63] In its essence, a Protestant can follow Aquinas as long as he remains biblical, which appears to be exactly what Aquinas wished to be. Still, Thomas was a Roman Catholic who never questioned the Church’s theology. A selective affirmation of Aquinas will be the natural result. De Chirico recognizes the renewed affront to Aquinas from Protestants returned with Cornelius Van Til and Francis Schaeffer.[64] However, their chief criticism results from how Immanuel Kant used Aquinas’ writings. Aquinas’ contributions on how the soul and body work together in man still holds much value.

Conclusion

            This paper has sought to demonstrate how Thomas Aquinas is a faithful example of how to incorporate faith with thinking through the issues presented before Christians. Aquinas’ upbringing and life pictures a humble man is search of the truth wherever it could be found. Rather than seeking wealth or power, as was readily available to him, he chose to become a Dominican friar, a countermeasure to heresy which the Crusades sought to combat at the time. His studies reflected the growing influence of Aristotle at the time, and Aquinas wrung out all that the Philosopher had to offer the Catholic Church. In doing so, Aquinas developed a view of the human being where the soul was the form of the body, though much function of the soul depended on the body. He developed a view of how the soul continued after physical death from Aristotelian philosophy and looked forward to the eternal union of the body and soul at the resurrection of the living and the damned. The Dumb Ox came to be the Angelic Doctor through contemplation on theology and Aristotelian philosophy, defending the individual intellect of every human from those who wished to discard the revelation of God. For his contribution, Protestants should contextualize the Reformers’ rejection in the sixteenth century, approaching Aquinas for the example of faith and thinking where the message of Scripture speaks to philosophical, psychological, and biological issues today.

[1] M. C. D’Arcy, Thomas Aquinas (London, EN: Ernest Benn Limited, 1930), 3.

[2] Josef Pieper, Guide to Thomas Aquinas, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1991), 4.

[3] Pieper, 24.

[4] Pieper, 25.

[5] Ibid., 27.

[6] Ibid., 10.

[7] Pieper, 10.

[8] Edward Feser, Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide (London, EN: Oneworld Publications, 2009), 3.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas: The ‘Dumb Ox’ (Orlando, FL: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012), 34.

[12] D’Arcy, 36.

[13] Ibid., 4.

[14] Pieper, 13.

[15] Pieper, 13.

[16] Feser, 5-6.

[17] Martin Grabmann, The Interior Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Nicholas Ashenbrener (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2024), 100.

[18] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians 2.81.

[19] Marie-Dominique Chenu, Aquinas and His Role in Theology, trans. Paul Philibert (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002), 18.

[20] Ibid., 20.

[21] Ralph McInerny, “Introduction” in Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima, trans. Kenelm Foster and Silvester Humphries (Notre Dame, IN: Dumb Ox Books, 1951), x.

[22] McInerny, x.

[23] Aristotle, De Anima 2.1.146.

[24] Ibid., 2.1.149.

[25] Aristotle, 1.1.21.

[26] Aristotle, 2.3.168.

[27] Ibid., 2.1.156.

[28] Ibid., 3.3.170

[29] Ibid., 3.5.363.

[30] Ibid., 3.5.366.

[31] Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles 2.4.1.

[32] Aristotle, 3.4.348.

[33] Ibid., 3.4.349.

[34] Ibid., 3.4.348.

[35] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima, 3.7.683.

[36] Aquinas, Commentary on De Anima, 3.10.743.

[37] Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Anima 15.

[38] Thomas Aquinas, The Apostles’ Creed 8.2.

[39] Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Disputatae de Spiritualibus Creaturis 8.

[40] Aquinas, De Anima 15.

[41] Aristotle believed that plants and animals had souls, but they lacked the intellectual faculty which humans have. Specifically, plants had a vegetative faculty, that which led the plant to seek nourishment. Animals, while possessing a vegetative faculty, also possessed the perceptive faculty, allowing them to have senses and react to them. Humans alone possess the intellectual faculty. Aquinas agreed with Aristotle on this view. See De Anima 3.8 and Aquinas’ Commentary on De Anima 3.14.798.

[42] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John 17.1.2186.

[43] Ibid., 1.1.25.

[44] Aquinas, Creed 11.

[45] Aquinas, Creed, 11.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Thomas Aquinas, De Unitate Intellectus contra Averroistas 1.2.

[48] Ibid., 1.1.

[49] Ibid., 1.2.

[50] Aquinas, Contra Avverroistas 1.41.

[51] Ibid., 5.107.

[52] Ibid., 5.112.

[53] Given the origins of Muslim theology out of heretical Christian teaching, it is possible that syncretism was a large part of how Islam gained influence in Spain. It should be noted that Avveroes never claimed to be a Christian in his writing. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-rushd/#God.

[54] Aquinas, Contra Avverroistas 5.123.

[55] Ibid.

[56] Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica 1.1.1.

[57] Martin Luther, Disputation against Scholastic Theology 50.

[58] Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation 31.

[59] Leonardo De Chirico, Engaging with Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Approach (London, EN: Apollos, 2024), 97.

[60] Matthew Lapine, The Logic of the Body: Retrieving Theological Psychology (Bellingham,

WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 43.

[61] Ibid., 48.

[62] De Chirico, 112.

[63] See J. P. Moreland, “In Defense of a Thomistic-like Dualism,” in The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2023). Also J. P. Moreland, The Soul: How We Know It’s Real and Why It Matters (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014).

[64] De Chirico, 119.