are you in "the Aquinas tradition"?

OK, I'm thinking you are thinking about now, "I came to this blog, but i don't know why." What in the world is "the Aquinas tradition"? You may even be wondering, "why would I even care what it is, and what if I am?"

Although Aquinas lived 8 centuries or so ago, it is not uncommon today to hear some reference to Thomas Aquinas. So, when you hear someone say they are in line with or in opposition to Aquinas, what do you think the person is saying? Does it matter? Well, it does to me. Here are a few examples.

This week I am listening to people recount their relationship with Charles Krauthammer, who had just died. One person that particularly got my attention was Judge Andrew Napolitano (now that's two names that are tough to handle for a southern boy). The Judge's most significant recollections were the discussions he had with Charles about Thomas Aquinas. The Judge was steeped in knowledge of Aquinas and an avid supporter. He admired Charles at how conversant he was on Aquinas without a formal education in theology.

Recently I was questioning a leader in the Christian worldview movement about their approach. I basically asked, "Would the recent trends in millennial's leaving the church cause you to question the effectiveness of your strategy?" Instead of responding with some sense of openness and curiosity, he abruptly defended their approach partially by saying it was based in the traditions of Thomas Aquinas.

It just so happened that in research for my book I had run into Martin Luther's disdain for Aquinas, and I had grown to understand why. So, hearing two references recently from important people, who stood firmly in the "Aquinas tradition," got me to thinking. How many people like you influenced by Aquinas in their thinking and never even know it?     

Let me first summarize Aquinas thinking and then tell you why it is problematic.

Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century Catholic philosopher and theologian who was given sainthood for his contribution to Christian thought. One of his most renowned works was his "The Five Ways" to prove the existence of God. The argument was basically an Aristotelian perspective with a final theological leap, the intelligent designer that must exist is called God. The argument was Aristotelian because Aquinas pulled from what he could observe in the physical world as his evidence of universal principles of design order and logical relationships of cause and effect.   

It is not a surprise or accident that Aquinas built his argument on Aristotle. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Thomas is emphatically Aristotelian." The Encyclopedia says a lot about this, but you don't want to read it all, trust me. Here are some selected exerts that I think illustrate the point:

“The expression of the nature of existence of things comes to be in us as a result of our engagement with the sensible world… This is primary in our knowledge…. This epistemological primacy of knowledge of what we grasp by our senses is the basis for the primacy of the sensible in our language.” 

Basically, this means that humans apply their God given intellectual powers to what they experience in this world to determine the things of God. This is very Aristotelian. Aquinas believes God reveals, but revelation occurs through our physical senses viewing His creation.

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus' teachings, especially in the sermon on the mount, and Paul's letters were a direct rebuttal to Aristotle. This case is made in my new book, "b4Worldview: there are ONLY TWO." 

Therefore, it is impossible (without some miracle of the Holy Spirit) to grasp what Jesus is saying about the Kingdom of God if you are in "the Aquinas tradition." You will likely be a very moral person seeking justice for all. You may even be saved, but you will not be a testimony of the Gospel nor will you enjoy the privileges and provisions of grace. You will live in the doubt and futility of knowing God only through your sensory experiences in this world.

Martin Luther's infamous disagreement with Aquinas seemed to suggest Luther disavowed philosophy in favor of theology. What Luther loathed was philosophy as presented by Aristotle. Luther said at the disputation January 11, 1539, "God was not subject to reason and logical conclusions." What is implied in this is that reason is subject to God, not absent in human discourse. 

Luther drew his view from Jesus's teaching. Jesus has a totally different way than Aristotle. Jesus assumes that a human who is in the Kingdom will apply his/her God given intellectual powers to the unseen evidence (faith) of Jesus' life, death and resurrection revealed by God through the Holy Spirit, not physical senses. 

Eventually, you will have to decide if Jesus came to bring the world civil liberty, justice and economic prosperity or did He come to pave a way to the provisions and privileges of the Heavenlies?

Both Aquinas and Jesus agree that humans have been given tremendous powers of reasoning. The departure comes in the form of evidence one trusts for knowing God in an intimate relational way. 

This can be difficult to grasp, until you do. Then it is very GOOD NEWS .....