PROTESTANTS, what do you think of Thomas Aquinas?

Question

Thomas Aquinas has five proofs (called the Five Ways) for the existence of God. I'm curious as to why you don't use his proofs, because they seem fairly convincing to me. Also, general thoughts on Thomas Aquinas are welcome.

Answer 1

Greetings,

Thomas Aquinas was following the line of the theological train of Augustine, but incorporated a far more rigorous scholastic theology into his analysis that was based upon Aristotalean philosophical frameworks. Unfortunately for Aquinas, his proofs are not proofs in the modern scientific sense, but rather moral proofs that serve as convincing evidences that, when converging, offer to someone a moral sense of the potentiality of the existence of the Triune God. These can be powerful for some people, but the ultimate test in the realm of reason is an adequate use of logic with the proofs available, that then combine with a variant form of Pascal's Wager- to induce in the wayward soul a sense of the need for God's saving grace from his corrupted condition. God Bless You.

My Qualifications in Answering Your Question:
B.A.from an Ivy League University in 3 Majors- International Relations, Political Science, Economics
J.D. in Training from a Top Tier Law School
Extensive Theological Reading and Detailed Study of Great Works of Christian Literature including: the Holy Scripture, John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, On Holy Christian Living, Commentaries on the Scripture; Jonathan Edwards; John Knox; the Puritans; Catholic Doctors inc Bellarmino, Aquinas, and Alphonsus Ligouri

I do dedicate my time to training of individuals in the Christian Faith, whether you believe or not. If you would like to study the faith of the Protestant Reformation (also known as Calvinism and Biblical Christianity) in detail please send me an email at the address provided and I will see how I can help you.

For my website and the help of myself and other Calvinist scholars please email.


And for those who are reading Cris C's response below, I would like to say that his response betrays gross ignorance of Protestant Scholarship with respect to the Church Fathers. I am thoroughly familiar for example with the Catholicization of various Fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrose, both of whom were sacramentally Catholic in their understanding of the eucharistic host for example. But does that mean they were right? Absolutely not. Read Hebrews 9-11 for a response to the wayward Catholic theology of the "holy" sacrifice of the Mass.

Answer 2

After Thomas Aquinas encountered a mystical experience, he stopped writing for all that he had written seemed to him like so much straw compared to what he had seen & what had been revealed to him. So did he still claim that his 5 proofs for the existence of God were absolutely correct after that mystical experience?

Answer 3

i'm not a protestant, but i am studying philosophy, so i hope that gives me enough justification for answering this question. personally i don't find his 5 proofs to be very convincing, but i am very happy to see a decent question in the religion section! too often questions on here are loaded question meant to bash anybody who doesn't believe like the asker does.

anyway, to answer... i have heard a lot of protestants use aquinas' proofs and variations of them. i just don't hear them attributed to aquinas. it seems to me that they are a standard part of popular christian philosophy today, so oftenly used that people usually don't even know where they come from.

Answer 4

His analysis of theology of his day and subsequent development of his philosophical approach to theology has without a doubt played an immense role in the development of the Christian Church. A true Church Father and more than worthy of the title, Saint.

His writings are however a little hard to follow in that his writing style is most unusual with the answer/question format he developed. No one else has his writing style...No one. This may also account for the fact that most laypersons have not actually read his writings...especially Protestants who would have no interest in reading early Catholic Church Fathers. Protestants do seem to be missing oh, so much of the fullness of the Christian faith.

Being a former Protestant (Baptist, Assembly of God) and even being Baptized as a teenager in the Assembly of God church, I know what I speak of. Knowledge of true Church History will bring you to the Catholic Church. My experience with learning church history in the protestant denominations only goes back about 500 years to the reformation. Beyond that is never spoken of in church. Their idea of "church" history is really nothing more than "denomination" history.

Answer 5

Do you've faith your self to "continually be proper"? there are cases once you've been incorrect about particular issues. Is that no longer suited? Now, merely because you've gotten been incorrect about something in a unmarried section, does that mena each thing you ought to provide in different elements is of no need? that's the classic you're preserving Saint Thomas Aquinas to: the theory that the infinite cases you've been proper about something skill no longer something because of the few cases you're incorrect. that's disingenuous. no one is claiming Saint Thomas Aquinas or his writings are infallible. His perception into the nature of unborn people leaves plenty to be wanted by technique of on the prompt's criteria. yet that's because human biology of his time left plenty to be wanted, back by technique of on the prompt's criteria. He grow to be a awesome theologian whose perception and writings formed an rather good type of Christian perception.

Answer 6

We do use Aquinas's arguments to a certain extent, but we also keep in mind that his theology and reasoning have a few influences from Aristotle. I respect him as one of the great Christian philosophers/theologians.

Answer 7

All "five proofs" have henceforth been disproven also

EDIT: Also I think his name was St. Thomas Aquinas

Answer 8

Sorry, but I have to laugh. As a former Protestant I can tell you only 1% of them probably have any sort of idea of who he was. We live in a time of frightening fundamentalism. The father of rational religion has no place in 2006 America.