# A Beginner's Guide to Thomas Aquinas (Feser)



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

Feser, Edward. Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide.

I do not know if I would call this a “beginner’s guide.” Parts of it deal with discussions in current analytical philosophy, and some of these discussions would discourage the beginner. It is an indispensable guide, though. Edward Feser highlights the key elements in Thomas’s thought. You cannot go wrong in interpreting Thomas with Feser as your guide.

Thomas’s views on causality are well-known, so we will only focus on the basics. Final causality for Thomas is directional. It is always pointing.

Being

Not surprisingly, we get a good discussion of the essence/existence distinction. For God, essence and existence are the same. There is not a genus called “God” to which one could apply the category existence. This makes sense at the creaturely level. I know what the essence of a unicorn is. Whether it exists or not, I have a clear idea of its essence. For existent things, their essences have to be conjoined with their existences. Even the angels who are pure form are not identical with their existence. They are an essence conjoined with the act of existence.

Feser gives us a good handle on the act/potency distinction. God is pure act with no unrealized potencies. The more act a being has, the higher on the chain of reality it is. God is at the top. Prime matter, which is only unrealized potency, is at the bottom. Similarly, motion is simply a change from a potency to an act.

Natural Theology

The greatest harm ever done to Thomas was by philosophy of religion anthologies. Thomas never intended for his 5 Ways to be read in isolation from his larger project. I suppose that cannot be helped, though. Feser helps us avoid the pitfalls of misinterpreting Thomas. We will focus on his argument from motion. There are two types of causal serieses. There is a causal series per accidens. This is where one sequence follows another. Some apologists argue that every effect has a cause and God must be the ultimate cause. True, but there are some difficulties. In a causal series per accidens one has trouble transcending that series. 

Thomas’s solution, though, is different. There is another type of causal series. It is a causal series per se. If the former is sequential, this is hierarchical. Every potency is actualized by a prior act. This allows Thomas to evade the charge that since philosophy cannot disprove the eternity of the universe, then it does not need God as a cause. Thomas answers that is true for a per accidens series, not a per se one. Even if the universe were eternal, the potencies in it would need to be actualized.

Anthropology

Thomas is a dualist, but he is not a Cartesian or Platonist. Feser explains that “soul” for Aquinas simply means the form of a person. It in-forms the matter. For Plato or Descartes, a soul was literally a ghost in the machine, with all the problems that entails. Thomas does not need that ghost.

Ethics

Natural law is important for Thomas, but not that important. He devotes surprisingly little space to it. What is more important and of higher priority is the Good. Natural law does not make a lot of sense without a previous orientation to the Good. Moderns since David Hume have attacked natural law for committing the naturalistic fallacy, of deriving an ought from an is or value from facts. That’s a very sharp criticism, but it only works if nominalism is true and all we have is a mechanistic universe. Thomas would not have understood the fact-value problem because medieval man did not think in terms of value, but of the Good, and the Good is already inherent in reality.

Conclusion

This is an excellent treatment of Thomas’s thoughts. One will not misinterpret Thomas with Feser as a guide. It’s not a beginner’s treatment, though.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 19, 2022)

Thomas strikes again (just giving you a hard time). 

I have actually been reading though one of the other books you recommended on Thomas by Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, to ensure I have some good basic knowledge on the subject. Have you read that one? If yes, how does this one compare in terms of content and quality (I see some of the same subjects being discussed)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (May 19, 2022)

Some of Peter Kreeft’s stuff can be helpful. I had a copy of “Summa of the Summa” years ago.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Thomas strikes again (just giving you a hard time).
> 
> I have actually been reading though one of the other books you recommended on Thomas by Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal, to ensure I have some good basic knowledge on the subject. Have you read that one? If yes, how does this one compare in terms of content and quality (I see some of the same subjects being discussed)?



LOL.

I've listened to his course on Aquinas that made up the book. Geisler's is probably better. They cover the same material, but Geisler's is more accessible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 19, 2022)

ZackF said:


> Some of Peter Kreeft’s stuff ca. be helpful. I had a copy of “Summa of the Summa” years ago.



I've read it, too. Kreeft's footnotes are fun, but he is unaware of how the Reformed tradition is closer to Thomas on predestination than Kreeft is. My only problem with Kreeft's text is that he tries to make Thomas out to be Lewis or Chesterton.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2022)

One point I forgot to add in the review: since God is the ultimate cause of all things, that means he also causes the will's actions. Yet, he causes the will according to its mode. Since it is immaterial and connected with reason, it can't be determined in the same way that material objects are. It's also contingent.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tychicus (May 20, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> the Reformed tradition is closer to Thomas on predestination.


Did the older Reformed theologians use Aquinas to defend/explain predestination?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> Did the older Reformed theologians use Aquinas to defend/explain predestination?



Mostly, yes. The older Reformed writers didn't have this fear of Aquinas that modern internet apologists have today.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (May 20, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Mostly, yes. The older Reformed writers didn't have this fear of Aquinas that modern internet apologists have today.


They were not as susceptible to romantic conversions either. They just read the guy. No hate nor larping.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2022)

ZackF said:


> They were not as susceptible to romantic conversions either. They just read the guy. No hate nor larping.



True, and as I tell people who might be tempted to convert, the average guy you meet in your parish won't be reading Thomas. He'll be reading James Martin, S.J.

In any case, Thomas is too powerful a figure on the doctrine of God to ignore, a peril we see in the Grace Baptist Theological Seminary guys.

No, the Reformers weren't larping, but they did copy Thomas.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 20, 2022)

I think the main concern is always the degradation of sola scriptura. As far as I can tell with James White position currently, that is what he is mainly pushing back on. Is Aristotle and Aquinas and Philosophy the main source of truth or it is the Bible? Does the Bible need all of the 3 previously mention items to be understood properly or can it be understood on it's own? Does God know how to speak to his people in a way that they understand or do we need a sacred tradition to interpret for us?

I agree we should not fear Aquinas just because he was not a reformed baptist or Presbyterian, but he did have issues. There is no perfect theologian though. I think one thing that does need to be stated though, is according to Galatians, regardless of his definitions or genius, if he preached another gospel, he is ultimately lost. If we are going to approach Aquinas honestly, let's make sure we do it fairly from both sides.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 20, 2022)

I would mention that the first paragraph is me reporting what I am hearing from White on the subject. It is not necessarily my views yet, although I do agree that Sola Scriptura must be defended at all costs.

However, I want to make sure I understand the philosopher/Thomist side before accusing them of something they aren't actually doing. I don't believe I have enough information yet to make that call. So, perhaps this book that was reviewed would be more good research material.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I would mention that the first paragraph is me reporting what I am hearing from White on the subject. It is not necessarily my views yet, although I do agree that Sola Scriptura must be defended at all costs.
> 
> However, I want to make sure I understand the philosopher/Thomist side before accusing them of something they aren't actually doing. I don't believe I have enough information yet to make that call. So, perhaps this book that was reviewed would be more good research material.



White isn't a reliable guide to Reformed orthodoxy and the historical sources. He sides with WL Craig on divine simplicity. I did gain some twitter notoriety because White called me out after I called him out for not understanding the historiography of Reformed scholasticism of the last 15 years.

Matthew Barrett is writing a book on Thomas, so that will probably be the best guide when it comes out.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 20, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Is Aristotle and Aquinas and Philosophy the main source of truth or it is the Bible?



Neither, God is. This is the distinction the Reformed Orthodox made between the order of being and the order of knowing. The Bible doesn't say anything about quantum mechanics (neither, for that matter, do Aquinas or Aristotle). Is the Bible still the source of truth for quantum mechanics? Well, I want to say yes, but that would be a very "thin" answer. That's why the above distinction is helpful. God is the source of truth in being, though he might not have placed that source in our theological principium of knowing (see Bavinck and Muller on this point).



retroGRAD3 said:


> I agree we should not fear Aquinas just because he was not a reformed baptist or Presbyterian, but he did have issues.



Agree. He's wrong on married sex. He believes that only the missionary position is allowed. Others might be allowed if they are natural. I'm not kidding.




__





Saint Thomas Aquinas on Marital Chastity






www.catechism.cc

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 20, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Agree. He's wrong on married sex. He believes that only the missionary position is allowed. Others might be allowed if they are natural. I'm not kidding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have heard this one from baptists as well though to be fair.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 23, 2022)

Here is another idea to consider. One reason I don't follow Thomas wholesale is simply because I know Hebrew and he didn't. In other words, concerning actual exegesis of a passage, I would never go to Thomas (or Augustine, for that matter) to find what the passage actually meant. On the other hand, especially in Thomas on Romans and Augustine on Genesis 1, it is vital to go to them to see how a doctrine was handled and confessed.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (May 23, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Here is another idea to consider. One reason I don't follow Thomas wholesale is simply because I know Hebrew and he didn't. In other words, concerning actual exegesis of a passage, I would never go to Thomas (or Augustine, for that matter) to find what the passage actually meant. On the other hand, especially in Thomas on Romans and Augustine on Genesis 1, it is vital to go to them to see how a doctrine was handled and confessed.


For Augustine, from what I can tell, did not hold to a 6 day creation/young earth view. I agree, we should go and read them and see what they thought and their reasoning. Ultimately though, I would reject his view. I think better people have come along since him and have handled the text and the historical science behind it better.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 23, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> For Augustine, from what I can tell, did not hold to a 6 day creation/young earth view. I agree, we should go and read them and see what they thought and their reasoning. Ultimately though, I would reject his view. I think better people have come along since him and have handled the text and the historical science behind it better.



Correct. I think he held to (or at least wanted to) instantaneous creation. Since he couldn't shake his latent Platonism, he probably thought time was dirty and God didn't need to extend the messiness of creating in time.

Okay, that was probably a simplistic reading of Augustine.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tychicus (May 23, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Here is another idea to consider. One reason I don't follow Thomas wholesale is simply because I know Hebrew and he didn't. In other words, concerning actual exegesis of a passage, I would never go to Thomas (or Augustine, for that matter) to find what the passage actually meant. On the other hand, especially in Thomas on Romans and Augustine on Genesis 1, it is vital to go to them to see how a doctrine was handled and confessed.


You've called yourself a Scotist in some posts? Do you still follow Scotus? 

Also you were critiquing Dolezal, in some old posts, for his overtly Thomistic view of divine simplicity, I see that has changed. Why?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 23, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> You've called yourself a Scotist in some posts? Do you still follow Scotus?
> 
> Also you were critiquing Dolezal, in some old posts, for his overtly Thomistic view of divine simplicity, I see that has changed. Why?



Scotism is a tricky monster. My original leanings toward Scotus dealt with his understanding of archetypal and ectypal theology.

I criticized Dolezal some years ago when I was misinformed about Thomism. I've studied Thomas (and the Reformers) on divine simplicity and I was wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

