Critique of Thomas Acquinas

            The first work by Thomas Aquinas is the doctrinal beliefs of the Church. He first describes the way in which humans can grasp truth: through reason and through divine interpretation. He says that it is “stupid to say something is false just because it cannot be reasoned. Aquinas then writes about the importance of belief where reason is unsuccessful. He says it is not foolish to call beliefs derived from faith truth simply because they are beliefs. He concludes the first work by saying that the truth found by reason and truth found by faith, if searched for correctly, are the same. The second selection, part of the Summa Theologica, addresses two questions: is it lawful to cheat in trading and is it a sin to commit usury? He follows a very strict format in asking and answering these questions. He first gives arguments for its lawfulness, then he gives his view on the question which contradicts the first arguments, then he writes about the issue as a whole with both sides, then he counters each of the first arguments to prove his answer to the question.

            Aquinas was very wise in his observations. He noticed that man could not reason everything about God, but should trust the Bible and revelations for truth about God. He did point out that modern knowledge starts with observation from the senses. Therefore by modern observation, we cannot reason the immaterial, which is God. In his second work, he uses logic and reason to answer the questions and supports then with great amounts of scripture. He makes sound arguments because he synthesizes reason and faith.

Aquinas tries too hard to connect faith with reason, especially with the secular reason of Aristotle. Aristotle found little room in his philosophy for an infinite power, unlike Plato and Socrates who thought it necessary to life for it to exist. Reason itself cannot lead you to God. Aquinas wrote that it was crucial to rely of faith for much of the Christian truth, but found himself too much in love with human reason. Augustine greatly agreed and connected Plato into his works, contrary to Aquinas and Aristotle. Augustine, like Aquinas, were both brilliant, wise Christian men, but chose different sides in debate on the revelation of truth. Aquinas said that man’s natural knowledge will never be contrary to God, but it will never be enough and that revelation is necessary. Despite the good in his writings, Aquinas relied too much on human reason. Similarly, the RCC relied too much on human authority rather than divine authority. While they believed themselves to be the divine authority on earth, only one of the points in the first papal document out of 30 addresses that authority, while the rest discuss the earthly power of the RCC. The church had grown so blinded by its beliefs that they believed they were the sole authority on earth, the sole way to heaven for believers, and that submission to the pope was necessary for salvation. All of those beliefs had biblical roots but were so stretched that it was not true Christian doctrine. Their presuppositions of the Bible did not allow them to see its true meaning. The presuppositions that Aquinas describes as “the mother of all error” had erred the RCC into making their own interpretations of the Bible, even to believe in their own inerrancy. The same presuppositions that Plato saw at the root of all humanity, still were chained around the hearts of the leaders of the RCC. They had yet to be freed from their chains, from, as Luther describes, the bondage of their sinful will, and freed in the perfection of Christ.