McCall Initial Post Aquinas
Disclaimer: it took me a couple of minutes to remember Aquinas’ writing style within the Summa (i.e., point, counterpoint, decision, etc.). Being a closet-case Thomistic follower, I wish we could study in depth the entirety of the Summa. Nevertheless, this small snippet has been a profitable read to me in numerous manners. The argumentation style of Aquinas is much more like my own than, say, Cantwell Smith that we read earlier (who was seemingly nothing more than a deconstructionist). Aquinas was biblical, constructive, and critical of previous positions (which one does not find so much in Augustine).
On a personal note, I found much fodder in Aquinas’ recognition that foreknowledge does not do away with contingency (171.6.respnoses1-3), and I see it to perhaps be important for me going forward. I especially value this note of Aquinas in relation to my filial love for Molinism. The potentiality, presentiality, and actuality aspects of foreknowledge are intriguing to me, pointedly. Aquinas notes that future contingents are in God (see 173.1 Hence 1-3), which perhaps is a proto-panentheistic perspective? (Hmm…). Aquinas notes that future is in God in two ways: first as cause, and then as antecedent realities (of which I do not fully comprehend; see 174.1 Reply).
In an important note to causality, Aquinas argues that God, as the universal cause in action, does not antecedently require either matter or any material predisposition (172.3 reply).It seems as though this assertion by Aquinas may imply creatio ex nihilo, but I do not think it necessarily does (or do I?). In an important note to causality and teleology, I find great stimulus in Aquinas’ words to the effect that the excellence of the means is determined by the final product (see 174.2 Reply). This assertion by Aquinas gets my mind a’ rollin’. If the end justifies the means, then we have an effective rebuttal, at least to sympathetic ears, to the ‘problem’ of theodicy. Moreover, the quasi-extravagant ‘waste’ everywhere seen in the biological world would in a sense also be justified – if not downright required – in order to attain the excellent complexity that is everywhere present to the scientist.
Regarding Aquinas’ semi-condemnation of present tongues-speaking (see 176.2 Reply, and 176.2.4), all I can say is “amen”. All who are moved by the Spirit (of order), should be discerning, masters of themselves, and marked by order themselves (see Appendix 6, pg. 165). I find humor in noting that women are inherently inferior to men in terms of wisdom (see 177.2 Reply-“Thirdly”). Knowing that some women, but not many (hehe), intellectually dwarf me, makes me wonder what I am according to Aquinas’ schematic (perhaps subhuman?- Mr./Rev./Pastor Cheeks might agree there :-).