Modern theologians have almost en masse criticized Thomas’ presentation of Trinitarian doctrine in his Summa theologiae because it appears to be a rational demonstration of the divine Persons.¹ For the past century, this work, along with Augustine’s De Trinitate, has been read as representative of a Latin Trinitarian tradition that “begins with the one God, the one divine essence as a whole, and only afterwards does it see God as three in persons.”² Philosophical concerns rather than the revelation of God in Christ are assumed to be the basis for the discussion of this doctrine since all divine works ad...

In the prologue to his Summa theologiae, Thomas states that the reason for this work is his own dissatisfaction with the available theological textbooks. These texts, he argues, including the Sentences of Peter the Lombard, contain numerous useless questions and arguments, neglect to treat the subject matter according to the order of teaching, and needlessly repeat themselves, all of which leads to “boredom and confusion” in the students. There was also at that time serious disagreement about the precise subject matter of theology. Some proposed that theology is a study of creation. Others said that it should be a study...

Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine of God in the first part of his Summa theologiae is a carefully developed construction, and it is meant to be read according to its own development, each article contextualized within Thomas’ increasingly precise terminology and distinctions. The terminology in one section, however, cannot simply be imported into another. Misplaced distinctions and an overly rigid interpretation of terms can be disastrous to one’s interpretation. As we have seen in Cajetan’s reading of question three, a misreading of terms and context colors his whole interpretation. There is, on the other hand, weighty evidence that Thomas is not and...

In light of our consideration of the proper names in the last chapter, the discussion of the way the essential attributes can be used to reveal distinctions in God seems quite unnecessary. The distinct appropriation of essential terms to particular divine Persons seems to say less and not more than the proper names of the Trinity. The “Proper” names (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) tell us that there are distinctions in God and that they are distinct by means of relations of origin. They do not, however, tell us about the proper identity of the Father, or of the Son,...

Thomas Aquinas’ discussion of naming God is based upon two principles: (1) we name God as we know God; and (2) we do not know what God is but only what God is not. These two principles taken together seem to suggest that our language about God does not “hook up” with the divine reality. Indeed, Thomas states that there is a sense in which “God does not have a name … because his essence is beyond that which we understand about God and signify with words.”¹ Consequently, the clarification of theological language does not appear to move beyond human...

Granted that Thomas’ characterization of theological language is not strictly tied to the being of things themselves, one might argue that it is too loosely connected. After all, as we noted in the previous chapter, Thomas is dependent upon the sometimes radical apophaticism of Maimonides and Ps.Dionysius. In fact, for many scholars, the Ps.Dionysian influence provides grounds for a rather severe apophaticism in Thomas. The assumption is that the mystical character of Dionysian symbols precludes any definite communicable meaning. Ps.Dionysius’ characterization of theological symbols is often compared to Augustinian signs to highlight the negativity in the former’s theology. But just...

The trajectory of this work has not been a linear one. As we have attempted to highlight the nature of Thomas’ theological method and especially his theory of Trinitarian appropriations, we have traversed a wide field of topics. What began as an account of order in presentation ended in an examination of divine naming theory. Overall, this study can be understood as a narrowing of focus from the outer contours of the Summa Theologiae to the painstaking analysis of a single article. The difficulty in understanding Thomas’ theological method is partly due to the complexity of his intellectual context. The...