Augustine versus Aquinas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
I have been seeking to learn more about the important theological points on which Augustine and Aquinas agreed and differed. Can anyone identify some of these for me, and the extent to why they agreed or disagreed? Or can anyone point me to a text where the question might be discussed in some depth?
 
Mainly in heritage - Platonic (Augustine) vs. Aristotelian (Thomas). There was some distinct point I remember in which Thomas diverged and even, dare I say, gently corrected the African Doctor, but at the moment I’m at a loss as to what it was. Either something with substance, mind, the Trinity, or grace (narrows it down, right?)… Sorry I can’t be of more help. Poke around the Google and try flipping through old editions of the Thomist.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I have been seeking to learn more about the important theological points on which Augustine and Aquinas agreed and differed. Can anyone identify some of these for me, and the extent to why they agreed or disagreed? Or can anyone point me to a text where the question might be discussed in some depth?
Click to expand...
Well, Augustine favored Plato and Aquinas favored Aristotle. So, their metaphysics differed hugely from each others. They did agree, or partially agree on some things. Like they had similar views on predestination and sin. Aquinas was probably influenced by Augustine in that area. They also had a similar view on hell. Also, Augustine seems to put faith over reason seeing them not inter related whereas Aquinas took the opposite position. I’m sure you can find longer more detailed descriptions of their similarity’s and differences. I just intended to give a summary.
 
In what do Platonists disagree with Aristotelians on? The only ideas I know of that they disagree on is Ideas existing separate from God, and humans existing before birth in the world of the Forms-Ideas. Neither of these was held by Augustine.
 
Their epistemology, for one (illumination vs. abstraction) as well as finer points of metaphysics (substance theory). But Augustine seemed to like the Categories, so…

It’s a topic for a whole graduate level class.
 
e_c said:
Their epistemology, for one (illumination vs. abstraction) as well as finer points of metaphysics (substance theory). But Augustine seemed to like the Categories, so…

It’s a topic for a whole graduate level class.
Click to expand...
Substance theory would apply to the Eucharist, so are you quite sure they differed on this?
 
I could not articulate it at this moment, no. But while Augustine gives lip service to Aristotle in the Confessions (right?) when he talks about reading the Categories, he is notoriously neo-Platonist, which isn’t a bad thing but does have a different approach to understanding reality (but it is not necessarily unable to be mostly reconciled with the peripatetic school with a little work).

Sorry, I’m at a loss to go deeper at the moment. I’ve been a bad student of Augustine. 🤷

Thoughts?
 
Perhaps they differed on whether truth was primarily in the mind
 
And here is a book I have been advised that includes a well developed study of the contrasts between Augustine and Aquinas.

The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Here is an article as to how Augustine and Aquinas differed on original sin and political authority.

www3.nd.edu/~pweithma/professional_website/My%20Papers/Augustine%20and%20Aquinas%20on%20Political%20Authority.pdf
Click to expand...
That article says " Augustine denies that attachment to the common goods of political society–earthly peace and national glory–are virtues at all and he denies that meaningful ties of friendship can develop in political society." Uhhh, can this be correct?
 
thinkandmull said:
That article says " Augustine denies that attachment to the common goods of political society–earthly peace and national glory–are virtues at all and he denies that meaningful ties of friendship can develop in political society." Uhhh, can this be correct?
Click to expand...
Earthly peace and national glory are ends, not virtues.

Politics is not a friendly business. It is altogether jockeying for power.

How many of your meaningful friends are your friends strictly because of their party association?

You probably have mutual interests, but mutual interests are not the same as friendships.

Friendship is based on love, not politics.
 
Augustine taught that original sin was transmitted by propagation due to the inordinacy or sinfulness of the sexual act as it had become tainted by lust stemming from concupiscence or loss of self-control resulting from that original sin. STA agreed only that OS was transmitted by propagation.
 
I’ve read that Augustine and Jerome believed that sex was **usually **a venial sin, but I’ve never seen the quotes for that, and what you’ve said here in the last post implies that original sin could not be pass on without the sex being sinful.
 
thinkandmull said:
I’ve read that Augustine and Jerome believed that sex was **usually **a venial sin, but I’ve never seen the quotes for that, and what you’ve said here in the last post implies that original sin could not be pass on without the sex being sinful.
Click to expand...
The concupiscence said to be inherent in the sexual act of fallen man was considered to simply be the mechanism for transmission, disorder producing or transmitting disorder.
 
Another point where Augustine and Aquinas diverged I believe was on the predestination/free will debate. Augustine supported the notion that Calvinists would later embrace, that all are deserving of damnation, with God electing to save a number anyway out of sheer mercy. Aquinas, OTOH, rejected this as inconsistent with God’s love. Man would demerit salvation by willful rejection of grace. There’s a lot more to it of course.
 
Thomas Aquinas did not believe original sin would send someone to hell. I don’t know whether he thought that this was because of God’s mercy, or that original sin by it’s nature does not deserve this punishment. But on predestination, as far as I’ve seen, Aquinas was ambiguous enough to be interpreted in line with Augustine or instead otherwise. We’ve have discussion about this here and people have their different takes on Aquinas. I think Augustine was pretty clear that God could save everyone by giving them efficacious grace but chooses to let the majority be damned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top