What do you think?
Rate this book
Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal
Book by Geisler, Norman L.
Paperback
First published August 1, 1991
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
230 books331 followersNorman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 12, 2018
This is a good introduction to the thought of Aquinas, and attempt to show that there is much in the thought of Aquinas which can be embraced by contemporary Protestants. It is aimed at lay-people and college level readers. If you have never read Aquinas, and want to read a Protestant introduction to his work, this is a good place to start.
November 14, 2019
C’est une excellente introduction à la pensée thomiste pour les évangéliques. J’ai l’impression d’avoir enfin rencontré un penseur évangélique qui a compris Thomas D’Aquin et son utilité pour nous.
L’introduction n’est pas simpliste, en fait elle est même parfois « pas simple ». Cela est dû au fait que la pensée du Docteur Angélique est complexe et que Geisler l’aborde jusque dans ses détails (même jusqu’à se demander comment Dieu peut connaître de manière nécessaire les singuliers futurs contingents).
Geisler a réussi à m’apprendre encore des choses sur la théologie de Thomas D’Aquin et à préciser là où je suis en désaccord avec lui. Je prévois d’étudier plus profondément sa solution au problème du mal et son lien avec sa doctrine de la prédestination. Je prévois aussi de creuser sa distinction entre loi naturelle, divine et humaine. Distinction que je trouve légitime en principe mais dans laquelle je ne peux pas aujourd’hui le suivre quant à ses conclusions (a savoir, qu’est-ce qui relève de la loi naturelle et de la loi divine).
Je m’interroge aussi sur la pertinence des distinctions entre les différentes vertus.
L’introduction n’est pas simpliste, en fait elle est même parfois « pas simple ». Cela est dû au fait que la pensée du Docteur Angélique est complexe et que Geisler l’aborde jusque dans ses détails (même jusqu’à se demander comment Dieu peut connaître de manière nécessaire les singuliers futurs contingents).
Geisler a réussi à m’apprendre encore des choses sur la théologie de Thomas D’Aquin et à préciser là où je suis en désaccord avec lui. Je prévois d’étudier plus profondément sa solution au problème du mal et son lien avec sa doctrine de la prédestination. Je prévois aussi de creuser sa distinction entre loi naturelle, divine et humaine. Distinction que je trouve légitime en principe mais dans laquelle je ne peux pas aujourd’hui le suivre quant à ses conclusions (a savoir, qu’est-ce qui relève de la loi naturelle et de la loi divine).
Je m’interroge aussi sur la pertinence des distinctions entre les différentes vertus.
July 7, 2026
Geisler, Norman L. Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003.
Peter Kreeft once said “Don’t read Thomists. Read Thomas. He is much clearer.” Kreeft was wrong, if only because he is such a good writer and expounder of Thomas. In some ways, Geisler is even better. This book is the best handbook on theological first principles, let alone introductions to Thomas Aquinas.
Basic argument and position of Aquinas: Pace Van Til, “Aquinas would agree: (1) that speaking in the realm of being (metaphysics), logic is dependent on God and not God on logic; (2) that the existence of God is ontologically necessary; (3) that without God nothing could be either known or proven to be true” (Geisler 18).
The Life of Aquinas
Thomas probably was born around 1224/25. Any guess is merely probable, though some have more justification than others. Much of our information comes from testimonies given during Thomas’s canonization. These accounts sometimes conflict, so the biographer is forced to reconstruct the narrative based on various events in Thomas’s life. One can say for certain that Aquinas died on March 7, 1274, and sources say he was near fifty.. From that date, coupled with the age requirements for entering the Dominican Order, scholars place his birth around 1224 or 1225. If the exact date of Thomas’s birth is a mystery, the location is not. Thomas was born “in the Aquino castle of Roccasecca.”
Faith and Reason
Faith and reason are parallel. One does not cause the other. Quoting Thomas, Geisler explains: “faith involves will (freedom) and reason doesn’t coerce the will” (58). From here he introduces the distinction between believing that God exists and believing in God. Geisler, like any good dispensationalist, provides a very helpful chart.
The First Principles of Knowledge
This is likely the most important chapter in the book.
What is a First Principle?
According to Aquinas, “anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle.” A principle is that from which something follows” (72). Moreover, “A first principle is, therefore, a first among firsts.” It may be first in the order of knowing, being, or becoming.” Geisler then gives his famous list of principles, though it is not original to Geisler.
The Principle of Identity.
The Principle of Noncontradiction.
The Principle of Excluded Middle.
The Principle of Causality
Why Should We Care about First Principles, particularly the Law of Non-Contradiction?
1. To deny it would deprive words of their fixed meaning and render speech useless.
2. Reality of essences must be abandoned. There would be becoming without anything that becomes, flying without a bird, accidents without substance.
3. There would be no distinction between things. All would be one.
4. It would mean the destruction of truth, for truth and falsity would be the same.
5. It would destroy all thought, even opinion, for its affirmation would be its negation.
6. Desire and preference would be useless, for there would be no difference between good and evil.
7. Everything would be equally true and false at the same time. No opinion would be more wrong than any other, even in degree.
8. It would make impossible all becoming, change, or motion, for all this implies a transition from one state to another, but all states would be the same, if contradiction is not true (78-79).
Reality
Parmenides gave a clever, if obviously wrong account of how everything is one. Things either differ by being or nonbeing. Things cannot differ by being, since everything has being. They cannot differ by nonbeing, since nonbeing is nothing, and to differ by nothing is to have no difference at all.
Following Aristotle, Thomas noted that things have being by varying degrees of potentiality.
God’s Nature
God and Time
“Another way to understand the difference between God’s eternity and time is to recognize that time is an accidental change, not a substantial change. A substantial change is a change in what something is; an accidental change is a change in what something has” (106).
Evaluation
In the rest of the book, Geisler examines (and defends) the various arguments for God’s existence. The honest reader can probably guess what he says. You either agree with Aquinas or you do not. I do, but there is not much point in rehashing those debates in this review. He also has a good section on natural law which will repay many readings.
Peter Kreeft once said “Don’t read Thomists. Read Thomas. He is much clearer.” Kreeft was wrong, if only because he is such a good writer and expounder of Thomas. In some ways, Geisler is even better. This book is the best handbook on theological first principles, let alone introductions to Thomas Aquinas.
Basic argument and position of Aquinas: Pace Van Til, “Aquinas would agree: (1) that speaking in the realm of being (metaphysics), logic is dependent on God and not God on logic; (2) that the existence of God is ontologically necessary; (3) that without God nothing could be either known or proven to be true” (Geisler 18).
The Life of Aquinas
Thomas probably was born around 1224/25. Any guess is merely probable, though some have more justification than others. Much of our information comes from testimonies given during Thomas’s canonization. These accounts sometimes conflict, so the biographer is forced to reconstruct the narrative based on various events in Thomas’s life. One can say for certain that Aquinas died on March 7, 1274, and sources say he was near fifty.. From that date, coupled with the age requirements for entering the Dominican Order, scholars place his birth around 1224 or 1225. If the exact date of Thomas’s birth is a mystery, the location is not. Thomas was born “in the Aquino castle of Roccasecca.”
Faith and Reason
Faith and reason are parallel. One does not cause the other. Quoting Thomas, Geisler explains: “faith involves will (freedom) and reason doesn’t coerce the will” (58). From here he introduces the distinction between believing that God exists and believing in God. Geisler, like any good dispensationalist, provides a very helpful chart.
The First Principles of Knowledge
This is likely the most important chapter in the book.
What is a First Principle?
According to Aquinas, “anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle.” A principle is that from which something follows” (72). Moreover, “A first principle is, therefore, a first among firsts.” It may be first in the order of knowing, being, or becoming.” Geisler then gives his famous list of principles, though it is not original to Geisler.
The Principle of Identity.
The Principle of Noncontradiction.
The Principle of Excluded Middle.
The Principle of Causality
Why Should We Care about First Principles, particularly the Law of Non-Contradiction?
1. To deny it would deprive words of their fixed meaning and render speech useless.
2. Reality of essences must be abandoned. There would be becoming without anything that becomes, flying without a bird, accidents without substance.
3. There would be no distinction between things. All would be one.
4. It would mean the destruction of truth, for truth and falsity would be the same.
5. It would destroy all thought, even opinion, for its affirmation would be its negation.
6. Desire and preference would be useless, for there would be no difference between good and evil.
7. Everything would be equally true and false at the same time. No opinion would be more wrong than any other, even in degree.
8. It would make impossible all becoming, change, or motion, for all this implies a transition from one state to another, but all states would be the same, if contradiction is not true (78-79).
Reality
Parmenides gave a clever, if obviously wrong account of how everything is one. Things either differ by being or nonbeing. Things cannot differ by being, since everything has being. They cannot differ by nonbeing, since nonbeing is nothing, and to differ by nothing is to have no difference at all.
Following Aristotle, Thomas noted that things have being by varying degrees of potentiality.
God’s Nature
God and Time
“Another way to understand the difference between God’s eternity and time is to recognize that time is an accidental change, not a substantial change. A substantial change is a change in what something is; an accidental change is a change in what something has” (106).
Evaluation
In the rest of the book, Geisler examines (and defends) the various arguments for God’s existence. The honest reader can probably guess what he says. You either agree with Aquinas or you do not. I do, but there is not much point in rehashing those debates in this review. He also has a good section on natural law which will repay many readings.
Want to Read
July 12, 2024Jul 2024. Reading Chapter Six (available online) on first principles in metaphysics and epistemology.
November 17, 2025
I remember this as interesting and honest. Geisler's thesis is that evangelical and fundamentalist Christians would do well to grant Aquinas the hearing that they too seldom give him because he predates the Reformers and is so closely identified with Catholic thought. Naturally I agree with that (Evangelicals like Fred Sanders do, too). It is also to his credit that Geisler realizes -- as G.K. Chesterton and others before him have also done -- that Aquinas has as much to say to Christian hearts as to Christian heads.
Where the book begins to fray is when Geisler hides behind evangelical hobby horses or disagrees with fundamentally Catholic aspects of Thomist thought. Reading Geisler's appraisal in a vacuum, you might think his essentially Calvinist outlook has a pedigree comparable to the one enjoyed by the thought of Thomas Aquinas, but that's a mistake not unlike the one that wrongly regards Augustine of Hippo and Paul of Tarsus as "proto-Protestants" (Fun fact: Neither Augustine nor Paul was a "Proto-Protestant").
It is one thing to say (correctly) that Aquinas had an exalted view of Scripture, for example, and to dryly observe that his evangelical critics typically shortchange that view because they haven't sufficiently studied Thomist source material. It is quite another thing to imply as Geisler does that Aquinas relegates the teaching authority of the church to second-tier status under the normative touchstone of the bible.
Where the book begins to fray is when Geisler hides behind evangelical hobby horses or disagrees with fundamentally Catholic aspects of Thomist thought. Reading Geisler's appraisal in a vacuum, you might think his essentially Calvinist outlook has a pedigree comparable to the one enjoyed by the thought of Thomas Aquinas, but that's a mistake not unlike the one that wrongly regards Augustine of Hippo and Paul of Tarsus as "proto-Protestants" (Fun fact: Neither Augustine nor Paul was a "Proto-Protestant").
It is one thing to say (correctly) that Aquinas had an exalted view of Scripture, for example, and to dryly observe that his evangelical critics typically shortchange that view because they haven't sufficiently studied Thomist source material. It is quite another thing to imply as Geisler does that Aquinas relegates the teaching authority of the church to second-tier status under the normative touchstone of the bible.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews