What do you think?
Rate this book
Summa Contra Gentiles #1-4
Summa Contra Gentiles: Volumes 1-4 in Five Books
Book 1. God, translated, with an introd. and notes, by A. C. Pegis.--book 2. Creation, translated, with an introd. and notes, by J. F. Anderson.--book 3. Providence, translated, with an introd. and notes, by V. J. Bourke. 2 v.--book 4. Salvation, translated, with an introd. and notes, by C. J. O'Neil.
1588 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1264
187 people are currently reading
793 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Aquinas
2,546 books1,134 followersPhilosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of Italy and the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle and elements of Neoplatonism, a system that Plotinus and his successors developed and based on that of Plato, within a context of Christian thought; his works include the
Summa contra gentiles
(1259-1264) and the
Summa theologiae
or theologica (1266-1273).
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 24, 2014
This work is a monumental analysis of the Christian faith by the man who is widely recognized as the greatest Christian theologian of all time. This work is huge and took me 2 years of daily reading to get through it. But it is only the second most widely known of Aquinas' works. His best known work, the Summa Theologica, is more than twice as long as the SCG and is an insanely comprehensive treatment of the entire range of Christian theology. The difference between the ST and the SCG is that the ST is a work of Sacred Theology in which Aquinas makes heavy use of scripture and the works of the early Church Fathers to illustrate and prove his theological points. In the SCG, Aquinas does use scripture and the Fathers to a degree, but the main thrust of his arguments are from the secular philosophers, especially Aristotle. Because of this, most scholars refer to the SCG as a work of "Natural Theology", because in it Aquinas uses wisdom that was not revealed by God through the prophets or the Fathers to make his points.
Natural Theology is a great tool that scholars can use to illustrate the truths of the Christian faith to those who are not Christians and therefore do not accept the authority of scripture or the Church Fathers. The title of this work, "Summa Contra Gentiles", means a "Summary Against the Gentiles" because the intended audience of this work is not his fellow Christians but rather non-Christians; Muslims, Jews and heretics. Some scholars speculate that Aquinas' intent was to use the SCG as a handbook for missionaries to foreign lands. But having read this work, I find it hard to believe that this is the purpose of the work, since I would think that Aquinas would have made more reference to the actual teachings of Muslims and Jews than he did if this were his intent. Rather, my belief is that Aquinas meant this work to be a counter-arguement against many of the works of philosophy that were written by non-Christian writers; not only the ancient pagans but also Muslim scholars like Avicenna and Avveroes, and the Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides. These writers were growing in popularity during the lifetime of Aquinas, and Aquinas does actually refer to the works of these latter writers, especially in the first two books of SCG.
Unlike the ST, which had a point-counterpoint format in which a Aquinas proposes an erroneous thesis and then proves his actual thesis by arguing against the erroneous one, the SCG has a straighforward paragraph format in which Aquinas lays out his teachings and explains why they are true. Ironically, considering that this work is explicitly written against a party, Aquinas' approach is much more a form of positive argumentation than the ST, in which he argues against the counterpoints that he proposes at the beginning of each article. Because of this, the SCG is really a great source of straighforward teaching about Catholic theology than the ST, in which the reader must weed through lots of counterargumentation and contrary opinions. The ST, in contrast, is better for the apologist who can familiarize himself with the opinions that oppose the orthodox Catholic teaching and how to refute those opinions. So, my opinion here is that both works are essential for the Catholic theologian, although in different ways and for different reasons.
The SCG is really one of the most valuable and underappreciated works of Catholic theology in history. I got my copy of this work on the Kindle for about $3, so there is really no excuse why more Catholics don't get their hands on this work and study it. Granted that the work of Aquinas is not light reading, and it takes a lifetime or more to really wrap your mind around his thought. Still, it is essential for the serious Catholic to at least try to understand Aquinas and this work.
Natural Theology is a great tool that scholars can use to illustrate the truths of the Christian faith to those who are not Christians and therefore do not accept the authority of scripture or the Church Fathers. The title of this work, "Summa Contra Gentiles", means a "Summary Against the Gentiles" because the intended audience of this work is not his fellow Christians but rather non-Christians; Muslims, Jews and heretics. Some scholars speculate that Aquinas' intent was to use the SCG as a handbook for missionaries to foreign lands. But having read this work, I find it hard to believe that this is the purpose of the work, since I would think that Aquinas would have made more reference to the actual teachings of Muslims and Jews than he did if this were his intent. Rather, my belief is that Aquinas meant this work to be a counter-arguement against many of the works of philosophy that were written by non-Christian writers; not only the ancient pagans but also Muslim scholars like Avicenna and Avveroes, and the Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides. These writers were growing in popularity during the lifetime of Aquinas, and Aquinas does actually refer to the works of these latter writers, especially in the first two books of SCG.
Unlike the ST, which had a point-counterpoint format in which a Aquinas proposes an erroneous thesis and then proves his actual thesis by arguing against the erroneous one, the SCG has a straighforward paragraph format in which Aquinas lays out his teachings and explains why they are true. Ironically, considering that this work is explicitly written against a party, Aquinas' approach is much more a form of positive argumentation than the ST, in which he argues against the counterpoints that he proposes at the beginning of each article. Because of this, the SCG is really a great source of straighforward teaching about Catholic theology than the ST, in which the reader must weed through lots of counterargumentation and contrary opinions. The ST, in contrast, is better for the apologist who can familiarize himself with the opinions that oppose the orthodox Catholic teaching and how to refute those opinions. So, my opinion here is that both works are essential for the Catholic theologian, although in different ways and for different reasons.
The SCG is really one of the most valuable and underappreciated works of Catholic theology in history. I got my copy of this work on the Kindle for about $3, so there is really no excuse why more Catholics don't get their hands on this work and study it. Granted that the work of Aquinas is not light reading, and it takes a lifetime or more to really wrap your mind around his thought. Still, it is essential for the serious Catholic to at least try to understand Aquinas and this work.
July 28, 2013
I am reading the Summa contra Gentiles for the second time, and honestly I like it better than the Summa Theologiae.
His mission in the book is to lay out an argument for the truth of the Christian Faith that does not assume the authority of the Bible. It is grounded upon Aristotle and classical natural law theory. I think it is a brilliant book that is woefully ignored. It simply dashes to pieces the claims of the skeptics that the Catholic Faith is irrational. Whether one agrees with him or not, in the end it just can’t be denied that he has shown the Faith to be reasonable. That is not to say that it can be proven by means of reason in every respect, since that is the opposite of faith. But rather it is to say that there is nothing irrational or contrary to reason in the Faith.
His mission in the book is to lay out an argument for the truth of the Christian Faith that does not assume the authority of the Bible. It is grounded upon Aristotle and classical natural law theory. I think it is a brilliant book that is woefully ignored. It simply dashes to pieces the claims of the skeptics that the Catholic Faith is irrational. Whether one agrees with him or not, in the end it just can’t be denied that he has shown the Faith to be reasonable. That is not to say that it can be proven by means of reason in every respect, since that is the opposite of faith. But rather it is to say that there is nothing irrational or contrary to reason in the Faith.
October 26, 2024
Spinoza uses the same Aristotelean metaphysics as Aquinas but reaches different conclusions. Aquinas assumes reality needs a foundation; Spinoza makes his substance the reality we participate in, Aquinas makes God’s potential his actuality thus putting a ground to reality.
In the first half of this book, the philosophical part, not the theological, Aquinas twists Aristotle, Maimonides and pseudo-Dionysius into a world-view that necessitates a foundation to reality. I’d even say that the first half of this book was fun to read. The second half Aquinas goes off the rails justifying blood sacrifice, bread turning into mystical substance of body of Christ, three separate but equal beings while each being a separate but equal part of a triune God structure but giving one God; Aquanis tells what exactly is in heaven and what exactly happens to our resurrected bodies and so on. Fantastic stuff without real foundation to support the assertions.
Contras can’t exist therefore God, Jesus and Holy Spirit must exist. There are connections that never get connected and become convenient certainties within Aquinas’ necessary, certain, and True beliefs.
For Aquinas, human life maters not individually since participation in the species towards an ultimate heavenly reward is through Grace and the vicarious suffering of another for inherited sin through belief justifies eternal heavenly life or its lack of belief justifies eternal suffering since God’s Grace is so magnificent that evil cannot ever know the good. Sin is an imaginary problem with an imaginary solution or as Aquinas says sin is an affront to God and God through his Grace must erase it. As Nietzsche would say just don’t enter into that circular reasoning in the first place.
I noticed a lot of bad modern day Christian arguments center around the same way Aquinas would defend his absurdities. Aquinas’ arguments only stand if the correspondence theory to truth is replaced with a presupposition of a supernatural that specifically assumes a necessary being whose existence is its essence (its potentiality is its actuality).
Woven within this book are all the bad arguments that get tossed around by Christian apologists such as objective morality proves God, there must be a first cause and that cause is God, something can’t come from nothing, design of the world proves there is Biblical God, and the Bible is not absurd since it has no contradictions, or finally that there are talking snakes, a Global flood happened and Adam and Eve were created from dirt and evolution is not real.
I’ve read the complete works of Aristotle (I don’t recommend it since it is dry), I’ve read all of Spinoza (I do recommend him since he is brilliant), and I’ve did all of Aquinas’ Summa, I can appreciate good philosophical arguments and Aquinas does that nicely in the first half of this book. The second half of the book is a real travesty. I’ve noticed that the smarter Christians when they explain their relationship to Jesus Christ and the resurrection use Aquinas’ arguments and assume the literal and physical realities, and then fabricate a spiritual metaphysical realization when the contras inevitably arise (something cannot be and be at the same time and in the same way, that leads to a contradiction therefore the juvenile appeal to supernatural for justification for the absurdities that arise). Zombies did not arise out of the graves in Jerusalem the day Jesus arose from the dead, but Aquinas will tell you that they did.
In the first half of this book, the philosophical part, not the theological, Aquinas twists Aristotle, Maimonides and pseudo-Dionysius into a world-view that necessitates a foundation to reality. I’d even say that the first half of this book was fun to read. The second half Aquinas goes off the rails justifying blood sacrifice, bread turning into mystical substance of body of Christ, three separate but equal beings while each being a separate but equal part of a triune God structure but giving one God; Aquanis tells what exactly is in heaven and what exactly happens to our resurrected bodies and so on. Fantastic stuff without real foundation to support the assertions.
Contras can’t exist therefore God, Jesus and Holy Spirit must exist. There are connections that never get connected and become convenient certainties within Aquinas’ necessary, certain, and True beliefs.
For Aquinas, human life maters not individually since participation in the species towards an ultimate heavenly reward is through Grace and the vicarious suffering of another for inherited sin through belief justifies eternal heavenly life or its lack of belief justifies eternal suffering since God’s Grace is so magnificent that evil cannot ever know the good. Sin is an imaginary problem with an imaginary solution or as Aquinas says sin is an affront to God and God through his Grace must erase it. As Nietzsche would say just don’t enter into that circular reasoning in the first place.
I noticed a lot of bad modern day Christian arguments center around the same way Aquinas would defend his absurdities. Aquinas’ arguments only stand if the correspondence theory to truth is replaced with a presupposition of a supernatural that specifically assumes a necessary being whose existence is its essence (its potentiality is its actuality).
Woven within this book are all the bad arguments that get tossed around by Christian apologists such as objective morality proves God, there must be a first cause and that cause is God, something can’t come from nothing, design of the world proves there is Biblical God, and the Bible is not absurd since it has no contradictions, or finally that there are talking snakes, a Global flood happened and Adam and Eve were created from dirt and evolution is not real.
I’ve read the complete works of Aristotle (I don’t recommend it since it is dry), I’ve read all of Spinoza (I do recommend him since he is brilliant), and I’ve did all of Aquinas’ Summa, I can appreciate good philosophical arguments and Aquinas does that nicely in the first half of this book. The second half of the book is a real travesty. I’ve noticed that the smarter Christians when they explain their relationship to Jesus Christ and the resurrection use Aquinas’ arguments and assume the literal and physical realities, and then fabricate a spiritual metaphysical realization when the contras inevitably arise (something cannot be and be at the same time and in the same way, that leads to a contradiction therefore the juvenile appeal to supernatural for justification for the absurdities that arise). Zombies did not arise out of the graves in Jerusalem the day Jesus arose from the dead, but Aquinas will tell you that they did.
June 21, 2012
Acquinas is an excellent writer who makes his arguments clearly and comprehensively. There is a reason that all modern Catholic thought, as well as, some evangelical thought is said to be merely a footnote to Acquinas. The guy is just plain brilliant. However, his natural theology project does violence to the revealed word of God and has caused much of the Christian apologetic task to be greatly hindered.
November 17, 2024
Summa Contra Gentiles Refutes age-old Catholic Disputes
Summa Contra Gentiles Refutes age-old Catholic Disputes. It also explains God, the Trinity, the Sacraments and the end times. A must read for devote Catholics.
Summa Contra Gentiles Refutes age-old Catholic Disputes. It also explains God, the Trinity, the Sacraments and the end times. A must read for devote Catholics.
January 6, 2023
A pesar de que entiendo el mensaje, me pareció una lectura muy pesada, no recomiendo leerlo dado que no siento que haya aprendido mucho en mi caso
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews