Jaarboek Thomas Instituut 1997 - Thomas Instituut te Utrecht

112 ANTONIE VOS
loyal to Saint Thomas - and of acknowledging their truth run through
the whole of this dissertation. They make its reading inspired reading
for which we have to express our substantial thanks. In fact, these
problems are rather separate and the basic difficulty is still the
historical and historically analytical question what Thomas Aquinas in
fact has proposed. Here we get immersed into the ambiguities of
Christian and medieval thought.
2. Some main lines
A general introductory part - Part I: "God-talk and two problems" (5-
99) - provides some basic considerations regarding the nature of
Thomas Aquinas' thought and its interpretation. Moreover, it presents
the strategy by which this investigation tackles the big issue of God's
infallible knowledge and his irresistible will. The two other main parts
cover these two central problems: Part II on infallible foreknowledge
(100-254) and Part III on irresistible will (255-304). The theologian'
Thomas Aquinas tells us that God knows, wills, foreknows and cares,
and so on. Not only the theological character of Thomas' thought and
talk on God is stressed, but also the importance of linguistic analysis"
and a methodological approach that takes account of Thomas' theology
as a sophisticated kind of 'negative theology'? Thus different
principles governing God-talk with Thomas are set forth. Two
important principles structure the semantic principles in God-talk about
creatures. The first principle governs the relation between immanent
Chapter I: 'God-talk in Aquinas' (5-33) rightly stresses the
theological character of Thomas' work and endeavour. Because there is no
duplex ordo of nature and super-nature in Thomas, the simplex ordo of God's
reality is the fundamental point of view which dominates the whole of his
systematic discours.
4 This is a general feature of scholastic thought in the Middle Ages.
For this reason we have to ask a more specific question: Is the method of
linguistic and logical analysis of a certain theologian more prominent than
with his contemporaries?
5 This feature we have to explain, for if someone's theory of
knowledge is neither Aristotelian nor Areopagitic, his semantics usually
adheres to the principle of univocity.