Tomas Aquinas' natural theology deserves a separate article on its own. This is because just like what Van Til wrote about the natural theologies of both Plato and Aristotle, the seven paragraphs used by Van Til to describe the natural theology of Thomas Aquinas is not easy. Moreover, with the prestige of Thomas Aquinas as an intellectual giant with his contribution both in philosophy and theology and is even shaping the theological discourse even up to this day, it appears that Van Til's interpretation of him is out of place and unwise. Nevertheless, despite the contrarian posture of Van Til as to the view of Thomas Aquinas, being a member of a Reformed institution, it is our task to identify the difference between the natural theology of the Westminster Standards from the natural theology of the Roman Catholic Church.
Utilizing Aristotle's Philosophy
Identifying Thomas Aquinas' utility of Aristotle's philosophy, Van Til claims that the latter's natural theology is more hostile to the natural theology of the Westminster Standards than Plato's natural theology. Aquinas accomplished such utility by his notion of "analogy of being" where he used the "form-matter scheme" as his rational methodology to demonstrate "that the mysteries of the Christian faith are not out of accord with the proper conclusions of reason" (p. 288).
The above project appears very promising and commendable. I imagine the ongoing debate about the relationship between the mysteries of faith and reason and it seems that Thomas Aquinas has provided us with an explanation to exit such a dilemma.
Difficult Terms
Then Van Til mentions uncommon terms such as "univocal," "equivocal," "analogical," and "remotion" (ibid.). One must understand the meaning of these terms for the entire exposition to make sense. If not, one will be lost and puzzled about how those terms connect to Aquinas' natural theology.
Overall, the material is tough for not all sentences make sense to the uninitiated. Understanding the piece requires familiarity with Western philosophy. Nevertheless, some portions can be followed if one can follow the logic of the writer.
One clear idea for me is that Aquinas says Van Til rejects both univocal and equivocal reasoning and utilizes instead the analogical method. Then Van Til adds that true knowledge for Thomas Aquinas requires upholding both "pure univocation and pure equivocation in perfect balance" (p. 289). The outcome of this method "is a sort of pre-Kantian phenomenalism" (ibid.). What follows is a critique of Van Til saying that Aquinas "is not able to escape the dilemma that faced Aristotle" (ibid.). He adds that Aquinas' God exists but "is unknown, or is known but does not exist" (ibid.). Such a statement is hard to swallow.
Let me end this piece with a closing lengthy paragraph from Van Til that I think captures both the natural theology of Thomas Aquinas and his critique:
. . . all summed up in the one idea of analogy as a cross between pure univocation and pure equivocation, that Thomas makes reasonable to the natural reason such mysteries of the faith as the trinity, the incarnation, the church, and the sacraments. The living voice of the church is required inasmuch as all revelation of God to man is subject to historical relativity and psychological subjectivity. The necessity, the authority, the sufficiency and the perspicuity of both the revelation of God in nature and the revelation of God in Scripture are subordinate to this living voice, the voice of Aristotle speaking through the Pope" (p. 291).
Definition of Terms:
The form-matter scheme mentioned in this article is also known as the "hylomorphic theory." This scheme provides the basic and comprehensive foundation for Aristotle's metaphysics and philosophy of nature (Source: https://chat.openai.com/)
By 'univocal' Thomas means reasoning based on the idea of a complete identification of man with God while by 'equivocal' reasoning he means reasoning based on the idea of the complete separation of man from God (p. 288).
Reference:
The Infallible Word: A Symposium, by the members of the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, pp. 255–293 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Guardian Publishing Corporation, 1946).