I have been reading Aquinas, Calvin, Schleiermacher, Barth, Tillich, and Pannenberg at the seminary for some years. One interesting question I had (like many other students) was regarding the differences and similarities between the prolegomena of these theologians. For this reason, I will try to respond to this question in a few sentences, hoping it can be useful for those interested in the topic. For Aquinas, God reveals himself both in Scripture (through special/divine revelation) and in nature (through general/natural revelation). Aquinas follows Paul’s words in arguing that the impious might have natural revelation through the senses of the creation …

Kierkegaard tells us that the Socratic tradition understood sin as ignorance. The problem that Kierkegaard finds with such a notion is its partial definition, which “leaves unclear how ignorance is to be more precisely understood, the question of its origin, etc. ” (p. 120). In Socrates’ view, if someone sins, such sinful action happens because one does it involuntarily and out of ignorance. Sinful actions are not rooted elsewhere but in knowledge itself. In this respect, Socrates’s definition of sin has a serious issue: “If sin is ignorance, then sin does not really exist for sin is precisely consciousness” (p. …

Regarding the nature of God, Thomas Oden in Classic Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 1992) discusses the different kinds of attributes we apply to God, such as pre-relational attributes (pre-time, pre-world, pre-space), essential attributes (e.g., infinite, eternal, immeasurable), relational attributes (omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence), moral attributes (holiness, justice, love), and personal attributes (life, will, spirit). On the same subject, Michael S. Horton in Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) tells us about communicable vs. incommunicable attributes of God, where the second ones are attributes that only God can have. And finally, Justo L. González in Mañana: Christian Theology …