For those of you who like a vigorous read and are theologically and philosophically oriented, let me recommend to you a new article by historical theologian Richard A. Muller. The title is "Reading Aquinas from a Reformed Perspective: A Review Essay." It appears as the lead article in the latest (November, 2018) issue of Calvin Theological Journal (CTJ 53.2 ), pp. 255-288. In a nutshell: two years ago, K. Scott Oliphant published his book, Thomas Aquinas. In his essay, Muller takes 34 pages to more or less completely eviscerate this book. He does so in a highly scholarly, academic way, as one would expect of Muller, but the devastation is pretty complete. There are many points of disagreement with Oliphant. To pick just one example: Oliphant apparently (I haven't read his book) agrees with the common perception among the Reformed that Aquinas was more of a philosopher than a theologian, that Aquinas was interested in dragging Aristotle's views into Christianity. Muller says that, actually, this is backwards, that Aquinas was more theologian than philosopher; that, in fact, in his huge Summa Theologica, Aristotle is only mentioned twice. Muller also says that, contrary to Reformed suspicions about Aquinas, there are actually more links between Aquinas and the Reformers, and Reformed thought, than is generally assumed. This is just one of many, many areas where Muller criticizes Oliphant's book. He goes on to say that Oliphant misunderstands and misinterprets Aquinas because his mentor, Cornelius Van Til, also misunderstands and misinterprets Aquinas. In his conclusion, Muller says that Van Til is one "who, by no stretch of the imagination, can be viewed as a competent analyst of the thought of Aquinas" (p. 288). It's been awhile since I've read such a scholarly take-down of a book. But Muller has long-since demonstrated his credentials as a careful and erudite scholar, and his views should be considered seriously. It's also interesting that the piece is part of what I think is a slowly growing trend in some Reformed circles to criticize Cornelius Van Til where it is felt he needs criticizing. Dr. John Fesko has a new book out, Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 250 pages, in which he criticizes Van Til's approach to apologetics. (I just bought a copy and intend to read it soon.) It's interesting and educational to read orthodox scholars re-thinking views on theological subjects, challenging settled opinions of the past.