The paper deals with an attractive distinction between two kinds of Christian phi- losophy according to Winfried Löffler, who claims that: i) there are two basic (irreducible to each other) kinds of Christian philosophy, namely Augustinian and Thomistic; ii) Thomistic is more preferable, because it is immune to questionable blending philosophy and theology. The core of the study is the critique of Löffler’s argumentation: First, it disputes plausibility of the sharp distinction between the two kinds of Christian philosophy. Second, it criticizes the idea of neutral premises in philosophy. Third, it attacks the theory of “patching up the gaps” in our knowledge with theological premises.
Christian philosophy, Rational/religious knowledge, Thomistic/Augustinian approach, W. Löffler, Worldview reasoning