Kenneth Richard Samples's Blog, page 3

Responding to Questions on Same-Sex Relationships

A few years ago some of my RTB colleagues and I did a couple of Straight Thinking podcast programs entitled “Adult Children of Same-Sex Relationship Parents” (Part 1, Part 2). Afterward, a listener contacted me online and raised some critical questions about the content of those programs.

Although time has passed since our respectful exchange, the questions the listener asked remain relevant and I’ve rephrased them here. My brief answers are not exhaustive, but I hope they will serve as an example of the kind of dialogue all of us can have with those who disagree on serious matters.
Q1: Don’t you believe that same-sex families can have a thriving, loving, and healthy family dynamic?

A: I’m willing to grant that there are undoubtedly many same-sex couples who make good parents and who love and nurture their children. In retrospect, I should have represented that perspective in our podcast discussion. However, in my study of the topic, defenders of same-sex parenthood often stack the deck by pitting two loving homosexual parents against two unloving heterosexual parents. If the welfare of the children is to be weighed fairly, then the comparison should be between loving homosexual parents and loving heterosexual parents. In that fair comparison, I think children fare better by having a mother and a father as caregivers and role models.1

Q2: Isn’t it true that in the New Testament Jesus himself makes no mention of LGBTQ transgression? Isn’t it only in the apostle Paul’s words where homosexuality is mentioned? 

A: It is unsound both exegetically and theologically to pit Jesus against the apostle Paul. The words in red (from Jesus) don’t outweigh the words in black (from Paul). All Scripture is equally inspired and, for evangelical Protestants, carries a unique and final authority in doctrine and in life (2 Timothy 3:16).

Jesus quotes the Book of Genesis (1:27; 5:2) in affirming the creation mandate of traditional marriage being between a man and a woman (Mark 10:6–9). Jesus also affirmed the truth and value of the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17), and the Old Testament identifies homosexual conduct as sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Thus, Jesus by implication views homosexual conduct as sinful.

The apostle Paul clearly identifies homosexual conduct as morally wrong (Romans 1:26–27). Other New Testament passages do as well (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 7). Neither Jesus nor Paul refers specifically to LGBTQ relationships because they are summed up in one Greek word, porneia, which appears in a handful of New Testament passages and is usually translated as “fornication.”

Q3: Aren’t you aware that many LGBTQ people suffer from depression and even suicide because of the treatment that they receive from a nonaccepting culture?

A: I recognize that people who are attracted to the same sex often suffer many indignities and sorrows from others.2 My heart grieves for those who suffer in such a manner. Because all people are made in the image of God, all people should receive dignified and respectful treatment. Therefore, even though you and I strongly differ over issues relating to homosexuality and same-sex marriage, I want you to know that I respect you as a person and I appreciate that you brought your questions to me. 

Aim for Civil Discourse
I hope that this interaction allows my readers to understand how important this issue is in our culture today and how important it is to address it in a respectful and civil manner. We can differ with people on critical moral, ethical, and cultural matters but also do it in a gracious manner.

Reflections: Your Turn
What is the best argument in favor of traditional marriage? Can we strongly differ with a person over a moral issue and yet still treat that person with dignity?

Resources

For a Christian perspective on sexual sin, see John White, Eros Defiled: The Christian and Sexual Sin.

Endnotes

Studies show that the children of traditional marriage are generally healthier, happier, and more well adjusted. See United States Congress Joint Economic Committee, “The Demise of the Happy Two-Parent Home,” July 23, 2020.While I am not a mental health professional, I do want to strongly encourage anyone who has suicidal thoughts to seek professional psychological help. In fact, someone at the Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) is available to chat right now (24/7).

How Christians Can Unite Despite Disagreement

Could the doctrinal differences among Christians be a legitimate reason to reject the truth of historic Christianity? Some skeptics think so. In fact, some secular critics of Christianity think the faith is hopelessly divided. Even many Christians say they are turned off by what they perceive as bickering among the various branches and denominations within Christianity. Because of these historic controversies, some believers in Christ have chosen to not use the word “Christian” in describing themselves but rather prefer the term “followers of Jesus” or “Christ followers.”

Some time ago I made the following comment on Facebook, which led to an exchange about the specific agreements and disagreements among Protestants and Catholics (the two major branches within Western Christendom). I can only share parts of the lengthy exchange but I hope the following dialogue will help you to think about and weigh both the unity and disunity within the Christian faith, particularly as it relates to Catholics and Protestants.

Me: The important doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants that emerged at the time of the Reformation remain. But given the state (apparent decline) of our culture I think theologically conservative Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants ought to at least consider working together as moral and cultural allies. To promote this idea I try to emphasize truth, unity, and charity in my interactions with all Christians.

Respondent: Please correct me if I am wrong. You know I respect your work, but this proposal seems a very soft approach considering the strong stands our Reformed forefathers took with Rome. Many Protestants insist that Roman Catholicism is apostate—at least from the Council of Trent (1545–1563) onward. Is this not still true? Does our work with them in the culture war take precedence over these unresolved doctrinal issues? Or, must we be sensitive over these issues for fear that disagreement would jeopardize our cooperation in areas where we can agree?

Me: I like to think my proposal is doctrinally sound and graciously delivered, not soft. In my 1997 dialogue-debate1 with Jesuit scholar Father Mitchell Pacwa I present what I think is a robust defense of sola Scriptura (Scripture as final authority), and in my coauthored book The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary I strongly critique aspects of Catholic Mariology. But as an orthodox or theologically conservative Anglican I may find more common ground with Catholics than do some Reformed Christians, perhaps particularly Reformed Baptists (though some Reformed Episcopalians/Anglicans may say otherwise). 

The main doctrinal differences that divide Catholics and Protestants such as authority (the relationship of Scripture and church tradition), justification (relating to salvation), and devotion to Mary—among other topics—remain important and unresolved theological issues. But conservative Catholics affirm every word of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and for me that is a huge part of historic Christianity. So I weigh carefully both where I agree and disagree with Catholics. Accordingly, I don’t view Catholics the way I view Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I think conservative Catholicism is a branch of Christendom with which I share much in common (Trinity, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, etc.) but also with which I have sharp doctrinal differences. 

I wrote about the common ground and the differences among Catholics and Protestants and their significance almost 30 years ago in the Christian Research Journal (see the reference section below). I also think it is critical that Catholics and Protestants work together to promote a culture of life and marriage that stresses the value and dignity of all people who are made in God’s image.

Respondent: The one area I really question is the gospel, and I’m not trying to be ungracious. Just as it is not being ungracious to say the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not worship the God of the Bible, it is also not ungracious to say that the Roman Catholic Church has corrupted the gospel itself! They do not preach the gospel the apostles preached, I contend, and many of our forebears died over these truths, including Anglicans! I’m not saying many Catholics are not true brothers in Christ, but only in spite of Rome’s heresy. Why doesn’t the “essential Christianity” movement regard the gospel as just as important as the Trinity, deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and bodily resurrection of Christ?

I also agree with you about working not only with Roman Catholics on the cultural issues, but even with Mormons, Muslims, Jews, etc, to foster a culture of life and decency. Yet I would not hesitate to tell them they are lost without faith in Christ alone, by grace through faith alone as well!

Me: You and I may respectfully disagree on exactly how to evaluate Catholicism and I’m fine with that. In my scholarly studies I have found that thoughtful Christians can arrive at different positions. But may I humbly encourage you to continue to study carefully just where the Catholic view of grace, faith, and works compares with the historic Protestant view. Catholics emphasize the primacy of grace in salvation and in my view that is no small thing. For example, you might consider taking a look at the works of orthodox Anglican theologians George Carey and Peter Toon on the subject as well as read the Catholic Catechism (see the reference section below). Also, you might read the Apostles’ and Nicene Creed and ask yourself how much of Christianity is reflected in these ancient and medieval statements of faith. I think I have weighed carefully all of essential Christianity in coming to my view, including justification by faith.

But I find it interesting that conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches usually accept Catholic baptisms but reject those of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But why accept the sacraments of a false church that preaches a different gospel? Also, if Roman Catholicism is a false church, where was Christ’s church prior to the Protestant Reformation? Something to consider.

I agree with you that we can build common ground on moral values with Mormons, Muslims, and Jews. But I don’t view Catholics in the same way I do adherents of those non-Christian religions. Affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity and all its grace-oriented implications2 puts the Catholic Church in a different category, at least for me.

Takeaway
As a Christian, however you view the agreements and disagreements among Catholics and Protestants, as well as other groups within Christendom, I hope you’ll give careful consideration to matters of truth, unity, and charity. Non-Christians are watching how Christians express their agreement and disagreement in public. And on this basis, they often evaluate the potential truthfulness of the faith.

Reflections: Your Turn 
What stands out to you most regarding Catholics and Protestants—their areas of agreement or areas of disagreement?

Resources

For a discussion of historic Christianity’s agreements and disagreements, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapter 10.For an introduction to Catholicism, see Peter J. Kreeft,  Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Church Beliefs Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church .For a Catholic apologetic, see Peter Kreeft,  Forty Reasons I Am a Catholic .For a Catholic view of common ground, see Peter Kreeft,  Catholics and Protestants: What Can We Learn from Each Other? For an evangelical Protestant evaluation of Catholicism, see Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie,  Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences .For an evangelical Protestant evaluation of Catholicism, see James R. White,  The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & Protestants—Do the Differences Still Matter? For a Protestant appreciation of a Catholic pope, see Tim Perry ed.,  The Theology of Benedict XVI: A Protestant Appreciation .For an Anglican theologian’s view of Protestants and Catholics, see George Carey,  A Tale of Two Churches: Can Protestants & Catholics Get Together? For an Anglican theologian’s view of Protestants and Catholics, see Peter Toon,  Protestants and Catholics: A Guide to Understanding the Difference among Christians .For a discussion of where and how evangelicals and Catholics can work together, see Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus,  Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission .For a discussion of where and how evangelicals and Catholics have worked together, see Timothy George and Thomas G. Guarino eds,  Evangelicals and Catholics Together at Twenty: Vital Statements on Contested Topics .For a Protestant critique of evangelicals and Catholics together, see R. C. Sproul,  Are We Together?: A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism .For two articles I wrote almost thirty years ago on weighing the agreements and disagreements among Catholics and Protestants, see “What Think Ye of Rome? (Part One): An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism” and “What Think Ye of Rome? (Part 2): An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism.” 

Endnotes

Father Mitch Pacwa vs. Professor Ken Samples Debate on the the Authority of the Catholic Church #1 of 4 (1997), Ultimate Challenge: A Catholic-Protestant Debate, posted November 15, 2017.For the Trinity’s unique relationship to salvation by grace, see my article No Trinity, No Salvation.

Coping with Lifelong Illness

How does it feel to face a lifelong illness that is not only permanent but also accompanied by continual physical pain and growing disability? Nobody likes to suffer or watch their loved ones undergo such hurt and sorrow. This anguish is part of the perplexing philosophical and practical issue known as the problem of evil, pain, and suffering. 

Some time ago I wrote an article, God Shouted in My Pain, in which I described the sorrow and grief my family and I experienced at the death of my brother Frank to suicide. A woman who read the article contacted me and told me abouther illness. She was a Christian and was firmly trusting in Christ’s atoning death for the forgiveness of sin. She also conveyed that she was trying to show her family and friends that in spite of her illness, she was resting in the sovereign will of God for her life.

But she was torn because—at times—she also felt hopeless in facing the rest of her life with almost constant pain and increasing physical disability. She said the pain sometimes made her think of ending it all herself. She then asked me for advice to help her face a life of suffering. Here is what I wrote to her.

Facing Ongoing Suffering
My dearest sister in the Lord:

Greetings in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry to hear of your constant pain and growing disability. I hope you have good medical care and are able to talk with your doctor about pain medications and possible therapies. I also have a chronic illness and it took a long time for the doctor to find the right medication to help me. Since you’ve asked how you might deal with your suffering, I humbly and respectfully offer the following.

What has been helpful to me in times of pain and increasing disability is knowing that God knows what it is like to suffer. The Father’s Son was the unique God-man and he suffered with us in life and for us on the cross. I’m sure Jesus felt the temptation to give in to hopelessness when he was all alone and facing crucifixion. Our God is a God with wounds. Since Christ and thus the triune God can empathize with our suffering, don’t be afraid to express your lament to God about your painful condition. Remember Jesus’s comforting words in Matthew 11:28:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”

It has also been helpful for me to not dwell on the thought of having my illness for the rest of my life. So rather than thinking about the past or the future, I try to live in the present and each day ask God for the grace to get through this day. This focus on the present allows me to try to be courageous and trusting one day at a time.

Another thing that helps is to constantly tell myself I’m not alone in my suffering. I remind myself, especially during lonely periods, that God is closer to me than a friend, a relative, or even my spouse. And I look for ways that God shows his comforting presence.

Lastly, while I am not a mental health professional, I do strongly encourage you to seek professional psychological help if you haven’t already—especially if you have occasional suicidal thoughts. In fact, someone at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255) is available to chat with you at any time, day or night.

I will pray for you, my sister in Christ. And I will ask the Lord to meet all your needs and to give you strength and courage.

May the Lord’s rest and peace be with you.

Takeaway
If you also battle illness or suffering of any kind, I hope these words will help in some way. Or if you know a person who does, please take the time to pray with them and offer support and encouragement. When you or a loved one undergoes suffering, remember that the God of historic Christianity can empathize with human pain and sorrow.

Reflections: Your Turn
What do you think of Jesus’s promise to give people rest and peace in our suffering?

Resources

For 12 points and practices for personal spiritual growth and renewal and examples of how to extend hope for the hurting, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Christianity Cross-Examined: Is It Rational, Relevant, and Good? , 217, 236. For more about Christianity and mental health, I recommend Mark P. Cosgrove and James D. Mallory Jr.’s book  Mental Health: A Christian Approach .For those who suffer with illness and disability, I recommend Joni Eareckson Tada’s many books and especially this one on theodicy: Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes,  When God Weeps: Why Our Sufferings Matter to the Almighty .

Finding One’s Place in Christ’s Universal Church

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” —Matthew 16:18 

Many Christians have had to transition to a new church. Such a change can be fraught with emotion, uncertainty, and difficulty. I know. I’ve recently made such a change. Is there a way to do so thoughtfully and graciously? 

Jesus Christ has one church and that ecclesiastical community is holy (called out), global, and traceable back to the apostles.1 The church was birthed and flourished in light of the truth of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. The church is also the body of Christ and our Lord and Savior promises to preserve it.

Finding Common Ground in the Journey
I think anyone who knows me would acknowledge that I’m generally a Christian peacemaker and am ecumenical by nature. I think that’s the way I’m wired. So when I meet Christians from different denominations and branches of Christendom I always start the theological discussion by examining our common ground in the Lord before moving to the sometimes significant and often contentious doctrinal differences. In fact, my favorite area of Christian theology is known as catholicity, which pertains to beliefs and practices widely accepted across numerous Christian theological traditions. Most notably, catholicity reflects the beliefs of Christians who describe themselves as catholic (intentionally lowercased and meaning whole or universal) in accordance with the historic creeds of Christendom (Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed).

Over the last couple of years I have transitioned to a different church and a somewhat different theological tradition. Many people who know me and my passion for Christian doctrine and history have inquired as to why I made the change. Christians sometimes change denominations and, on occasion, even change branches of Christendom. Making significant moves within Christ’s universal church is not an easy process so I’ve decided to explain why I changed churches. I also hope to offer a model for how to navigate this transition in a thoughtful and gracious way. 

Why Anglicanism?
I have been attending a congregation within the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) and Reformed Episcopal Church jurisdiction (REC) for about two years. With 85 million members worldwide, conservative or historic Anglicanism is the third largest communion within Christendom after the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Also, this conservative form of Anglicanism is presently growing as fast or faster than either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.2

I’m truly grateful for, and respectful of, what I received in the previous churches I have attended including the Roman Catholic Church as a child and young man as well as the Lutheran (LCMS) and Reformed (URC) churches as an older adult. The term reformed extends beyond just the original Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed church bodies and has influenced other church traditions including Congregational, Baptist, and Anglican. Anglicanism includes people from different theological traditions and persuasions (Anglo-Catholics, for example) but I identify myself as an Augustinian or Reformed Anglican.

What attracted me to historic or conservative Anglicanism specifically is the explicit trinitarian liturgy that comes from the doxological masterpiece The Book of Common Prayer (BCP). But I was also drawn by other elements such as the sacraments, the identity of being both reformed and catholic, appreciation for history and tradition, hospitality, and my respect for certain English and Anglican priests, theologians, and apologists both in history and today (Thomas Cranmer, Richard Hooker, John Owen, E. L. Mascall, C. S. Lewis, J. I. Packer, Michael Green, Peter Toon, Gerald Bray, Gerald McDermott, Alister McGrath, etc.).

I also very much appreciate what is called “The Classical Anglican Way,” which lists the church’s five sources of authority on canon, testaments, creeds, councils, and tradition. Here’s that succinct and powerful statement:

“The Classical Anglican Way looks to ONE Canon of Holy Scripture (the Bible), with its TWO Testaments, understood with the faith expressed in the THREE Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian), and by the doctrinal teaching of the first FOUR ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon), within the developing life and tradition of the first FIVE centuries of the Christian era.”3 

I find traditional Anglicanism appealing for its trinitarian liturgy, (from the BCP), its specific appreciation for the church fathers, its respect for church history and tradition, and its Protestant-oriented Thirty-Nine Articles. Having grown up Roman Catholic, I find in conservative Anglicanism the things I appreciate about both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches (called Via Media: “the middle way”).

Addressing a Criticism of Anglicanism
Sometimes people are put off by Anglicanism because of its association with the controversial historical figure King Henry VIII (1491–1547). The claim is made that Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and since he couldn’t get the pope’s approval, he created his own personal church that would allow him to divorce and called it the Church of England or Anglican church. Yet, without getting into great detail, the contemporary conservative Anglican theologians and historians I have read say that the early roots of Anglicanism go back long before the Reformation to the early centuries of Christianity.4 

Moreover, they make the case that the English Reformation, which framed certain distinctives of Anglicanism promulgated by influential theologian Thomas Cranmer in the sixteenth century, took place after and in a different direction than King Henry personally or politically intended. Contemporary theologian Gerald Bray says that Henry VIII wanted a Catholicism without a pope but Cranmer—after the king’s death—presented a distinct form of Protestantism.5For good or bad, the political and theological are often interrelated in church history.

Takeaway
Finding where we belong in Christ’s universal church stands among the most important decisions Christians make. It is not easy to change churches nor should it be. When and if that time comes, I strongly recommend that Christians be led by three things: truth, unity, and charity. First, always be led by truth. Hold steadfastly to the truth of Scripture and of historic Christian doctrine. Second, intentionally seek to promote unity in the body of Christ by finding common ground with other believers. Third, strive to let charity or love guide all your interactions within Christ’s universal church. As forgiven sinners, we will never perform these three goals perfectly but God blesses even our imperfect efforts toward these critical ideals.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Have you made a significant change of churches? How did it go?

Resources

For a discussion of historic Christianity’s agreements and disagreements, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Christianity Cross-Examined  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapter 10.To study what Anglicans believe, see  To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism  edited by J. I. Packer and Joel Scandrett.To explore a distinctive feature of Anglicanism, see  The Anglican Way: Evangelical and Catholic  by Peter Toon.

Endnotes

These are referred to as the four marks of the church and they’re found in the Nicene Creed: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.Gerald R. McDermott, ed.,  The Future of Orthodox Anglicanism  (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 13.See “Beliefs,” Christ’s Chapel: An Ancient Faith for a Modern World.McDermott, Future of Orthodox Anglicanism, 18–19.McDermott, Future of Orthodox Anglicanism, 160–161.

Lewis Phenomenon Continues in The Most Reluctant Convert

Shortly before his death in 1963, C. S. Lewis told his secretary Walter Hooper that five years after he (Lewis) was dead he would be forgotten.1 As a prescient and prophetic twentieth-century Christian thinker and writer, that seems to be one of the few things that Lewis got wrong.

A potent Lewis phenomenon has been taking place a generation after his death and shows no sign of waning. His books sell better now than they did during his lifetime. Lewis’s children’s fantasy novels The Chronicles of Narnia are some of the best-selling books of all time—having sold one hundred million copies in 47 languages. The Narnia series has also been adapted for radio, television, the stage, film, and computer games.2 Lewis’s most popular theological and apologetics book Mere Christianity was chosen by Christianity Today magazine as the most important Christian book of the twentieth century. And in 2013, on the fiftieth anniversary of Lewis’s death, he was honored in Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey, alongside some of the greatest writers in English literature.

New Movie about Lewis
A new movie released just before the holidays is a C. S. Lewis biopic entitled, The Most Reluctant Convert: The UntoldStory of C. S. Lewis. It’s directed by Norman Stone who also directed the 1985 television movie Shadowlands, a film about C. S. Lewis and his wife, Joy Davidman. The movie features theater actor Max McLean as the middle-aged Lewis who narrates some of the key events in C. S. Lewis’s life, including his acceptance of atheism as a young man, his time as a soldier in World War I, and specifically the events that led to his rediscovery of belief in God and his conversion to Christianity. The movie is based on the McLean play, C. S. Lewis on Stage: The Most Reluctant Convert, and reflects some of the content from Lewis’s famous autobiography, Surprised by Joy (1955).

One of the most appealing features of the film includes three actors’ portrayal of Lewis at various stages of his life: young boy, young man, older man. For me, the best part of the movie is McLean’s engaging narration of Lewis as the Oxford Don looks back at various stages and events of his extraordinary life with serious reflection. 

Another captivating element of the movie is that it was filmed in and around Oxford, and includes scenes from Oxford University’s Magdalen College where Lewis taught, The Kilns where Lewis lived, the Eagle and Child pub where Lewis met with his fellow Inklings, and Holy Trinity Church where Lewis attended church and where he is buried. I also appreciated that the role of the Anglican priest at Lewis’s church was played by Michael Ward, who biblical scholar N. T. Wright has called “the foremost living Lewis scholar.”

A seemingly confusing feature of the film, at least for me on my first viewing, is the beginning of the movie. It starts out as an apparent documentary as to how the movie was made and then shifts to McLean’s stage play as Lewis and then finally to the narrated movie events of Lewis’s life. The transition and sequence seemed somewhat awkward. The movie also covers a lot of ground in Lewis’s life in a very short time, which may be confusing to people who don’t have extensive knowledge of Lewis.

Takeaway
Yet whether one likes the film or not, (I certainly enjoyed it) there are two larger points to be appreciated. First, like the 2019 biopic film Tolkien about J. R. R. Tolkien, the fact that the life of a prominent Christian thinker and writer is depicted on the big screen is extraordinary. This is especially true in that the film catalogs Lewis’s journey from atheism back to belief in God and then to the acceptance of the truth of Christianity.

Second, the film illustrates that the Lewis phenomenon continues. The film was first scheduled for select, and therefore, limited showings in theaters. But the robust attendance at the film’s initial release has led to extended showings of the movie. People remain interested in C. S. Lewis and the books, plays, television programs, and big-screen movies that tell us more about this extraordinary man.

C. S. Lewis’s words and ideas carry a special persuasiveness concerning the truth of historic Christianity. And by their movie ticket purchases, a lot of people are interested in seeing that message receive a wide public showing.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Have you seen the film? What did you think?

Resources

For more about C. S. Lewis and his accomplishments as a Christian thinker and writer, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019), chapter 9.

Endnotes

Alister McGrath, C. S. Lewis—A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2013), 363.Wikipedia, s. v.  The Chronicles of Narnia , last edited November 11, 2021.

Learning from a Fair-Minded and Skillful Theologian

Christian apologists need to be people of reason and virtue. They must exhibit both qualities in order to persuade people of the truth of Christianity. Thus, one of my goals as a Christian scholar and teacher is to introduce believers and nonbelievers to Christian thinkers who are highly skilled in their academic disciplines and people of strong intellectual character. 

On my Facebook and Twitter pages, I often provide quotes from important theological and philosophical thinkers past and present. A theologian I quote often is Anthony Hoekema (pronounced “who-kema”). His book Saved by Grace presents the biblical and theological case for salvation being an exclusive gift of God. This is a modern classic in the field of soteriology (the study of salvation) and is written from a distinctly Reformed theological perspective. 

Hoekema showed charity and virtue in his intellectual life that I think we can learn from. What follows is a brief biography of him along with a personal story about his reputation for intellectual honesty. I then list four provocative quotes from him on theology that I’ve used in my social media posts followed by brief comments on these theological nuggets of wisdom.
Anthony A. Hoekema (1913–1988) was born in the Netherlands and immigrated to America as a young boy. He was educated at Calvin and Princeton Theological Seminaries and served as a Reformed pastor, theologian, and apologist. He was professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary for 21 years.

Exemplifying the Golden Rule of Apologetics
Hoekema’s son, Dr. David Hoekema, shared the following impressive story with me about his father. 

“A Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) pastor or instructor—very likely from Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, an hour south of Grand Rapids where my parents lived—said to my father: ‘Professor Hoekema, I thought you should know that my colleagues and I assign our students to read your exposition of Adventist theology in your book The Four Major Cults. It is clearer and more comprehensive than anything we can assign from our own SDA writers.'”1

Always communicating other people’s beliefs—especially when one disagrees with them—accurately and fairly is a critical feature of the golden rule of apologetics. Even an Adventist scholar recognized that Hoekema was committed to getting other people’s beliefs right. Such integrity makes a reader want to hear what Hoekema has to say. Here are four insightful quotes of his that I find compelling.  

1. On How the Image of God Anticipates the Incarnation

“It was only because man had been created in the image of God that the Second Person of the Trinity could assume human nature.”2

Hoekema was the first theologian I ever read who said that God created human beings in the divine image because God always planned to take a human nature. Thus the imago Dei (image of God) both anticipates and facilitates the incarnation. It would be difficult to conceive that God would appear as an animal, for example. But man as the divine image-bearer has all the qualities needed for God’s purposes.

2. On the Image of God

“To touch the image of God is to touch God himself; to kill the image of God is to do violence to God himself.”3

To be made in the image of God genuinely reflects the divine—so much so that to murder an image-bearer is to attack and do violence against God himself. This is why the Old Testament says that murderers are required to forfeit their lives (Genesis 9:6), because they have done violence against God. Thus, the most distinctive feature of the biblical understanding of human beings is the teaching that man has been created in the image of God.

3. On God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility 

“The Scriptures teach that God saves us not as puppets but as persons, and that we must therefore be active in our salvation. The Bible, in a way which is deeply mysterious, combines God’s sovereignty with our responsibility in the process of our salvation. But we can only love him because he first loved us. To him therefore must be all the praise.”4

Hoekema sets forth the view of reconciling God’s sovereignty and human responsibility that is known in theology as compatibilism. Mysteriously, both are true, and they appear in Scripture sometimes in the very same verse (see Acts 2:23). Yet God’s gracious and sovereign love is always the ultimate causal factor and humans should appropriately respond with gratitude and praise.

4. On the Meaning of Agape

“The Greek word agape used here implies that self-giving love is meant: a love which does not ask, What is there in it for me? But which seeks to give itself unselfishly to others.”5

We see the contrast in lust and love by considering questions each asks. Lust asks: What can you do for me? Love asks: What can I do for you? Agape (God’s sacrificial, self-giving love) is perfectly evidenced in Jesus Christ’s atoning death on the cross. In salvation, the triune God of love truly loves his less-than-lovable fallen creatures.

Two things impress me about Hoekema’s theological writings: (1) his keen thinking as a biblical exegete and a systematic theologian, and (2) his care in getting other people’s views correct. His diligence has provided all of us with plenty of doctrinal reflection to consider. In a world where ideological exchanges often degenerate into personal attacks, I hope Hoekema’s example motivates all of us to pursue a gracious approach to apologetics.

Reflections: Your Turn

Are there Christian theologians that you’ve learned from? Who are they? 

Resources

For my introduction to Anthony Hoekema’s book Saved by Grace, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), see “Take Up and Read: Saved by Grace.” 

Endnotes

1. Dr. David Hoekema shared this story with me via email.

2. Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 22.

3. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 16.

4. Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), xi.

5. Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 45.

Is Evil a Logical Defeater for God’s Existence?

Philosophers have presented numerous arguments throughout history in attempts to either prove or disprove God’s existence.1 A common challenge to God’s existence is the perpetual problem of evil. But does the existence of evil in the world logically defeat God’s existence? I hope this brief blog post will help you to discuss the argument and reason through the issue.

A defeater in logic is a belief which, if proved to be true, would logically imply that another belief is false. Let’s look at a common attempt to use the existence of evil as a possible defeater for God’s existence.

Chain of Reasoning
If the traditional God of theism exists, then:

1. God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
2. God is omnibenevolent (wholly good).
3. God is omniscient (all-knowing).

But:
4. If a divine being is omnipotent, it can do anything.  
5. If a divine being is omnibenevolent, it always eliminates as much evil as possible.
6. If a divine being is omniscient, it knows how to eliminate evil.

Yet, evil conspicuously exists.

Deductive Argument from Evil against God Explained
An argument consists of a central claim (the conclusion) and premises (support for the conclusion in the form of evidence, facts, or reasons). The chain of reasoning above reflects the following argument. 

Premise #1: The traditional theistic God possesses the “omnis” (all power, all goodness, all knowledge). 
Premise #2: An all-powerful God would be able to remove evil. 
Premise #3: An all-good God would want to remove evil. 
Premise #4: An all-knowing God would know how to remove evil. 
Conclusion: Therefore, God and evil cannot coexist and since evil does exist then God cannot exist.

This reasoning concludes that evil is a defeater for belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. It is known as the deductive argument from evil because, if the reasoning is valid (the conclusion follows inferentially from the premises) and all the premises are true, then the conclusion is certainly true.

Analyzing the Argument
The conclusion follows inferentially from the premises; therefore, the reasoning of the argument seems to be logically correct. But the truth of premises #2 and #3, respectively, is clearly debatable. Concerning premise #2, God may not be able to remove evil without removing the free agency granted to angels and human beings. Concerning premise #3, God may not want to remove evil, at least not right away, for it may serve a greater purpose. That is, evil may be the result of granting creatures free agency and/or evil may allow creatures to grow in moral character.

Thus, it follows that the deductive argument from evil against God logically fails. It is not certainly true that the existence of evil disproves God’s existence.

Theodicy as an Explanation for Evil
A theodicy is an attempt to justify or vindicate God in the face of evil. Here’s the basic argument that has come from various theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims) for how evil can be compatible with God:

Premise #1: God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
Premise #2: God created a world that now contains evil and he had a good reason for doing so (for purposes of a greater good).
Conclusion: Therefore, the world contains evil, but evil is consistent with God’s unlimited power, goodness, and knowledge.

Christian philosophers have proposed different theodicies, as illustrated by the following quotes, that show the failure of the deductive argument from evil against God.

Greater Good: St. Augustine & Richard Swinburne
“For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil.” 2

“The basic solution is that all the evils we find around us are logically necessary conditions of greater goods, that is to say that greater good couldn’t come about without the evil or at any rate the natural possibility of evil.”3

Free Will Defense: Alvin Plantinga
“To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He [God] must create creatures capable of moral evil.”4

Even some skeptical or atheistic philosophers recognize the conclusion that the deductive argument from evil against God fails.

Atheist William Rowe notes: “Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim . . .”5

And skeptic Paul Draper concurs: “I do not see how it is possible to construct a convincing logical argument from evil against theism.”6

Takeaway
While evil is a perplexing and troubling reality, the actual existence of evil does not serve as a logical disproof of the God of traditional theism. For God may have a good reason for allowing evil to exist. And Scripture reveals that God will eliminate all evil, pain, and suffering for his people in the eschatological future (Revelation 21:4).

Reflections: Your Turn 
Have you ever struggled with the question of God’s relationship to evil? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment.

Resources

For further study of the problem of evil, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  7 Truths That Changed the World , chapters 13 and 14.For a discussion of claims that evil has been done in the name of Christ, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Christianity Cross-Examined , chapter 7.

Endnotes

For a discussion of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, see my article How to Respond to the Challenge That God Is Hidden.St. Augustine,  The Enchiridion , ch. 11, Logos Virtual Library, trans. J. F. Shaw.Richard Swinburne, quoted in “The Problem of Evil,” in Great Thinkers on Great Questions, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 2009), 191.Alvin C. Plantinga,  God, Freedom, and Evil  (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 30.Richard Rowe, William L. Rowe, “IX. The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (October 1979): 335, n. 1.Paul Draper, “The Argument from Evil,” in  Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues , ed. Paul Copan and Chad Meister (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 146.

Promoting Unity While Discussing Doctrinal Differences

A friend of mine who is an atheist said that when he looks at the differences within Christendom and the squabbling among denominations, he finds greater reason to conclude that Christianity is false.

Upon careful inspection, I think that theologically conservative Christendom holds most doctrinal matters in common. This unity is powerfully illustrated historically in what are called the ecumenical creeds of Christendom (Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed). And even many noncreedal denominations still affirm most of what is found in the creeds doctrinally. 

Of course, critically important areas of doctrinal difference remain among Christianity’s theological traditions. And these differences need to be stated and carefully considered. But is there a way to dialogue and even debate our doctrinal differences without giving non-Christians the impression that Christendom is hopelessly divided and therefore potentially false?

I made the following proposal on my Facebook page and invited responses. I received 164 likes and 71 comments. Most people who responded agreed with my proposal, but some raised thoughtful points of concern and disagreement. I have included a few responses but only from those who disagreed with me. I hope we can all learn from these exchanges. As I noted above, a non-Christian world may be watching.

My Proposal
I have a serious suggestion for my Christian friends on Facebook to consider:

Avoid debating the denominational differences within Christendom when non-Christians are present and watching.

Instead, consider finding a more private venue for such important interactions. Or, if you need to debate differences, then intentionally start with sharing the common ground that all theologically conservative Christians affirm, such as that found in the ecumenical creeds of historic Christianity.

Why do I raise this issue? Consider C.S. Lewis’s comment:

“I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”1

Interactions with Respondents 
James: I would respectfully disagree. I think it would be a great time to model how to handle a disagreement between believers. Gracious and loving.

Me: I appreciate your comments and your sentiment. But how well do you think most Christians on Facebook modelhandling differences in a gracious and loving manner? And do you think Lewis is right that non-Christians are likely to conclude that Christianity is hopelessly divided and therefore false?

James: I get your point. But it depends on the Christian. I have had some of the most enjoyable discussions with some Christians who were in disagreement and I have had a few that didn’t go well also. I don’t remember ever having a nonbeliever jump in on these in-house debates though.

Rob: Your apologetics mentor, Walter Martin, obviously disagreed with your proposal.

Me: I worked very closely with Walter Martin and I think he would generally agree with me. In fact, his ecumenical views influenced my desire to promote truth, unity, and charity both among evangelicals and within broader Christendom. He debated Catholics and Adventists publicly as I have but he sought to consider both common ground and genuine differences. As a Southern Baptist, Martin took a moderating position between the historic theological debate between Calvinism and Arminianism (referring to himself as a “Calminian”). So while he was critical of aspects of traditional Reformed theology, nevertheless a couple of his theological mentors were noted Reformed scholars (Donald Grey Barnhouse, J. Oliver Buswell). I think Walter was keenly aware that an appearance of Christian disunity is a serious apologetics problem. 

Rob: So the point is that Martin argued nonessentials in public contrary to what Lewis said. Martin respectfully did this all the time on the Bible Answer Man (BAM) radio show. We’re doing this here. So my point is that you can’t take Lewis’s statement too strictly. It depends on how the debate is done. It’s not a matter of avoiding it altogether in public venues.

Me: I find Lewis’s point powerful. He advocates that Christians shouldn’t complicate matters of evangelism. As an apologist I find the appearance of disunity among Christians a potentially great challenge. When we look around on social media and the web, so many Christians seem to revel in disagreeing with one another. Martin constantly talked about “essential Christianity” (the title of one of his books) and distinguished it from secondary issues. Walter took care to discuss inter-Christian topics in a Christian context when he could (BAM was largely though not exclusively a Christian venue). You and I may see things differently. I even respectfully differ with my mentor Walter at places. I can respect and appreciate principled differences of opinion.

Nathanael: I also disagree. It may be the case that strangers to Christianity may not especially benefit from seeing such discussions, but those who left the faith likely will. Many people, I find, need to know that it’s possible for them to return to a Christianity that is quite distinct from the one they left. The Internet is filled with videos that take issue with specific versions of Christian thought and a proper response to them often must include a conversation about the room we give each other to disagree. It should therefore be no surprise to see Christians disagreeing on any number of issues. It is also beneficial, I believe, to speak up when people act in hatred in the name of the Christian church.

Me: Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Nathanael. I think discussing differences among Christians can be beneficial, but I wonder how often this is true on Facebook and thus whether there is a better venue. I wish Christians from different theological traditions would first discuss their common ground before moving to their distinctive differences.

David: I have been thinking a lot about this lately, in light of a practice that I have sometimes engaged in on social media, wherein I intentionally mock certain so-called Christian preachers of the prosperity gospel on my Facebook page. My intention in doing so is for unbelievers (and young Christians) to understand clearly that these men do not represent historic, orthodox Christianity and that, due to their deeply heretical teachings—and disgraceful financial dealings—they deserve to be publicly ridiculed. Do you think that Lewis’s exhortation would apply to that scenario as well?

Me: Since social media involves the meeting of Christians and non-Christians, I think believers should be aware that non-Christians observe how Christians relate to one another. In light of that, I think we should consider reserving our disagreements with other denominations for more private venues and seek to exhibit more respect and unity as the body of Christ. However, I can see how one might feel the need to step in and clarify—on social media in front of nonbelievers—the difference between historic Christianity and a counterfeit version.

Regarding mocking and ridicule: My view is that people who espouse heresy or engage in misdeeds are still made in God’s image, so I personally would not mock them. I would carefully explain the fundamental error of their doctrinal position and explain how their handling of finances is unbiblical and immoral. I would also let people know that other orthodox and responsible Pentecostals and charismatics are extremely critical of the aberrant and heretical prosperity teachers. I hope you find this helpful.

Rick: There is a lot to be said for your viewpoint, Ken. I have mixed feelings because there is so much doctrinal misunderstanding and I think uncorrected misrepresentations are also damaging. There are so few venues for dialogue that I think Facebook ends up being the meeting point. Wish I had the answer but I do believe that, regardless, we should be irenic and respectful in all discussions. Seeking to understand first and disagreeing only “with gentleness and reverence.”

Me: Thoughtful points, Rick. I would be happy if Christians would simply be conscious of the fact that when they disagree publicly there are likely non-Christians watching. So emphasizing the unity they share before they discuss their differences may be a big help. Learning how to disagree respectfully is critical. 

Rod: I understand your point, Ken, but disagree. In my opinion such a policy would result in the more thoughtful, nuanced, and respectful contributors (from whatever “side”) refraining from debate, while others continue unchecked.

Me: You raise an important practical issue, Rod. I wonder if the perception of disunity within Christendom isn’t a deep problem apologetically. If Christians don’t opt to vocalize their differences in a private venue then maybe leaders ought to emphasize and teach Christians how to effectively dialogue publicly. 

Rod: It is certainly a deep problem. We do need to think more carefully and practice grace and purposeful restraint in our public communications. We might all learn from observing effective apologists (past and present) at work.

Takeaway
Whether you agree or disagree with my proposal, if you are a Christian I hope you will think carefully about the topics of truth, unity, charity, and evangelism.

Reflections: Your Turn 
How important is Christian unity when it comes to evangelism? Do you agree or disagree with Lewis’s perspective? 

Resources

For a detailed discussion of historic Christianity’s agreements and disagreements, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Christianity Cross-Examined  (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapter 10.

Endnotes

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 6.

Answering Questions on Creation “From” Nothing

I had a dialogue on social media recently with someone who objected to the idea that God created the world “out of” or “from” nothing. That brief interaction (which I’ll provide in a moment) gives us the opportunity to think further on what creation ex nihilo means and doesn’t mean.

Creation Ex Nihilo
The early chapters of Genesis describe how God created the totality of all things. Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the creation days of Genesis chapter 1. This critical doctrine is also discussed in various parts of both the Old and New Testaments. And affirmations of creation form the first stanzas of the ancient creeds of Christendom (Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds).

A central feature of how Christians have understood God’s initial role in creation involves the expression creation ex nihilo: creation out of or from nothing. Historical theologian Richard Muller defines the Latin term ex nihilo as a reference to “the divine creation of the world not of preexistent, and therefore eternal, materials, but out of nothing.”1The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is derived from various biblical passages (Genesis 1:1; Romans 4:17; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 11:3).

Clarifying What Christians Mean by “From Nothing”
With that context, here now is the paraphrased discussion I had with an inquirer on social media:

Correspondent: God most certainly didn’t create “out of” or “from” nothing. Not even the all-powerful Lord could perform such an act. God merely brought that which didn’t previously exist into existence. What he created “from” was himself (who and what he is), not from nothing.

My response: I respectfully think you have misunderstood the historic definition of “out of” or “from” nothing. The historic Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo says nothing existed but the triune God and then God called all contingent (dependent) entities and beings into existence from nonexistence. God didn’t create out of himself (creation ex Deo) rather he called all things into existence that previously didn’t exist (ergo out of or from nothing). Thus creation ex nihilo means “bring into existence that which did not exist prior.” Creation ex nihilo is historically the biblical and Christian response to the Platonic claim that a deity (the Demiurge) created out of preexistent entities. I hope that helps.

Correspondent: Nothing? What was there other than God from which to bring forth something? Either it came out of God (as the source of all being) or from nothing, the latter of which sounds like hocus-pocus magic.

My response: God, through his incalculable wisdom and power alone, created that which previously didn’t exist. Instead of using preexistent matter or some other substance, God brought all things into existence from nonexistence. I think your misunderstanding is in thinking that nonexistence is a substance. It’s not. It is literally no thing. “Out of” or “from nothing” is not a magical substance. It just means God alone called all things into existence that previously didn’t exist. 

Further, the source of creation is God’s power and wisdom and “out of” nonexistence simply means that which previously didn’t exist. So creation is by God but from nothing (no preexistent materials were used in creating). I think your basic description that “God merely brought that which didn’t previously exist into existence” actually matches with creation ex nihilo, though you have to be careful not to imply that God created out of himself which is known as creation ex Deo and is similar to the Eastern religious view (pantheism).

Takeaway
In thinking carefully about creation it is equally important to understand what the doctrine of creation ex nihilodoes not mean. Consider these three points:

The cosmos was not created either in God or out of God’s being.The cosmos was not made of preexisting materials, such as matter.God didn’t create the cosmos out of a nothing that was an actual something.

Creation testifies to God’s infinite wisdom and power. Thus, studying the Bible and observing the natural world should lead God’s redeemed people to worship the triune Creator.

Reflections: Your Turn 
Does observing nature lead you to worship? 

Resources

For further study of creation ex nihilo, see Kenneth Richard Samples, 7 Truths That Changed the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), chapters 5 and 6.For an understanding of science and Christianity, see Kenneth Richard Samples,  Christianity Cross-Examined (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2021), chapters 1 and 2.

Endnotes

Richard A. Muller,  Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1985), s.v. “ex nihilo.”

3 Things You May Not Know about Thomas Aquinas

As a student of Christian history, I find the details of the lives of Christendom’s giants to be fascinating, inspiring, and even amusing. I hope that the following experiences in Thomas Aquinas’s life will do the same for you as you see the common humanity in our union with Christians from all times.

Many people consider St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) to be the greatest thinker in the history of Christendom. A medieval scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas’s system of thought (called “Thomism”) was declared the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. In a life span of fewer than 50 years, he became a voluminous writer and masterful defender of classical Christian theism. Written almost 750 years ago, Summa Theologiae is arguably Aquinas’s magnum opus.

Yet, while he is one of the most famous philosophers in all of Western civilization, there are three things you may not know about Aquinas.1 You may find them surprising.

1. Thomas was ridiculed as a young person.

Thomas was born in the family castle of Roccasecca midway between Rome and Naples, Italy—the youngest son of the knight Landulf of Aquino (thus the name “Aquinas”) in the High Middle Ages. At the tender age of five, he began his schooling at the famous Abbey of Monte Cassino where he was educated by the priests and monks of the Benedictine order of the Catholic Church. He was heavyset and slow of speech as a young person so some of his fellow students called him “the dumb ox.” Ironically, Thomas was anything but unintelligent. He would go on to prove himself a philosophical and theological genius. In fact, Thomas may have possessed the brightest mind in Christian history.

2. Thomas’s parents opposed his desire to become a Dominican priest. 

The Dominican Order, also known as the Order of the Preachers (OP), was founded by St. Dominic de Guzman in 1219. At nineteen, Thomas decided to join the order, but it didn’t carry the prestige and influence as that of the Benedictines, with which Thomas and his family had been previously associated. The story is that his parents had him kidnapped and locked away to try to dissuade him of his choice in religious orders. Yet Thomas was deeply committed to becoming a priest and, after a year in captivity, his mother arranged for him to “escape” through a window and he went on to join the Dominican order.

3. Thomas had a powerful vision that made him give up his writing career.

While saying mass one day, Aquinas experienced a mystical vision that was so powerful it made him view everything he had written as “straw worthy to be burned.” His vision of heavenly realities left him thinking that he could not adequately describe the profound mysteries revealed in Christian theology. Although his masterpiece Summa Theologiae consists of some two million words, he left it unfinished when he died at 49 years of age.

Even people who are familiar with his life and thought may not know of these three events. Aquinas’s achievements as a Christian scholar mark him as one of the most advanced thinkers of his time and the rationality of historic Christianity is in part demonstrated by the remarkable thinkers the faith has produced through the centuries. Yet, he was also a man who faced challenges and difficulties in his life just like all of us.

So, how about taking up his book Summa Theologiae? You’ll be reading a Christian classic as well as a masterwork of Western civilization.

Reflections: Your Turn

Which of the three points about Aquinas did you find most interesting?

Resources

For more about Thomas Aquinas and his accomplishments as a Christian thinker and writer, see Kenneth Richard Samples, Classic Christian Thinkers (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019), chapter 5.

Endnotes

1. G. K. Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox (New York: Doubleday, 1933).