Going to talk today about Thomas Aquinas, we will begin with a prayer from Thomas as it appears in the syllabus. Let's pray. Grant me grace, O merciful God, to desire ardently all that is pleasing to the, to examine it prudently to acknowledge it truthfully and to accomplish it perfectly for the praise and glory of thy name, amen. This lecture is going to be on the angelic doctor and the first point is the dumb ox. So you might wonder which was the dumb ox or was he an angelic doctor? His early scumates called him the dumb ox. I will student sometimes have a way of giving one another uncomplimentary names and Thomas's scumates gave him this nickname. It was because he was a very large man, so he looked like an ox, he was big. And he really was a dumb but he didn't say much, very quiet. And so he became known as the dumb ox, but the Christian world today, certainly the Catholic Christian world, knows him as the angelic doctor. I'd like to talk a little bit about his life and then we'll try to understand something of the thought of Thomas. And as we think about this man's life, we need to go back to a wealthy and prominent family in southern Italy. Thomas was born in the town of Aquino, so the Aquinas part of his name simply refers to the town where he came from. His name is Thomas and Aquinas means that he was from the town of Aquino. That town was very close to the famous Benedictine monastery at Montecacino and Thomas grew up in that monastery. He was taken there by his parents so that he could have first-class education, and he studied there. By 20 years, a little older, he decided to join a new order. Not the Benedictines, but the Benedictines were by this time famous, established, historic order with that splendid house. At Montecacino and some reputation would come to a person who was a Benedictine. But the new order was the order of the Dominicans, and we've studied that, so you know something about the order of the preachers. But this was new, untried, not nearly so famous, but Thomas wanted to be a Dominican. His parents, who had a great deal of desire that he excelled in this world as parents always do for children, did not like that decision because they felt that Thomas was consequently going to be unknown as part of a new, rather nondescript order in the Catholic church. And so they tried everything they could to keep him out of the order. In fact, they arranged to kidnap him for a year and took him away and tried to discourage him from joining the Dominicans. The Dominicans had been given people approval just in 1216. So just a few years before Thomas was born, this order had come into existence. But Thomas could not be dissuaded. The ox part certainly comes out here, very stubborn, and he was determined to become a Dominican, which he did. He studied then in Paris, under the great Dominican, Albert the Great of Germany, and then Thomas began his career as a Dominican scholar and teacher. He taught in Paris, and he taught in Italy. So we have the dumb ox, the Dominican scholar, and the third point in this outline of Thomas' life, the systematic theologian. And if everybody could read Thomas, they would understand what systematic means in systematic theologian. Because of all the theologians that I ever look at, that word comes to mind when I look at Thomas Aquinas. I read recently that Alutheran said this, that Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther are arguably the greatest theologians in the history of Christianity. Well, I'd like to expand that list a little bit. Certainly Augustine has to be in there somewhere. And as a Calvinist, I would want to put John Calvin in that list. And maybe John's an Edwards. And some people would argue that Karl Barth ought to be there. But rather than trying to decide who the greatest theologians in the history of the Christian church really are, maybe we should just say anybody's list should have Thomas Aquinas. So the systematic theologian. Thomas wrote a lot of books, but two of his books are the most famous that he wrote. Two Sumas, the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Summa Theologia, the Summa against the Gentiles and the Summa of theology. The word Summa simply means summary, so these are summaries. One of these summaries, the Summa Contra Gentiles, is more of a work of apologetics. You might say that the emphasis in this summa is philosophical and theological. The Summa Theologii, the Summa Theology, the summary of theology, is a book not primarily about apologetics, but primarily about theology. And the emphasis there is theological and philosophical. You see what I've done there. Thomas operates in a similar manner in both books, but when he's writing a book of apologetics, the emphasis is on philosophy and theology. When he's writing a book on theology, of course, the emphasis is on theology and philosophy. There's the same cyclical pattern that is obvious in both of these great works. The systematic theologian always has a kind of way of thinking about theology. John Calvin begins the institutes by saying it's knowledge of God and of ourselves. That's what he's going to talk about. Whenever Thomas does theology, it's always the going out from God. God is the origin of all things and he tries to show how everything derives from God and then the return to God. So the cyclical principle is the methodological principle that Thomas uses in his writing, the principle of departing and returning, the issuing of all things from God and the return of all things to God. You might say there are two points, always two points in Thomas. One is God as origin of all things, the other is God as the goal of all things. Now even though the general outline is the same for both of the Sumas, Thomas has quite a different purpose in mind. When he's writing the suma against the Gentiles, he's really writing a book that Christians can use to debate Christianity with opponents of Christianity. Gentiles, he has particularly in mind, they're the Muslims but also the Jews and the radical groups. And as Thomas writes this suma, he's going to operate largely on the level of natural reason because these people will not accept the revelation of the Scripture. The suma theologii, the greater, more famous of the two great books and when I say these are two books, I don't mean two single volumes. The suma theologii, as many volumes as you can see if you walk over to the library and look at Thomas's suma. One rough translation of the title, suma theologii, is everything you ever wanted to know about theology is found in Thomas's work. The thing that always amazes me is I stand before those books somewhat staggered by the size of them and the number of them is the fact that Thomas said he was writing a book or beginners in theology. There are 512 questions Thomas operates according to the scholastic style, the dialectical style that we've talked about already, he's the prince of the scholastics and he takes these 512 questions and answers those questions in more than 4,000 pages. I am thankful that Peter Creef has recently written a book called the suma of the suma, that is the summary of the summary. So with Peter Creef you can get a much more manageable version of Thomas's suma. Let me talk a little bit about the first suma and then we'll come back to the second suma against the Gentiles. Here Thomas sets forth the famous 5 arguments. He did not invent these, we saw already that Anselm used these same 5 arguments but Thomas does go into this in some detail and is famous for the 5 ways to argue for the existence of God. You can find that in the suma against the Gentiles and the basic thought in these 5 arguments is that creation mirrors the creator, God who made all things, stamped his image in some way upon all these things that he made. So you have the 5 arguments, I'll just read those briefly as they are stated in the syllabus. Things in this world are in motion, everybody admits that. So Thomas says there must be a cause for that motion and maybe a lot of causes but there is a final cause, something that gave it the first push, things began to move and the word that Thomas uses for that final cause is the word God. He says the facts have causes, any effect has behind it a cause, perhaps a series of causes but there is an original cause, it starts the whole thing and he calls that original cause God. He says contingent beings like ourselves were not necessary beings, were contingent, it's not necessary in a philosophical sense that we be here. Why are we here then? Contingent beings must have or must depend on a necessary being, there can't be contingent beings without somewhere there be a necessary being and that necessary being Thomas says, we call God. He talks about values, human values like truth, honesty, integrity, nobility, where do all these things come from? No, Thomas says they come from an original truth or goodness and that we call God. Then Thomas says as we look around in the world we see traces of intelligent design does not appear that things are made in an intelligent way, things work together, there is evidence of design, there must be a designer and that designer we call God. Well you can see all five arguments are basically the same, all five depend on taking a causal sequence back to its origin and identifying this origin as God. Now there have been since Thomas's time many arguments against the arguments people have disagreed with Thomas that this can actually be done or should be done from the medieval period. The study done scotas and the late medieval nominalist who opposed Thomas on this point they felt that reason cannot be used in this way at all, down to the present. There have been many people who have not liked the so-called theistic arguments including many Christians who feel that these are not worthy and not useful. I would suggest that you read in the syllabus the statement from the Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantica concerning the argument from design and also Richard Mueller who teaches at Calvin Theological Seminary as written a defense of Thomas's arguments. As Mueller puts it demonstration neither replaces nor subverts faith so Thomas is not saying we can just forget about faith and we can argue about these things but demonstration rather shows us that faith is capable of sustaining itself in argument. That's Mueller's way of trying to understand what Thomas is up to. Not that we start with this and this helps us into faith but we believe and because we believe we can talk about it in a rational way. Well, it's not going to settle the debate on whether the theistic arguments are appropriate or not and you can try to work that out in apologetics and other classes but all I need to say is this is where it comes from and you try to decide whether it's good or bad. The summa theologii Thomas completed in the year 1272 most list of important dates in church history will have that date 1272 completion of the summa and if you're doing a timeline it could be a good idea for you to have that date in your timeline. Let me just try to characterize the summa theologii in three ways not going to tell you so much Thomas's theology here but something about his methodology. First, it's certainly true that Thomas attempts to use both faith and knowledge or reason and to do that he depends on a great deal on Aristotle. Aristotle, according to Thomas I think, gets a lot right but he doesn't know everything. He starts along the way but he doesn't go all the way but that's not the same thing as going the wrong way so Thomas can place a great deal of value in reading Aristotle. For example it's not wrong to say that Athens is in Europe not particularly precise and people can do better than that but it's not wrong to say that Athens is in Europe and Thomas would say that Aristotle can make some basic true statements about how to understand things. There are many questions about which the Bible and reasons say exactly the same thing and here Thomas is quite willing to argue philosophically and to use the philosophers like Aristotle to try to argue for the existence of God, his nature, providence, the immortality of souls and certain ethical insights. But Thomas is also aware that the philosophers, even if they start along the right path, can't go very far. Philosophy, reason, does have its own authentic sphere but so does faith and authority. The Bible tells us many things that the philosophers could only dream about, could not even imagine but as Thomas works this way you see he does have two separate spheres of authority and knowledge, a kind of two-story view, a lower story and the upper story. One level you can understand through reason, philosophy, rationality, on the other level you can only understand through faith and through the reveal truth of the Bible. So there are natural truths and there are reveal supernatural truths such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation, our first and last state, fall in redemption and so on. Thomas sees all of this second level truth as beyond reason cannot be proved rationally, we accept it on the basis of the authority of the Bible but all that is not irrational and so it cannot be refuted rationally. Now maybe I could sum up all of this briefly by saying what Thomas is really struggling to do is to have a place for human learning, rationality and philosophy, a real place for all that but also an essential and dominant place for revelation and authority. Philosophy and theology, and you think of Thomas's teaching you need to stress both. They're not to be separated since they speak of the same God but they are to be distinguished because they speak of that same God from different standpoints but they are to support each other, they're compatible, they're both ultimately from God. I think I can sum this up by quoting from Etienne Gilson, the famous Thomas philosopher who said this in Thomas's thought, reason and revelation can neither contradict each other nor ignore each other nor be confused with each other. Not everybody would agree that Thomas has been so successful in this but a Thomas like Gilson praises Thomas for understanding the role of reason and the role of revelation. I'll come back to that point in a few minutes as we look at some Protestant critiques of Thomas but let's move on to a second principle or characteristic of Thomas's methodology versus great emphasis on theology and philosophy both. Secondly, Thomas struggles with this problem, how can we talk about God at all? How is it possible for us to use human language to say anything significant, anything meaningful about God? Fifth can sign, put it this way, he said if human words are incapable of describing the aroma of coffee, how can we explain anything really complicated? Well, it shows something of the problem that we have with language and philosophers and theologians are always struggling with this, teachers are too. How can words communicate truly, particularly when the subject is God? Thomas developed and used what he called the principle of analogy, somewhat similar to John Calvin's use of the principle of accommodation. What did Thomas mean by analogy? Thomas meant that God can and does reveal himself in ways that we can understand by using analogous statements, statements that tell us something about God but statements that also have very definite limitations as to what they tell us about God. For instance, God says that he is our father. Well, that tells us something about God is very important but it doesn't tell us everything about God and there are some things about fathers that would not be true of God. So in some way, God is like a father that communicates to us but at the same time, it doesn't completely tell us who God is. God reveals himself in in images and ideas which lie within our world and yet don't reduce God to that world. So the principle of analogy is always at work. Why is this important? This is important because we can understand these things and it's important because the way God puts it in the Scripture is memorable. For instance, just think of the expression, the Lord is my shepherd. That's analogy. Think how much that communicates to us. We have to draw certain limits there but it's so memorable if God had tried to describe himself to us in more direct language. You can see how difficult it would have been for us to grasp that language and it would not have been nearly so memorable. If God had tried to speak to us in direct language, it may have meant that the Bible would have read much more like Thomas's summa than it really does. Well, a third methodological principle from Thomas is his love for and use for precise definitions. Thomas loves to have headings and subheadings and give very clear, precise definitions. In fact, you may have noted that one of the brief sermons that I included in the syllabus, the one on the armor of God, is only a page and a half, has three main points and fifteen sub points in just a page and a half. So you can imagine what Thomas would do in 4,000 pages in the summa and he is concerned to speak very clearly and technically and scientifically. There's one rather amusing distinction that Thomas tries to make when he is deciding if there is a difference between perfect obstinacy and just ordinary obstinacy. And he works on those two concepts with definitions and he decides that perfect obstinacy is found only in hell, that's where a person is totally and perfectly stubborn. But there's a kind of obstinacy in this life as well on the part of those who become so stubborn against grace that they have hardly the slightest impulse to repent and turn to the good. I don't know it's particularly significant distinction, but you can see that Thomas is interested in definitions. Well, Thomas in the summa is a perfect example for the scientific university theology that we've been talking about, scholastic theology. And as you read Thomas, you'll get the impression that it's rather impersonal and monotone certainly as you compare Thomas to Luther and Calvin and even as you compare Thomas to Augustine earlier. It's scientific, it's academic, it's scholastic, it's great theology but not much comes through in terms of a kind of warm living personal faith. Luther who said that experience alone makes one a theologian, perceived in Thomas's theology the total absence of any experimental dimension. And so Luther felt that Thomas was powerless to speak to real spiritual needs because that aspect of his theology is still totally missing. It's almost mathematical, dialectical, scientific in the way that it's set forth. But it's interesting that Luther who could criticize Thomas's theology this way knew that Thomas in his own life was a man who did experience spiritual presence of God and tried to live that out as best as he could. So let's come to the next point and that is Thomas the Christian. Luther held up Thomas for his students as a model of humility and Luther would often point out to his students that when Thomas Aquinas heard himself praised as a great scholar or a great thinker or a great theologian, he would secretly make the sign of the cross under his cowl in order to remind himself of the center pride. Luther also spoke of the fact that when God said to Thomas according to one of the stories that was circulated when God said you've written well concerning me, what will you now have as a reward? Thomas is supposed to have replied only yourself Lord. This story about Thomas Luther told at least five times in a couple of years he told about how the great Thomas Aquinas at the time of his death felt that he could not hold out against the devil until he said picking up his Bible and holding it I believe what is written in this book. Now whether Thomas had a solo scripture or a view or not, we could talk about in some detail a doubt that he did but at least at this point, according to the story which Luther loved Thomas relied upon the Bible and the Bible alone. I think Thomas for Luther seems to have been an example of how a great person can be seriously mistaken. On December 6th, 1272 after morning mass, Thomas stopped writing the summa. You know the summa is really not complete. He doesn't get through his third party stops in the middle of his discussion of the sacrament of penance. He was not yet 50 years old. He had written many, many books but he told a friend that he could not go on any longer. He could not complete this book. Why said the friend? Why can't you write it? You must write it. Thomas said I can do no more for all I have written seems to me like straw. It's no good at all. Kind of worthless. So he stopped. He only lived another four months but he did not write another word of theology. Well, what happened? Historians and scholars, Thomas, have puzzled over this experience. He had a kind of nervous breakdown and was not able to continue because of the vast demands that this effort had put up on his mind and his soul. Or was it as some Catholics maintain a kind of ecstatic experience in the mass he had received the divine vision. He had seen God in some way and so anything that he would produce and write would seem inadequate and meaningless. His summa is certainly a tremendous piece of thought about God but Thomas constantly is aware of the limits of his understanding. Now let me finish this up with some evaluations of Thomas first some Catholic evaluations before I talk about Protestant evaluations. Of course Catholics are going to be very high on Thomas Aquinas. We can expect that in 1567 about 300 years after his death. Thomas was formally elevated to the status of teacher of the church. Too many people have received that honor in the Catholic church. But 300 years after he died, Thomas was one of the teachers of the church. In the 20th century Thomas has become, I would say, the teacher of the Catholic church so that he's not one among several but he is the preeminent theologian of Catholicism. John Calvin is the preeminent theologian of the reform faith. Let me just quote two modern Catholics on Thomas Aquinas first the Georgia short story writer and novelist Flannery O'Connor. Flannery O'Connor wrote this, I couldn't make any judgment on the summa except say this, I read it every night before I go to bed. It says something about Flannery O'Connor and her ability to grapple with theological issues. She said if my mother were to come in during the process and say, turn off that light, it's late. I with lifted finger and broad, bland, the atypical expression would reply on the contrary, I answer that the light being eternal and limitless cannot be turned off, shut your eyes or some such thing. As she learns to say to talk like that from reading Thomas. In any case, Flannery O'Connor says, I feel I can personally guarantee that St. Thomas love God because for the life of me, I can't help loving St. Thomas. Another Catholic evaluation from Peter Krief in the summa of the summa, he says St. Thomas Aquinas is certainly one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived to my mind. He is the greatest for at least eight reasons. Truth, common sense, practicality, clarity, profundity, orthodoxy, medievalism, and modernity. Well, you want to understand all that, you can read the summa of the summa. Okay, a few comments on how Protestants view Thomas Aquinas. We've already seen that Luther admired the Christian, but didn't think much of the theologian. John Calvin, amazingly, is able to pretty much ignore Thomas altogether. Although some of Calvin's followers began to study Thomas and to use him, somebody has called him keeping Thomas because it wasn't really acceptable for reform theologians to be reading Thomas Aquinas, but they did it anyway. But one of the most famous evaluations of Thomas Aquinas comes in recent years from Francis Shafer, and if you have read much of Francis Shafer, you'll know that he doesn't agree much with Thomas Aquinas. In how should we then live, Shafer says this, Aquinas held that man had revolted against God and thus was fallen, but Aquinas had an incomplete view of the fall. He thought that the fall did not affect man as a whole, but only in part. In his view, the will was fallen or corrupted, but the intellect was not affected. Thus people could rely on their own human wisdom, and this meant that people were free to mix the teachings of the Bible with the teachings of the non-Christian philosophers, with a pretty strong indictment against Thomas there. Thomas doesn't think that the will is affected so that reason can operate and we can pull in truth from many sources and mix those statements of philosophy with the teachings of the Bible. Shafer later says in how should we then live, Thomas's view, that is, the will was fallen but the mind was not, eventually resulted in people believing they could think out the answers to all the great questions beginning only from themselves, even stronger indictment on Thomas. That to follow Thomas will eventually lead to people being able to answer the questions without the body using only their unfallen reason. Well, since what Thomas really did, did he fragment reality the way Shafer said that he did? He certainly had an upper story and a lower story, but did this result in Thomas mixing Christian and pagan ideas? There was a cartoon that appeared in Christianity today some time ago with Francis Shafer reaching heaven and St. Peter there at the gate. Oh yes, Shafer, Dr. Francis, I believe Thomas Aquinas would like to have a word with you. Well, I'm going to leave it up to Shafer and Aquinas in heaven to work all that out but be aware of Shafer's critique and of some others who feel that Shafer has not properly understood Thomas Aquinas. Other Protestants, conservative Protestants, Presbyterians, even viewed Thomas Aquinas as a hero. If Thomas Aquinas was the problem to Francis Shafer, he was a hero to John Gerstner and R. C. Sprawl. You can often hear R. C. Sprawl say that Thomas is a great theologian. I think he even says he is the greatest theologian or his favorite theologian. John Gerstner wrote an article for table talk. It came out in 1994 before Dr. Gerstner died and the title of the article was Aquinas was a Protestant. That's a lot of people as a surprising sort of thing for John Gerstner to be saying but this is what he said. Thomas taught the biblical doctrine of justification so that if the Roman church had followed Aquinas, the reformation would not have been absolutely necessary. Well others disagreed rather vehemently with that assessment Thomas Aquinas particularly Robert Raymond who answered Gerstner in an article that Raymond wrote in the Westminster Theological Journal on Dr. John H. Gerstner on Thomas Aquinas as a Protestant. And Raymond tried to prove that Thomas was a long way from being a Protestant in his view of justification by faith. Well what is my experience with Thomas? I'm constantly surprised when I read Thomas on election and grace that he's so good. Teachers election says some wonderful things about grace and on many other things. Thomas is so good but I'm almost always disappointed in the end. Thomas may reduce the human part in salvation to 1% and a tribute 99% to God but in the end it's still percentage theology. And it will take Luther and Calvin and the reformers to get rid of that remaining 1% and to say that salvation is indeed a free gift of God. It is all of God. But Thomas was a great mind and he was a great heart and I'd like to close this lecture with another prayer from Thomas Aquinas. Give me your Lord a steadfast heart which no unworthy affection may drag downwards. Give me an unconquered heart which no tribulation can wear out. Give me an upright heart which no unworthy purpose may tempt aside a man.