When I wrote the blog post on Plato's school of thought, I mentioned Anselm and his ontological argument, but I forgot to note Peter Lombard's textbook: Four Books of Sentences. This was the chief theological textbook until the time of Thomas Aquinas. His support of the seven sacraments led to it being accepted as authoritative at the Council of Florence in 1439.
Plato's reality was completely in an unseen world. Aristotle insisted that universal have an objective existence but not apart from individuals things. They are a part of the objects and minds. He places more reality in the seen world rather than assuming that this life is only shadows.
Abelard was a major fan of Aristotle. He taught at the University of Paris. He believed that reality existed first in the mind of God, then in individuals and things. Plato's camp emphasized that they believe so that they may know. Abelard reversed that: I know in order that I may believe. He emphasized reasoning.
Downside: he did not believe that Christ's death satisfied God's wrath against sinners. He believe it simply compelled people to see Christ's love, their hearts to melt, and for them to come to God through moral influence. This is Pelagianism again, and it is not the Gospel taught in the Bible. His work Sic et Non, or Yes and No, was also a major textbook of the day.
Albertus Magnus was a brilliant man known mostly for his pupil who excelled him: Thomas Aquinas. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, joined a monastery against his parents' wishes. Cairns describes him as large, shambling, taciturn, and somewhat absent-minded. He was the quintessential geek. His classmates called him a "dumb ox", and Albertus prophecied that the ox's lowing would fill the whole world.
R.C. Sproul loves Aquinas a lot more than I do. I like him much better thanks to Sproul, but Augustine is a far better theologian. He also believed reality exists first in the mind of God, then in people. His Summa Theologiae is the theology textbook to end all textbooks until the Reformation. He preached that man's will is bent by sin from the fall, but he did not believe it was completely determined to evil. Augustine taught that the human will was helplessly lost in evil. Aquinas is still a theologically sound man: he held orthodox views of the atonement, Christ's deity, life, death, and resurrection. He held sound Mariology. I look to the day where I can sit down and read his works.
Downside: he did not believe that Christ's death satisfied God's wrath against sinners. He believe it simply compelled people to see Christ's love, their hearts to melt, and for them to come to God through moral influence. This is Pelagianism again, and it is not the Gospel taught in the Bible. His work Sic et Non, or Yes and No, was also a major textbook of the day."
ReplyDeleteIrregardless of what Paul might want to be the truth, the Old Testament (especially the prophets) absolutely forbids the notion of Jesus' or anyone else' death forgiving people's sins. Check for example, Micah 6:8.
Micah is asked what sort of sacrifice God wants, some guy even asking him if he ought to sacrifice his firstborn: at this point Micah ought to launch into a prophecy about how God will one day sacrifice His own firstborn for us, that is, if Jesus' death could really do what Paul wants it to do.
Instead, Micah dismisses sacrifices entirely and says "He has told you, oh man, what is good, and what does the LORD require of your but to love mercy/kindness, do justice, and walk humbly with your God?" In other words, all God wants is for to to be compassionate, care about justice, and love Him: to live a basic moral monotheistic life.
For this reason the whole notion of "satisfying God's wrath against sinners" is not even required. God isn't an angry tyrant who needs a magical blood-letting before he can forgive us. He is quite willing, according to Micah, to forgive us of our little trifling sins if we will love compassion, do justice where we can, and walk humbly with Him. Paul's whole doctrine, and hence orthodox Christianity, is based on a severe misreading of the Old Testament prophets, or rather it is based on ignoring the most important passages in there, the ones that show that God is not anger-incarnate but that he is always waiting for us to return to him, to repent, and requires no magical god-man sacrifice (nor sacrifice of our firstborn) before we can do so. So, the Pelagians are right according to the Old Testament, and Paul was a Gnostic heretic.