THE BIG 5: The 5 Most Influential Theologians in Church History

[Dee Dee Warren]

THEOLOGICALSTUDIES.ORG (http://www.theologicalstudies.org)

THE BIG 5: The 5 Most Influential Theologians in Church History

By MIKE J. VLACH

They are the Big 5—the five most influential theologians in the history of the church. Together, their lives and teachings have affected religious and political systems and have dramatically changed or contributed to how people understand theology.
Although differing at times on significant points of doctrine, these five theologians share certain things in common. Each has written a massive number of volumes revealing their views on the major areas of doctrine. Second, each has significantly shaped how people view theology, not only in their era, but in the centuries after they lived. Third, each theologian has made such a significant contribution to theology that no serious discussion of Christian doctrine can safely ignore them or their teachings.

Who are these theologians who have left the biggest footprints on the path of church history? We list them in chronological order:

1. AUGUSTINE (354–430)

By far, Augustine of Hippo was the most important theologian of the Patristic Era. He wrote hundreds of works including City of God and On the Trinity. He was the first theologian to thoroughly address the doctrines of man and salvation. Augustine taught that all people are born with original sin and that God predestines those whom He will save. Augustine also made huge contributions in the areas of the church and prophecy. In his battle with the Donatists, Augustine argued that people who lapsed because of persecution should be allowed back into church fellowship. Augustine is also known as "the father of amillennialism" since he promoted the idea that Satan is currently bound and that the millennium of Revelation 20 is being fulfilled in the present age. Many of his views carried over into the Middle Ages and became accepted as the orthodox positions of the church. Today, both Roman Catholics and Protestants often claim this greatest theologian of antiquity as support for their views.

2. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225–1274)

The greatest theologian of the Medieval Era, Thomas Aquinas developed a system of theology that became synonymous with Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Aquinas merged Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity, and in so doing, argued for a strong relationship between faith and reason. A strong proponent of natural revelation and the ability of nature to teach truths about God, Aquinas argued that God's existence and attributes could be proven through reason and observation of the created order. Aquinas produced 18 large volumes of theology. His most significant work was his massive Summa Theologiae ("summation of theology"). When the Protestant Reformation challenged Roman Catholicism, the Catholic Church drew upon the writings of Aquinas in drafting the decrees of the Council of Trent.

3. MARTIN LUTHER (1483–1546)

Little did this Augustinian monk know that when he nailed his "95 Theses" to the door of a Wittenberg church in 1517 that he would set in motion a chain of events that would change the course of history. The Protestant Reformation, of which Luther was the primary mover, forever changed the religious and political landscape of the Western world. Luther's contributions to theology are many. He rejected the idea that church tradition was equal to Scripture in authority. He also questioned the authority of the papacy. Luther argued that there were two marks of the church—the Word preached and the sacraments of Baptism and Lord's Supper rightly applied. Luther's most important contribution was his insistence that justification was based on faith alone, apart from works. The Lutheran denomination was based on his teachings. Both Life magazine and Biography of the Millennium (which aired on the A&E network) listed Luther as the third most important person of the millennium.

4. JOHN CALVIN (1509–64)

If Luther was the primary starter of the Reformation, John Calvin was its main theologian. With the precision of a surgeon, Calvin systematically expounded the major doctrines of the Protestant Reformation including the three solas—sola fide ("faith alone"), sola gratia ("grace alone") and sola scriptura ("scripture alone"). He also taught the doctrines of predestination and the absolute sovereignty of God. Calvin also ably defended that justification was a legal declaration of God and not a process of becoming right with God. In addition to his commentaries, this French theologian is most known for his work, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin eventually became known as the Father of Reformed and Presbyterian theology. The popular designation "five points of Calvinism" is linked to the beliefs of John Calvin. Many today claim Calvin as a major influence in how they view theology.

5. KARL BARTH (1886–1968)

Though perhaps a notch below the other four theologians mentioned in this article, Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, rightly takes his place as one of the most influential theologians in church history. Barth exposed the bankruptcy of Protestant liberalism and ushered in the era of neo-orthodoxy. In stark contrast to the liberal overemphasis on God's immanence, Barth stressed the absolute transcendence of God. Also in contrast to liberalism, Barth stressed that God was the main agent in salvation, not man. Barth took a strong objective approach to the doctrine of salvation. According to Barth, Christ objectively united the entire human race to Himself and wrought salvation for all by His victory on the cross. Barth is also known for his strong emphasis on Christology, which for him was the corner
stone of all areas of theology. Barth's massive Church Dogmatics records the teachings of this influential theologian. When Barth died in 1968, volume 13 was unfinished. Evangelicals, liberal Protestants, and Catholics often refer to Barth in serious discussions of theology.
These are the Big 5—Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth. Those who desire to be serious students of theology should become acquainted with the basic teachings of these five men. Students researching a particular area of doctrine such as salvation or the church should also search to see what these five theologians said about that subject. Doing so does not mean that one will necessarily embrace all that these five wrote, but having a familiarity with their teachings will add depth to one's knowledge and will reveal a keen sensitivity to the major movers in church history.

(NOTE: TheologicalStudies.org does not embrace all the teachings of the above-mentioned theologians. By including them, we are acknowledging their influence and not necessarily the correctness of all they believed.)

TheologicalStudies.org exists to provide reliable information in the areas of Bible, theology, and church history. We intend for our materials to be scholarly yet readable, and appropriate for use in personal, church, and educational settings. In addition to providing reliable information, TheologicalStudies.org also exists for the purpose of promoting and furthering the biblical worldview to all areas of life.

300

Notice - The featuring of a particular ministry does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view published by said ministry by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular ministry is that said ministry subscribes to the essentials artictulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)

[Dee Dee Warren]

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Solly]

All predestinarians too. :poke:

Mind you, I would substitute Schleiermacher for Barth, since no Schleiermacher, no Barth. Schleiermacher really kicked theology into another track, from its perceived dead end in orthodoxy, and Barth was trying to react against that, but pushed things the other way; but much of our post-modern sentiments about religion and the Bible can be traced back to Schleiermacher.

And Luther wasn't really a theologian like the others, he produced no system for a start. Influential yes, but it's Calvin's Calvinism that has moulded the English speaking western world, secualr and religious, and they moulded the world, not Lutheran Germany, via Britain and America.

I would, recommend everyone go to the TS website, and see the full list of 150 leaders, theologicans and philosophers, since you can't really pin it down to 5.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I thought you would be the first to post Solly!

[bar Jonah]

Some of the most influential world leaders of the 20th century include... FDR, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan....

Those who desire to be serious students of 20th century world history should become acquainted with the basic policies and actions of these seven men.

[mvlach]

I think the quote about Schleiremacher is a good one. Barth's writing influence puts him above Schleiermacher, but if I did a top 10 or even 7 I would include Schleiermacher.

[Solly]

Point accepted, since his works are voluminous, in print, and taught within the pale of orthodoxy, whereas Schleiermacher has little appeal to most people today, if they even know he existed.

I wonder how much of Barth's influence comes from what people have read, or what they think he said. As I looked into him, I was surprised to see he is technically universalist, seeing election of humanity in Christ, not as an individual thing. His perceived orthodoxy, esp as a "born again Calvinist", has beguiled many I think, like the Bloesch's and Torrance's of this world.

[Paul]

I heard that Karl Barth was a universalist or leaned in that direction. Is that true?

[Jaltus]

I would think that Wesley would need to be there also.

Didn't Augustine believe salvation could be lost? I am reading through a book of essays critiquing OV from a Calvinist perspective (edited by Piper), and one of the guys mentioned Augustine believe that salvation could be lost and never regained. Anyone know where that comes from in his writings?

Oh, it should be Athanasius over any of these guys anyway.

[Paul]

Yes Augustine did believe that. I don't know exactly where he said it though. I have to run at the moment but I'll be able to track it down for you if no one else does in the meantime.

Merry Christmas Jaltus :smile:

[Paul]

Jaltus,

OK here is a quotation and citation from St Augustine of Hippo, snagged from Jimmy Akin's website:

For example, in chapter 21 of his book, the Gift of Perseverance, St. Augustine wrote:

[O]f two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God's judgments are even more unsearchable. . . . had not both been called and followed him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration? . . . In respect of all these things, they were of us. Nevertheless, in respect of a certain other distinction, they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they certainly would have continued with us. What then is this distinction? God's books lie open, let us not turn away our view. The divine Scripture cries aloud, let us give it a hearing. They were not of them because they had not been 'called according to the purpose.' They had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in him. They had not been predestined according to his purpose who works all things.

Bear in mind that this was the old Augustine, not the young Augustine. He wrote this in 428, just two years before he died.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/loss.htm

[geebob]

All predestinarians too.

(and to answer paul's question)

Barth was a "hopeful" universalist. He denied that he was a universalist but most students and barth scholars agree that his system led to universalism. The reasoning is along the lines that Jesus is God's yes to man's no. Do you think that your piddly little no can stand up to God's yes?

As for Luther, a proffesor of mine told me how the president of a Lutherin seminary once lamented that bondage of the will was the only book of Luther's that evangelicals ever read. But Luther later in life mentioned something to the effect that we must not suppose that the reason that some accept the Gospel while others reject it is located somewhere in a mysterious will of God.

[Paul]

Today @ 04:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356291#post356291)
geebob:



(and to answer paul's question)

Barth was a "hopeful" universalist. He denied that he was a universalist but most students and barth scholars agree that his system led to universalism. The reasoning is along the lines that Jesus is God's yes to man's no. Do you think that your piddly little no can stand up to God's yes?

As for Luther, a proffesor of mine told me how the president of a Lutherin seminary once lamented that bondage of the will was the only book of Luther's that evangelicals ever read. But Luther later in life mentioned something to the effect that we must not suppose that the reason that some accept the Gospel while others reject it is located somewhere in a mysterious will of God.

Do you know where Luther mentioned this? If you have a citation and/or quotation, I'd be grateful.

Thanks for answering my question about Barth. Was he or his system universalistic wrt to men only or wrt to all spiritual creatures (including the fallen angels)?

[mvlach]

It is definitely fair to say that Barth was a universalist.
He, himself, denied that he was, but his doctrine
clearly leads to universalism. He held that all people
including atheists are united to Christ. Since Christ
is the Federal Head of all people, all people benefit
from his life and death. Thus all are saved in the end.

[Vinnie]

Who are the most influential women theologians in Christian history? Or was it so misognyst that none are commonly known?

Vinnie

[Paul]

St Teresa of Avila was very influential. More recently, St Therese of Lisieux has had some influence. St Teresa of Avila along with St John of the Cross are often considered the two greatest mystical theologians of the Church.

[bar Jonah]

Well, after all, it is rather difficult for women to become highly influential theologians when they are not to have teaching authority over men in the church. That's not mysoginistic at all; it just recognizes the different roles of men and women in the church.

My Lieutenant Commander and I had different roles in the Navy. Was he a better man than I? Heck no. A superior citizen? Had more rights? No, and no. Did he have authority over me? Yes, a different job. Relationally, we were not equal. But we were equally valuable human beings, equally citizens and equally servicemembers.

[Vinnie]

Today @ 10:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356573#post356573)
Paul:

St Teresa of Avila was very influential. More recently, St Therese of Lisieux has had some influence. St Teresa of Avila along with St John of the Cross are often considered the two greatest mystical theologians of the Church.

If I ever have a daughter I'll name here Teresa (or a variant) :D

On a scale of the mopst 100 important theologians would any of these females make the cut? Where would they be in the top 100?

Curiously,
Vinnie

[bar Jonah]

Vinnie:
If I ever have a daughter I'll name here Teresa (or a variant) :D

On a scale of the mopst 100 important theologians would any of these females make the cut? Where would they be in the top 100?

Curiously,
Vinnie
Probably around 99 and 100. (I've never even heard of 'em, and they had no authority to teach men in the first place, so how influential should they be in the first place?)

[Paul]

Today @ 09:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356685#post356685)
Vinnie:



If I ever have a daughter I'll name here Teresa (or a variant) :D

On a scale of the mopst 100 important theologians would any of these females make the cut? Where would they be in the top 100?

Curiously,
Vinnie

Teresa of Avila within catholic Christianity would definitely be in the top 100 -- more like in the top 10. Her works are considered spiritual classics. Therese of Lisieux would also definitely be in the top 100.

St Teresa of Avila and also St Therese of Lisieux are Doctors of the Church. "Doctor" here means Teacher. There are only about 15 or 20 Church Doctors and so they would within Catholicism be considered very important or influential. And as I already mentioned as regards mystical theology, St Teresa of Avila together with St John of the Cross, are often considered the greatest teachers.

Pace RightIdea, women do have authority to give teaching:

She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

It's only that women do not have authority to teach from the pulpits of Churches as part of the Liturgy of the Word.

St Teresa of Avila ought to be well known outside of catholic Christianity also. I'm not sure how well known St Therese of Lisieux is outside of catholic Christianity, but apparently Solly has read at least some of her writings since he gave a collection of them as a present to Cadet in Santa Jim's Chimney. I get the impression that both women are known by many non-Catholic charismatic Christians.

I would say that the influence of St Teresa of Avila would be about the same as the influence of St Bonaventure.

[Jaltus]

I was going to say Theresa of Avila also.

If I was at home, I could come up with a larger list, but I am out of town. Anyway, just because women cannot teach within the church, RI, does not mean that they are not strong theologians. That is a rather large mistake to make.

[geebob]

Do you know where Luther mentioned this?

The editor of The complete Works of Arminius mentioned it in the introduction. I also had this confirmed by the professor I mentioned.


Thanks for answering my question about Barth. Was he or his system universalistic wrt to men only or wrt to all spiritual creatures (including the fallen angels)?


don't know. Given what mvlach just pointed out, I would think it was only for humans.

[bar Jonah]

Jaltus:
I was going to say Theresa of Avila also.

If I was at home, I could come up with a larger list, but I am out of town. Anyway, just because women cannot teach within the church, RI, does not mean that they are not strong theologians. That is a rather large mistake to make.
Do you suggest, then, that they are theologians whose teaching aims only at women and children? And of so, can this be considered on a par with the same level of influence and impact of the great male theologians?

(I certainly do not dispute that women are potentially just as capable of being a great theologian as a man, in and of themselves. I hope no one misunderstands me on that point.)

[studyhound]

My list

In chronological order:

1. Moses
2. Isaiah
3. Jesus
4. John
5. Paul

Ya I know this is technically not what they’re looking for but the rest of the theologians are just use these guys’ writings as a base for their theology.

:eek:


:studyhound:

[Berbiglia]

Karl Barth was not a "universalist". He believed in the sovereign power of God which disallows any human the ability to "choose "for or against God. Barth would underline that, if you defined God or had absolute answers about what God will or must do, you would not be speaking of the same God as Barth [or of the Scriptures], since we cannot comprehend all of God.

Barth said that there is "an impossible possibility": that a man crawling across a desert and dying of thirst might top a sand dune and see an oasis with sparkling water and still turn away to die in the desert. In other words, God still is the ultimate decision maker on salvation, not us, not reason.

Remember that Barth also preserved some holy mystery. When asked about sin and evil, he referred to "the left hand of God" holding back the chaos. When asked about the devil, satan, etc., his answer to a reporter: "ssshhhhhhhh"!

Universalism refers to a philosophical concept demanded by reason; Barth's soteriology remains in the hands and heart of God. Barth and Kierkegaard both suggest a "leap of faith".

May I ask: is the concern about the forgiveness of sins and the anxiety about "universalism" powered by fear of personal sinfulness, or a sense of injustice that some "evil" folks might be "saved"? :huh:

[bar Jonah]

It is a concern over justice. We should strive to have the same sense of justice that God has. We shouldn't desire that an individual spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, but we should also desire that this act be done for the sake of justice, to anyone who rejects God's righteousness.

[geebob]

Berb, nothing you've said as evidence against Karl Barth's universalism really lends to your case.


Universalism refers to a philosophical concept demanded by reason

no. Universalism is just the notion that all people will be saved. How one gets to that view can be biblical or it can come from other areas. And any view that we hold to must be coherent and intelligible ie reasonable.


In other words, God still is the ultimate decision maker on salvation, not us, not reason.

yes, and according to Barth, Jesus is God's yes to man's no, and Thus God's decision to save man was yes.

[Solly]

Vinnie, I agree about the question regarding women theologians, and of course the likes of Teresa and Therese were not theologians, though they were influential. if one was compliling a list of 100 most influential Christian teachers (which is a slightly different thing to theologian), then historicals like Teresa, Therese, Julian of Norwich, Selina Countess of Huntington (indirectly), hymn writers like Frances Ridley Havergal, and moderns like Marva Dawn would be in it. I wonder if it would be possible to do a list of 100. You would have to canvass Catholic and orthodox opinion too.

[Paul]

Today @ 12:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357137#post357137)
Solly:

Vinnie, I agree about the question regarding women theologians, and of course the likes of Teresa and Therese were not theologians, though they were influential. if one was compliling a list of 100 most influential Christian teachers (which is a slightly different thing to theologian), then historicals like Teresa, Therese, Julian of Norwich, Selina Countess of Huntington (indirectly), hymn writers like Frances Ridley Havergal, and moderns like Marva Dawn would be in it. I wonder if it would be possible to do a list of 100. You would have to canvass Catholic and orthodox opinion too.

I can understand not classing Therese of the Child Jesus (Therese of Lisieux) as a theologian but why would you not consider Teresa of Jesus (Teresa of Avila) a theologian?

[Solly]

For the same reason I said at the beginning that Luther doesn't really class as a theologian, though hugely influential. I was taking the description in its formal sense, of one who develops a formal system of doctrine, which Luther never had the time to do, as opposed to Calvin and Aquinas. Teresa and Luther were both part of the reformation/counter-reformation, as well as the like of Ignatius of Loyola, Francis de Sales, and numerous protestant leaders like Herman Witsius and Francis Turretin who could be in the list as well, and also John Gill; but they were developing a system that was already made by Calvin. They wrote more as teachers and pastors than as theologians.
Though it was through Luther that the fire of the reformation was sparked, yet the bequeath of Lutheranism to the world is minimal compared to Calvinism, as a body of doctrine. Hence also Vlach's point about Barth vs Schleiermacher; Sch lit the match, but it was Barth who turned it into a brush fire that still burns today.
Conversely, Therese of Lisieux compiled no system, wrote one book, with some follow up material in her letters and last conversations, and yet has brought a reviving fire into Catholicism, and has even touched Black Coffee Calvinists like myself.

I guess at the end of the day the definitions and choices are personal, since most of us do not have the breadth of reading to make the decisions about who is the most influential, since someone could have lived in obscurity, written a few books, and be unknown today, and yet be the main player that has set the tone for 1000 years of theological thinking (John Damascene, for instance)

And who would have guessed the influence E P Sanders would have to this day, yet he is no theologian.

[Paul]

It seems that what you are speaking of is reflected in this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Teresa of Avila (of Jesus):

St. Teresa's position among writers on mystical theology is unique. In all her writings on this subject she deals with her personal experiences, which a deep insight and analytical gifts enabled her to explain clearly. The Thomistic substratum may be traced to the influence of her confessors and directors, many of whom belonged to the Dominican Order. She herself had no pretension to found a school in the accepted sense of the term, and there is no vestige in her writings of any influence of the Aeropagite, the Patristic, or the Scholastic Mystical schools, as represented among others, by the German Dominican Mystics. She is intensely personal, her system going exactly as far as her experiences, but not a step further.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14515b.htm

I sometimes get this strange impression that it may just be that women "teachers" do not have the "pretension" that men "teachers" may have and so just express their true wisdom in a different way. The way I understand you Solly is that you are defining a theologian as someone who makes some kind of new contribution and does so in a more or less systematic way. That's a very male-centered definition if I may so so! ;) But I would agree with you if what you are saying is that while both women and men can be and have been and are true teachers, that they teach in different ways, in ways appropriate to the nature of their sex and the order which God has established.

Just as an aside, there is another Teresa, namely St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross who would probably meet your definition of "theologian" ... but she hasn't yet been that greatly influential AFAIK though perhaps that will change in the future.

[Solly]

Hmmm, yes and no Paul. Generally, until recently theology was the province of men, pure and simple, since most theology was done by the ordained, and women couldn't be ordained, etc. that has changed recently, and we are awash with professional theologians who are women, Elizabeth Moltmann, Elizabeth Fiorenza, Marva Dawn, Marianne Hicks, Elaine Storkey, Janet Baldwin. But as for influential women theologians, I think we are still waiting for someone of the stature of the Big 5 mentioned at the start, which is why I have been happy to mention nonTheologian influence, such as those you have mentioned, and Protestant Hymn Writers, and more devotional/hortatory writers like Hannah Pearnsnell Smith, Jesse Penn Lewis, etc.

[Annie]

Vinnie - you ask a question after my own heart.

Yes - there are those who believe that Christian history was so misognyst that there are no female theologians commonly known, and they are bringing their stories to the forefront.

Rosemary Radford Ruether has an excellent book ("Visionary Women - Three Medieval Mystics") where she describes some female visionaries. One she describes is Hildegard of Bingen - who had eventually wrote of her visions given from God. She is said to have spoken of herself in a self-deprecating manner regarding her femaleness, this is thought to perhaps have been so as not to alarm patriarchal society and cause her visions to be discredited.

St. John of the Cross is said to have received much guidance and counsel from St. Theresa of Avila - considered unusual for a partriarchal society and especially a patriarchal church structure.

There are many strong female theologians out there today. There's no doubt that their own stories, thoughts and theology will be in the forefront for our daughters and sons, and that they'll bring out the foremothers' stories and theologies for us all.

Annie

[bar Jonah]

Annie:
There are many strong female theologians out there today. There's no doubt that their own stories, thoughts and theology will be in the forefront for our daughters and sons, and that they'll bring out the foremothers' stories and theologies for us all.

Annie
Who?

[Annie]

Radford Ruether, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza amongst others. Mary T. Malone has done her part in bringing forgotten women from scripture, and the church into the forefront.

Annie

[bar Jonah]

Someone writes a book showcasing the "forgotten women of scripture," and this makes them a highly influential theologian? :huh:

Maybe I should start crackin' on a book, myself! Perhaps a book on the "forgotten animals in scripture" is in order. :thumb:

[Annie]

I used the term "strong female theologian" - they and others can only hope they will be influential.

Is ridicule considered an influential debative tool?

Annie

[Paul]

Annie:
St. John of the Cross is said to have received much guidance and counsel from St. Theresa of Avila - considered unusual for a partriarchal society and especially a patriarchal church structure.

Hi Annie. Good to see more women posting here :smile: (I am not a woman btw)

It is definitely true that John of the Cross received much guidance and cousel from Theresa of Avila. My understanding actually was that the reform of the Order of Carmel was begun by God through Theresa of Avila and then God put her together with John of the Cross so that they could work together. I think probably Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross complemented each other; they were friends. I don't know that such a situation is unusual though -- but I don't know enough history to be able to say. I can say that there have been other man-woman saint "couples" who shared a spiritual friendship. IIRC Benedict and Scholastica, brother and sister, were very close. When Benedict wanted Scholastica to leave, she insisted on staying despite how late it was and said a quick prayer to God and God brought forth a great storm that prevented her from leaving. IIRC she died the next day ... perhaps she had some kind of premonition.

[Solly]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16256

let's even it up some...

[IveyLeaguer]

12-27-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356389#post356389)
mvlach:

It is definitely fair to say that Barth was a universalist.
He, himself, denied that he was, but his doctrine
clearly leads to universalism. He held that all people
including atheists are united to Christ. Since Christ
is the Federal Head of all people, all people benefit
from his life and death. Thus all are saved in the end.

I'm curious as to how Barth could deny he was a Universalist and at the same time proclaim ..."all are saved in the end."

[Annie]

Hi Paul - thanks for you encouraging welcome. Your understanding of St. Teresa and St. John and the reform of the Carmelite order is very similar to my understanding.

Solly - thanks for the link to the thread you posted. I'll keep my eye on that when I'm online again.

Annie

[bar Jonah]

Annie:
I used the term "strong female theologian" - they and others can only hope they will be influential.

Is ridicule considered an influential debative tool?

Annie
I pointed out that you think writing a book showcasing the "forgotten women of the Bible" makes one a "strong female theologian" ... and I'm ridiculing you? How so? I'm simply holding your feet to the fire, asking you to back up what you claimed. That's not ridicule. That's simply being challenged about one's claims, and that's a healthy thing, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. :smile:

[Annie]

Thanks RightIdea - I'm not feeling ridiculed. I wondered if you were ridiculing the author with your comment about "forgotten animals of scripture". I'm sure you weren't ridiculing myself nor the forgotten women of scripture.

I'm assuming you are referring to Mary T. Malone's work, she is a well-known feminist theologian and is the former chair of Department of Religious studies at Waterloo University. Her work is what initiated my interest in feminist theology on a personal note.

Annie

[Annie]

Pardon the grammar and punctuation, please. I'm rushing to New Year's Eve !

Happy New to all !

Annie xoxoxo

[IveyLeaguer]

Hello, Everyone. :smile:

Just a few thoughts after reading this thread and it's spinoff, "Influential Christian Women In History".

I don’t know the answer to the question. But if there was (or is) a great post-apostolic woman theologian whose contributions merit inclusion on anybody's short list, I’d like very much to know about her. Equally interesting are women of faith who made (or are making) great contributions to orthodox Christianity outside of theology proper, and there are many of them. Interesting, primarily, because of their life contributions and character. Gender rates some superficial interest, naturally, as it sheds light on individual circumstances and who they were. However, if we look at these women of God through 21st century gender glasses, male or female, we risk misunderstanding them and misrepresenting their contributions and the work they did for our Lord. I certainly don’t want to do that.

Without question, it is clear to me that the most important thing is to desire the truth and the pure facts of history, regardless of how we might feel about them. I believe it is a very dangerous thing to go probing through history, biblical or otherwise, seeking evidence to support or sustain a desired outcome, or worldview. Truth is hard enough to come by as it is. Worse, to then share the infected information with the people around you and much worse, to circulate it via print. Yet this has become commonplace in our society. In the secular world, with newspapers and to some degree publishing, this method has been repeated so many times over the past 30 - 35 years that it is seldom questioned anymore. Overall IMHO, for some time now, the inmates have been running the asylum.

Let me be clear that I have no particular work in mind or firsthand knowledge of this happening with any Christian work, though common sense says it must be. If not, given our culture and the state of Christianity today, it can only be a matter of a short time. Many, if not most of the secular rewritings will be corrected by future historians or simply die away. In all probability time will take care of them. But the slightest distortions of truth relating to Christianity, whether historical, theological or otherwise are a thing of an entirely different, yet superior, dimension. For just like what we do everyday, the consequences of errors within Christianity are ETERNAL. They transcend the present and the discernable future. For us, the people around us, and the people we love. Quite frankly, that scares me.
:pray:

[HiramAbiff_1]

Why do all the Calvinists get the press? lol

[bar Jonah]

They were predestined to it. :ahem:

[Jezz]

This article should really be titled: "The 5 Most Influential Theologians in Western Church History"

As I have discovered in the last twelve months, the Eastern theologians often developed theologies that differ from those in the West on important details. I think this "top 5" list reflects a very Western-centered approach to Christianity. Not wishing to pick on this author in particular as this is an attitude that seems ingrained in the West, but I don't think it is an attitude that is particularly helpful if our goal is really to learn the truth about God.

[Socrates]

12-31-2003 @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358708#post358708)
Annie:

Radford Ruether, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza amongst others. Mary T. Malone has done her part in bringing forgotten women from scripture, and the church into the forefront.

Good grief, female heretics like Ruether and Fiorenza are people I hope have NO influence! I don't know about the two others.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 07:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360493#post360493)
Jezz:

This article should really be titled: "The 5 Most Influential Theologians in Western Church History"

As I have discovered in the last twelve months, the Eastern theologians often developed theologies that differ from those in the West on important details. I think this "top 5" list reflects a very Western-centered approach to Christianity. Not wishing to pick on this author in particular as this is an attitude that seems ingrained in the West, but I don't think it is an attitude that is particularly helpful if our goal is really to learn the truth about God.

Who would you like? Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom?

[George Blaisdell]

Jezz:

This article should really be titled: "The 5 Most Influential Theologians in Western Church History"



You've got that right... The whole western tradition is based upon the errors of the Blessed Augustine, who repeatedly asked for, and never received, correction for his thinking from Constantinople.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.00.htm

So the article is correct in terms of the first of the western theologians, for they all have Augustine to answer to, in much the same way as the Greek Philosophers all had Homer to answer to..



As I have discovered in the last twelve months, the Eastern theologians often developed theologies that differ from those in the West on important details.


The eastern Fathers have been writing for 2000 years now, and indeed their writings are the writings of the Church, nd in this western list of the "Big 5" [isn't that a sporting goods company?], the only real father quoted is Blessed Augustine, and in the entire history of the Church, he was never regarded as a theologian, except in the west, which ended up splitting off from the whole eastern communion, attacking it and sacking Constantinople, and spawning the Protestant Reformation...




I think this "top 5" list reflects a very Western-centered approach to Christianity. Not wishing to pick on this author in particular as this is an attitude that seems ingrained in the West, but I don't think it is an attitude that is particularly helpful if our goal is really to learn the truth about God.

Well, it is good to see at least some of the western trained folks beginning to acquire some longer range vision that extends beyond the narrow confines of the western scholastic tradition.

The basic differentia of Eastern Theology from western is the beginning point, for in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, the entry level course that must be utterly mastered prior to making any theological conclusions is repentance - eg purity of heart - "Blessed are the pure of heart..." writes scripture... And why?? "Because they shall see God." And if you have not acquired purity of heart, and do not "see" God, you are simply not, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, a theologian... Almost all of the Orthodox theologians do not write about theology - and a huge number of them were illiterate... St. Arsenius the Great, who was a greatly educated man in the letters of Greek and Latin, and who educated two kings in Constantinople, learned theology from an illiterate dwarf in the Egyptian desert, after he was done educating future kings in Constantinople...

And when God finally enlightened the nous of Aquinas, who was not in the communion of the eastern Church, he never wrote or taught another word...

[geo] Arsenios

[bar Jonah]

Socrates:
Good grief, female heretics like Ruether and Fiorenza are people I hope have NO influence! I don't know about the two others.
What kind of heresy, just out of curiosity?

[Tercel]

I see Jezz and George beat me to it...
...given that the sum total of these theologians influence on Orthodoxy is approximately zero, I find it amusing that they are claimed as the 5 most influencial theologians of the history of the entire church.

Socrates wrote:
"Who would you like? Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom?"

Actually yes, those look very close to what I'd choose if I was choosing the 5 most influencial theologians on Eastern Christianity. Though Irenaeus, Maximus, John of Damascus, and Palamas also come to mind... also maybe Symeon, though he's not exactly a theologian in the Western understanding of the word.
If I had to go with five for the overall church, ie the original question of Christianity's five most influencial theologians, I think I'd choose:
Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, one of the Cappadocians* (dunno which, can I consider them "one" as a group... a Trinity of theologians maybe? :wink: Otherwise I suppose I'd go with Basil.), and Augustine.


*I'm aware a number of readers won't know who the Cappadocians are: They're Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa (who were brothers) and Gregory Nazianzus (best friend of Basil, and he taught Jerome), and together they were effectively the Augustine of the East. They lived in the 4th century, slightly before Augustine. Their influence in the West was limited, although the Catholic encylopedia calls Basil "one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church". Because they wrote in Greek (and were translated later and minimally into Latin) they were relatively unknown in the Latin-speaking west, and thus (very unfortunately) Augustine (who very very lamentably didn't speak Greek) didn't read their works (and nor could he read the Bible in the language it had been written) and hence he went in very different directions to them on a number of important issues. (eg the nature of Trinity, the state of man, salvation etc) If Augustine had been able to read the Cappadocian's writings it seems quite probable there would have never been an East/West split nor a Reformation. (And if the East had been able to read Augustine's Latin writings they'd probably have condemned him as a heretic on a number of counts)

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360831#post360831)
RightIdea:


Socrates:
Good grief, female heretics like Ruether and Fiorenza are people I hope have NO influence! I don't know about the two others.

What kind of heresy, just out of curiosity?

Denying the divine inspiration of Scripture, and instead claiming that it is part of patriarchal oppression.

[bar Jonah]

Socrates:
Denying the divine inspiration of Scripture, and instead claiming that it is part of patriarchal oppression.
And someone holds this person up as a great theologian? :doh:

[c968]

I had heard of Barth but was not familiar with him until yesterday reading the "Five Men" article above. After signing off I went to hunker down in a book I received for Christmas, "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin Lutzer, and who should be mentioned? Barth! Apparently he drafted a resolution called the Barmen
Confession which opposed Hitler's agenda to limit the influence of the confessing church in society. (Excellent book by the way - Moody Press.) May be a lesson for the confessing church today.

[Jaltus]

12-28-2003 @ 02:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=356803#post356803)
RightIdea:


Do you suggest, then, that they are theologians whose teaching aims only at women and children? And of so, can this be considered on a par with the same level of influence and impact of the great male theologians?

(I certainly do not dispute that women are potentially just as capable of being a great theologian as a man, in and of themselves. I hope no one misunderstands me on that point.)


I think there is a world of difference between being a teacher within the church such that one has spiritual authority and one being an author, which is not a position of spiritual authority. Thus, if one is a theologian who writes, your writings are in no way authoritative. Thus, women authors can be great theologians and have huge influence without being in spiritual authority. If you disagree, I recommend reading I Peter 2-3.

[George Blaisdell]

Tercel writes:

...given that the sum total of these theologians influence on Orthodoxy is approximately zero, I find it amusing that they are claimed as the 5 most influencial theologians of the history of the entire church.


I find it both shameful and tragic - They have only a scholastic approach to theology - A neo-scholastic one, where arguments win the day... And never see the year, let alone the life-time, let alone the age, and the age to come...

And even when someone is knowledgable about the fathers, it is in the same way that they are knowledgable about the Bible - Which is the way of scholastic division, rather than discipleship in the praxis of the faith...

At least some are beginning to look at the Holy Fathers, and discover an understanding of the faith that can only be puzzling to them...



*I'm aware a number of readers won't know who the Cappadocians are:


More than 9 out of 10 on this forum, I should imagine...

These are the early pillars of the Church as She emerged out from under the first 3 centuries of persecutions - And was made the politically correct Church, generating a flood of believers who fled the cities and went to the deserts so that they could practice the faith away from the crowds of more "civilized" Christians... In the desert where they can contend and struggle for the faith, and overcome [in Christ] the demonic powers of this age...



If Augustine had been able to read the Cappadocian's writings it seems quite probable there would have never been an East/West split nor a Reformation. (And if the East had been able to read Augustine's Latin writings they'd probably have condemned him as a heretic on a number of counts)

That's about right... The distances involved in 'letters' making it from one place to another in the primitive conditions of the times was a huge contributing factor... One would often have to wait 2 years and more for a reply, IF it [the reply] and the letter sent were not lost at sea, or afoot, or caravan... It was not uncommon to send several copies of replies with different voyagers in hopes that one might get the letter delivered...

And Augustine was pretty much left on his own at Hippo, and was doubtless a good Church Father, without being a very good theologian... And his methodology was that of speculative rational enquiry, which is utterly contrary to the origins of Christianity - Christ had knowledge, not enquiry...

But the fact that the author of this article regards these 5 thinkers as the most influential Christian theologians of all time is a sorry commentary in itself on western myopic self-absorption... With God's grace, I pray that this condition will improve... We have real, living, Orthodox saints in the US now, and their presence is having growing impact...

[geo] Arsenios

[Jezz]

Tercel:
If Augustine had been able to read the Cappadocian's writings it seems quite probable there would have never been an East/West split nor a Reformation.
What I find most interesting is that many of the points where the Reformers disagreed with the Catholics were the same ones where the Orthodox never agreed with the Catholics. Of the remaining points where the Orthodox and the Protestants (specifically the more traditional strands such as Lutheran and traditional Anglican), I see mainly differences in (and mutual misunderstanding of) terminology than in actual differences in doctrine. Also some points where the Protestants have over-reacted against Catholic abuse of certain doctrines so that they have gone too far in the other direction.


George Blaisdell:
That's about right... The distances involved in 'letters' making it from one place to another in the primitive conditions of the times was a huge contributing factor... One would often have to wait 2 years and more for a reply, IF it [the reply] and the letter sent were not lost at sea, or afoot, or caravan... It was not uncommon to send several copies of replies with different voyagers in hopes that one might get the letter delivered...
I think you are 100% correct George. If only they had the internet in those days, then there might never have been any Great Schism. Actually, it is precisely for this reason that I have great hope that we are on the verge of a new age where (God willing) the miscommunications of the past will rectified and centuries-old schisms healed.

[Tercel]

George Blaisdell wrote:
I find it both shameful and tragic - They have only a scholastic approach to theology - A neo-scholastic one, where arguments win the day... And never see the year, let alone the life-time, let alone the age, and the age to come...

And even when someone is knowledgable about the fathers, it is in the same way that they are knowledgable about the Bible - Which is the way of scholastic division, rather than discipleship in the praxis of the faith...George, I was a liberal Protestant when I discovered Orthodoxy. I confess that I have never really appreciated what you say here - for me, one of the strongest pulls of Orthodoxy is that logically and scholastically it is far better than the Western systems. I think you undersell Orthodoxy when you try to pretend it's not logical and is instead purely experiential. Yes, sure, it's very experiential, but it's not purely experiential, it's also very logical and Biblical, and far more so than the Western systems in my opinion. Let me assure you that Orthodoxy has nothing to fear from Western logic or Biblical scholarship: Both have led me to Orthodoxy.


And Augustine was pretty much left on his own at Hippo, and was doubtless a good Church Father, without being a very good theologian... And his methodology was that of speculative rational enquiry, which is utterly contrary to the origins of Christianity - Christ had knowledge, not enquiry...Well I agree with you about Augustine, but you do have to sympathise with him - even your theological beginner today can grab a interlinear and check the Greek behind their translations, it wasn't entirely his fault that he was dependent upon a dubious translation. It's unfortunately the West has relied on him so heavily though given he is so completely different to all the Eastern theologians.


But the fact that the author of this article regards these 5 thinkers as the most influential Christian theologians of all time is a sorry commentary in itself on western myopic self-absorption... With God's grace, I pray that this condition will improve...Actually, I have to worry that it won't: As far as I can tell a very large number of learned theologians are converting individually to Orthodoxy as soon as they discover it (pseudo-"Liberals" such as myself seem to be particularly suseptible). The increase in Orthodoxy in America's therefore going to spell bad news as it's going to suck a lot of the open-minded intellectuals out of Protestantism and we're going to be left with an evangelical mess coordinated by the closed-minded and the theologically ignorant.


Jezz wrote:
What I find most interesting is that many of the points where the Reformers disagreed with the Catholics were the same ones where the Orthodox never agreed with the Catholics. Of the remaining points where the Orthodox and the Protestants (specifically the more traditional strands such as Lutheran and traditional Anglican), I see mainly differences in (and mutual misunderstanding of) terminology than in actual differences in doctrine. Also some points where the Protestants have over-reacted against Catholic abuse of certain doctrines so that they have gone too far in the other direction.What particular doctrines are you thinking of? I can think of a couple, but I think in many ways the Protestants have become less Orthodox than the RCC. For example, I think that the Calvinists are probably the least Orthodox of all major Christians groups.

[George Blaisdell]

Tercel observes:

George, I was a liberal Protestant when I discovered Orthodoxy. I confess that I have never really appreciated what you say here - for me, one of the strongest pulls of Orthodoxy is that logically and scholastically it is far better than the Western systems.


Sssshhhh!!! :-)

Let them discover this on their own... Of course it uses the whole Bible! Of course it renders a "better scholastic account"! Of course it is better in every way - It is the original and apostolic Church, the Pillar and Ground of Truth! Of course it makes more sense of everything, for it does not have to try to wring truth from printed words on paper, but lives in the radiance of the Holy Tradition of the Holy Spirit... Received from the Apostles themselves, from Christ Himself...

But the problem is, for Protestants, that if they approach it Scholastically, and they ARE children of Scholasticism, they will convert on the basis of reason, and not on the basis of faith...

I mean, my degree, from SDSU, is in Philosophy - Greek philosophy - from the original language... I turn from Philosophy knowing well that every argument has a counter argument, and nothing ever comes of arguments but arguing...

So I am probably overboard a tad on my lack of faith in reason - but Ido have faith in the calling of God...



I think you undersell Orthodoxy when you try to pretend it's not logical and is instead purely experiential.


I hope so! In fact, I hope I am not selling it at all!! Faith does not rest on logic, yet the Orthodox faith is pre-eminently logical, no question... My pretence to the contrary notwithstanding!



Yes, sure, it's very experiential, but it's not purely experiential, it's also very logical and Biblical, and far more so than the Western systems in my opinion.


That's a fact, but to ARGUE for it plays into the hands of the neo-Scholasticism which it is NOT - Can you see this?? The witness for Orthodoxy is the life lived, and the death died, not the words argued, yes? The words are secondary, and but a means of avoiding error,yet the faith is gained in action, by the whole person, and not just by his or her mouth and lips - And faith is not just a matter of mental assent, but of how we live, and what we do - Without this, we are but intellective hippocrites, presuming our mouths and minds will get us to heaven...



Let me assure you that Orthodoxy has nothing to fear from Western logic or Biblical scholarship: Both have led me to Orthodoxy.


Glory to God!

Orthodoxy has nothing to fear but but the Lord and Her own sins...

[geo] Arsenios

[Jezz]

Tercel:
What particular doctrines are you thinking of? I can think of a couple, but I think in many ways the Protestants have become less Orthodox than the RCC. For example, I think that the Calvinists are probably the least Orthodox of all major Christians groups.
I agree with you about many Protestants denominations (eg Calvinist denominations), which is why when I wrote "specifically the more traditional strands such as Lutheran and traditional Anglican" (emphasis added). I think the problem with Protestantism in general is that because the RCC smuggled many new innovations into church doctrine under the guise of "tradition", Protestantism has over-reacted and now sees "tradition" as almost a dirty word. Lutheranism and Anglicanism do this the least of all Protestant denominations. For example, the Lutherans still hold to some sort of "mystery" in the sacraments of baptism and eucharist - they believe that they are something a little more important than a mere symbolic re-enactment (which is something that most Protestant churches have discarded).

As for doctrinal changes where I think Protestantism reverted back to Orthodoxy: the principle doctrine I had in mind was of course the one of papal authority. Of course, the Eastern churches never accepted papal authority, and ultimately it was the dogmatic adherence to papal authority that led to the Reformation. So that is the most important area where I think that the Reformation came closer to Orthodoxy. I think that all of the RCC's failings can ultimately be traced back to this.

More specific examples would include purgatory, and of course the one that started the ball rolling: indulgences.

Then there are examples of doctrines that I think that were abused by the RCC and to which the Protestants rightly objected, but in their subsequent anti-Catholic polemic went too far in the opposite direction. In this category would fall the veneration of Mary and the saints, monasticism, the deuterocanonical scriptures, and the relationship between tradition and scripture.

Finally, there are examples of doctrines where I think there is fundamental agreement, but due to different wording and terminology (not to mention a healthy dose of polemic) on either side they tend to "talk past each other" and not realise that they actually agree. In this category would fall the filioque controversy, and the relationship between salvation, faith and works (and the same may even be said of the Catholics for these controversies). Possibly also the different understandings of the eucharist may fall in this category as well (the more I try to investigate the difference between the Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran beliefs of the Eucharist, the more I struggle to see a real difference...).

I'd be interested in going into some of this in more detail at some stage (I'd like to get input from you and George) but unfortunately I'm a little busy right now... but I hope to get to it at some point in the future.

[Tercel]

Jezz,

Yeah, Papal (non)supremacy is certainly one that Orthodox and Protestants agree upon. (Be careful in saying "Papal authority" as that could be ambiguously taken as suggesting that we deny the Pope has any authority! :nc: )

But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't match. The Protestants have taken the post-Anselmian Roman Catholic paradigm and made it even less Orthodox than the RCC already was. Looking at the "justification" controversy of the Reformation, I'd have to say that the RCC position is a lot closer to Orthodoxy than the Protestant one was. When the Lutherans entered discussions with Constantinople shortly after the Reformation, one of the biggest sticking points was the Lutheran's ideas on Justification. But if the "New Perspective" succeeds in destroying the traditional Protestant view on Justification and the Anselmian paradigm, serious discussion might well be possible.


Then there are examples of doctrines that I think that were abused by the RCC and to which the Protestants rightly objected, but in their subsequent anti-Catholic polemic went too far in the opposite direction. In this category would fall the veneration of Mary and the saints, monasticism, the deuterocanonical scriptures, and the relationship between tradition and scripture.Hmm... I wouldn't have thought Orthodoxy would rate much better than the RCC from a Protestant point of view on these issues. As far as I know, Orthodoxy venerates Mary the saints, and has monestries just as much as the RCC. It certainly has the deutero's too, though they are usually regarded as having lesser authority in Orthodoxy than in the RCC.


Finally, there are examples of doctrines where I think there is fundamental agreement... the filioque controversyHmmmmmmmmmmm. The more I study this one, the more I think there is disagreement: But the disagreement isn't really summed up perfectly by the filioque - it's a more fundamental different in methods of approaching the doctrine of the Trinity (eg How distinct are the persons? In what way is it true to say they share the same substance? Can each be reduced to its relations to the others or do they have some fundamentally different attributes?) of which the filioque is a symptom. It is difficult to follow sometimes, because even if both agree on a certain wording they do not always mean the same thing.
But I am yet to be convinced that disagreement on the issue is important.

[bigred94champs]

Does it mean I am stupid if I have never heard of Karl Barth? :huh:

[George Blaisdell]

bigred94champs wrote:

Does it mean I am stupid if I have never heard of Karl Barth? :huh:



My friend, it does not mean you are stupid at all! It means you are fortunate, indeed even blessed, with great cause for rejoicing and glorifying God...

Makarios is the Greek word for the meaning of such ignorance!!

OK, So I go overboard a tad...

I never heard of him either... But I must say that I am so spoiled by reading the Fathers that I really have a hard time even beginning to read Protestant literature... And when I do, I bog down quickly...

[geo] Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

Tercel writes:

> Then there are examples of doctrines that I think that were abused by the RCC and to which the Protestants rightly objected, but in their subsequent anti-Catholic polemic went too far in the opposite direction. In this category would fall the veneration of Mary and the saints, monasticism, the deuterocanonical scriptures, and the relationship between tradition and scripture.


There is, at least in the US, a kind of knee-jerk Romo-phobia that has a problem with any doctrine that happens to be held bbby the Roman Church... A kind of "If Rome's for it, then I'm against it" kind of insanity... And individuals of this type frequently take great pleasure in denigrating Rome, and her faithful... Casting huge judgement upon Her... To everyone's loss... We are not Christ, chastizing and warning the Jews whom He loved... We are but sinners, under obedience to judge not, knowing that as we judge, so we are judged... Hence we heap judgement upon ourselves when we judge the faithful of Rome...

Mary is most certainly venerated in Orthodoxy, though we do not agre with the Roman Church that she was "immaculately conceived" - Though who can doubt that she conceived immaculately our Lord? Yet Joachim and Anna, her mother and father, conceived her in the regular way...

And we have monasticism that is unknown to the west, and a really important part of summer travels is the going on pilgrimages to monasteries, for great blessings are found there...



But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't match.


Exactly correct - For the Orthodox, salvation is found in a life lived faithfully to the end, and the responsibility for living one's life is one's own, in terms of repentance, yet is wholly God's, in terms of grace... The whole of this Divine-human process is called synergy, and most Protestants take a wary view of the idea that fallen man can have anything to do with his salvation, and interpret the Orthodox understanding to mean that man is the cause of his salvation, which he is not - Yet just as Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, so does man have the ability to squander the abundance of God's grace, and if a person fails in repentance, he falls from God's graces, even though the fall itself is gracious...



I'd have to say that the RCC position is a lot closer to Orthodoxy than the Protestant one was.


We were in communion for the first thousand years - We have never been in communion with Protestants, for thir doctrines are multifarious and innovative, and the faith for us has not and will never change, and is a Mystery entered, and not merely a statement of words believed... Though the words are important...



When the Lutherans entered discussions with Constantinople shortly after the Reformation, one of the biggest sticking points was the Lutheran's ideas on Justification.


Yes, the Patriarch regarded them as innovations... And they were... And he cut off the debate - Christianity is not up for debate in Orthodoxy...



Hmm... I wouldn't have thought Orthodoxy would rate much better than the RCC from a Protestant point of view on these issues. As far as I know, Orthodoxy venerates Mary and the saints, and has monasteries just as much as the RCC.


Monasticism emerged when Christianity became official, for there were many ho-hum Christians after Constantine - It became a social, rather than a persecuted, religion, almost political, and indeed often political, when the emperor made it the official religion of the land... And in response to this, many Christians left the population centers and went to the desert, that they could follow the apostolic faith apostolically, away from the cares and temptations of the world, and under the tuteledge of the great desert fathers... For they found this socialized and political Christianity too tame, and too compromised, and desired to utterlly dedicate their lives to prayer, fasting, and God, learning at the feet of others who had done so and guided them in their struggles, just as Jesus guided the apostles, and they guided the early Church, and the saints of that Church guided and fathered those after them... The faith is received in part in this manner, and in part through intercessory prayer, and all in the Holy Spirit...

There is only one monasticism in Orthodoxy, both for men and for women, in several forms [structures of arrangements for living] - You do not have, say, Benedictine monks, or Franciscan monks, and the like, but just monks... Living austere lives - Remember Paul telling the Corinthians [I think it was] that he had more to teach them, but that they were unable to bear the teachings he had in mind for them... Austere askesis [under a Holy Father like Paul] is the teaching to which he referred - And they were sstill hung up on petty and superficial issues, while Paul wanted to take them into teachings that are really hard, and are taught in Spirit, in prayer, hardship and toils, establishing in fact and in deed the denial of self Christ enjoined His followers to DO...

Chhristianity is doing, not merely thinking, and the doing of self denial, the doing of the taking up of one's cross, and the doing of following Him, are great and agonizing undertakings, leading to purification of the heart, and in that softness, the theoria, the 'seeing' of God... It is a hard and narrow way, not for the faint of heart, requiring all one's strength and will and heart and soul... Unto the mortification of one's members, and the wholehearted turning toward God in Spirit and in Truth...

Those who walk this path successfully become God bearing saints, and when we venerate them [after death], we honor the God they bear, for His is their Life, and to scorn them would be to scorn God....

Orthodox monastics are not ordinary people - Just as the Apostles were not, after their discipleship came to an end, nor was Paul, nor Barnabus, nor are any of those who overcome in the Church... Who attain unto completion and perfection in Christ...

The apostolic [perfected] saints are the secret weapons of the faith in Orthodoxy - They are like the Jedi, in that two of them can take over a whole country, except spiritually, not physically...

'nuff...

[geo] Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

Tercel Writes:

But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't But I think the big problem in Orthodox-Protestant relations is that the fundemental paradigm of salvation doesn't match. The Protestants have taken the post-Anselmian Roman Catholic paradigm and made it even less Orthodox than the RCC already was. Looking at the "justification" controversy of the Reformation, I'd have to say that the RCC position is a lot closer to Orthodoxy than the Protestant one was.


Perhaps the biggest paradigm difference is the role of praxis in Orthodoxy, vs the role of thinking in most Protestant confessions... For the west, what you think determines what you believe, and what you believe is your faith, and if you have faith, God will do His works through you...
In Orthodoxy, what you do IS your faith, which is why we confess to being so faithless, for we look at our actions, and how far from God the vast majority of them are... viz: "If I REALLY believed in Christ, I would not behave as I do, nor argue as I do, nor eat as I do, nor do most of the things I do the way that I do, but with fear and reverence and in prayer would I do all things whatsoever, never turning from God to self..." Yet every time we get irritated with that jerk that just cut us off in traffic, or listen to some juicy tidbit of gossip about that womanizer So-and-so, or laugh at an off-color joke, we turn blatantly from God to self and sin...

And the "running of the race set before us" is in great measure the gradual process of DOING more of what is of God, and LESS of what is of self...

So that for the Orthodox, Faith is not what you think, but what you DO, and what a Christian person does is to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Christ... That is what the Church does for you, for it disciples you in the arena of faith, and teaches you what to do to acquire the nous of Christ - And no, you can't just go grab some of it from off the shelf, for it is given by grace, not by your effort, yet without your repentance, your cleansing of one's foul heart, even if you receive great grace, you will stain the gift, and will not be able to hold much of it at all... If any...

So that it is the DOING of faith that matters in discipleship, and not so much the formulation of the words and the verbal understandings of it, that matter for salvation... God does not repent FOR us, but enables us TO repent, yet it is WE who must repent, and faith is the doing of repentance, and a part of that involves acquiring the mind of the Orthodox Church, and the matters of the words of understanding that mind have been pretty well worked out over 2000 years now...

Yet for Protestants, debate seems to be the key matter of faith, reading the bible and arguing over what it means, in proofs and counterproofs, and denominational division after denominational division, as people cannot come to agreement... There is very little of this in Orthodoxy - Where one's words do not define the faith, but one's actions do...

And yes, the words are important...

[geo] Arsenios

[John Reece]

Your posts are edifying, George.

Thanks.

[tsmethers]

I guess I misunderstand what qualifies a person as a theologian. I understand theology to be the study of the nature of God and religious truth; that is, rational inquiry into religious questions.

Under that definition, wouldn't Jesus, Paul and Peter qualify?

[George Blaisdell]

Today
tsmethers:

I guess I misunderstand what qualifies a person as a theologian. I understand theology to be the study of the nature of God and religious truth; that is, rational inquiry into religious questions.

Under that definition, wouldn't Jesus, Paul and Peter qualify?


Would Jesus qualify as a theologian??? What a question!! Does God know God?

I mean, in those terms, ts, Jesus is the ONLY theologian! Paul and Peter only qualify insofar as they have acquired the nous of Christ, yes?

Yet in Orthodox terms, and we have very few theologians who write about it, a theologian is someone who has purified his or her heart, and then has 'seen' God... Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God..."

"Theology... the study of the nature of God and religious truth... rational enquiry into religious questions..."

In the Orthodox tradition, this is certainly one of the meanings of theology, and is taught at the seminaries, but this is secondary theology, which is the study of the fathers who wrote about it from experience - And it is these fathers, pure in heart, who have 'seen' God, who are the real theologians, and some of these write about it... For them, theology is rational, but not enquiry, for it is descriptive of revelation, and not at all logically derived from written words, yet is described in terms of these words, normally, for these are the words of the Church... And innovation of description is almost every time a sure sign of vainglory, so that they begin their writings by quoting those who have gone before, and apply previous thought to present issues... Properly done, the theologian seems to be only giving other accounts a particular application...

In the Protestant tradition, everyone is their own theologian, whereas in Orthodoxy, the theology of the fathers is pretty well worked out, and if you want to study it, the literature is vast and deep - Try reading Being as Communion by Zizoulas, if you like a highly intellective theological work...

But the crux is that it is not one's theology that saves, but God's grace working in the Church of the faithful...

[geo] Arsenios

[George Blaisdell]

Today

John Reece:

Your posts are edifying, George.

Thanks.


Nice to see you John - I know that these are issues for the retired - And for me too, for that matter - Even though I am just tired, and not re-tired... My tires are still pretty OK... Kinda... :-)

But enough about mental illness!! [word salads and loose connectives]

Thanks for your appreciation...

[geo] Arsenios

[tsmethers]

Today @ 01:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=368858#post368858)
George Blaisdell:

Would Jesus qualify as a theologian??? What a question!! Does God know God?

I mean, in those terms, ts, Jesus is the ONLY theologian! Paul and Peter only qualify insofar as they have acquired the nous of Christ, yes?

Thank you for the response. I believe you've caught the intent of my post. I also believe in reading both of our postings that we've ignored another perfect theologian. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2:

[11] For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.

While I agree that Peter and Paul acquired the nous (Thank you so much for the introduction to a new word/concept. I had to rush to my dictionary for further clarification.) of Christ, they in equal part receive the nous of the Spirit.


Yet in Orthodox terms, and we have very few theologians who write about it, a theologian is someone who has purified his or her heart, and then has 'seen' God... "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God..."

I'm not sure I hold to this same idea or, probably more likely, that I understand it entirely. No person can purify his/her own heart. This again is the providence of the Spirit. A person can ask for and receive it but they can not achieve this on their own.


"Theology... the study of the nature of God and religious truth... rational inquiry into religious questions..."

In the Orthodox tradition, this is certainly one of the meanings of theology, and is taught at the seminaries, but this is secondary theology, which is the study of the fathers who wrote about it from experience - And it is these fathers, pure in heart, who have 'seen' God, who are the real theologians, and some of these write about it... For them, theology is rational, but not enquiry, for it is descriptive of revelation, and not at all logically derived from written words, yet is described in terms of these words, normally, for these are the words of the Church... And innovation of description is almost every time a sure sign of vainglory, so that they begin their writings by quoting those who have gone before, and apply previous thought to present issues... Properly done, the theologian seems to be only giving other accounts a particular application...

In the Protestant tradition, everyone is their own theologian, whereas in Orthodoxy, the theology of the fathers is pretty well worked out, and if you want to study it, the literature is vast and deep - Try reading Being as Communion by Zizoulas, if you like a highly intellective theological work...

The definition I used is standard dictionary fare. I really wasn’t sure what criteria the author intended and wanted to know really what it is was that excluded those I mentioned. Thank you for the book reference. Thank you also for your views on this in relation to Orthodox and Protestant tradition. However, given that I belong to neither, in my understanding of them, it will have little impact on me. I am a Christian. My basis for this is 1 Corinthians. 1:12-13 (ESV):

[12]What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

But maybe this is not the proper area for the continuation of this topic.


But the crux is that it is not one's theology that saves, but God's grace working in the Church of the faithful...

[geo] Arsenios

Absolutely. Again thank you for your response to my posting. In Him, Todd.

[Tercel]

George,

I think you might be misunderstanding what the Romans mean by "immaculate conception" - it is understood as meaning that the birth took place without the taint of original sin being passed on to the child. It doesn't mean "virgin birth". The Romans believe that Mary and Jesus were spared from the taint of original sin and that Jesus was born of a virgin but Mary wasn't. Thus they say both Mary and Jesus were immaculately conceived, and Jesus was born of a virgin.

The Orthodox position seems to be that both Mary and Jesus were not spared the taint of the original sin and were both fully subject to its effects. (We, of course, agree with the RCC about the virgin birth though.) Thus we deny immaculate conception for both Jesus and Mary, and agree that Jesus was born of a virgin.


Tsmethers,

Generally, when the word "theologian" is used it refers to a post-apostletic Christian who is quite learned in the doctrines of Christianity about God and his workings. Orthodoxy is a slight exception here - in its very hands-on view of theology it is happy to call mystics "theologians" - eg "St Symeon the New Theologian". (Orthodoxy also grants John the apostle the title "Theologian" too)

[George Blaisdell]

Tercel writes:

George,

I think you might be misunderstanding what the Romans mean by "immaculate conception"


Being wrong is almost a specialty with me... I can be wrong being right... And usually am... In fact, I can't remember being right when I was right...



- it is understood as meaning that the birth took place without the taint of original sin being passed on to the child.


The Orthodox theological principle that governs its understanding of this matter is that what has not been assumed [by Christ] is not healed by Him through His incarnation, and that He assumed our entire human nature through Mary, who received it from Joachim and Anna - The big differentiating factor in the birth of Christ [relative to the Theotokos] is the absence of sex in His conception, for he is in every way human except for sin... And He very much was NOT conceived in sin, and for us to be born into Him in His body, the Church, we have to turn from sin as well...

But to deny the EFFECTS of sin - eg the fall - to be present in either the Theotokos or Christ, Who received His humanity from her - is to deny the efficaciousness of the Incarnation... For it is our very fallenness that he assumes unto himself that we be transformed in His sinless Life...

God not subject to sin is and was already present in the world, and He is the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by the prophets... The reason Christ took on our corruptible flesh was to raise it to incorruption by His Life, "Trampling down death by death," as we sing every liturgy... And the result is that there is human flesh, albiet glorified human flesh, Christ's human flesh, now seated at the right of God the Father in the Godhead of creation...

THAT, my friend, is an AWESOME fact!



It doesn't mean "virgin birth". The Romans believe that Mary and Jesus were spared from the taint of original sin and that Jesus was born of a virgin but Mary wasn't. Thus they say both Mary and Jesus were immaculately conceived, and Jesus was born of a virgin.


Well, Rome can speak for Herself, but Christ being subject to sin is the only way He can overcome it, for what is not assumed is not atoned in His resurrection...



The Orthodox position seems to be that both Mary and Jesus were not spared the taint of the original sin and were both fully subject to its effects. (We, of course, agree with the RCC about the virgin birth though.) Thus we deny immaculate conception for both Jesus and Mary, and agree that Jesus was born of a virgin.


Sounds pretty Orthodox to me...

Is the Orthodox understanding beginning to make more sense now?

[geo] Arsenios

[TWells]

Hi,


Tercel:
George, I was a liberal Protestant when I discovered Orthodoxy. I confess that I have never really appreciated what you say here - for me, one of the strongest pulls of Orthodoxy is that logically and scholastically it is far better than the Western systems. I think you undersell Orthodoxy when you try to pretend it's not logical and is instead purely experiential. Yes, sure, it's very experiential, but it's not purely experiential, it's also very logical and Biblical, and far more so than the Western systems in my opinion. Let me assure you that Orthodoxy has nothing to fear from Western logic or Biblical scholarship: Both have led me to Orthodoxy.
This has been one thing that has been kind of hard to reconcile on my way to Orthodoxy. The mindsets are very different in this respect. I do think sometimes though that its somewhat of a overreaction. Im really anxious to see what kind of effect all these western, former protestants entering Orthodox seminaries will have and how the Church will react to it. It does seem though that Orthodoxy is begginning to respond. For instance, John Behr a professor from St. Vladamirs Seminary in New York (I think) recently published the first volume in a three part series on the development of Church doctrine and addresses many issues commonly brought up by recent historical Jesus and Pauline studies and the introduction indicates he wants to pursue this direction. NT Wright's work on the historical Jesus orginally turned me on to Orthodoxy, especially in the area of the Atonement. Which from what I understand he himself is pretty sympathetic to Orthodoxy, according to my Priest who is a convert from Anglicanism and edited some of his work.

[Tercel]

Do you think Wright might follow Pelikan and finally admit he's Orthodox at the end? ...although seeing as how high up Wright is in the Anglican church he might have difficultly doing this. It would be a major coup (and very very cool), I think, if Wright said "Orthodoxy is more Biblical than Protestantism" and converted.

[TWells]

Not at all. When my Priest converted this was something he actually spoke with him about a few times.

[Tercel]

Since I was critical of the original post in this thread, I thought I'd try and do it slightly better myself. Here are my efforts for a brief presentation of the greatest theologians:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16911

[D.R.R.]

Many of you may know that, being the arrogant old ritualistic Romanist that I am, while I adore Augustine and Aquinas, I'm not particularly pleased with Calvin (I don't care for Luther, either, though I'll leave him for another thread). A poor reprobate like me doesn't think too highly of Calvin's doctrines.

[Noesis]

01-10-2004 @ 02:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=370828#post370828)
George Blaisdell:The Orthodox theological principle that governs its understanding of this matter is that what has not been assumed [by Christ] is not healed by Him through His incarnation, and that He assumed our entire human nature through Mary, who received it from Joachim and Anna - The big differentiating factor in the birth of Christ [relative to the Theotokos] is the absence of sex in His conception, for he is in every way human except for sin... And He very much was NOT conceived in sin, and for us to be born into Him in His body, the Church, we have to turn from sin as well...

But to deny the EFFECTS of sin - eg the fall - to be present in either the Theotokos or Christ, Who received His humanity from her - is to deny the efficaciousness of the Incarnation... For it is our very fallenness that he assumes unto himself that we be transformed in His sinless Life...

God not subject to sin is and was already present in the world, and He is the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by the prophets... The reason Christ took on our corruptible flesh was to raise it to incorruption by His Life, "Trampling down death by death," as we sing every liturgy... And the result is that there is human flesh, albiet glorified human flesh, Christ's human flesh, now seated at the right of God the Father in the Godhead of creation...

THAT, my friend, is an AWESOME fact!

Well, Rome can speak for Herself, but Christ being subject to sin is the only way He can overcome it, for what is not assumed is not atoned in His resurrection...
[geo] Arsenios

One of the real attractions of Eastern Orthodoxy is a theological base that as far as I have been able to discern is generally explicable and defensible from scripture and has the quality of an overall reasonableness that requires less of the camel-swallowing contortions demanded by RCC doctrines. But then there's still all the ceremonialism arising from a refusal to give up temple style worship and hierarchies, icons, saints, etc. which is all idolatry and crowds out the center of the faith, that being the incarnate Son of God, Jesus, who was very personal and immediate in his relationships with others in life, and all Christians hope, I think, that He remains so today.

To me, spiritual bankruptcy is a necessary consequence of a faith that empahsizes the adoration of God above intimacy with the Savior. It is accepting salvation from hell as being the end goal, and for me, who cares? I've got real issues in the here and now of my present existence and can't wait till I'm dead for the answers and resolution. My existence requires meaning and resolution in every instant, not in the afterlife alone.

If Jesus was the Incarnation, He did not come among us to save from punishment in the afterlife. He came to save us in the now, this very instant, and every instant of our existence. We are His creation, but we are also His friends and family, and I can't imagine Jesus finding anything but pity for the breast-beating sycophancy the ancient churches inculcate into their followers, and in my mind most follow the church more than the Lord, or at least more than they should. Jesus came to end all that if I understand the Letter to the Hebrews, in fact the whole of scripture correctly. His prophets before Him tried to make the Jews understand that all their ceremonies had become odious to Him, not simply because of communal and individual sin, but because of where the sin came from, i.e. the growing gap between the people and their God as the focus became the form of worship and not the substance of the Creator and His interest in and willingness to be manifest in our every moment of being.

If you're taking full advantage of all that Jesus offers, I don't see how you find time for idols, incense, chanting, processions and costumes, and the unwarranted pride of affiliation that all that grandeur provokes.

The monasatics no doubt got some things wrong, but those that focused on clearing out the clutter and getting down to the essentials of experiencing the moment-to-moment Presence and intimacy of Jesus...if there's anything of value in a Christian life, that's it. So from that viewpoint, though I think many of them were mentally ill, or at least severely emotionally disturbed, the Mystics, whether John, Teresa, Catherine or whomever, were at least searching for the right thing. Maybe they are not theologians, but I get more out of the poetry of a mystic than I ever got out of years of reading "theologians." In fact I am quite sure the quality of my spiritual life would have been much better through the years if I'd never read a systematic or the writings of anyone who ever had written one.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=373736#post373736)
D.R.R.:

Many of you may know that, being the arrogant old ritualistic Romanist that I am, while I adore Augustine and Aquinas, I'm not particularly pleased with Calvin (I don't care for Luther, either, though I'll leave him for another thread). A poor reprobate like me doesn't think too highly of Calvin's doctrines.

/me slips him Jansens Augustiniana

[One Bad Pig]

01-08-2004 @ 12:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=367668#post367668)
George Blaisdell:


George, I'm finding your posts to be quite edifying.



We are not Christ, chastizing and warning the Jews whom He loved... We are but sinners, under obedience to judge not, knowing that as we judge, so we are judged... Hence we heap judgement upon ourselves when we judge the faithful of Rome...

Indeed. I do my best to keep this in mind, but I fail on occasion.


For the Orthodox, salvation is found in a life lived faithfully to the end, and the responsibility for living one's life is one's own, in terms of repentance, yet is wholly God's, in terms of grace... The whole of this Divine-human process is called synergy, and most Protestants take a wary view of the idea that fallen man can have anything to do with his salvation, and interpret the Orthodox understanding to mean that man is the cause of his salvation, which he is not - Yet just as Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, so does man have the ability to squander the abundance of God's grace, and if a person fails in repentance, he falls from God's graces, even though the fall itself is gracious...


Once Protestants correctly understand the Orthodox position, I think they'll have much less cause for alarm. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement above -- with the exception of the last clause, which I freely admit I don't understand.




Monasticism emerged when Christianity became official, for there were many ho-hum Christians after Constantine - It became a social, rather than a persecuted, religion, almost political, and indeed often political, when the emperor made it the official religion of the land... And in response to this, many Christians left the population centers and went to the desert, that they could follow the apostolic faith apostolically, away from the cares and temptations of the world, and under the tuteledge of the great desert fathers... For they found this socialized and political Christianity too tame, and too compromised, and desired to utterlly dedicate their lives to prayer, fasting, and God, learning at the feet of others who had done so and guided them in their struggles, just as Jesus guided the apostles, and they guided the early Church, and the saints of that Church guided and fathered those after them... The faith is received in part in this manner, and in part through intercessory prayer, and all in the Holy Spirit...

I agree with your estimation of Constantine's effects, but disagree that monasticism was the correct way to cope. We are called to be in the world (though not of it) and to show Christ to others through our daily lives, not run away and hide ourselves in a cloister.



Chhristianity is doing, not merely thinking, and the doing of self denial, the doing of the taking up of one's cross, and the doing of following Him, are great and agonizing undertakings, leading to purification of the heart, and in that softness, the theoria, the 'seeing' of God... It is a hard and narrow way, not for the faint of heart, requiring all one's strength and will and heart and soul... Unto the mortification of one's members, and the wholehearted turning toward God in Spirit and in Truth...

Exactly! :thumb:



Orthodox monastics are not ordinary people - Just as the Apostles were not, after their discipleship came to an end, nor was Paul, nor Barnabus, nor are any of those who overcome in the Church... Who attain unto completion and perfection in Christ...

This, however, I must disagree with. We're ALL ordinary people, sinners saved by grace. No one living on this earth has attained perfection. Paul called himself the chief of all sinners, and that resonates with me. I fall so short sometimes. :frown:

[Noesis]

Yesterday @ 07:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=383855#post383855)
One Bad Pig:I agree with your estimation of Constantine's effects, but disagree that monasticism was the correct way to cope. We are called to be in the world (though not of it) and to show Christ to others through our daily lives, not run away and hide ourselves in a cloister.I like you already OBP. I like your heart.

I spend a couple of weeks a year with the Trappists as a time of retreat from the world and all the clutter of daily life, but the point is to go back into the clutter with a refreshed vision and purpose. I think the monastic life has it's place. Gethsemani and monasteries like it are focal points of renewal for many people, and in that way I think they serve the kingdom as much as a local pastor or priest. They also make some outstanding fudge.

But I think most Christians, precisely as you say, will find their best destiny in the middle of things, being light and salt. Yet at the same time I'm sad that Christians for the most part remain so worldy, even reflecting the worst the world has to offer at times, and by that I don't mean simply being unspiritual, but being competitive, aggressive, condemnatory and antagonistic.

A hundred years ago the US church was trying to comfort the world and make it a paradise where the hungry are fed and the cold sheltered. Now it seems to have fallen prey to a lust for temporal power and secular dominance that I am certain is as repugnant to God today as it was when Jesus rebuked the rulers of Palestine. I wonder if the monastics are perhaps again preserving the essence of the faith while the church as a whole is forgetting its first love. When all of Europe was in the throws of the Dark Ages, it was the monasteries of Ireland that preserved the faith and learning of the church, as well as much of worthwhile secular culture.

Contrary to the brash triumphalism of the modern fundmantalist evangelical, I think the church today has little to commend it and focuses more on burdening the believer and attacking the skeptic than on visiting the prisoner and feeding the widows and orphans, and it may be that we shall find the rebirth of the faith flowing out of the monastic communities, even as it has done before. At least, that is my hope, because I am near to despair with the state of the Body of Christ as I see it today.

[One Bad Pig]

Yesterday @ 10:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=384974#post384974)
Noesis:

I spend a couple of weeks a year with the Trappists as a time of retreat from the world and all the clutter of daily life, but the point is to go back into the clutter with a refreshed vision and purpose. I think the monastic life has it's place. Gethsemani and monasteries like it are focal points of renewal for many people, and in that way I think they serve the kingdom as much as a local pastor or priest. They also make some outstanding fudge.

Cool! I have no problem with a ministry like that. I just don't agree with the idea that those who live the monastic life are somehow more spiritual than the rest of us.



But I think most Christians, precisely as you say, will find their best destiny in the middle of things, being light and salt. Yet at the same time I'm sad that Christians for the most part remain so worldy, even reflecting the worst the world has to offer at times, and by that I don't mean simply being unspiritual, but being competitive, aggressive, condemnatory and antagonistic.

Yeah, we're still handicapped by the ol' sin nature. Much as I shudder to think about persecution, it is truly the persecuted church that tends to be strongest. Life for them isn't being "seeker friendly" or trying to make Jesus look cool; it's 100% commitment to Christ. We have it too easy!



A hundred years ago the US church was trying to comfort the world and make it a paradise where the hungry are fed and the cold sheltered. Now it seems to have fallen prey to a lust for temporal power and secular dominance that I am certain is as repugnant to God today as it was when Jesus rebuked the rulers of Palestine.

It's ironic that the most liberal of churches in the US today are the ones most involved in feeding the poor, etc. Then again, all the help in the world won't get those people into heaven, and that's what is most important. Service is great, but service without the gospel is, in the long run, worthless.



I wonder if the monastics are perhaps again preserving the essence of the faith while the church as a whole is forgetting its first love. When all of Europe was in the throws of the Dark Ages, it was the monasteries of Ireland that preserved the faith and learning of the church, as well as much of worthwhile secular culture.

Yes, the monasteries did much to preserve knowledge in general in Europe.



Contrary to the brash triumphalism of the modern fundmantalist evangelical,


:huh: My experience with the fundamentalist mindset is that they have nothing positive to say about the general church today.



I think the church today has little to commend it and focuses more on burdening the believer and attacking the skeptic than on visiting the prisoner and feeding the widows and orphans, and it may be that we shall find the rebirth of the faith flowing out of the monastic communities, even as it has done before. At least, that is my hope, because I am near to despair with the state of the Body of Christ as I see it today.

It really depends on the church, IMHO. Some churches are truly living in the Spirit and God is using them in mighty ways, but many are not. I don't think that the church is in much worse shape than it ever has been when it is free from persecution and has a modicum of popularity. However, we may be entering into an age of persecution, as political correctness and "tolerance" run amok, which can only be good for the church. Persecution purifies the body, and tends to prune away the dead branches.

[NoeticPenguin]

I get all excited because someone has posted (another) link to a website on theology. Then I go and read it and find only a bastion of conservative and constantinian thinking.

TheologicalStudies.org has a wealth of knowledge, but it is spun towards a conservative, constantinian understanding of God.

It also shows a marked lack of understanding with regards to Postmodernism (We don't reject absolute truth, we simply disagree with you on how we *know* truth. BIG Differnce)

Furthermore some of the articles there imply that the RCC is in someway a inferior or perverted understanding of Christianity. (Otherwise one wouldn't worry themselves with why Protestants --what are we protesting again?-- are converting to Roman Catholicism) This seems to undermine ecclesial theology and at the least is rude.

But by far the wost thing there is the bullet point lists one of which trashes Nietzsche's work and neglects to even mention "beyond good and evil". The site furthermore lists his life achievement as "influancing Deridda"; which is a bit of a understatement.

[JDalton]

Hello everyone:

This is my first post (finally!).

I'm curious where you would rate Cornelius van Till? Top 100? Top 50? IMHO he's had a lot of influence on the 20th cebtury, even on people who've never heard of him.

Francis Schaeffer, for example is one of his intellectual and spiritual children, even though van Till is never mentioned in any of Schaeffer's works that I've read. So he has a lot of indirect influence.

JDalton