The History of Christian Thought: The Middle Ages
Having resolved the issues of the divinity and nature of Jesus through the early ecumenical councils of the first millennium, the Christian theologians of the Middle Ages could now turn to other matters. Great thinkers and philosophers like Anselm, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus could now work on proving God’s existence, the nature of God, and the doctrine of salvation.
It was during these times, that the modern doctrine of salvation and Christ’s atonement would be developed. Based on the feudal system of the Middle Ages, Anselm came up with the idea of Christ dying on the cross for the atonement of sins. If a serf fails to obey his lord, he must make reparations to the lord. If he cannot do so, he is punished. So when we sin against God, we must pay back for our sins, but since we are unable to do so, Christ makes payment on our behalf by dying on the cross. On the other hand, for Abelard, salvation comes when Christ’s death inspires us to become better persons. Salvation is not about canceling what we have done in the past, but about God changing us for the future.
On the nature of God, Thomas Aquinas would subscribe to the ‘via negativa’ view of God developed by Gregory of Nyssa and Pseudo-Dionysius in earlier church history. According to them, God is infinite and thus cannot be known and expressed in human terms. No statement we make about God is true about Him. For example, if we say that God is good, we do not actually describe God, because God transcends all our notions of goodness. We can only say what or who He is not. John Duns Scotus disagreed, and believed that God does not transcend comprehensibility. Rather, He possesses these qualities that we describe Him with to an unparalleled degree. We say that God is good, and He is indeed good according to our understanding of the word. But God is so good that it is unparalleled.
The argument is devastating. And the dispute between Aquinas and Scotus illustrates one of the most fundamental problems facing theology. If, like Aquinas, we say God is so great that He transcends the universe and the categories that apply to it; if He is not a thing like other things but existence itself, through which all else exists; then can we say or know anything about Him at all? Does the claim even make sense? Is it not, to all intents and purposes, no different from atheism? But if, like Scotus, we say that God is comprehensible, that he shares recognizable earthly qualities to a supreme degree, then is He really God? ~ Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought
It’s also interesting to note that Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas were influenced by Islamic theologians like Avicenna and Averroes. The rediscovery of the works of Aristotle by the Muslims had a huge influence on Christian thought during this era too.
At the end of the Middle Ages, politics and power-plays would become so common in the church that at one time, there were three popes trying to excommunicate each other! Two figures would emerge to challenge the authority of the popes, as well as to pave the way for a huge makeover in Christian ideology. John Wycliffe and Jan Hus would influence later reformers with very controversial ideas; that scripture should be the sole authority, and that the common people should be able to read the Bible instead of relying on the priests.
This was new. All Christians, of course, from the Fathers on, believed the Bible to be wholly true and inspired; but the idea that the Bible could be an independent source of truth apart from the church was a novelty, not found in the Fathers. It would be central to the Reformation. ~ Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought
So here we have the beginnings of the doctrine of ‘Sola Scriptura’, where the Bible is the sole authority. I still cannot accept it though. For one, the Bible itself does not claim to be the sole authority. If we believe it to be so, we are still holding on to a ‘tradition’ or doctrine that came about only during this era. Sola Scriptura itself is not a ‘biblical’ doctrine. Another thing is that many of us Christians think that the Bible is the source of all our theology, when in fact, a lot of our beliefs (such as on the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus) are actually Church tradition. So there is always both, plus experience and rationality as well.
It was during these times, that the modern doctrine of salvation and Christ’s atonement would be developed. Based on the feudal system of the Middle Ages, Anselm came up with the idea of Christ dying on the cross for the atonement of sins. If a serf fails to obey his lord, he must make reparations to the lord. If he cannot do so, he is punished. So when we sin against God, we must pay back for our sins, but since we are unable to do so, Christ makes payment on our behalf by dying on the cross. On the other hand, for Abelard, salvation comes when Christ’s death inspires us to become better persons. Salvation is not about canceling what we have done in the past, but about God changing us for the future.
On the nature of God, Thomas Aquinas would subscribe to the ‘via negativa’ view of God developed by Gregory of Nyssa and Pseudo-Dionysius in earlier church history. According to them, God is infinite and thus cannot be known and expressed in human terms. No statement we make about God is true about Him. For example, if we say that God is good, we do not actually describe God, because God transcends all our notions of goodness. We can only say what or who He is not. John Duns Scotus disagreed, and believed that God does not transcend comprehensibility. Rather, He possesses these qualities that we describe Him with to an unparalleled degree. We say that God is good, and He is indeed good according to our understanding of the word. But God is so good that it is unparalleled.
The argument is devastating. And the dispute between Aquinas and Scotus illustrates one of the most fundamental problems facing theology. If, like Aquinas, we say God is so great that He transcends the universe and the categories that apply to it; if He is not a thing like other things but existence itself, through which all else exists; then can we say or know anything about Him at all? Does the claim even make sense? Is it not, to all intents and purposes, no different from atheism? But if, like Scotus, we say that God is comprehensible, that he shares recognizable earthly qualities to a supreme degree, then is He really God? ~ Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought
It’s also interesting to note that Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas were influenced by Islamic theologians like Avicenna and Averroes. The rediscovery of the works of Aristotle by the Muslims had a huge influence on Christian thought during this era too.
At the end of the Middle Ages, politics and power-plays would become so common in the church that at one time, there were three popes trying to excommunicate each other! Two figures would emerge to challenge the authority of the popes, as well as to pave the way for a huge makeover in Christian ideology. John Wycliffe and Jan Hus would influence later reformers with very controversial ideas; that scripture should be the sole authority, and that the common people should be able to read the Bible instead of relying on the priests.
This was new. All Christians, of course, from the Fathers on, believed the Bible to be wholly true and inspired; but the idea that the Bible could be an independent source of truth apart from the church was a novelty, not found in the Fathers. It would be central to the Reformation. ~ Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought
So here we have the beginnings of the doctrine of ‘Sola Scriptura’, where the Bible is the sole authority. I still cannot accept it though. For one, the Bible itself does not claim to be the sole authority. If we believe it to be so, we are still holding on to a ‘tradition’ or doctrine that came about only during this era. Sola Scriptura itself is not a ‘biblical’ doctrine. Another thing is that many of us Christians think that the Bible is the source of all our theology, when in fact, a lot of our beliefs (such as on the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus) are actually Church tradition. So there is always both, plus experience and rationality as well.
posted by sojourner @ Thursday, June 30, 2005
5 comments
5 Comments:
wow you are digging into deep stuff.
on the "sola" matter ... as a Lutheran I found it interesting that Luther had a few "solas" -
Sola Scriptura
Sola Gratia
Sole Fide
Sola Christus ..
my immediate intuitive reaction is that none were meant to be alone *wink* but Luther in context was challening the RC church of his time.
Your last paragraph will send some Christians into jitters. So "sabar" a bit ... I hear your concern. Indeed, apart from the Bible other factors do come into play in our "theologizing". But, once the Bible is taken out of the equation or as in Luther's time put below tradition or ecclesiastical politics then we're in trouble. Thus, to respond to the hard wall of "traditionalism." He hits back with a strong blow ... Sola Scriptura! More when we meet face to face and talk huh?
While I agree that God is bigger than what we think He is, and that He works in ways we cannot comprehend, I believe that dependence on a source is necessary. There are already so many denominations in the world today. Without Sola Scriptura, there would be hundreds more denominations and the world will think Christians are a bunch of confused, crazy ppl. Just a thought! ;-) For me personally, to believe that the Scripture is the inspired Word of God is good enough for me, although I do read outside what is written in the Bible, which I believe is what God intend for us to do.
sivinkit: I think knowing the context in which Luther came out with these 'sola's is important, because I also agree that they were needed at that particular moment in the history of the Church. So here we can just see how our sovereign God always raises the right kind of people with the right kind of ideas throughout Church history.
So maybe for our context, I see McLaren's thought about 'letting the Bible read us and change the way we live' instead of theorizing the Bible looking for doctrines and theology very helpful in this particular moment of Church history (especially for people like me)!
tehka:
Well, I still believe that the Bible is very important, and I still enjoy and learn a lot from our Bible studies together! I understand your concern for a need of a source. And I agree that the Bible is a good and extremely important source for us to learn how to live!
But i disgree with you here that without sola scriptura, there would be many more denominations. Because, if we look at church history, sola scriptura was ONE OF THE REASONS (politics, geography, and God revealing new things to the Church would play a role as well) that Protestantism split into so many different denominations! Everyone felt that they had the right to read the Bible for themselves and interpret it their own way. Each denomination claimed to have the correct interpretation of the Bible!
But then right, these denominations that split up, although each claim to have the correct interpretation of the bible, they have a source to know what practices are clearly wrong. Like what is clearly agaiinst the Bible is wrong.
Secondly, every religion on earth also claim to experience God in some way, so if we don't have a source, how are we going to defend our Christian faith. How are we going to know their practices are wrong. Maybe their religion is part of Scripture?
Post a Comment
<< Home