When was original sin removed from OT saints?
#22
(07-23-2012, 06:22 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Do you know who Euclid and Isaac Newton are?

They are men, smart men, who wrote or devised systems of science (geometry for Euclid, classical mechanics for Newton).

There work was not their own. They were building on a store of knowledge and historical achievements and they are the ones who put them together into one work, into one system, and made it a single thing to study. To this day, we refer to Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics and they are the systems we generally use on earth.

St. Thomas is like them. He is not the be all end all of study, however, his work was a single coherent systematic study of sacred doctrine. Just as humans are body and spirit, we can apply reason to what is revealed.

Euclid had "errors", Newton had "errors", but they were trivial, understandable in light of available technology at the time, to the extent that most additions to their work is not just a "correction", but an addition to make their work more generally applicable (ie, non-euclidean geometry is consistent with the work of Euclid because it only violates on non-proven postulate). Einstein devised special relativity and this completes Newtonian physics.

The esteem for St. Thomas as a theologian (he was more than that too remember) is in the special place he holds in applying reason to revelation.

To what end is this useful? It is useful for those who intellectually attack the Church. Atheists, heretics of all kinds, and other religions can see that the teachings of the Church are not some fantasy, but actually consistent with human intellectual understanding even though God Himself cannot be understood! It is good for study for those who have intellectual callings who need to fill those gaps. It is good for avoiding error and understanding truth. It is good for understanding the effects of sin on man and what man is.

This is not for everybody and all circumstances, but on theological discussions online, I think you and all would do well to be familiar with the most comprehensive and complete theology we have to study.

Yes, he wrote in Latin. So have it translated to Greek (or whatever). The Latins translated John Cassian without issue or qualms.

I get your point and think it would actually be a good one if theology was something that could be proven.  Euclid and Newton came up with mathematical and scientific rules that have stuck and been proven to be correct.  They're can be replicated.  You can't do that with theology, you either believe it is true or you don't.  It would be easier to prove that there was a black hole inside every cruise ship in the Caribbean than it would be to prove God instituted circumcision and that it actually has any effect on original sin.

I can appreciate the idea of having one huge collection of theology so students have one source to go to, but theology doesn't work like that.  Aquinas is a scholastic.  Scholastic theology doesn't work for everybody, and just translating it into Greek won't remove a particular thought process that the theology is dependent upon.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: When was original sin removed from OT saints? - by Melkite - 07-23-2012, 10:35 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)