But Paul was trained as a Pharisee and was intent on preaching the Gospel of salvation, not on elaborating a theology for the contemplation of scholarly minds. But there is much in Greek thought nevertheless that helped great minds such as Augustine and later Aquinas penetrate theological mysteries which might otherwise have been even more inaccessible than they now are. Classical metaphysics and ontology, for instance, helped Church theologians formulate queries into the nature of the soul, of Christ's personhood, of the Triune God, of Transubstantiation. All of these profound lessons derive from Christ himself and are mentioned in some way in Scripture--but Greek thought allows us to penetrate their mysteries more deeply.
***not on elaborating a theology for the contemplation of scholarly minds.***
Scholarly minds not, but Romans is rather elaborate.
Being from the cosmopolitian Tarsus, he would be well aquainted with the Greeks.
***But there is much in Greek thought nevertheless that helped great minds such as Augustine and later Aquinas penetrate theological mysteries which might otherwise have been even more inaccessible than they now are.***
Though I agree in some part, I believe it is the Holy Spirit that illuminates minds and truth. He can do so without the aid of the Philosophers. No NT writer made any major use of them. (And let's not forget, most of them were buggerers of young boys).
***--but Greek thought allows us to penetrate their mysteries more deeply.***
I think the one who penetrates the mysteries of God is the submitted believer who faithfully studies the Word of God and who is helped and aided by the Holy Spirit.
All that being said, you have to admit that Paul ws rather dismissive of philosophers and philosophy in the previousley cited passage.
UR,
One of the truest examples of real development of doctrine is that of understanding the Eucharist. Paul obviously had much in the way of infused knowledge. Nobody as far as I can tell in Church history had God made it so known that he was going to win over.
Paul knew from faith and his zeal probably spread that faith in the Eucharist. All he could explain was the need to know about it and know how to partake worthily.
By the time Augustine rolls around, he's got to explain that Our Lord's flesh is real flesh and not a metaphor for some lofty spiritual ideal. He (amazingly) knew just to take it on faith that "somehow" God made it possible for Man to partake of his flesh while appearing as bread and wine. He described this as a "latent mystery"
Along comes Aquinas. He's dealing with Muslims who don't have the Jewish tradition as the Jews knew it. So, he unravels this "latent" mystery by providing a model based on reason alone, that combined with divine revelation allows one to grab hold of the faith against the testimony of the senses.
Aquinas on an Intellectual level did what Paul did when he addressed the people to the temple of the "unknown God" That was a Latent mystery to the people of Paul's day. He unwrapped it. Aquinas then did the same to the "hard saying" of Our Lord. Transubstantiation is no more or less mysterious or miraculous for Aquinas as it is for Augustine, or Paul. But Aquinas provides the argument that refutes the Lutheran heresy of "consubstantiation" or "transignification" which Paul was never questioned about.