[Kolokotronis]

" At any rate, no matter how one views the importance of the Greek philosophers, I am very sure that everything is unfolding according to God's will." The Greek Fathers certainly used the language of Greek philosophy and to an extent the way the philosophers thought, but they soundly rejected the way those philosophers arrived at their conclusions or what they meant by the language they used. For us to recognize that Greek philosophy formed part of the preparation of the seedbed in which Christianity took root is a good thing. It is a bad thing to believe that these pagan philosophers in any particular manner had come to an understanding of God any greater than that of other pagan peoples. The temptation to do this has been particularly powerful in the West since the days of Aquinas. Aquinas in his disputations with the Mohammedan philosophers relied heavily on Aristotle, which of course made great sense as those most Andalusian thinkers were heavily influenced by Aristotelian thought. Personally, I am convinced that Aquinas was not by any means an Aristotelian, but the language and methods of Aristotle formed a common context for the discussions. Unfortunately his successors seem to have adopted Aristotelianism not merely as a framework within which to discuss Christianity with pagans, but rather accepted it as the way to explain God to themselves and other Christians. This manner of thinking about theology, scholasticism, had a profound effect on Western religious thought and compounded the already existing differences between Eastern and Western Christianity. The effects of this are seen to this day. Indeed, just yesterday a younger Latin on FR responded to a comment I made by speaking of "accidents" and "substances" a propos of the translation of a certain word in the Nicene Creed.

At any rate, we must remember that we are the new Israel, not the new Athens.

[kosta50]

I am convinced that Aquinas was not by any means an Aristotelian, but the language and methods of Aristotle formed a common context for the discussions. Unfortunately his successors seem to have adopted Aristotelianism not merely as a framework within which to discuss Christianity with pagans, but rather accepted it as the way to explain God to themselves and other Christians. This manner of thinking about theology, scholasticism, had a profound effect on Western religious thought and compounded the already existing differences between Eastern and Western Christianity

That's an excellent summary, Kolo.

[Quix]

At any rate, we must remember that we are the new Israel, not the new Athens.
= = =

INDEED.