Church History – The City of God – The Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy

“The City of God” was Augustine’s most massive and comprehensive work

It spans twenty-two volumes and took him fifteen years to write

It was his response to accusations that Rome had fallen because she had converted to Christianity and forsaken the gods that had made her great

Humanity is divided into two fundamental communities (cities)

They are named after where their loves are found:

• the Earthly City

• the City of God

The very thing that had sustained Rome all those years was not paganism, but the grace of God

She did not fall because she had turned to “wimpy” virtues like humility and compassion

Cicero and others, during the height of Roman power, had noted that those were some of the virtues that had made her great

Rather, Rome fell because of her non-Christian “virtues,” which had done so much damage that by the time Christianity came along the wound was already fatal

The Church, of which Christ is the head, is the earthly manifestation of Christ

As such, the best way to join with Christ is to join with the Church

Interpretation is done through Christ (the Word) through His representative on earth (the Church) to the individual Christian

So the Church acts as the principle interpreter of Christ for the Christian, just as Christ acts as the principle interpreter of God for the Church

This doctrine is what gave rise to the ideas of the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and that the individual cannot be “trusted” to understand the Bible himself, but could only do so by way of the Church

Fine in theory, but as an institution made up by Fallen humans, there were, as we know, “problems” with the theory…​

Charlemagne, a Frank, reconquered much of Europe and was crowned Emperor by the Pope on Christmas Day, 800 A.D., which started the Holy Roman Empire

Charlemagne’s dream was to recreate the imperial rule of the Caesars and the building on earth of St. Augustine’s City of God

Not long after Charlemagne died, the little “empire” that there was started falling apart

As Voltaire quipped later, “The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.”

One obvious geographic disparity was that through most of its history Rome wasn’t part of the Empire.

Throughout the Middle Ages, power would be consolidated and split apart, with the closest thing to a central authority being the Papacy

The Papacy would vary greatly throughout the period from strong to weak and strong again, but would in general be by far the strongest institution in Europe

The practice of buying Church office would come and go, as well as the nobility insisting on appointing their own people into Church office

Officially resolved in 1122 with the Concordat of Worms that effectively gave the kings the right to put forward their candidates, but it was up to the church to agree

Because there was so much wealth and power to be had by being a church leader, the nobles remained heavily “involved”; however the quality of the candidates increased a great deal

The level of “holiness” that the Papacy was leading with was often worse than horrid

It’s important to remember that it’s not as if we have great records of what really happened

However, given that the “history is written by the victors” and the sheer relative volume of the accounts, there’s good reason to believe there’s a great deal of truth to the accounts

A low point was Pope John XII, who became Pope at the age of sixteen

He led a life of total debauchery, including hosting orgies at the Vatican

If the Vicar of Christ — essentially a manifestation of Christ on Earth — says that I should run after the pleasures of this world, what am I — an uneducated Christian — to do?

From the time of Constantine on, you could only be recognized as a “legitimate” ruler if the Pope said you were

That (along with lots of other deals and the like that were brokered) gave the Pope a tremendous amount of power

If he said that you were not a fit Catholic, your crown could — and would — be taken from you by your own people

That’s not to say that the Pope had absolute power and was never questioned

People did get fed up from time to time with the excesses of the Papacy, its constant fiddling in politics, and its rule over every single aspect life

When that happened, the power and prestige of the Papacy would be diminished or nearly destroyed until reforms would take place to appease the people

Sometimes, the Pope would even be forcibly removed from office by a king

For example, in 1303 King Philip IV of France arrested Pope Boniface VIII for explicitly claiming authority over kings, and had a new Pope elected

Known as the “Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy,” the Papacy was moved from Rome to Avignon, France, for seventy years

The return to Rome sparked a “constitutional crisis” in the Church, known as the Western Schism

The first Pope elected after the return to Rome, Urban IV, turns out to be “highly objectionable” to the cardinals that elected him, so they elect a new one: Clement VII

The problem is, Pope Urban IV refuses to leave

To try and break the power struggle between the two rival courts after the initial claimants had died, they hold a council in 1409 to reach an agreement, and elect a new Pope

The first courts, however, argue that they are the legitimate Pope and refuse to go; thus there were three Popes at one time

In 1417 another Council established Council superiority to the Pope, and elects a fouth Pope that finally becomes “The Pope” after convincing two of them to step aside (and marginalized the third)

In 1430 the Pope reversed that agreement and places himself above the councils, which is how it still stands

Since the church was about the only keeper of any of the knowledge that had come before — and actively repressed anything that it thought would be potentially frivolous or dangerous — it had a monopoly on effectively ALL learning

Not only was it unwise to question Catholic teachings because of possible damnation (or even because of persecution) but because the church likely really did know better than you

That tied them very, very tightly to every aspect of life

Over the course of over a thousand years (the fall of Rome through to the Renaissance in the fifteenth century) that dependency ingrained a tremendous amount of fundamental faith in the “presumptive authority” of the church’s teachings

The church had an answer for everything (especially once Scholasticism came on the scene), so seeking an answer from anywhere other than established church teachings on the subject was – literally – unthinkable

The church and the state often worked side by side to handle their various problems, and this merger can best be seen in the Inquisition

While much of what’s going to be said sounds pretty damning on the clergy to modern ears, the clerics were very much the reasonable and moderating force

In modern times, when we hear of the Inquisition, we think of the Inquisitions held during the Counter-Reformation

However, the Inquisition was an institution developed between the church and the state to “inquire” about people who were potentially dangerous

The crimes that were “potentially dangerous” were usually heresy or sedition — which were usually viewed to be the same thing

That’s why both the state and the church were involved

While the practices involved in an inquisition evolved over hundreds of years, its basic structure remained constant: The state would arrest a potentially dangerous person and “inquire” about their thoughts and activities, and then the church would take their confession and determine the level of guilt

The Church could also not perform an execution, banishment, etc

Those were all exclusively the domain of the State

Crimes worthy of the Inquisition varied from hard-core heresy and treason, to thinking that the Pope was mistaken on something

All that the law required was that you think he was wrong, or that a couple people would think that’s what you think. What you actually did was part of evidence, but not the crime itself

In that same line were the crimes of being a Jew, a general troublemaker, etc.

Torture was regarded as a very normal and natural way to get information

The church sanctioned its use — though priests were absolutely forbidden to be involved and usually weren’t even allowed to be present

Confessions could not be taken while being tortured, but the next day

Torture could, according to the church, continue to be used even after the confession due to its “purgative” powers, purging evil from the soul in much the same way that burning did

Burning for a crime like heresy or witchcraft was done “for the sake of” the person being burned, as a last-ditch effort to free their soul from the corruption that they had been found guilty of

If you know what happened to Joan of Arc you should recognize this: She “confessed” to witchcraft while being tortured, but when it came time to give her confession she renounced the “confession” given under torture, and therefore never officially confessed to witchcraft

She was still burned for being a witch

She was later canonized as a Saint

Eastern Orthodoxy is generally seen as starting when Emperor Constantine built Constantinople and moved the capitol there

There had long been friction within the Church regarding various doctrinal and political practices

Eventually the disagreements between West (Rome) and East (Constantinople) got so bad that in 1040 A.D. the Eastern Orthodox Church was formally separated from the Roman Catholic Church

For two hundred years prior to the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern emperor named the Bishop of Rome, putting in place culturally Greek bishops loyal to the East

Now the West has had its own emperor for two hundred years, spoke Latin instead of Greek, and Islamic invasions were stressing everyone’s resources

There were five major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem

The Islamic conquests of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in the 7th century left Rome and Constantinople as the only major Christian communities left

In sharp contrast to the West, the East under the Byzantine Empire had continued to thrive

Constantinople was the largest and most sophisticated city in Christendom, with roughly half a million people

It had retained the civic structures, public baths, forums, monuments, and maintained its aqueducts

The Latins viewed the Byzantine preference for diplomacy and trade over war as duplicitous and degenerate, and their policy of tolerance and assimilation towards Muslims as a corrupt betrayal of the faith

While there were lots of things that led to the split (mostly political), the some of the major doctrinal disputes were over

• Papal primacy

• the Filioque Controversy

• icon veneration

Again, a word of caution

Today, when people refer to the Western Church, they mean Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Just as there are tremendous differences within the “Western Church,” so too in the “Eastern Church” (a.k.a. “Eastern Orthodox”)

However, there is a common heritage and core set of beliefs that make it useful to group them in such a way. But Russian Orthodox is not the same as Greek Orthodox any more than Roman Catholic is the same as Baptist

While the Eastern Church recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope) and that he had a “special” position in the Church, they disagreed with the West about the extent of his authority

In the West the Pope was seen much like a king, where all the other bishops reported to him

In the East he was seen — to use a modern business analogy — more like the Chairman of the Board

He had great authority, but he is “the first among equals”

That said, effectively the East held the Emperor in the place of the Pope as the head of both Church and State.

When it came down to it, there was a essentially a disagreement about whether it would be the Pope or the Emperor to lead the Church

The Filioque Controversy was mentioned during the analysis of the Nicene Creed while studying the Pelagian heresy

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον(And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, from the Father proceeding)

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit(And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who from the Father and the Son proceeds)

The “and the Son” are a Western addition to the Creed as it was originally agreed on by a Council representing the whole Church, East and West

The East believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and that to say that He proceeds from the Son as well is to destroy the doctrine of the Trinity

When the West “slipped it in” after the council, it greatly increased tensions between the East and West that never went away

What difference does that make in the Eastern versus Western understandings of the Trinity?

The Eastern understanding has the Father as the “source” of all things (in the “light from light” way we discussed in the Nicene Creed) The complaint is that not only does “filioque” subordinate the Spirit to the Son, but it confuses the role of the Father and the Son in the Trinity

The East had a very legitimate complaint against how the Western Church handled the situation

It very much went against the spirit of the Council, which was to give a unified response to heresy

The West, even though it was expressing a more Biblical point of doctrine, broke that unity

Icon veneration is where people bow down before, kiss, and burn incense to icons of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and various saints

Bowing before an icon is in many ways no different than saluting a flag (another kind of icon) — a way to remember and respect that which the icon points to

It’s also believed that the icons cause various miracles

To those that follow veneration, the icons are often further examples of incarnational miracles, where God is making himself manifest through the icons (such as a crying image of Mary)

Religious relics hold much the same purpose, such as the healing powers of a piece of the Cross of Christ, or “acheiropoieta” like the Shroud of Turin

It’s a large part of what tends to make the church very beautiful and “otherworldly”

The problem, of course, is that worshipers of Zeus or other idols have essentially the same understanding

They aren’t praying to the stone or wood, but the god it represents or focusses, like a talisman

For a great example, remember The Golden Calf

In 730 the (Eastern) Emperor declared that icon veneration had gotten so out of hand that all icons should be removed, but was opposed by the Pope

By 1054 the pendulum had swung the other way, and the West was now complaining about the East’s “worship” of icons

“Icon veneration” has been a continual problem in the West, and as always it’s primarily a matter of degrees

During the time of the Reformation, for example, the use of imagery in the Catholic Church had reached an all-time high, and one of the major things the Protestants protested was that the use of such imagery had turned into idolatry

Protestants went into Catholic churches and cathedrals, destroying the statues and images within

There have been many major iconoclastic (“icon destroying”) controversies ever since then, in every major denomination, and the issue continues to pop up

Is the prohibition against idols the same as “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”?

According to the Talmud tradition, they are the same. Used by Jews, Catholics and Lutherans.

According to the Septuagint tradition, they are distinct. Used by Orthodox and Reformed.

In the Baptist Church, for example, the iconoclasts have essentially won, which is why it’s often hard to see so much as a picture of Jesus in a Baptist church

The Catholic Church has mostly suppressed the iconoclasts, and the major Councils since then (e.g., Trent, First Vatican and Second Vatican) have all taken pains to distinguish between veneration and worship

The veneration of many of the saints is so common in Catholicism that it is often seen as being a hair’s breath (if that) from idolatry, and the “hyperdulia” given to Mary is seen as being even more so

The Lutheran Church has largely struck a compromise position, but as such it’s been more susceptible to the controversy as it reappears

θεωρία is Greek for “contemplation” in the Philipians 4:8 sense; specifically in service of contemplating beholding God

In both East and West, it has been the primary goal of the monastic life

In the West it led to the development of systematic theology, applying the tools of reason to better knowing the mind and heart of God (e.g., scholasticism)

In the East it led to an emphasis on mysticism, where a pure and ascetic life brings you to “theosis” — union with God

Related to that draw toward mysticism is the East’s special emphasis on the books of the New Testament written by John (i.e., The Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation)

A practical consequence of this emphasis is that Jesus is seen much more as the King of Kings and Judge of the Universe

The East also has a much stronger emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit, and many of the ideas that manifested themselves as Pentecostalism in the West have always been a part of the Eastern Church

Things like further “revelation” was not entirely closed with the closing of Scripture

There’s more emphasis on the incomprehensible mystery of God, so there hasn’t been nearly the scholarship on trying to understand the nature of God in the East that there has been in the West

The picture given in Revelation 1:12-18 is typical of how the East views Jesus

The first three crusades (which started shortly after the Schism) showed the West just how “backwards” they were, and they pilliaged all they could in Byzantine lands on their way to Jerusalem

Coveting its wealth and power, while the Fourth Crusade explicitly had an explicit ban on attacks on Christian states, the crusaders “got lost” and attacked and sacked Constantinople

Pope Innocent III responded to the papal legate with

In addition to the atrocities committed by Christians upon Christians, the heavily wounded empire could no longer provide a real defense against the Islamic states

Even though the Byzantine Empire was able to regroup and take back Constantinople, the Empire was severely crippled

There was no longer a serious counterforce to the Islamic armies, who were able to sweep through the Near East and continue to control the entire region today

The Second Vatican Council, “Decree On Ecumenism”, Chapter 2, section 17:

Pope John Paul II as recently as 1995 said “the Church must breathe with her two lungs!” to bring together the best of the West’s rational rigor with the East’s mysticism

A student of Plato, Aristotle (384-322 BC) would go on to greatly surpass his teacher in the scope of his philosophy and the influence it would hold

A much more “practical” thinker, Aristotle was constantly at odds with Plato’s very “other worldly” philosophy

A famous painting by Raphael of Plato and Aristotle arguing. Plato is pointing up, indicating the logical “Forms.” Aristotle is pointing toward the earth, indicating the importance of staying grounded in observation and experience

While he didn’t do “science”, he was far ahead of everyone else nearly a millenia, and he laid the groundwork for huge swaths of what would become Science

While Plato is much easier to read because of his numerous stories and illustrations, it’s easier to understand where Aristotle is coming from because he had a much more direct influence on modern Western thought

A great deal of what is referred to as “classical” learning comes directly from him, and when someone refers to “The Philosopher,” they are almost certainly referring to Aristotle

Aristotle’s passion was in “unity”

He was constantly looking to see how things were related, and to bring together things that he thought should not be divided

A very concrete example of Aristotle’s concern for unity can be seen in his influence on his most famous student: Alexander of Macedonia (“Alexander the Great”)

When Alexander conquered the world, he brought along behind his army a huge array of scientists to study the plants, people, animals, rocks, etc. of the areas he conquered

The most important effect Aristotle’s influence on Alexander for our purposes here was Alexander’s passion for the Hellenization (“Greek-ifying”) of the areas he conquered

It was because of that Hellenization that all of the books of the New Testament were written in Greek

The unification of trade, language, systems of thought, politics, and the like — later taken advantage of and extended by the Romans — was the reason that the Gospel was able to spread so far and so fast

Just as God used Plato’s philosophy to start “prepping” the gentile nations to hear the Gospel, He used Aristotle and Alexander to “prepare” the world to make the spread of the Gospel far faster and effective than ever before possible

Perhaps his single most fundamental contribution to Western thought is his development of formal logic

Obviously, people were using logic before him (just as they were using gravity before Newton), but Aristotle identified what is involved with logic and what is the proper use of logic (specifically around “deduction”)

The two most important aspects of what he identified for our purposes are:

• the Law of Non-Contradiction

• logic says nothing about whether something is true or false, only if it is valid or invalid

The Law of Non-Contradiction is simply the way you can test to see if something is a contradiction

We won’t go into much detail, but it says, “P (object) can not be Q (description) and not Q at the same T (time) and in the same R (relationship)”

For example, take a statement like “The tomato is red and not red at this particular spot on the tomato”

If you substitute “the tomato” for P and “red” for Q and “at this particular part of the tomanto” for R, then you get “The tomato can not be red and not red at the same time at this particular part of the tomato”

The tomato was green (not red) at one time, so the “at the same time” part of the test is important

So the original statement may have been odd, but not a contradiction

Another example would be “John is happy and sad right now about passing his college entrance tests”

That seems like a contradiction, but it’s not because R is so ambiguous — he could be happy because he’ll be able to go to his favorite school, but sad because he’ll be leaving home and won’t see his grade-school friends any more

When something seems like a contradiction but isn’t, it’s known as a “paradox”

Contradictions are always nonsense

Some people think that Christianity is filled with contradictions, but if that were the case, then Christianity would be nonsense

Instead, it’s filled with paradoxes and mysteries

An example of a Christian paradox is Luther’s saying, “We are at the same time saints and sinners”

It sounds like a contradiction, but it isn’t. Why?

An example of a mystery would be the dual nature of Christ: the relationship between the divine and human natures doesn’t cause a contradiction, but we have absolutely no idea how it could be true

As we said with Augustine, there are never contradictions with God; if you find yourself affirming a contradiction, something in what you’re affirming is simply wrong

The second vital lesson we need to understand from Aristotle’s logic is that logic can never tell you if something is true or not, only that it is valid or invalid

One of the most common forms of logical argument is the syllogism, or the “this and this (the predicates), therefore that (the conclusion)” argument

(Or, more formally, “A = B, B = C ⇒ A = C”)

For example, “All dogs are mammals and all mammals are animals, therefore all dogs are animals”

Both predicates are true and the argument is valid, therefore the conclusion must be true

However, you can say, “All dogs are birds and all birds are animals, therefore all dogs are animals”

The argument is valid, but the first predicate is false, therefore you know nothing about the conclusion

On the other hand, you can say, “All dogs are birds and all birds are plants, therefore all dogs are stone”

The argument is invalid and the predicates are false, so it’s simply a nonsense statement

If you try, “All dogs are mammals and all birds are animals, therefore all dogs are animals,” then you have both predicates being true, but the argument is invalid

There is no way of knowing from the argument if the conclusion is true or not

You have to understand what logic good at, and understand its weaknesses

If, in the case of the syllogism, you know you have a valid argument and you are absolutely certain of the truth of the predicates, then you can be absolutely certain of the conclusion

For a valid argument, the certainty of the conclusion is exactly equal to the certainty of the truth of the predicates

However, if the argument is invalid, then the truth or falsity of the predicates has nothing to do with whether or not the conclusion is true

Logic only has power when it’s valid; otherwise it’s absolutely impotent

This is an extremely misunderstood aspect of logic, because people will very commonly argue for or against some point, but not be careful about whether or not the argument is valid

The conclusion may by true, but they have not proven it to be so

People get the other direction mixed up all the time too: just because someone uses an invalid argument, the invalid argument does not prove that their conclusion is false

What should also be plain from this is that logic is a “formal” discipline, where “formal” is taken literally

Logic is concerned entirely with the form of the argument, and while it never adds any content to what is known, it does help put it in a more useful form

• God redeemed all sinners

• I am a sinner

• ⇒ Therefore, God redeemed me

There is nothing new in the conclusion, but it’s certainly good to know that God redeemed me, which isn’t obvious from the previous two statements

Unifying the Forms of Plato and the world around us, Aristotle said that “substance” is the fusion of matter and form

A chair, then, is wood made into the Form of a chair

Sounds pretty obvious, but this makes for a dramatic acknowledgement of — and departure from — Plato

It affirms the idea that there are forms that define the essential nature of something, which is exactly what Plato taught

However, Aristotle is also saying that the forms aren’t an “other worldly” kind of thing — they only exist insofar as they become substance in matter

Aristotle broke down all of language about things into ten basic categories:

• substance

• quality (not “good or bad”, but color, height, etc.)

• quantity

• relation

• place

• time

• position

• state

• action

• affection

Substance is the essential nature of a thing

The rest are descriptions — what are known as “accidens” — of the particulars of that instance of the substance

“The blue wooden chair” describes a thing: the substance is “chairness” and the accidens are “blue” and “wooden”

Red chairs, metal chairs, three-legged chairs, etc. all share the same substratum of chairness, but you can only know that a chair exists because of its accidens

The “substance” is what stands under (underlies) all of its accidens

“sub” – under, “stance” – position

Aristotle’s language of ‘substance’ and ‘accidens’ has been used by the Church to describe many theological concepts

For example, transubstantiation (literally, “change in substance”) is the name of the Roman Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ

While what is distributed during the Eucharist tastes, feels, looks, smells, etc. like bread and wine, the “substance” of it is the body and blood of Christ

In other words, while the “accidens” do not change, the essential nature of the bread and wine does change

For what it’s worth, Aristotle would not have approved of this use of his ideas

The substance is manifested through its matter (which is what has the accidens)

An oak tree has wood because it is part of its essential nature to have wood — take away the wood and you no longer have an oak tree

Flesh and blood that does not taste, smell, feel, etc. like flesh and blood is not flesh and blood

Rome, of course, recognizes this and says that it’s part of the miracle of the Mass that God breaks that link between the accidens and the substance of Christ’s body and blood

Aristotle identified four things that are the cause of every effect. These are:

• MATERIAL – The “stuff” out of which something happens

• FORMAL – The form that the effect takes

• EFFICIENT – That by which something happens

• FINAL – The reason it was done; its purpose

For example, a statue is carved

• material cause - the stone

• formal cause - the shape in the artist’s mind

• efficient cause - the chiseling

• final cause - the desire of the artist for something beautiful

As another example, say there’s an avalanche

The material cause was the snow; the formal cause was the slope; the efficient cause was the vibrating that loosened it; and the final cause was the snow’s desire to be closer to the earth

Something’s “final cause” — or its “purpose” — is known as its teleology

In modern thought, teleology still makes perfect sense to people when talking about things like “Why did he do that?”

When you have a thinking agent doing something we often consider the reason it was done

However, while Aristotle obviously didn’t think that rocks and air had the capability of thought, he did say, “Nature does not act without a goal”

Rocks and other solids fall because it is in their nature to come as close as possible to the solid Earth

Fire, the least material of all the elements (remember they thought there were four elements: earth, water, air and fire), continually tries to go up because it wants to be with the heavenly fires (the stars)

Everything could be (and was) explained in terms of these four causes

From “Why is the sky blue?” to “Why did "`Why did she get sick?” to “Why did France invade Spain?”

Christians took the idea of teleology and ran with it…​

What Christian doctrine says that there’s a Reason why every blade of grass grows and nations are ruled as they are?

An acorn is “actually” an acorn, but “potentially” an oak tree

When it becomes an oak tree, that aspect of its “potentiality” and “actuality” become the same

Oil is flammable because it can catch fire (its “potentiality”), not because it is burning (its “actuality”)

Actuality must precede potentiality

There can be no such thing as pure or absolute potentiality

Such a “thing” would be potentially everything, but it would be actually nothing

However, Aristotle argued that there must be something that is pure actuality with no potentiality — a being with no unrealized potential

A being with no potentiality and with pure actuality, since it cannot change, must also have no motion

This is Aristotle’s “god,” the famous “unmoved mover” that is the source of all movement in the universe

An “unmoved mover”, or “ultimate cause” is a logical necessity, and it’s the same basis that people use when using the “causasian” argument for God

If you’re wondering how an unmoved mover can move something without moving itself, the answer is that it attracts things to it, like a magnet

A magnet doesn’t have to move to draw things to itself, so too with the unmoved mover

Like Plato’s Forms, Aristotle’s “god” had some obvious similarities to Jehovah, but never quite “got there”

It’s the final teleological purpose of everything, causing everything to happen, but does not engage in the world itself

Here we see the unmoved mover’s clearest difference with the Christian God, who is actively involved in what happens in His creation

This is yet another example of what Paul talks about in Romans 1:19-22…​

During the early half of the 7th Century, Muhammad ibn Abd-Allaah ibn Abd al-Muttalib al-Haashimi al-Qurashi (henceforth known simply as Muhammad, 570-632 AD) gave what he said was a series of revelations from God

These were collected together to form the Quran (القرآن — “recitation”), which acts as Islam’s scripture

Islam develops from much of the same “tradition” as Judaism and Christianity, and considers Jews and Christians to be “People of the Book”

Put (far too) simply, Islam teaches that Jews and Christians had also received revelation from God, but in its transmission from prophets like Moses and Jesus, it was corrupted by the time it was written down and assimilated as part of the community

So while “The People of the Book” have a largely correct revelation, it is faulty and needs to be corrected with the uncorrupted teachings of the Quran (c.f. Quran 3:110, Quran 3:113, Quran 3:199)

Taḥrīf (تحريف‎ — “distortion, alteration”) is the “alterations” which Jews and Christians have made to Biblical manuscripts

“Officially” by sharia law, Christians and Jews are afforded basic legal protections, including the right to practice their religion privately, as long as they also do the things required of Muslim citizens

That said, in practice it’s been as “creatively interpretted” as many Christian doctrines

On the whole over history they have been better to Christians in their lands than Christians (especially Western Christians) have been to Muslims in their lands

Sadly that is a very, very, VERY low bar

When Muhammad received his revelation it was a literal dictation of God through the angel Gabriel through Muhammad to the Quran

That’s a significant difference from Jewish/Christian doctrine on the Bible, which says that the Bible is the “inspired” Word of God, where God “moved” the writers to write what He wanted them to say, but they often used their own words to say it

That’s why if you see any Islamic quoting of the Quran in any language but Arabic, they are careful to say that it is an “interpretation of the meaning”

Even though most of the world’s Muslims are not Arabic, the Arabic language holds tremendous significance to all Muslims since that is the language that God chose to speak to humanity

Today, there is roughly the same number of Muslims as there are Christians (using the qualification of what people classify themselves as) or about one billion each, though Islam is reportedly growing faster

In modern times, Islam is primarily focused in the Middle East, much of Africa, southern Asia, and Indonesia

From the 8th to the 13th century (when Baghdad fell to the Monguls) the Muslim world was effectively united under caliphates, allowing a flurishing of culture and science

The oldest degree-granting university is in Moroco from 859 AD. It was during this time that we got foundations of modern hospitals (including requiring medical diplomas, universal coverage, vaccines, Hippocratic oaths, and care for the mentally ill), modern mathematics (e.g., as algebra, which which is vastly more powerful than the Greek and Egyptian geometry; “Arabic numbers”), what we would recognize as science (e.g., The Book of Optics, 1021, with a strong emphasis on experimentation/induction and skepticism), etc.

The Reformation, for example, would not have had a chance to develop to the degree that it did if it wasn’t for the fact that the Catholic kings diverted most of their resources toward fighting a Turkish (Muslim) invasion, which they saw as being much more threatening (with very good reason) than what Luther and the rest were doing

By the time they could turn their attention back to the Reformation, it had essentially reached critical mass and could no longer be stopped

During the 12th century Averroës built upon the work of Avicenna, creating a strong synthesis between Aristotle and Islam

Averroës’ work began to make its way into European universities, but it was unclear how everything “fit” in a Christian worldview

It was in this environment that St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 7 March 1274), a Dominican monk, worked

An introverted scholar, his brilliance is — even among his fiercest critics — truly astounding

Aquinas died on his way to the Second Council of Lyon in an attempt to reunify the Eastern and Western Church

Among many other accomplishments, he looked at what the Muslims had done and “Christianized” it

While Aquinas leaned heavily on Averroës’ work, a tremendous amount of what Aquinas was doing was showing that what Aristotle had said was more in line with Christian doctrine than Islam

His two most significant works are “Summa contra Gentiles” and “Summa Theologica” — both excedingly comprehensive writings on Christian teachings; the first more for explaining Christianity to unbelievers, the latter for training seminary students

Summa Theologica is one of the official sources (as of 1879) for modern Catholic seminaries. Even though Protestants obviously have issues with some of the specific doctrines in it, it still is a basic reference in Protestant seminaries

His ideas gained tremendous popularity, becoming what would be known as Aristotelian Scholasticism. (A fancy term for the fact that it was based on learning gained from the study of Aristotle and became the standard of the scholars)

Aristotelian Scholasticism will be talked about later, but it’s worth noting here that it dominated European thought for roughly five hundred years

Aristotelian Scholasticism laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment — and was what the Enlightenment was directly reacting to and fighting against

Muslim philosophers constructed a “double truth” theory, arguing:

• what is true in faith may be false in reason (and vice-versa)

• what is true in philosophy may be false in theology (and vice-versa)

• what is true in religion may be false in science (and vice-versa)

This separates Nature and Grace with a vengeance

It would be analogous to a modern Christian saying that from the vantage point of faith (grace), man is created by God in his image and for a purpose; a being with dignity because God has bestowed it on him

But that from the vantage point of reason (nature), man is a cosmic accident, a grown-up germ who emerged from the primordial slime and is destined for annihilation; a being with no dignity whatever

This confused believer affirms macroevolution from Monday to Saturday, but on Sunday worships the God of creation…​

Thomas believed that philosophy and theology play complementary roles in the quest for truth

Grace does not destroy nature, but fulfills it

Thomas saw clear boundaries between the two disciplines but found both necessary to understand reality comprehensively

Aquinas distinguished between “natural theology” (science, reason, etc.) and “reveled theology” (Scripture)

Some things can only be known from natural theology (e.g., why is the sky blue?), some only by reveled theology (e.g., “This is a new covenant in my blood…​”), and some by either of the two (e.g., that God exists)

He continually stressed that “all truth is God’s truth,” so if something is true through one medium (e.g., science) then it is equally true through another (e.g., faith)

If there’s a contradiction, then it’s a problem with our understanding of one and/or the other; or both

To say it another way:

WHAT IS TRUE (coming from one form of revelation) IS NOT FALSE (in another)

The Law of Non-Contradiction doesn’t care about how we know something, just if that “something” contradicts itself

It should be pointed out that Aquinas said that our knowledge of God from nature, while true, is “mediate, analogous, and incomplete”

Without getting into much detail…​

• meditate — we get it through a “medium” (we are getting the knowledge through nature, not directly)

• analogous — nature is “like” God, similar to how we can know something about the nature of Christ and His Church through the “analogy” of marriage

• incomplete — it’s, well, not complete

Regarding “incomplete”: What is given to us through “reveled theology” is also incomplete and needs interpretation, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not vital to a true understanding of God

So too with “natural theology”

They combine to give us a much more complete picture than we could have from either one separately

Aquinas is famous for putting forward five “proofs” for the existence of God that we have from nature

• Change — everything’s changing, but something has to cause that change in the first place – much like the Unmoved Mover

• Causation — similar to the Unmoved Mover, there must be something that is an uncaused cause

• Contingency — everything is contingent upon something else, but there has to be a “necessary being” that is not contingent upon anything

• Degrees of Excellence — we see some things being better than other, which implies that there is something that manifests the perfection of what we see

• Harmony — the world sure looks like it was designed since everything is organized so perfectly for its place in the world, and “design” needs a “designer”

St. Thomas Aquinas began the process of merging Christian doctrine with what he learned from Aristotle, and then others took up the task

By the 14th Century, the synthesis that came out of that process — Aristotelian Scholasticism — was firmly