Good Roman Catholic theologions/writters from the history ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mayflower

Puritan Board Junior
Are there still good good Roman Catholic theologions/writters from the history, whom you like to read and study ?

Forexample :

* Bernardus van Clairvaux
* Thomas Aquinas
* Jerome (?)
* Augustine (?)

Do you know more theologions (RC) who wrote some good (systematic) dogmatic works ?
 
Be sure to check out St. Anselm. I think coming from a protestant perspective, you will find much to appreciate in his writings.
 
Originally posted by AdamM
Be sure to check out St. Anselm. I think coming from a protestant perspective, you will find much to appreciate in his writings.

Did he wrote some dogmatic studies ?
 
Originally posted by turmeric
What about that Jansen guy? Or was that Artaud? I can't find either of them sold anywhere.

You mean : Blaise Pascal :up:

I just found this on the web concerning St. Anselm. Maybe someone can explain me more about his views on the atonement (review by amamzon) :

Yet Anselm actually _never_ taught that Jesus was "punished" on our behalf. On the contrary, the debt was paid precisely so that no punishment would be necessary. Jesus' death on the cross was not a sadistic punishment exacted by an angry God, but was the culmination of his absolute obedience to God's will. It was that obedience, completed in his sacrificial death, that paid "the debt we could not owe."
 
Originally posted by Mayflower
Originally posted by turmeric
What about that Jansen guy? Or was that Artaud? I can't find either of them sold anywhere.

You mean : Blaise Pascal :up:

Pascal: :up::up::up:

I just found this on the web concerning St. Anselm. Maybe someone can explain me more about his views on the atonement (review by amamzon) :

Yet Anselm actually _never_ taught that Jesus was "punished" on our behalf. On the contrary, the debt was paid precisely so that no punishment would be necessary. Jesus' death on the cross was not a sadistic punishment exacted by an angry God, but was the culmination of his absolute obedience to God's will. It was that obedience, completed in his sacrificial death, that paid "the debt we could not owe."

This is from a chapter called The Doctrine of the Satisfaction of the Divine Justice by the Lord Jesus Christ as Seen in St. Anselm of Canterbury's Cur Deus Homo by Jerry W. Crick in Confessing Our Hope: Essays Celebrating the Life and Ministry of Morton H. Smith, ed. by Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and C.N. Willborn, Southern Presbyterian Press, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, 2004, p. 66:

Louis Berkhof describes Anselm's contribution to the doctrine of atonement as follows:

Anselm of Canterbury made the first attempt at a harmonius and consistent representation of the doctrine of atonement. His Cur Deus Homo is an epoch-making book, a masterpiece of theological learning, in which the author combines metaphysical depth with clearness of presentation....

The alpha and omega of the position of Anselm is the absolute necessity of the atonement for the redemption of man. He deliberately rejects as unsatisfactory the Recapitulation Theory, the Ransom-to-Satan Theory, and the idea that the death of Christ was merely a manifestation of the love of God to man, since these do not explain the necessit of the atonement adequately.

See Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine (1937; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 171, 172

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Dear Andrew, thank you so much for the information. I have to read the post of Berkhof a few times because i have not read this theory before :

" The alpha and omega of the position of Anselm is the absolute necessity of the atonement for the redemption of man. He deliberately rejects as unsatisfactory the Recapitulation Theory, the Ransom-to-Satan Theory, and the idea that the death of Christ was merely a manifestation of the love of God to man, since these do not explain the necessit of the atonement adequately."

So was Anselm now orthodox or not ? Because i still don't understand it well, because in that review that i read at amazon, there was written that Anselm actually _never_ taught that Jesus was "punished" on our behalf. On the contrary, the debt was paid precisely so that no punishment would be necessary ???

I hope that you or maybe some else can explain me ?
 
Originally posted by Mayflower
Dear Andrew, thank you so much for the information. I have to read the post of Berkhof a few times because i have not read this theory before :

" The alpha and omega of the position of Anselm is the absolute necessity of the atonement for the redemption of man. He deliberately rejects as unsatisfactory the Recapitulation Theory, the Ransom-to-Satan Theory, and the idea that the death of Christ was merely a manifestation of the love of God to man, since these do not explain the necessit of the atonement adequately."

So was Anselm now orthodox or not ? Because i still don't understand it well, because in that review that i read at amazon, there was written that Anselm actually _never_ taught that Jesus was "punished" on our behalf. On the contrary, the debt was paid precisely so that no punishment would be necessary ???

I hope that you or maybe some else can explain me ?

I would put it this way: Anselm's doctrine of the atonement was not fully developed but was foundational to the Reformation doctrine of the atonement. His emphasis was on the necessity of the atonement by God the Son to God the Father as satisfaction for the sins of his people. The penal aspect of the atonement was not his main focus, because he was arguing against other errors, but he did not argue against penal substitution. It became more significant in Reformational thought. This article explains what I am getting at more fully in historical context. It is always important when reading pre-Reformation writers to recall that systematic theology has developed over time. Anselm's writings on the atonement were a major breakthrough for the church, but they are not the most fully developed writings on the subject in all of church history. A great debt is owed to Anselm, but readers on this subject should continue on to Reformation-era writings to get the full picture in the light of God's Word.
 
I just aquired Aquinas, Anselm, Athanasius, and I have been reading Augustine.

I want to give pre-Medieval or even early medieval Catholic theologians the benefit of the doubt.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by Mayflower
Dear Andrew, thank you so much for the information. I have to read the post of Berkhof a few times because i have not read this theory before :

" The alpha and omega of the position of Anselm is the absolute necessity of the atonement for the redemption of man. He deliberately rejects as unsatisfactory the Recapitulation Theory, the Ransom-to-Satan Theory, and the idea that the death of Christ was merely a manifestation of the love of God to man, since these do not explain the necessit of the atonement adequately."

So was Anselm now orthodox or not ? Because i still don't understand it well, because in that review that i read at amazon, there was written that Anselm actually _never_ taught that Jesus was "punished" on our behalf. On the contrary, the debt was paid precisely so that no punishment would be necessary ???

I hope that you or maybe some else can explain me ?

I would put it this way: Anselm's doctrine of the atonement was not fully developed but was foundational to the Reformation doctrine of the atonement. His emphasis was on the necessity of the atonement by God the Son to God the Father as satisfaction for the sins of his people. The penal aspect of the atonement was not his main focus, because he was arguing against other errors, but he did not argue against penal substitution. It became more significant in Reformational thought. This article explains what I am getting at more fully in historical context. It is always important when reading pre-Reformation writers to recall that systematic theology has developed over time. Anselm's writings on the atonement were a major breakthrough for the church, but they are not the most fully developed writings on the subject in all of church history. A great debt is owed to Anselm, but readers on this subject should continue on to Reformation-era writings to get the full picture in the light of God's Word.

Ditto,
We can't fault early (ier) theologians for not having fully developed doctrinal formulations on every aspect of doctrine. The reason that Calvin and Westminster are so clear and precise is partly because they had more history of doctrine to work with (if that sounds heretical in one way, I meant it in the non-heretical way).

No, Anselm doesn't rival Owen on the Atonement, but that's not to say that what he said is bad.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I just aquired Aquinas, Anselm, Athanasius, and I have been reading Augustine.

That's a lot of alliteration! :lol:

I am going to summarize the thought and write a book called

Theology from the Big A's
 
Thank you Guys!

I just orderd : "Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption: Theological Treatises" Saint Anselm; Paperback; £10.55 (amazon)
 
Actually no,
I got Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa
In some ways it is a condensation of what Big A has said, but it should be a fairly accurate summary of his thought (at least concerning philosophy/epistemology, although I am actually more concerned with Big A's theology).

BTW, I finished Athansius's De Incarnatione last night. It was superb!
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse BTW, I finished Athansius's De Incarnatione last night. It was superb!

I read some parts of Athansius : selected treatise of St. Athanasius in controversy with the arians :up::up::up:
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse BTW, I finished Athansius's De Incarnatione last night. It was superb!

I read some parts of Athansius : Selected treatise of St. Athanasius in controversy with the arians, 2 volumes :up::up::up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top