The Early Middle Ages, The Crusades & The Rise of Scholasticism

So continuing in forerunners of the faith, this is a lesson 8 I

believe and this will be a part 2.

So part 2 lesson number 8 we covered 1 setting the stage.

We talked about the early Middle Ages and.

Then.

2 we talked about Schism and then we got to

number 3 which is titled skirmishes.

So this would be The lesson or the part of the lesson that focuses on the Crusades.

So we'll pick up there in a moment talking about the Crusades, but do you remember?

Going back to the schism.

What was the great schism at 1054?

I believe was the year it was the divide between what who knows?

East and West so you have the Roman Catholic Church in the West and

What became known as Eastern Orthodoxy in the East and they split over several issues.

But the final straw is when the Catholic Church Added to

the Nicene Creed and they did it without consulting The churches in the East and

that didn't make them very happy.

It's sort of Sort of as a statement all All on its own right we

can we can do whatever we want because we're in charge and that kind of goes to the The next issue which

really is the issue of the papacy and who has the authority so the Western Church

Which like I said became known as Roman Catholicism.

They say that the Pope is in charge of the church worldwide and the people

in the East said no he's not and That was part of the divide as well another

issue that split them and still continues to be a point of contention is

Icons remember we talked about this.

It was at the end of a class and we sort of Ran out of time and

the sort of the debate between the second commandment.

Does that allow for pictures right it says?

Make no graven image do not bow down to them nor serve them, but what about a picture?

I mean a picture isn't a graven image.

So is a picture of Jesus.

Okay, and What did we determine?

Well, I don't I'm not sure we determined anything.

I said bowing down to a picture showing Worship

certainly or service or obedience to a photograph or a painting I mean that

that certainly seems like idolatry to me whether it's two -dimensional or three -dimensional.

I don't know that it matters but you'll find that Protestants and Baptists and Christians are

kind of divided over the issue of whether or not it's it's right to make

Images of Jesus because we don't really know what he looks like and even if you did

Should you be making those images?

Anyways, what do you think?

I don't think it's only Jesus.

It's you know Statue of Mary or st. Michael or Peter or John or whatever?

Yeah.

Right.

Right, so yeah.

Whether it's Peter or Mary or whoever or whatever if you're bowing down and

showing service to a thing.

Right that to me is pretty clear.

Shouldn't do that.

But these pictures of Jesus, I don't know.

I think a lot of Christians probably don't have an issue with it.

But some do.

Anyways, that was something that we talked about and then we got into the

Crusades.

So the Crusades that's the two things that people always bring up.

Against.

Christianity which I might argue it's it's against Catholicism.

Like I'm not I don't necessarily.

Consider Catholicism my heritage, you know.

So yeah the Catholic Church went on these Crusades and Sort of people will smear all

Christians because of what the Catholic Church did.

But the Crusades did happen.

A lot of terrible things did take place.

Although.

You know, why did they start.

Because Pilgrims were traveling to the the Holy Land to Jerusalem and

they're being robbed and killed by The Muslims.

So there I mean there was a legitimate reason for military

Military activity, but anyways We'll continue on in this lesson.

Number three skirmishes their Crusades which occurred from 1095.

Through.

1291 so this is what you had to fill in in your book.

You see the section you had to fill it in and it starts with the year 1095 to

1099.

Do you see that in section 3?

Okay.

So the what did you fill in that first blank in section 3?

You should have wrote the first Crusade.

So the first Crusade from 1095 to 1099 resulted in the

conquest of Jerusalem and the establishment of several Crusader kingdoms.

From a military perspective the first Crusade was successful.

Now again, that's not to say that it was morally, right?

That's not the argument that this book or the people that wrote this book are making but they're saying it was

successful.

The next paragraph when one of the Crusader kingdoms Odessa fell to Muslim

armies a what? second Crusade Was commissioned

that's from 1147 to 1149.

Bernard of Clairvaux Was one of its supporters.

The second Crusade failed to achieve its military Objectives.

Okay.

So the fruit first Crusade things worked out.

Well.

From a military perspective the second one did not.

What's your impression on the Crusades overall positive or negative?

Who says positive you had a positive impression on the Crusades.

Stories of the past what happened.

Mm -hmm.

He's the greatest.

Hero.

Overtaking the Muslims and retaking Jerusalem.

Oh, yeah.

When you stop and think about it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Most people have a negative impression of the Crusades.

I think it's safe to say that and as far as the one man you just mentioned

Richard the third Crusade from 1189 to 1192 was organized

in response to the military conquest of Saladin the sultan of Egypt and Syria

who reconquered Jerusalem in 1187 this crusade

Involved Kings like Frederick Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire and

Richard the Lionheart of England in spite of the fame of its leaders.

This crusade was unable to reconquer Jerusalem, so the first

successful second failure third Failure and then we get to the fourth

crusade.

It says the situation worsened dramatically in the year 1204

after a series of political twists and turns the Western Crusaders sacked the city of

Constantinople instead of defending the Byzantine Empire.

The initial purpose of the Crusades.

Or that was the initial purpose of the Crusades.

The soldiers of the fourth crusade attacked and looted its capital city in.

This way if the Crusades may have done more to weaken the Byzantine Empire Than to

preserve it.

So you see that the whole purpose was to defend them and then the soldiers go in they get carried

away and they end up.

You know sacking and looting the city.

So yeah probably did more harm Than good in the subsequent decades

several more Crusades would be fought ending in defeat and disaster.

By 1291 the Crusaders had been pushed out of The Middle

East and we had talked about last time how people who live in the Middle East still like the

Crusades.

It's still in their mind.

They were brought up being taught that oh the Christians.

They once came into our land and they committed these atrocities and so a lot of Middle

Easterners still think this way that the Christians are bad because Mainly of the

Crusades and then they'll point to modern activity as well.

But yes, Barb.

Sure Sure.

Yeah, I mean that's one problem with indulgences and I don't know that much about it.

I don't know the specific claims, but I know these claims still exist where they will tell people yes

travel to Rome Travel to Jerusalem if you climb these steps say a prayer at this site

give money when you visit this place.

You'll get time off purgatory.

So yeah, obviously the faithful Catholics Traveled to these areas which were very

dangerous and that did help create the problem.

Now I do think the Muslims are to be blamed to a large degree as well.

I mean they were killing people and committing violent acts as well, but

still You think about today?

What if what if there is a place?

Well think think of North Korea or There's no reason why Christians would travel to

North Korea except maybe on a missionary endeavor.

But if if a church or a pastor was encouraging people Hey travel to this spot travel to

Yemen travel and you know that people that go there and getting

Attacked or maybe killed.

I mean, yeah, what point is the church responsible for?

Telling people to go to these places and obviously the whole getting time off of purgatory is

bogus anyways, but Okay, that's that's a good point.

Any other comments about the Crusades?

All right, let's turn to Ephesians chapter 6 we're gonna read a passage of Scripture

because Even though we think of the Catholic Church, okay, they're they're listening to the Pope.

They're listening to the hierarchy.

They have their traditions and.

As.

Protestants and evangelicals we think well, they put their traditions ahead of Scripture, which I think they do in many

cases.

But still the Catholic Church.

Did.

Try to have some biblical basis for what they were doing.

Here's the thing a church even even a cult every person every group

Everybody always has a verse to justify What they think or their behavior

and and you know, this the real issue is whether or not they're taking that verse in Context

and they're right or are they taking it out of context and they're just twisting it to

justify the unjustifiable so Apparently one of the passages they used

was Ephesians chapter 6.

So we're gonna read verses 10 through 18 the just here's the discussion question.

I'll read it.

We'll look at the passage and then we'll ask the question again.

So read Ephesians 6 10 through 18.

What is the proper? interpretation and application of that passage and

What would you say to someone who used that passage?

To justify going on a crusade.

Okay, let's read Ephesians 6 10 through 18.

So the Apostle Paul writes finally my brethren be strong in the Lord and in the

power of his might.

Put on the whole armor of God that you may be able to stand against the wiles of

the devil for we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against

Principalities against powers against the rulers of the darkness of this age against spiritual hosts

of wickedness in Heavenly places therefore take up the whole armor of God that you

may be able to withstand in the evil day and Having done all to stand

stand therefore having girded your waist with truth.

Having put on the breastplate of righteousness and having shod your feet with the preparation

of the gospel of peace above all taking the shield of faith.

With which you are able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one and then

take the helmet of salvation.

And the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit being watchful to this

end with all Perseverance and supplication for all the Saints.

Okay.

So the first question is what is the proper?

Interpretation and the proper application of that passage.

Anyone want to share with the class?

What's the proper interpretation?

Brad.

Exactly it's about yes Spiritual warfare and it's sort of already answering the second question, but

let's just stay on this for one moment.

Spiritual warfare.

We all agree with that.

Well, let's go back.

Verse 10 He says be strong in the Lord and the power of his might.

Put on the whole armor of God.

And then he goes, you know the helmet and the shield and the sword.

But.

He's not talking about a literal sword right.

Because he says that the sword is is the Word of God, so he's not Actually

talking about a literal shield or literal armor.

I mean that's painfully Obvious.

And then there's the statement for we do not wrestle against flesh and blood.

Right.

So that I mean, there you go.

This isn't actually talking about a physical conflict.

So That next question.

What would you say to someone who used that passage to justify going on a crusade?

So let's imagine you're living in the 10th 11th

century and you're part of the Catholic Church.

You're you're in the hierarchy somewhere and they're talking about.

Hey, Ephesians 6, you know, let's let's go to the Holy Land.

Let's gear up and we're gonna go on a crusade.

We're gonna defeat the Muslims.

Let's go based on Ephesians 6, what would you say?

Well, you might not say anything because you'd be afraid of what happened to you, you know.

Maybe you'd be locked up or something.

I don't know but Yeah, so I mean one simple

thing you could say is excuse me, I'll give Aaron a chance go ahead.

Yeah, and I would take each piece of armor literally so you have your faith in place.

Oh, no, you don't need that breastplate.

You just need your righteousness.

Yep.

Right, yeah.

Yeah Linda.

Right.

Right.

They went on what the Pope said or whoever's in charge

and they were.

I mean it was like they would be saying That person knows more than I do.

So they must be right, right?

Yeah, yeah whatever the preacher says whatever the Pope says whatever the leaders say because And

in fairness a lot of the average common folk They wouldn't know the average person didn't have a

Bible in their hand until what the 1700s 1800s until it was common in

every house 1900s, maybe I don't know so yeah, it would be really easy to sort of do

people or they're just They're taught from a very early age that you just

don't question the leadership.

I mean, that's still the thing in churches.

Whatever the leadership says you do not question them now.

I we've talked about the cults before and I did a video on the cults and

You know, I get a lot of people on YouTube Commenting and the one of the most common

comments that I get Why didn't you mention the Catholic Church because I brought up the Jehovah's Witnesses the

Mormons Seventh -day Adventists and the Christian scientists like the four major cults

and people ask me again and again Why didn't you bring up the Catholic Church?

Well Typically people don't consider the Catholic Church a cult because they're so big they're

considered a world religion.

But in some ways they did operate in that way where you cannot question the Pope.

So anytime you have a church or an organization where the person on top even like with our

form of government like you as Americans like we can question the people

in authority like it's we the people that's the way it's supposed to be.

You need to be able to hold people in power accountable.

So when leaders are not Accountable and they cannot be questioned.

I mean that's cult like activity is my point.

But yeah, people were taught that you just don't question the leadership so so what Ephesians 6 says what

it means what it doesn't mean really Wasn't the issue to us that's important because

we look at Scripture.

We want to take it in context.

We want to understand it properly, but that just wasn't Wasn't really a thing back then

for a lot of people.

So my response would be Simple.

Hey, you're taking Ephesians 6 out of context.

To the person who is reasonable and willing to listen.

That should be pretty easy to prove you agree with that.

Okay, any other comments on this?

Section.

We're gonna move on from this subject of the Crusades.

So if there's anything you want to talk about Ask a question regarding the Crusades now is your chance

because we're moving on once and for all once we do.

Okay, so Crusades Generally bad.

Okay, the the Inquisition was bad a lot of abuse a lot of people

tortured.

And they used verses out of context to their talk about Moses and Deuteronomy and the law for Israel.

We're not Israel and those types of things.

And actually they ended up killing Bible believers not just heretics, but

The Crusades, I think it's kind of a mixture.

I don't think you can blame Christians or even the Catholic Church completely because the

Muslims are at least 50 at fault.

So I'm just gonna put that out there and we'll move on.

Okay.

Section number four scholars.

Scholars, so this is the rise of scholasticism.

Says during this period things began to change in European education.

The first European universities were established as education shifted from

monasteries to universities.

The earliest Universities in Europe were started in Bologna.

That's in the year 1088 Oxford in 1096 Paris in 1150

and then Cambridge was established in the year 1209.

So when you think of universities today, we think of them as places that are.

Absolutely, you know the least Christian of all places.

But originally universities were founded by Christians or at least nominal

Christians, of course, you probably knew that right?

You know, we think of places like Harvard.

I don't know if Yale was I know Harvard.

Harvard was started as Yeah, theological seminary.

A lot of a lot of universities have that background.

Yep, yep.

So yeah, Holy Cross.

I mean that it's in the name so the earliest universities in Europe.

I already read that part.

A new method of learning called Scholasticism began to develop within monastic

schools during the time of Charlemagne.

So this is 748 to 814 it became the dominant approach to

learning in medieval universities.

Scholasticism accompanied the Rediscovery in the West of Greek

philosophy and in particular who what great philosopher?

Did they really look to man named begins with an a.

Aristotle.

Okay, so there's what three big Aristotle Socrates and Plato right.

Who is first.

Does anyone know.

I knew at one point I forgot but.

Anyone want to help.

Socrates was first.

Okay, well nobody's sure.

Two of the most important Scholastics were Anselm of Canterbury

so he lived from 1033 to 1109 and then the other is Thomas

Aquinas who lived from 1225 to 1274.

So out of these two names, which one do you recognize.

But who knows Anselm.

Who's heard of Anselm?

Okay, who's heard of Thomas Aquinas?

I mean, I think most everybody has heard of.

Sometimes it's called st. Thomas Aquinas.

He has been given a position within the Catholic Church.

He's called the doctor of the church because of he was so brilliant and added so much to their

theology.

Of course, there's a school right and Northfield now st. Thomas Aquinas

College is that what it is?

And It's it's a Catholic school.

I'm assuming.

Right.

Okay.

So the Moody Center, it's like the campus NMH campus was split in half.

Half of it goes to the Protestants for the Moody Center and then half goes to the Catholics for st. Thomas.

Aquinas.

Yeah, yeah, I don't I don't doubt it.

So two of the most important school scholastics are these two men.

One notable contribution made by Anselm Was his articulation of the

satisfaction theory of the atonement, so this is very important

rather than seeing Jesus's death as a ransom paid to Satan a View

held by some in the early Middle Ages Anselm taught that Christ's death

Satisfied the debt that sinners owe to God.

The 16th century Protestant reform reformers would build on this understanding of

the atonement.

So let's turn to the book of Isaiah if you would.

Does anyone know which chapter of Isaiah you want to take a guess which chapter we're turning to.

Come on, someone somebody knows this.

What do you say?

53 very good exactly.

Isaiah chapter 53.

Okay, so there is this view that Jesus paid a

debt right on the cross He paid for our sins and the question

is this ransom that was paid Who is he paying it to?

So one view in the Middle Ages and by the way, this view still exists.

There are people who believe this that the debt was being paid to who Satan.

Now if you believe that or believe that up until right now and you're like, oh no, I didn't know that was wrong.

I better change.

You know, you don't have to admit that but Where would someone get this idea that the debt was paid to Satan?

I don't know.

I can't think of a verse offhand or an argument.

But that's what some people believe.

But we know that the debt was paid to God.

So we're gonna read Isaiah 53 in just a moment, but two centuries after Anselm

Thomas Aquinas wrote Two important works the summa contra

Gentiles and summa theologica and these works Thomas brought

Aristotelian philosophy to bear on Christian theology, so that's kind of a whole other

subject that we're not getting into.

But there's there's some Christians that they think a Greek philosophy.

It's a good thing that it's been kind of incorporated into the church and it's it's helped a lot.

No, there's other people who think no this this Greek philosophy needs to be kept completely

away from Christianity.

So some people think this is a good thing some not a good thing famously

Thomas st. Thomas.

Or you know when we call him st.

Who has an issue with that calling him st. Thomas Aquinas anyone?

Okay a couple.

Because here's you probably know this but the Catholic Church, what do they do?

They they canonize somebody as a saint.

So after they die The Pope or the Catholic hierarchy will say this person.

And there's a whole process a few miracles have to be done by them.

From beyond.

I don't know how you determined that they performed a miracle from another world.

But anyways two miracles have to be.

Performed.

By that dead saint and then it goes through a process.

So you remember when Pope John Paul the second died and whatever 2003?

He was canonized as a saint a couple years later.

So in the Catholic system, there are these people that are just high and above everyone else.

They are the Saints, of course, we know that biblically a saint is just a

Christian like like Paul writes to the Saints in this city or this city.

So every true believer is a saint biblically, but anyways Thomas

articulated several classical arguments for the existence of God.

These include the cosmological argument namely that God is the

unmoved mover or the first cause of the universe and then the Teleological

argument that God is the designer behind the order found in nature.

Through his writings Thomas became one of the most influential thinkers in the history

of the Western Church.

And anyone still to this very day if you go to Bible College seminary, you're gonna hear about the cosmological

argument and all these other things.

So we'll come back to that if you want if we have time, but let's read Isaiah 53

1 through 12 and we're gonna.

We're gonna see whether or not the scripture really teaches this idea that the debt was paid to God or was

the debt paid to Satan, okay.

Isaiah 53 1 through 12.

The Prophet writes who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant as a root out of dry ground.

He has no form or comeliness.

And when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire.

Or no beauty that we should desire him.

So Isaiah is speaking prophetically about who?

Jesus some seven hundred years before Jesus was even born.

Isaiah is prophesying about Israel's Messiah verse Three

he is despised and rejected by men a man of sorrows and acquainted with

grief and We hid as it were our faces from him.

He was despised and we did not esteem him.

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows yet.

We we esteem him stricken smitten by God and Afflicted he was

wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities and the

Chastisement for our peace was upon him and by his stripes or by his wounds.

We are healed.

We all like sheep have gone astray.

We have turned everyone to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity

of us all.

So this is the idea that Jesus died for our sins.

God took all of the sin of God's people placed it on Christ.

Says he was oppressed and he was afflicted yet.

He did not open his mouth.

He was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as the sheep before his shearers is silent.

You remember when Jesus stood before?

Herod for example, he didn't say a word.

So he opened not his mouth verse 8.

He was taken from prison and From judgment and who will declare his generation

for he was cut off from the land of the living for the transgressions of my people.

He was stricken and They made his grave with the wicked but with

the rich at his death.

Because he had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth.

So what does that mean that they made his grave with the wicked?

Well.

Jesus died with two criminals right.

One on one side another criminal on the other side.

But at the same time with the rich in his death.

Well, you remember Joseph of Arimathea a rich.

Jew.

He paid for Jesus's tomb.

So Jesus got a brand new tomb that only a rich man could afford.

Verse 10.

Yet, it pleased the Lord to bruise him.

He has put him to grief when you make his soul an offering for sin.

He shall see his seed.

He shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

So you shall he died but yet The Lord will prolong his days.

What's that a reference to?

The resurrection, right?

He shall see the labor of the soul and be satisfied by his knowledge.

My righteous Servant shall justify many for he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the strong.

Because he poured out his soul Unto death and he was numbered with the transgressors

and he bore the sin of many in made intercession for the transgressors.

So very clear prophecy about Jesus.

We could just go through all the things that he fulfilled pretty clear.

But what's the question?

Going back to This discussion question read Isaiah 53 1 through 12.

So in light of Anselm satisfaction theory of the atonement of Christ

in this familiar passage written roughly 700 years before The birth of Jesus

the Prophet Isaiah predicts the sufferings of Jesus.

Okay, we saw that.

Here's the question.

What does a passage like this?

Teach us about the atoning work of Christ on the cross.

What does it teach us?

Any ideas.

What it's complete.

Okay, once for all it tells us Exactly how it happened.

But who.

Here's the real question who was satisfied as a result of Jesus's death.

Now.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think Satan was mentioned at all here.

No.

All right.

So where's the verse that says that God was satisfied?

Well.

Yeah.

Verse 10 it pleased The Lord.

Okay all capital letters capital L capital O capital R capital D.

Which is the name of God Yahweh.

Jehovah it pleased?

Jehovah to bruise Jesus and he has put him to

grief.

God has put him to grief and he made his soul an offering for sin.

So all of this was to justify.

God's.

Justice so I mean this is the this is the whole concept of the gospel that God is

holy.

He's righteous and mankind is unholy mankind is

sinful and all of sin and come short of the glory of God and because man is sinful God

must punish sin if God is a Holy God if God is a God of

justice.

He has to punish wrongdoing, right.

I Saw a clip from a it's a Presbyterian

seminary this man, you know, Reverend doctor whoever and he is a pastor

and he's the head of a Presbyterian seminary and he was talking about one of the parables

of Christ and he said how absurd it is Ridiculous it contradicts everything we know about

God if this is the way God is I will I don't want anything to do.

I mean he was just like shredding the Bible and you wonder why do people like this go into you know

into religion?

Well, I think I know why you know, they want to creep in and kind of break it down from inside.

But he said the con the idea that God would punish anybody is just

repulsive.

That was his main point that God is in heaven and he's he's gonna punish people.

That's Just absolutely repulsive, I mean what's the problem with that that thinking

let's let's take this down to a human level.

Let's say there are people running around Franklin County committing horrible crimes rape.

Murder, you know grand theft auto all this stuff and then they're brought before a judge and that judge

is like, you know I'm just so loving.

I'm just gonna let these murderers and rapists back out on the streets to go.

Now would you say that judge is righteous?

No, the judge is absolutely corrupt.

He's he's he's a wicked judge because he is kind of aiding and abetting the criminal and he's letting them

go out to commit Even more crimes.

So the idea that God is doing something wrong because he's punishing sin.

No, that's why God is righteous.

That's why he is a God of justice, but at the same time God is also a Savior.

And he loves mankind and he sees that all of man has fallen short.

So out of his, you know, he's filled with wrath, but he's also filled with mercy and out of this mercy He

sent Christ to die on the cross not to satisfy the devil.

Christ satisfied God's demand for justice, right Jesus

paid for our sins.

So instead of God punishing us Whether it be in this life or in the life to come

Jesus took that punishment for us.

So he satisfied God's justice, right?

Isn't that like the whole the concept of the gospel itself?

But as soon as you take out one part, you know that it just doesn't make sense and then it all

breaks down and that's what that a Seminary president was trying to do.

He is just trying to Deconstruct and dismantle the gospel, but

okay, so we're all set and firm on this idea that it was The

the justice of God that was satisfied.

Amen.

Okay, any comments or questions on that?

All right, anyone want to bring up this idea of the Cosmological

argument or the teleological argument if you're gonna raise your hand, you're gonna bring it up.

You're gonna have to give a definition because I'm a little rusty on this stuff.

Okay, I Did learn it but then it's like it's one of those things you're in school.

You know, when am I ever gonna use this and then you know.

If you don't look at it for a few years, you kind of forget anyone wanna.

Who's heard of it at least?

Cosmological argument.

Okay.

So the people who went to Bible College heard of it.

Okay, I Never found it all that compelling.

Except that Romans chapter 1 let's just turn there Romans 1 I

Forget what the context was, but we looked at Psalm 19 within the past week or

two.

You know the heavens declare the glory of God the firmament showeth his handiwork.

The idea that you can simply look up at the night sky.

I Think this ties into the cosmological argument, but the idea that simply by

observing Nature by observing the creation, you know that there's a creator.

This might be a separate argument, but if you were walking along the sidewalk and you found a watch.

And you pick it up and there's this Watch that the watch is evidence of what a

Watch maker, right?

So if you're looking around at the creation, it's evidence of a Creator so it's

the same idea.

Yes, Aaron.

Okay, yeah.

Speak loudly so we can all hear a.

Cosmological argument in natural theology is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be

inferred from facts concerning causation explanation change motion

contingency Dependency or finitude with respect to the universe or some total

totality of objects.

Okay, you got that.

Yeah, all right, thank you, I mean.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, and that that that is a powerful argument.

I was thinking of a different one.

That says something to the effect that if you can imagine it it must exist.

There's some argument that's similar.

Anyways, I don't want to get stuck on that but Romans 1.

Yeah.

Romans.

120 look at it.

It says.

For well, let's go back to 19.

Because what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them for

since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes are clearly seen

being understood by the things that are made.

Even his eternal power and Godhead so that they that is men are without

excuse.

So in other words, you know man knows that God exists and then Paul goes on to Romans 1.

To say that man takes that knowledge of God and he suppresses it man wants to live life on

his own terms.

He doesn't want God telling him what to do.

So he takes that knowledge we know there's a God and we suppress it and then people corrupt it.

And Worship, you know idols and everything else.

Okay, so we are almost done.

Let's just quickly cover this last section.

For was scholars the rise of scholasticism.

Number five testimonies of grace.

It says as we've seen in this lesson the Middle Ages included examples of

ecclesiastical corruption Biblical misinterpretation theological confusion

and political turmoil in the midst of chaos or of the chaos.

We still find glimpses of the gospel of grace from Christian leaders

like Anselm of Canterbury and Bernard of Clairvaux.

Anselm discussed above served as the archbishop of Canterbury from

1093 to 1109.

Bernard founded a monastery in France in the year 1115

and this sort of goes without saying because I've said it before but that this does not mean we affirm

Everything that these men believed and taught matter of fact I'm quite certain if we looked at all

of their beliefs and teaching even the concept of a monastery, you know.

We would disagree with them on many points.

But the reason why they're included in this book is they were right?

About the gospel or at least certain elements of the gospel.

That's why they're being included.

Okay, so we're not putting Morse corner church myself.

I'm not putting any stamp of approval like st. Augustine.

Check we agree with everything.

He said no, that's not what we're saying the 16th century Reformers

did not agree with everything that Anselm and Bernard taught.

There you go.

However, they saw them as allies with regard to salvation by grace

through faith alone based solely on the finished work of Christ.

The selected quotes below are Encouraging in that regard so, you know I

could I could consider working with anyone as long as they're right on the gospel and there's not some

outrageous other issue.

I Main thing are they right on the gospel and we

are out of time.

I'm just gonna read one Quote from Bernard.

He said for the sake of your sins He Christ will die

for the sake of your Justification he will rise in order that you having been

justified through faith may have peace With God and the last statement

in the centuries after Bernard we began to see the rise of the pre

reformers.

Men like Peter Waldo John Wycliffe in yon Huss

these men paved the way for the 16th century reformers like Luther

and Calvin and next week we'll look at lesson number nine forerunners to the Reformation.

Alright, thank you.

You're dismissed.