I was thinking about that just today as I was reading accounts from the "Church Fathers" and some early commentators aggregating their accounts. I am amazed how blind they "at least seemed" to be to the various middle positions I consider. The middle positions being discussed are easily dismissed, but that doesn't mean that either of the diametrically opposed extremes being avoided by the "voting blocks" were true. I find it shocking that a view that very few of them (by number) seem to have believed to be true was dogmatized for eternity as a fundamental truth of our Faith because they were literally in fear of a view that few "laymen" today would even have a fundamental problem with (even if they might disagree with it).jriccitelli wrote:I have been amazed at how much more extensive study we in the Twenty first century can do, than say those of previous generations. I can do more now with a computer than I could say ten or twenty years ago. I can have multiple copies of Bibles and translations all open at once thanks to the printing press and copy machine, I just wonder are we better equipped than say Origen or Luther?
I like what (I believe) C.S. Lewis said -- paraphrased, it was that all "times" and eras have their predispositions and logical blinders and tendency to errors -- thankfully, they vary with the ages. So, it's important to read works from all times -- what seems to be obvious error to us wasn't to them, and what seems normal and reasonable to use might seem irrational or illogical to them.
Still, though we have greater access today, very few access them and even those of us who do seem to do so with less depth and breadth and contemplation than they seem to have done even with their more limited access. Certainly, that's not universally true in either case, but it generally seems to be the case.
