pp 14-18 nominalism
Summary
During the 14th century William of Ockham developed, as a reaction against the Thomas-Aristotle compromise, nominalism.
Are things good because God decrees them good or dies God declare them good because they are good? Aquinas held to the latter view, nominalism the first.
Nominalism was an attempt to reassert the sovereignty of God. God’s will became ‘despotic voluntarism’. God could decree whatever he waned to be good, eg murder, and it would be good.
Nominalism became the dominant paradigm. It meant that reason was no longer absolute and the concept of law became the ordering of temporal life where sin reigned. Law was removed from the life of grace.
In nominalism nature was no longer a portal of grace. Nature, as the realm of law, was in direct opposition to grace. Nature was sinful. There was no place for Christian learning or even a Christian notion of the State as learning and the State all belonged to the kingdom of the world. Nature and grace had become radically separated.
Luther had been brought up in nominalist thinking. Despite his reforming tendencies he still held to a nominalist dualism of law and freedom.
This sort of dualism can also be seen in Melanchthon and more recently Brunner and Barth. This is why they rejected the idea of Christian thinking.
Study questions
1. Compare and contrast nominalism with the Aquinas-Aristotle view.
2. How did nominalism view the Christian State?
3. What is the origin of the nominalist dualism of law and freedom?
4. Why did Brunner and Barth reject the idea of Christian culture, learning or political life?
5. How did Brunner see the political role of the Christian?
6. Should Christians be in politics?
