tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62207637511704929942024-02-03T03:40:32.201-03:00De fe y razón - Of faith and reasonSome of the articles can be downloaded in PDF format from https://independent.academia.edu/JohannesArJohanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-4762345757205396602018-02-27T17:59:00.000-03:002018-02-27T18:28:19.433-03:00On the doctrine of the Trinity as answer to the "freedom to create" question.Quoting the Wikipedia article on "Best of all possible worlds" [1]:<br />
<br />
"The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil."<br />
<br />
It is well known that this claim can be the subject of serious
criticism. One example of that criticism is the last book by the late philosopher
of religion William Rowe, <i>Can God Be Free?</i>[2], of which there is a very good review by Professor Timothy O'Connor of Baylor and Indiana universities [3].<br />
<br />
Quoting the possibly minimum summary of Rowe's issue from the Amazon page of the book:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
This book focuses on God's freedom and praiseworthiness in relation to
his perfect goodness. Given his necessary perfections, <b>if there is a
best world for God to create he would have no choice other than to
create it. For, as Leibniz tells us, 'to do less good than one could
is to be lacking in wisdom or in goodness'. But if God could not do
otherwise than create the best world, he created the world of
necessity, not freely.</b> And, if that is so, it may be argued that we
have no reason to be thankful to God for creating us, since, as parts
of the best possible world, God was simply unable to do anything other
than create us―-he created us of necessity, not freely. Moreover, we
are confronted with the difficulty of having to believe that this
world, with its Holocaust, and innumerable other evils, is the best
that an infinitely powerful, infinitely good being could do in
creating a world. Neither of these conclusions, taken by itself, seems
at all plausible. Yet each conclusion appears to follow from the
conception of God now dominant in the great religions of the West.<br />
William Rowe presents a detailed study of this important problem, both
historically in the writings of Gottfried Leibniz, Samuel Clarke,
Thomas Aquinas, and Jonathan Edwards, and in the contemporary
philosophical literature devoted to the issue. Rowe argues that this
problem is more serious than is commonly thought and may require some
significant revision in contemporary thinking about the nature of God.</blockquote>
<br />
I argue that the issue raised by Rowe is solved fully and simply by Christian trinitarian doctrine, according to which:<br />
<br />
A.
God the Father indeed produced the best possible world that He could:
the infinitely perfect divine "world" ad-intra of the Holy Trinity,
though He did it not by creation but by eternal emanation or procession,
and<br />
<br />
B. God the Father eternally generates the Son and spirates
with Him the Holy Spirit by necessity of nature (*), not by a
libertarian free decision.<br />
<br />
So, God the Father indeed cannot do
otherwise than produce the best world, which is the divine "world"
ad-intra, and He eternally does it by necessity of nature (*).<br />
<br />
(*) as opposed to necessity from want or necessity from external imposition.<br />
<br />
To expand on why the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for maximum
divine goodness, I will first distinguish between the two senses in
which we speak of the goodness of a person (as "good" has meaning only
in the context of personal beings):<br /><br /><strong>Intrinsic goodness, i.e. goodness in itself.</strong> In terms of being, to what degree of fullness it is.<br /><br />Since God Is the absolute fullness of Being, He Is infinitely Good in Himself.<br /><br /><strong>Moral goodness, i.e. goodness towards others.</strong>
In terms of being, to what extent it causes or helps other personal beings to be
in fullness. This goodness can be quantified in absolute or relative
terms, the latter by comparing diffused good with intrinsic good, i.e.
to what extent intrinsic good is self diffusive.<br /><br />If intrinsic and
moral goodness are related as per the axiom "bonum est diffusivum sui",
from God's infinite intrinsic goodness we can expect Him to have
(actually to Be, as per absolute divine simplicity) infinite absolute
and maximal relative moral goodness.<br /><br />Infinite absolute and
maximal relative moral goodness implies that God eternally enunciates
his perfect knowledge of Himself generating another Person Who Is the
same absolute fullness of Being as He Is. It also implies that the
generated Person can love the First just as the First loves Him, so that
both breathe as one principle a third consubstantial Person Who Is
their mutual gift of absolute Love.<br /><br />As easily seen, this is just Roman Catholic trinitarian doctrine, explicitely including Filioque.<br /><br />Thus,
the generation of a consubstantial Son with Whom He spirates a
consubstantial Holy Spirit shows that God the Father is infinitely good
in absolute terms, as the emanated Persons Are the absolute fullness of
Being, and maximally good in relative terms, as the emanated Persons Are
all God the Father Is, except being the Father.<br /><br />As the diffusion
of good resulting from the generation of the Son and the spiration of
the Holy Spirit is infinitely greater, both absolutely and relatively,
than any diffusion of good that can result from creation, creation is
not necessary and does not increase the degree of realization of divine
moral goodness in the trinitarian processions, much like the addition of
any
finite number does not increase a transfinite number (and much less the
absolute infinite, which is the mathematical analogue to God). Even the
difussion of good resulting from God's elevating creatures to be
"partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4) stands to the difussion
of good resulting from trinitarian processions as a transfinite number
stands to the absolute infinite, i.e. the addition of the former does
not increase the latter.<br /><br />This
demonstrates not the factuality of the Trinity, but that it is possible
that God begets a consubstantial Son, and breathes with Him a
consubstantial Spirit, necessarily by nature, from his being infinite
Good. It is an extremely abridged exposition of St. Bonaventure's
"necessary reasons" for the Trinity, based on God's nature as infinite
Good and on the axiom "bonum est diffusivum sui".<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References</b><br />
<br />
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds</a><br />
<br />
[2] William Rowe, <i>Can God Be Free?</i>, Oxford University Press, 2004.<br />
<br />
[3] <a href="https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/can-god-be-free/">https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/can-god-be-free/</a><br />
<br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-65943599883515943842018-02-11T13:14:00.000-03:002018-02-23T22:30:42.804-03:00The three possible epistemic states of the healed blind man in Jn 9:36 and the resulting scenarios<b>Abstract</b><br />
<br />
Towards the end of chapter 9 of St. John's Gospel, which narrates the healing by Jesus of a man born blind, there is a dialogue between Jesus and the healed man (H), during which Jesus asks whether H believes in the Son of Man, H responds by asking who the Son of Man is, Jesus answers identifying Himself as the Son of Man, and H responds by expressing his faith and falling to the ground before Jesus in worship of Him. In this work I argue that, in order to undestand H's question and subsequent worship response, it is necessary to consider H's epistemic state regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question, which consists of either his knowledge or his ignorance of each of 3 facts: F1: that he is talking with Jesus, F2: that Jesus is the Son of Man, and F3: that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship. Since in 9:36 H must ignore at least one of these facts (or otherwise he would not have asked the question), there are 3 possible epistemic states of H in 9:36, each of which gives rise to a respective scenario comprising the meaning for H of his question, the meaning for H of Jesus' answer, and the motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer. I study each scenario and evaluate its probability and theological acceptability, concluding that the first (AFAIK never considered before) is highly probable and theologically perfect, the second is extremely unlikely and theologically acceptable, and the third (notably the one usually assumed) is highly probable but theologically unacceptable.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>1. Introduction</b><br />
<br />
Chapter 9 of St. John's Gospel narrates the healing by Jesus of a man blind from birth. Towards the end of that chapter, Jesus (J) finds the healed man (H) and has with him a dialogue which I reproduce verse by verse below, omitting all the words in the text that were not pronounced by the speakers, with the exception of the narration of the final action of H, and adding the indication of the speaker:<br />
<br />
9:35. J: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”<br />
<br />
9:36. H: “And who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” <br />
<br />
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; He is the One speaking with you.”<br />
<br />
9:38. H: “I believe, Lord.” And he worshiped Him.<br />
<br />
To note, whereas in Matthew's Gospel the Greek verb prosekyneo is used also to mean prostration as homage to a human person without implying worship, as e. g. a slave to his king in Mt 18:26, the Apostle John uses that word, both in his Gospel and in the book of Revelation, exclusively to mean worship directed to God. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>2. Textual issues witnessing the perception of the exegetical problem since at least the III century</b><br />
<br />
There are two well-known textual issues (TI's) with this passage: <br />
<br />
TI1: Verse 9:38 is omitted in 3 MSS of Alexandrian text-type, listed below preceded by their codes and followed by their century between ():<br />
<br />
- P75 (III),<br />
- 01 Aleph_* Sinaiticus non-corrected (IV),<br />
- 032 W Washingtonianus (V).<br />
<br />
To note, those 3 MSS have "Son of Man" in 9:35 and omit also the ending of Jn 3:13, "who is in heaven".<br />
<br />
TI2: In some of the MSS that do have verse 9:38, "Son of Man" in 9:35 is changed to "Son of God". These are 2 of the 4 great uncials plus a whole text type:<br />
<br />
- 02 A Alexandrinus (V),<br />
- 04 C Ephraemi Rescriptus (V),<br />
- Byzantine text-type (Majority Text).<br />
<br />
Of course, there are also MSS which both have "Son of Man" in 9:35 and include 9:38:<br />
<br />
- P66 (III, c. 200),<br />
- 03 B Vaticanus (IV),<br />
- 05 D Bezae Cantabrigensis (V).<br />
<br />
In my view, the most plausible explanation of both textual issues is that the original text both had "Son of Man" in 9:35 and included 9:38, and both the change in 9:35 in some MSS and the omission of 9:38 in others were introduced by different NT scribes to try to solve, in different directions, the perceived challenge, even to the point of scandal, resulting from H worshiping a man who, for all H APPARENTLY knew about him, had only these two qualifications:<br />
<br />
- he had healed H from congenital blindness, and<br />
- he called himself "the Son of Man".<br />
<br />
Faced with that challenge, the scribes of the MSS with TI1 decided to take out the worship verse, wheras the scribes of the MSS with TI2 decided to change Jesus' self-given title to make the case for worship of Jesus by H more acceptable given H's APPARENT knowledge of Jesus at that moment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>3. The epistemic state of H regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question in 9:36</b><br />
<br />
As seen in the previous section, the issue of H's knowledge of Jesus at the moment of worshiping Him in 9:38 poses a serious exegetical challenge, which has been noted since at least the III century. Now, it is evident that, in order to know H's REAL (as opposed to apparent) epistemic state regarding Jesus in 9:38, it is necessary to know first of all his epistemic state when he asked his question in 9:36, because that will enable us to understand the meaning for H of that question and the specific way in which Jesus' answer in 9:37 advanced H's knowledge of Him.<br />
<br />
The epistemic state of H regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question in 9:36, which is relevant to understanding<br />
<br />
- the meaning for H of that question,<br />
- the meaning for H of Jesus' answer in 9:37, and<br />
- the motive of credibility for H of that answer.<br />
<br />
is comprised of either his knowledge or his ignorance of each of the 3 following facts, for each of which I indicate its respective epistemic level:<br />
<br />
F1. He is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him. (Practical level).<br />
<br />
F2. Jesus is the Son of Man. ("Jesu-christological" level).<br />
<br />
F3. The Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship. ("Christo-theological" level).<br />
<br />
Denoting H's knowledge or ignorance of fact Fn as Kn and ¬Kn respectively, there are 3 possible epistemic states of H regarding Jesus at the moment of asking his question in 9:36:<br />
<br />
ES1=(¬K1, K2, K3), <br />
ES2=(K1, ¬K2, K3), <br />
ES3=(K1, ¬K2, ¬K3).<br />
<br />
The epistemic state (K1, K2, ¬K3) is not possible in 9:36 because, if H had already known that Jesus was the Son of Man, Jesus' answer in 9:37 would have added nothing to H's knowledge and actually would have made no sense whatsoever.<br />
<br />
The epistemic state (K1, K2, K3) is not possible in 9:36 because, if H had already known the 3 facts, he would not have asked any question.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4. Study of the scenarios resulting from each of the 3 possible epistemic states<br /><br /><br />4.1. Scenario 1, from ES1=(¬K1, K2, K3). Highly probable, theologically perfect.<br /><br />4.1.1. Description of H's epistemic state at 9:36</b><br />
<br />
¬K1. H does NOT know that he is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him,<br />
<br />
K2. H knows that Jesus is the Son of Man,<br />
<br />
K3. H knows that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.1.2. Plausibility of this epistemic state</b><br />
<br />
¬K1 is wholly plausible, as H had never seen Jesus until that moment.<br />
<br />
(K2 & K3) is plausible if we assume that:<br />
<br />
- Several hours elapsed between the moment when H was cast out by the Pharisees (9:34) and his encounter with Jesus (9:35).<br />
<br />
- During that time, Nicodemus had mercy of H (who, having been born blind, lacked elementary practical knowledge to manage in life, and who was now avoided by everyone because of the Pharisees) and gave him a hand at the practical and spiritual levels, in the latter teaching H Who Jesus was, what Nicodemus could do because Jesus had previously taught him that He was "the Son of Man" "Who descended from heaven" and "Who is in heaven" (Jn 3:13), Who is God's only begotten Son (Jn 3:16-18) Who had assumed a human nature. This is highly probable, as discussed in section 4.1.5.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.1.3. Meaning for H of his question and of Jesus' answer</b><br />
<br />
I indicate the meaning <b>for H</b> by glossing "who" in the question and replacing "He" in both the question and the answer with appropriate text within [].<br />
<br />
9:36. H: “And who [i.e. which concrete man <b>around here now</b>] is [<b>Jesus</b>, who I already know is the Son of Man], Lord, that I may believe in Him?” <br />
<br />
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; [<b>Jesus</b>, who you already know is the Son of Man,] is the One speaking with you.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.1.4. Motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer</b><br />
<br />
From the viewpoint of H, the self-identification of his (until that moment) unknown interlocutor as Jesus may have been credible if at that moment he recognized that the voice of his interlocutor was the same voice he had heard tell him "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (Jn 9:7).<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.1.5. Evaluation of this scenario: highly probable, theologically perfect.</b><br />
<br />
In a previous passage of John's Gospel, when the officers whom the chief priests and Pharisees had sent to arrest Jesus (7:32) return to their bosses, who are gathered in one place, and are scolded by them for having let themselves be impressed by Jesus' words (7:45-49), Nicodemus, who was one of the Pharisees present at that time (7:50), spoke in Jesus' defence at the procedural level: "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?" (7:51). <br />
<br />
In the passage of the healing of the man born blind, in turn, "others" of the Pharisees spoke in Jesus' defence, not at the procedural but at the substantial level:<br />
<br />
Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath." But <b>others</b> said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" And there was a division among them. (Jn 9:16)<br />
<br />
Since not many Pharisees were likely to speak in Jesus' defence, it is highly probable that Nicodemus was one of those "others" who did in this passage. <br />
<br />
Now, Nicodemus had probably learned from Jesus not only that He was the Son of God but also the way in which Jesus' disciples must live, which essentially is, regarding what one must do, to love God with all our being and to love our neighbour as ourselves, which is also the essence of the Law (Mk 12:28-33). He had also probably learned that, in Jesus' way, loving our neighbour goes beyond what is required by the Law, and involves feeling compassion and practicing mercy towards him (Lk 10:25-37), thus imitating the Heavenly Father who is "merciful and compassionate". <br />
<br />
With that mindset, Nicodemus sees H being cast out of the synagogue and probably also being avoided by people. H is in good health and able to work, but since he was born blind he has no clue about how to go on with his life, where to find lodging, where to learn and find a job. He could physically work in a workshop or in the field, but he does not know how to use any tools, or even the location of workshops and fields. So Nicodemus, seing H in such complete intellectual indigence, feels compassion for him, reaches out to him, and starts teaching him the basic knowledge necessary to go on with his life. While at that, it would be just natural that the conversation turns at some time to the subject of this "prophet" who had healed him. And Nicodemus, being aware of the immense good that knowing Jesus is, starts telling H what he had learned about Jesus from Jesus Himself (Jn 3:10-21): that He is much more than a prophet, that He is "the Son of Man" "Who descended from heaven" and "Who is in heaven" (Jn 3:13), predicted in Dan 7:13, Who is God's only begotten Son (Jn 3:16-18) Who had assumed a human nature.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.2. Scenario 2, from ES2=(K1, ¬K2, K3). Extremely unlikely, theologically acceptable.<br /><br />4.2.1. Description of H's epistemic state at 9:36</b><br />
<br />
K1. H knows that he is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him,<br />
<br />
¬K2. H does NOT know that Jesus is the Son of Man,<br />
<br />
K3. H knows that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.2.2. Plausibility of this epistemic state</b><br />
<br />
K1 is plausible, as H might have recognized that the voice of his interlocutor was the same voice he had heard tell him "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam".<br />
<br />
¬K2 is directly supported by the previous Gospel narrative, specifically by H stating before the Pharisees his view of Jesus, namely that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33).<br />
<br />
K3 requires that H had previously heard and believed the doctrine of a divine Son of Man, presumably from people who had read the book of Parables of 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71) and believed its contents. This is extremely unlikely.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.2.3. Meaning for H of his question and of Jesus' answer</b><br />
<br />
I indicate the meaning <b>for H</b> by glossing "who" in the question and replacing "He" in both the question and the answer with appropriate text within [].<br />
<br />
9:36. H: “And who [i.e. which concrete man <b>wherever and whenever</b>] is [<b>the Son of Man</b>], Lord, that I may believe in Him?” <br />
<br />
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; [<b>the Son of Man</b>] is the One speaking with you.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.2.4. Motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer</b><br />
<br />
From the viewpoint of H, the self-identification of Jesus as the Son of Man is credible because he already knows that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33), and therefore it is wholly reasonable to assume that he speaks the truth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.2.5. Evaluation of this scenario: extremely unlikely, theologically acceptable.</b><br />
<br />
This scenario requires that H, a man born blind who had spent most of his life "sitting and begging" (9:8), had learned from his circle a doctrine of full pre-Jesusian binitarism with incarnation (if the divine nature is held to be absolutely simple and immutable and the humanity of the Son of Man is held to be real), which is hinted, but not explicitely stated, in the vision of the heavenly Son of Man of Dan 7:13 and its development in the book of Parables of 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71) (see Appendix). This is clearly extremely unlikely.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.3. Scenario 3, from ES3=(K1, ¬K2, ¬K3). Highly probable, theologically unacceptable.<br /><br />4.3.1. Description of H's epistemic state at 9:36</b><br />
<br />
K1. H knows that he is talking with Jesus, the preacher who had healed him,<br />
<br />
¬K2. H does NOT know that Jesus is the Son of Man,<br />
<br />
¬K3. H does NOT know that the Son of Man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.3.2. Plausibility of this epistemic state</b><br />
<br />
K1 is plausible, as H might have recognized that the voice of his interlocutor was the same voice he had heard tell him "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam".<br />
<br />
¬K2 is directly supported by the previous Gospel narrative, specifically by H stating before the Pharisees his view of Jesus, namely that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33).<br />
<br />
¬K3 is the most plausible assumption for a man born blind who had spent most of his life "sitting and begging" (9:8).<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.3.3. Meaning for H of his question and of Jesus' answer</b><br />
<br />
I indicate the meaning <b>for H</b> by glossing "who" in the question and replacing "He" in both the question and the answer with appropriate text within [].<br />
<br />
9:36. H: “And who [i.e. which concrete man <b>wherever and whenever</b>] is [<b>the Son of Man</b>], Lord, that I may believe in Him?” <br />
<br />
9:37. J: “You have seen Him; [<b>the Son of Man</b>] is the One speaking with you.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.3.4. Motive of credibility for H of Jesus' answer</b><br />
<br />
From the viewpoint of H, the self-identification of Jesus as the Son of Man was credible because he already knows that Jesus is "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), and a man who is "from God" (9:33), and therefore it is wholly reasonable to assume that he speaks the truth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>4.3.5. Evaluation of this scenario: highly probable, theologically unacceptable.</b><br />
<br />
This scenario implies that H makes an epistemic jump which can be stated as:<br />
<br />
If "a prophet" (9:17), a man who "is God-fearing and does His [i.e. God's] will" and that therefore is heard by God (9:31), a man who is "from God" (9:33), calls himself "the Son of Man", then that man is a divine Person incarnate, and therefore worthy of worship.<br />
<br />
Or in practical terms:<br />
<br />
If someone who heals a man born blind calls himself "the Son of Man", then fall on your face before Him and worship Him!<br />
<br />
Clearly the transition from regarding Jesus as a prophet to regarding Jesus as a divine Person incarnate on the sole basis of Jesus calling himself "the Son of Man" would have been a completely unwarranted epistemic jump. On the other hand, worshipping Jesus without regarding him as a divine Person incarnate would have been outright idolatry. Therefore this scenario is theologically unacceptable.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>5. Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
The intervention of Nicodemus to help H between 9:34 and 9:35 is a most reasonable inference from the Gospel narrative, specifically from Nicodemus' previous defence of Jesus before his fellow Pharisees in 7:50-51 and the defence of Jesus by some unnamed Pharisees in 9:16 in this event. By doing that, Nicodemus would have been an instrument in the hands of God "so that the works of God might be displayed in him [i.e. the blind man]" (Jn 9:3). Moreover, this intervention might have been hinted by John to the readers of his Gospel, and by Jesus to Nicodemus if he was present at that time and place, by Jesus' use of "we" in "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day;" (Jn 9:4), which would be unusual in John's Gospel if Jesus were referring exclusively to Himself. By positing Nicodemus' intervention, the unwarranted epistemic jump implicit in the worship response of the healed blind man to Jesus' self-identification as "the Son of Man" (which had been noted by early NT scribes who had tried to solve it by amending the text) is fully avoided.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Note</b><br />
<br />
The thesis developed in this article was first presented in my 2014 article "The trial of Jesus: a response to J. H. H. Weiler", within its thesis 3.<br />
<a href="http://thetrialofjesus.blogspot.com/">http://thetrialofjesus.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Appendix: the Son of Man in the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch</b><br />
<br />
The Son of Man, also called "the Elect One", is mentioned in the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch, in chapters 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 55, 61, 62 and 69.<br />
<br />
In 45:3, 51:3, 55:4, 61:8, 62:2,3,5 and 69:29, the Elect One sits on the throne of glory, explicitely stated to be God's throne in 51:3. <br />
<br />
In 48:3, 48:6 and 62:7, the Son of Man exists from before the creation of the world.<br />
<br />
In 48:5 and 62:9, the Son of Man is worshipped. Note that both chapters are the same two which affirm the preexistence of the Son of Man, and that both do that before narrating the action of worship.<br />
<br />
<br />
Chapter 48<br />
<br />
2. And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits,<br />
And his name before the Head of Days.<br />
<br />
3. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,<br />
Before the stars of the heaven were made,<br />
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.<br />
<br />
4. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall,<br />
And he shall be the light of the Gentiles,<br />
And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.<br />
<br />
5. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him,<br />
And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.<br />
<br />
6. And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him,<br />
Before the creation of the world and for evermore.<br />
<br />
<br />
Chapter 62<br />
<br />
7. For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden,<br />
And the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might,<br />
And revealed him to the elect.<br />
<br />
8. And the congregation of the elect and holy shall be sown,<br />
And all the elect shall stand before him on that day.<br />
<br />
9. And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth<br />
Shall fall down before him on their faces,<br />
And worship and set their hope upon that Son of Man,<br />
And petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm">http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm</a><br />
<br />
Benjamin E. Reynolds, "The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John", Mohr Siebeck, 2008, p. 178.<br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=S_lMRtGEuAsC">https://books.google.com/books?id=S_lMRtGEuAsC</a><br />
<br />
Also<br />
<br />
Delbert Burkett, "The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation", Cambridge University Press, Jan 13, 2000.<br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=uAvQeGSbTJMC">https://books.google.com/books?id=uAvQeGSbTJMC</a><br />
<br />
Gabriele Boccaccini (ed.), "Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables", Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007.<br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=kc6mzRRrkrIC">https://books.google.com/books?id=kc6mzRRrkrIC</a><br />
<br />
Darrell L. Bock and James H. Charlesworth (ed.), "Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift", Bloomsbury Publishing, Jan 31, 2013.<br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=4-wRBwAAQBAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=4-wRBwAAQBAJ</a><br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-9003132046260072272017-05-10T01:00:00.000-03:002017-05-10T01:27:39.095-03:00El laberinto de SebreliEste artículo es respuesta a una afirmación de Juan José Sebreli
durante una entrevista conducida por Pablo Gianera en enero de 2017 [1],
con motivo de la reciente publicación del libro "Dios en el laberinto:
Crítica de las religiones" [2]:<br />
<br />
Gianera: Cuando uno lee
tu libro parece que la vieja disputa entre la herencia ilustrada y la
religión no está saldada todavía y que siguen siendo dos fuerzas que
están en pugna.<br />
<br />
Sebreli: Sí, yo creo que sí, porque es
una cuestión que va más allá de los Papas. Es una cuestión filosófica,
es decir, la razón, como <b>cree</b> la Ilustración, como único medio de
conocimiento, y la fe, el dogma, los libros sagrados, la autoridad, son
la base de la Iglesia. ¿Cómo se puede conciliar esas dos cosas? Es muy
difícil conciliarlas.<br />
<br />
Partiendo de la posición de
agnosticismo débil de Sebreli [3], o sea de sostener no la existencia de
Dios sino solamente la posibilidad de su existencia, demostraré que la
creencia (nótese el verbo usado por Sebreli) de la Ilustración en la
razón como único medio de conocimiento es irracional, por ser
lógicamente inconsistente con esa posición.<br />
<br />
Si existe
el Ser Subsistente o absoluta plenitud del ser, absolutamente simple e
infinito, al cual llamamos Dios, que creó y sostiene en el ser al
universo visible, es evidente que Dios puede comunicarse con los hombres
y revelarles verdades que la razón humana no podría llegar a conocer
por sus propias luces pero que no la contradicen, esto es
suprarracionales pero no irracionales, lo cual incluye la posibilidad de
que de hecho lo haya realizado en el pasado. En ese caso el ser humano
conocería con certeza absoluta esas verdades, no porque resultasen
evidentes por sí mismas a la razón humana, sino por la autoridad de Dios
que las ha revelado, Quien no puede engañarse ni engañarnos. Dado que
creer en esas verdades reveladas por Dios es un verdadero medio de
conocimiento, un intelecto humano que piensa de manera realmente
racional no considera a la razón humana como el único medio de
conocimiento, sino que está abierto a la adquisición de conocimientos
revelados por Dios. Por lo que la posición racionalista (lo cual es
distinto de racional) de la Ilustración, sostenida por Sebreli, es
intrínsecamente irracional, y aunque pueda parecer una hipertrofia de la
razón humana, es en realidad una reducción, una autolimitación de ésta.
Notablemente, la irracionalidad del racionalismo, de la noción de la
razón humana como único medio de conocimiento, es patente en la
expresión usada por Sebreli "como <b>cree</b> la Ilustración". Así como
el "sola Scriptura" del protestantismo no es una noción basada en la
Escritura y de hecho la contradice, así también el "sola ratio" del
racionalismo no es una noción basada en la razón y de hecho la
contradice.<br />
<br />
Ahora bien, es tarea de la razón humana
determinar si ha habido una Revelación de Dios a lo largo de la
historia, lo cual equivale a identificar el medio original a través del
cual Dios reveló en algún tiempo pasado y el medio próximo que en el
tiempo presente contiene (si es un libro) o custodia (si es una
institución) el "depósito" de lo que Dios reveló en el pasado y, en el
caso de una institución, provee una interpretación divinamente asistida y
autorizada del contenido de ese depósito. Esa identificación de los
medios de la Revelación divina, tanto el original como el próximo, debe
basarse en la presencia de motivos de credibilidad racionalmente
aprehensibles asociados a esos medios.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Referencias</b><br />
<br />
[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OTfBCHud4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OTfBCHud4</a>, 16:33-16:49.<br />
<br />
Transcripción resumida en:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1972753-juan-jose-sebreli-es-muy-dificil-conciliar-los-extremos-de-la-razon-y-del-dogma-religioso">http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1972753-juan-jose-sebreli-es-muy-dificil-conciliar-los-extremos-de-la-razon-y-del-dogma-religioso</a><br />
<br />
[2]
Juan José Sebreli, "Dios en el laberinto: Crítica de las religiones",
Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina, 1 dic. 2016.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Bml_DQAAQBAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=Bml_DQAAQBAJ</a><br />
<br />
[3] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grx6cmRjvr0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grx6cmRjvr0</a>, 4:00-4:35.<br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-76384754939460211692015-08-11T11:41:00.000-03:002015-08-12T14:13:22.095-03:00Argumento de fondo sobre la existencia de Dios<b>Introducción</b><br />
<br />
Este argumento se originó a partir de dos eventos de entendimiento de mi parte.<br />
<br />
El primer evento ocurrió en septiembre de 2014, cuando entendí que la principal de las cinco vías por las que S. Tomás de Aquino demuestra la existencia de Dios, el argumento de contingencia, presupone que la realidad es racionalmente explicable hasta su última instancia, presuposición que en metafísica tiene un nombre: "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR). Ese entendimiento fue explícitamente confirmado al poco tiempo por el filósofo tomista Edward Feser, en <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/11/voluntarism-and-psr.html">un artículo que publicó en su blog el 2 de noviembre de 2014</a>:<br />
<br />
"Now if PSR is false, then the principle of causality is threatened as well, since if things are ultimately unintelligible, there is no reason to think that a potency might not be actualized even though there is nothing actual to actualize it and thus that something contingent, like the universe, might just be without any cause at all. But then it would not be possible to argue from the world to God as cause of the world."<br />
<br />
El segundo evento ocurrió en agosto de 2015, cuando entendí que el PSR equivale al teísmo o lo presupone. Esto lo presenté como "thesis 1" en el artículo “<a href="http://defeyrazon.blogspot.com/2015/08/thesis-1-holding-psr-is-equivalent-to.html">Thesis 1: holding the PSR is equivalent to, or presupposes, holding theism</a>”.<br />
<br />
Por lo tanto las cinco vías no demuestran realmente la existencia de Dios, porque presuponen lo que quieren demostrar. (En realidad, dado que parten de la presuposición de un teísmo difuso, demuestran estrictamente que, si la realidad es racionalmente explicable hasta su última instancia, esa última instancia es el Dios inmutable del teísmo clásico que creó el universo de la nada, y no la divinidad del panenteísmo, de cuya sustancia habría emanado el universo, o por lo menos las almas.)<br />
<br />
<b>Hechos comprobados y disyuntiva</b><br />
<br />
En definitiva, ante los siguientes hechos (facts) comprobados:<br />
<br />
F1: el universo existe y, como un todo, es una entidad contingente: podría ser distinto, podría no existir. Más aún:<br />
<br />
F2: el universo comenzó a existir hace 13.800 millones de años, y no hay una teoría científica sólida que ofrezca una causa física de ese comienzo. Hay solamente conjeturas no verificables como el multiverso. (Por otro lado, un universo cíclico que se expande hasta un máximo, luego se contrae hasta un mínimo, y así sucesivamente, es una alternativa positivamente invalidada por las observaciones acumuladas desde 1998 que demuestran concluyentemente que la expansión del universo se está acelerando y por lo tanto va a continuar indefinidamente.)<br />
<br />
F3: el universo funciona causalmente y de acuerdo a leyes expresables matemáticamente.<br />
<br />
F4: las constantes físicas del universo exhiben una sintonía fina que lo hace adecuado para el desarrollo de organismos vivientes complejos.<br />
<br />
F5: la mente humana razona en base a causalidad y es capaz de crear sistemas formales matemáticos, incluyendo obviamente los que expresan las leyes que describen el funcionamiento del universo.<br />
<br />
cada ser humano puede adoptar una de dos posiciones posibles, la primera de las cuales explica racionalmente los hechos y la otra simplemente los acepta como "brute facts":<br />
<br />
<b>Posición SR (Spiritual-Rational)</b><br />
<br />
Existe en última instancia una Realidad Subsistente que es Espíritu y Razón (Logos), que creó el universo (explica F1 y F2) conforme a esa Razón (explica F3) con el fin de albergar el desarrollo de criaturas racionales (explica F4), cuya razón es creada a imagen de la Razón increada (explica F5).<br />
<br />
<b>Posición ME (Materialist-Evolutionist)</b><br />
<br />
F1 ... F3: “brute fact”, “that’s just the way it is”. “Es así”, y esperar o demandar que tenga explicación es una presuposición a priori totalmente injustificada. (Ver las posiciones de David Hume, Bertrand Russell y Sean Carroll en el artículo anterior.)<br />
<br />
F4: la sintonía fina puede deberse a que hay muchísimos universos, en cuyo caso es obvio que solamente en aquellos universos con parámetros aptos para el desarrollo de la vida puede desarrollarse la vida. O tal vez no haya muchos universos, y simplemente, al igual que con F1 ... F3, “that’s just the way it is.”<br />
<br />
F5: la capacidad de la mente humana fue resultado de la evolución: el cerebro alcanzó una complejidad suficiente para permitir el pensamiento abstracto, sin que intervenga ningun alma espiritual. En cuanto a la causalidad, el mono que pensó que la rama se movió sin causa fue comido por un león.<br />
<br />
<b>Comparación de las posiciones</b><br />
<br />
Las posiciones son totalmente opuestas en dos aspectos: explicación y sentido, tanto del universo como, mucho más importante, de la vida humana. <br />
<br />
En la posición SR el universo tiene explicación y la vida humana tiene sentido, perdurando luego de la muerte. <br />
<br />
En la posición ME el universo no tiene explicación y la vida humana no tiene sentido, terminando en la muerte. Ni siquiera tiene sentido la humanidad en su conjunto, porque es bien sabido que a lo sumo en 2.000 millones de años el sol habrá calcinado la tierra. <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusión</b><br />
<br />
Expresaré la conclusión citando dos discursos de Benedicto XVI, no como argumento de autoridad sino porque hago míos esos párrafos. En primer lugar resumo la situación citando de:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2006/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060406_xxi-wyd.html">http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2006/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060406_xxi-wyd.html</a><br />
<br />
Por último, para llegar a la cuestión definitiva, yo diría: Dios o existe o no existe. Hay sólo dos opciones. O se reconoce la prioridad de la razón, de la Razón creadora que está en el origen de todo y es el principio de todo -la prioridad de la razón es también prioridad de la libertad- o se sostiene la prioridad de lo irracional, por lo cual todo lo que funciona en nuestra tierra y en nuestra vida sería sólo ocasional, marginal, un producto irracional; la razón sería un producto de la irracionalidad. En definitiva, no se puede "probar" uno u otro proyecto, pero la gran opción del cristianismo es la opción por la racionalidad y por la prioridad de la razón. Esta opción me parece la mejor, pues nos demuestra que detrás de todo hay una gran Inteligencia, de la que nos podemos fiar.<br />
<br />
Pero a mí me parece que el verdadero problema actual contra la fe es el mal en el mundo: nos preguntamos cómo es compatible el mal con esta racionalidad del Creador. Y aquí realmente necesitamos al Dios que se encarnó y que nos muestra que él no sólo es una razón matemática, sino que esta razón originaria es también Amor. Si analizamos las grandes opciones, la opción cristiana es también hoy la más racional y la más humana. Por eso, podemos elaborar con confianza una filosofía, una visión del mundo basada en esta prioridad de la razón, en esta confianza en que la Razón creadora es Amor, y que este amor es Dios. <br />
<br />
Luego amplío la descripción de la opción por la racionalidad citando de:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html">http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore.html</a><br />
<br />
Pero la doctrina de la evolución no responde a todos los interrogantes y sobre todo no responde al gran interrogante filosófico: ¿de dónde viene todo esto y cómo todo toma un camino que desemboca finalmente en el hombre? Eso me parece muy importante. En mi lección de Ratisbona quise decir también que la razón debe abrirse más: ciertamente debe ver esos datos, pero también debe ver que no bastan para explicar toda la realidad. Nuestra razón ve más ampliamente. En el fondo no es algo irracional, un producto de la irracionalidad; hay una razón anterior a todo, la Razón creadora, y en realidad nosotros somos un reflejo de la Razón creadora. Somos pensados y queridos; por tanto, hay una idea que nos precede, un sentido que nos precede y que debemos descubrir y seguir, y que en definitiva da significado a nuestra vida.<br />
<br />
Así pues, el primer punto es: descubrir que realmente nuestro ser es razonable, ha sido pensado, tiene un sentido; y nuestra gran misión es descubrir ese sentido, vivirlo y dar así un nuevo elemento a la gran armonía cósmica pensada por el Creador. Si es así, entonces los elementos de dificultad se transforman en momentos de madurez, de proceso y de progreso de nuestro ser, que tiene sentido desde su concepción hasta su último momento de vida.<br />
<br />
<b>Material adicional sobre la opción por la Razón creadora</b><br />
<br />
Blanco Sarto, P. (2006). "Logos. Joseph Ratzinger y la historia de una palabra". Límite. Revista de Filosofía y Psicología, 1 (14), 57-86<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dadun.unav.edu/handle/10171/36503">http://dadun.unav.edu/handle/10171/36503</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=83601403">http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=83601403</a><br />
<br />
Benedicto XVI (2006). Discurso en la Universidad de Ratisbona (Regensburg)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html">http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/es/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html</a><br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-27335251961236679662015-08-05T12:09:00.000-03:002015-08-07T12:11:06.073-03:00Thesis 1: holding the PSR is equivalent to, or presupposes, holding theismIt is well established that holding the PSR is a requirement for the classical arguments for the existence of God [1]. I hereby propose the thesis that holding the PSR is equivalent to, or presupposes, holding theism. Not necessarily full-fledged classical theism, but at least a basic, less clear-cut version thereof.<br />
<br />
<b>Thesis 1</b>: holding the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), which states that “there is a sufficient reason or adequate necessary objective explanation for the being of whatever is and for all attributes of any being” [2], or alternatively that "for every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case" [3], either is equivalent to holding the following two notions, or presupposes holding them:<br />
<br />
R1. Subsistent, Ultimate Reality is logos, i.e. reason. [4]<br />
<br />
R2. Human reason is created in the image of the uncreated Logos.<br />
<br />
Of course, the two notions above are held in conjunction with this:<br />
<br />
R3. Created reality was created according to reason. [5]<br />
<br />
which is clearly consistent with the observable fact that the universe works causally according to mathematically expressible laws.<br />
<br />
A panentheist can hold these notions by replacing "created" with "created/emanated" in R2 and R3. I mention this possibility to allow for panentheism as alternative "bootstrap" position or entry point, which could then, by reasoning on the PSR, be corrected into classical theism. Which makes sense considering the numbers of Taoists, Mahayana Buddhists, Hinduists and Sikhs.<br />
<br />
Noting that Prof. Feser stated that "to see the world as intelligible or rational through and through is implicitly to be a (classical) theist" [6], the basis for a possible demonstration of Thesis 1 is: why else should we assume that reality is ultimately rational? This can be perceived more clearly if we examine the alternative interpretation of observed facts that a materialistic evolutionist could propose instead of that based on the PSR, either in its traditional form or in the form of the Rx above (which is equivalent to the traditional form if this thesis is correct):<br />
<br />
M1. Brute fact: the universe exists and works causally according to laws expressed mathematically.<br />
<br />
M2. The rationality of our mind, i.e. the agreement between the way it works and the way the universe works, was selected by evolution. Because, on seeing the branches of a bush moving in windless weather:<br />
- the walking-talking apes who thought the movement had a cause got ready to fight or flee, survived, and passed on their genes.<br />
- the walking-talking apes who thought the movement did not have a cause did nothing, and were killed by a rival tribe or an animal.<br />
<br />
M3. At some point, some of the walking-talking apes that were so evolutionary successful because, among other things, the way their mind worked conformed to the way the universe worked, got the big picture the other way round, and thought that it was the way the universe worked which conformed to the way their mind worked. That would have had no practical consequence, but some of them went even further, and claimed that their mind was able to explain reliably not only the way the universe worked, but even why there was a universe! And the apes called that statement the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and they rejoyced greatly.<br />
<br />
"Hey, walking-talking ape, who do you think you are?"<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
This thesis originated from my realization on Sep. 2014 that the modal cosmological argument, or argument from contingency, is just the principle of efficient causality (PC), and that the PC in turn is based on just the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the latter statement being confirmed by Prof. Feser on Nov. 02, 2014 [1]. Thus, the teaching in First Vatican Council's Constitution "Dei Filius" "that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural light of human reason "for his invisible attributes, ever since the creation of the world, have been clearly perceived, being understood through the things that have been made."" (ch. 2 "On Revelation", which in turn quotes (Rom 1:20)) presupposes the implicit condition "if the person in question assumes that reality is ultimately intelligible/explainable by human reason".<br />
<br />
Now, whereas philosophy is about the rational explanation of reality, the assumption that reality is ultimately rationally explainable is meta-philosophical, i.e. holding the PSR is a meta-philosophical choice. Thus, the issue of theism vs atheism is not really philosophical but meta-philosophical, as the latter position is based on the assumption that reality is not ultimately rationally intelligible/explainable. Which is exactly David Hume's position as summarized by Texas A&M University Prof. of Philosophy Stephen H. Daniel [7]:<br />
<br />
"The argument assumes that the world's existence can be explained rationally by appeal to God as its cause; but why should we think that the world's existence is rationally explainable?"<br />
<br />
Or Bertrand Russell's position in his famous debate with Fr. F. C. Copleston [8]:<br />
<br />
"R: The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever.<br />
<br />
R: what I'm saying is that the concept of cause is not applicable to the total.<br />
<br />
R: I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.<br />
<br />
R: for my part, I do think the notion of the world having an explanation is a mistake. I don't see why one should expect it to have,<br />
<br />
C: But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?<br />
<br />
R: Yes, that's my position."<br />
<br />
Or Prof. Sean Carroll's position, as stated in 2007 [9]:<br />
<br />
"There is a chain of explanations concerning things that happen in the universe, which ultimately reaches to the fundamental laws of nature and stops. ... There is a strong temptation to approach the universe with a demand that it make sense of itself and of our lives, rather than simply accepting it for what it is."<br />
<br />
and again in 2012 [10]:<br />
<br />
"It’s okay to admit that a chain of explanations might end somewhere, and that somewhere might be with the universe and the laws it obeys, and the only further explanation might be “that’s just the way it is.” ... I could be wrong about that, but an insistence that “the universe must explain itself” or some such thing seems like a completely unsupportable a priori assumption."<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References</b><br />
<br />
[1] <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/11/voluntarism-and-psr.html">http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/11/voluntarism-and-psr.html</a><br />
<br />
"Now if PSR is false, then the principle of causality is threatened as well, since if things are ultimately unintelligible, there is no reason to think that a potency might not be actualized even though there is nothing actual to actualize it and thus that something contingent, like the universe, might just be without any cause at all. But then it would not be possible to argue from the world to God as cause of the world."<br />
<br />
[2] Bernard Wuellner, Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, p. 15.<br />
<br />
[3] Melamed, Yitzhak and Lin, Martin, "Principle of Sufficient Reason", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<br />
<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/sufficient-reason/">http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/sufficient-reason/</a><http: archives="" entries="" plato.stanford.edu="" spr2015="" sufficient-reason=""><br /><br />[4] In "Subsistent, Ultimate Reality is logos", "logos" is meant as divine attribute common to the three divine Persons, not the Logos as divine Person, the Son. Just as in "God is love" (1 Jn 4:8,16), "love" is meant as divine attribute common to the three divine Persons, not Love as divine Person, the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />[5] In line with "All things came into being through Him" (Jn 1:3) and "in Him all things were created" (Col 1:16), where "Him" is the Logos as divine Person, the Son.<br /><br />[6] <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/10/could-theist-deny-psr.html">http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/10/could-theist-deny-psr.html</a><br /><br />[7] Test Questions for Phil 251: Intro. to Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, option 101.B<br />(where options 99 and 101 should say "cosmological", not "teleological", argument).<br /><a href="http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/quesrel.html">http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/quesrel.html</a><br /><br />[8] <a href="http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm">http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_radio.htm</a><br /><br />[9] <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/11/25/turtles-much-of-the-way-down/">http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/11/25/turtles-much-of-the-way-down/</a><br /><br />[10] <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/">http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/</a></http:><br />
<http: archives="" entries="" plato.stanford.edu="" spr2015="" sufficient-reason=""></http:><http: archives="" entries="" plato.stanford.edu="" spr2015="" sufficient-reason=""><br /></http:>Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-27270048089220358552015-08-05T12:01:00.000-03:002015-08-12T14:43:43.546-03:00Argument from contingency is Principle of Causality and requires PSR and just PSRIn <a href="http://www.thesumma.info/one/one29.php">http://www.thesumma.info/one/one29.php</a> , Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (GL) writes about the principle of causality, or more precisely the principle of efficient causality:<br />
<br />
As a matter of fact, this principle is commonly formulated not only in the phenomenal but also in the ontological order, and not only does it state that "every phenomenon supposes an antecedent phenomenon," but it also says: "Everything that comes into being has a cause"; or rather, to express it more universally, every contingent being is efficiently caused by another. Even if de facto this contingent being eternally existed, it would still need a productive and conservative cause, because a contingent being is not its own reason for existence.<br />
<br />
Comparing it with the modal cosmological argument, or argument from contingency, as stated by Prof. Edward Feser in:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html">http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html</a><br />
<br />
What defenders of the cosmological argument do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause.<br />
<br />
it is clear that the modal cosmological argument as stated by Prof. Feser is identical to the principle of efficient causality as stated by Fr GL. This is confirmed by another text from Fr GL at:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality5.php">http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality5.php</a><br />
<br />
The principle of efficient causality also finds its formula as a function of being. Wrong is the formula: "Every phenomenon presupposes an antecedent phenomenon." The right formula runs thus: "Every contingent being, even if it exists without beginning, [137] needs an efficient cause and, in last analysis, an uncreated cause."<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to the first link from Fr GL, he attempts to show that "one cannot deny the principle of causality without denying the principle of contradiction." <br />
<br />
First he argues that "uncaused contingent being is repugnant to reason. In other words, nothing is what results from nothing, without a cause nothing comes into being." However, the second statement, while obviously true, does not prove the first, because an uncaused contingent being does not NEED to have "come into being", it could just have always existed. (To accommodate current science, that would be a hypothetical "metaverse" undergoing eternal inflation, in which "pocket universes" such as ours would pop up here and there.) That would mean that such a being would be a brute fact and not explainable by reason, which is not the same as "repugnant to reason". In other words, that possibility would be against the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) but not against the principle of (non-)contradiction (PNC) as Fr GL argues.<br />
<br />
Fr GL repeats his argument in the same paragraph:<br />
<br />
Why is an uncaused contingent being repugnant to reason? It is because a contingent being is that which can either exist or not exist (this being its definition). Therefore it is not self-existent, and must be dependent upon another for this; otherwise, if it were neither self-existent nor dependent upon another for existence, it would have no reason for existing, and so would be the same as nothing. "Nothing is what results from nothing." To say that from nothing, or that from no cause either efficient or material, something comes into being, is a contradiction.<br />
<br />
IMV, there are three non-sequiturs in this paragraph.<br />
<br />
First, that a being "can either exist or not exist" means that it does not have in itself the reason for its existence. However, that does not imply that "it is not self-existent", but rather that "it is not self-existent IF reality is rationally explainable". Therefore, a contingent being can be either a self-existent brute fact, if reality is not rationally intelligible, or dependent upon another for its existence, if reality is rationally intelligible.<br />
<br />
Second, Fr GL is right when he says that if a contingent being "were neither (rationally intelligibly, I add) self-existent nor dependent upon another for existence, it would have no reason for existing". However, that does not entail that such a contingent being "would be the same as nothing". Because to "have no reason for existing", to be a brute fact, is not the same as to "be the same as nothing". Not being rationally explainable is not the same as not being.<br />
<br />
Third, Fr GL is right when he says that: ""Nothing is what results from nothing." To say that from nothing, or that from no cause either efficient or material, something comes into being, is a contradiction." However, a contingent universe (or metaverse) could just have always existed without having ever come into being, so that its existence, while being a brute fact and as such against the PSR, would not imply a contradiction. <br />
<br />
Summarizing, then, a contingent being is that which can either exist or not exist (by definition), so that, when referring to the universe (or metaverse), there are three posibilities:<br />
<br />
a. it is dependent upon the Subsistent Being for its existence, (in which case both the PNC and the PSR hold),<br />
b. it exists by itself, and has always existed, as a non-rationally intelligible brute fact, (in which case the PNC holds but the PSR does not),<br />
c. it has come into being from nothing, as a brute fact repugnant to reason, (in which case neither the PNC nor the PSR holds).<br />
<br />
From this, two conclusions:<br />
<br />
First, as the modal cosmological argument, or argument from contingency, is just the principle of efficient causality, it is based on just the PSR [1] and does not require the aristotelical framework of act and potency. This is an important result, because otherwise St Paul's statement that "since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made" (Rom 1:20) would need to be restated as "since Aristotle wrote his Metaphysics God's invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made".<br />
<br />
Second, it seems that the teaching in First Vatican Council's Constitution Dei Filius "that God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason from created things;" as well as the above Pauline statement that Dei Filius quotes right next as basis for that teaching, presupposes the implicit condition "if the person in question assumes that reality is ultimately intelligible/explainable by human reason". [2]<br />
<br />
Thus, the issue of theism vs atheism (agnosticism) would not be really philosophical but meta-philosophical, as the latter positions would be based on the assumption that reality as a whole is not (necessarily) rationally intelligible/explainable.<br />
<br />
Which is exactly David Hume's position as summarized by Texas A&M University Prof. of Philosophy Stephen H. Daniel [3]:<br />
<br />
"The argument assumes that the world's existence can be explained rationally by appeal to God as its cause; but why should we think that the world's existence is rationally explainable?"<br />
<br />
And which is the basis of the "Thesis 1" that I propose on the next article.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References</b><br />
<br />
[1] That PSR is sufficient for PC was confirmed by Prof. Edward Feser in an article he published in his blog on 2014 09 06:<br />
<br />
a Scholastic might (as some Neo-Scholastic writers did) argue for PC on the basis of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR). <br />
<br />
[I]f PC were false — if the actualization of a potency, the existence of a contingent thing, or something’s changing or coming into being could lack a cause — then these phenomena would not be intelligible, would lack a sufficient reason or adequate explanation. Hence if PSR is true, PC must be true. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/09/marmodoro-on-psr-and-pc.html">http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/09/marmodoro-on-psr-and-pc.html</a><br />
<br />
[2] That PSR is necessary for PC was confirmed by Prof. Edward Feser in an article he published in his blog on 2014 11 02:<br />
<br />
"Now if PSR is false, then the principle of causality is threatened as well, since if things are ultimately unintelligible, there is no reason to think that a potency might not be actualized even though there is nothing actual to actualize it and thus that something contingent, like the universe, might just be without any cause at all. But then it would not be possible to argue from the world to God as cause of the world."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/11/voluntarism-and-psr.html">http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/11/voluntarism-and-psr.html</a><br />
<br />
[3] Test Questions for Phil 251: Intro. to Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, option 101.B<br />
(where options 99 and 101 should say "cosmological", not "teleological", argument).<br />
<a href="http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/quesrel.html">http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/quesrel.html</a><br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-73316081120129226672015-08-05T10:00:00.000-03:002016-07-31T18:16:58.141-03:00Sola scriptura is against Scripture, specifically four Pauline passagesFirst, not everything which was revealed by God was transmitted in writing by the Apostles, at least definitively not by Paul:<br />
<br />
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2 Thess 2:15)<br />
<br />
"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 1:13)<br />
<br />
"and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2)<br />
<br />
The objection to sola scriptura from the three above passages could be ingeniously countered by positing that any knowledge that Paul transmitted only orally and which needed to be transmitted to future generations was put in writing by some other NT author, be it John, Peter, James, Jude, or Luke in Acts. I don't think any sola scriptura defender would actually resort to such convoluted argument, but even if they did, they'd still need to explain away this other passage from Paul:<br />
<br />
"the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)<br />
<br />
In this passage, "support", rendered alternatively as "foundation", "bulwark" or "buttress", translates "hedraióma", a word used only once in the NT and nowhere else. To note, the usual word for "foundation" is "themelios", used in several places by Paul to refer to:<br />
<br />
- Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:10-12),<br />
- the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), "Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone (akrogóniaios)" in this case, and<br />
- those who belong to God, i.e. the Church: "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his,"" (2 Tim 2:19).<br />
<br />
The relationship between Jesus, the apostles and the whole of the Church in these passages with "foundation"/"themelios" mirrors the relationship between Jesus, Peter and the totality of the faithful in four passages with "rock" or "stone", namely those where:<br />
<br />
- Paul and Peter call Jesus "the cornerstone", i.e. Eph 2:20 and 1 Pe 2:6-7 respectively, the latter using both "akrogóniaios" and "kephale gonias",<br />
- Jesus tells Simon: "you are Rock (Kepha/Petros), and upon this rock (kepha/petra) I will build my church" (Mt 16:18), and<br />
- Peter says that the faithful "as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house" (1 Pe 2:5).<br />
<br />
The teaching from either set of passages is clear:<br />
<br />
- Jesus is the ultimate foundation, the cornerstone, and it is so by Himself, by nature.<br />
- Peter and the apostles are foundation by the grace of Christ, by participation in his firmness.<br />
- The whole Church, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20), is also foundation and support by participation.<br />
<br />
The point is that it is the Church which is "the pillar and support of the truth", not Scripture. This statement, together with the quoted Pauline exhortations to hold to the traditions received orally from him, show clearly that the position of sola scriptura is against Scripture.<br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-5181092399310319742015-05-25T22:25:00.000-03:002016-04-15T18:53:48.630-03:00Sustitución de obediencia en la expiación realizada por Jesús<br />
Es bien conocido que las distintas confesiones cristianas entienden de manera distinta la forma en que la expiación de los pecados realizada por Jesucristo es aplicada a los creyentes, tanto respecto a cómo los creyentes acceden al fruto de esta expiación, la justificación, como respecto a en qué consiste la justificación de esos creyentes. El tratamiento de estos temas, así como las polémicas sobre ellos entre fieles de distintas confesiones, es frecuente.<br />
<br />
En contraste, el tema de en qué consistió la expiación de los pecados realizada por Jesucristo es tratado mucho menos frecuentemente, a pesar de que es entendido de manera distinta no solamente por las distintas denominaciones cristianas, sino incluso por distintos fieles de una misma denominación. En el caso particular de los católicos, esta diversidad de entendimiento puede ocurrir porque la doctrina oficial de la Iglesia Católica sobre este tema particular es muy escueta, y consiste solamente en la definición, por el Concilio de Trento, de que Jesús "nos mereció con su santísima pasión en el árbol de la cruz la justificación, y satisfizo por nosotros a Dios Padre."<br />
<br />
El punto es: ¿en qué consistió ese "satisfacer por nosotros" a Dios Padre? En principio hay dos respuestas posibles:<br />
<br />
A. Sustitución de obediencia:<br />
La obediencia de Jesús sustituyó la que debíamos haber prestado (y no habíamos prestado): reparación de la raíz del mal.<br />
<br />
B. Sustitución de pena o sustitución penal:<br />
Los padecimientos de Jesús sustituyeron los que debíamos sufrir por no haber obedecido (y no sufriremos): reparación de la consecuencia del mal.<br />
<br />
Discernir entre estas posiciones no es fácil porque ambas cuentan con pasajes bíblicos que las apoyan o parecen apoyarlas. Así, en apoyo de la posición A podemos citar:<br />
<br />
"En efecto, así como por la desobediencia de un solo hombre todos fueron constituidos pecadores, así también por la obediencia de uno solo todos serán constituidos justos." (Rom 5:19)<br />
<br />
Mientras que en apoyo de la posición B podemos citar:<br />
<br />
"por sus llagas hemos sido curados." (Is 53:5, citado por 1 Pe 2:24)<br />
<br />
Estudiando primero la posición A, ¿cómo se interpretan en ella los pasajes que afirman, o parecen afirmar, que somos justificados por el sufrimiento de Jesús? Para responder esta pregunta es necesario entender en qué consistió la obediencia de Jesús al Padre, o sea qué fue lo que el Padre ordenó a Jesús que hiciera. Simplemente, el mandato del Padre a Jesús fue que permitiese que la dirigencia religiosa judía, y luego las autoridades romanas a instancias de ella, lo apresaran, golpearan, flagelaran, coronaran de espinas y crucificaran, eventos que, dada la actitud hacia Jesús por parte de la dirigencia religiosa judía, eran inevitables si Jesús no usaba su poder divino para defenderse. Este mandato iba más allá del cumplimiento de los 10 mandamientos y de la Ley de Moisés a los que Jesús, como hombre y como israelita, estaba obligado. Porque de acuerdo a los 10 mandamientos y a la Ley de Moisés, Jesús tenía el derecho de defenderse de quienes injustamente pretendían atentar contra su integridad física, y tenía obviamente el poder para hacerlo. El mandato del Padre a Jesús fue justamente que no hiciera uso de su derecho y poder de defenderse, que permitiese que lo maltrataran y mataran. Esto lo dice Jesús explícitamente:<br />
<br />
"«Por eso me ama el Padre, porque doy mi vida, para recobrarla de nuevo. Nadie me la quita; yo la doy voluntariamente. Tengo poder para darla y poder para recobrarla de nuevo; esa es la orden que he recibido de mi Padre.»" (Jn 10:17-18)<br />
<br />
La orden del Padre a Jesús es que dé voluntariamente su vida, o sea que permita voluntariamente que lo maten, que no haga uso de su derecho y poder para evitarlo.<br />
<br />
Es claro que, en las circunstancias en que Jesús ejercía su ministerio, obedecer a la orden del Padre tenía como consecuencia necesaria su sufrimiento y su muerte. La obediencia de Jesús a la orden del Padre era necesariamente una obediencia "hasta la muerte, y muerte de cruz" (Fil 2:8). Pero en la posición A, lo que quiso el Padre, lo que agradó infinitamente al Padre, lo que satisfizo al Padre por nuestros pecados, es la obediencia de Jesús hasta el sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte, no su sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte en sí mismos. En la posición A, los pasajes de la Biblia que parecen afirmar que somos justificados por el sufrimiento de Jesús, se refieren al sufrimiento de Jesús como consecuencia necesaria de su obediencia. El precio de nuestra justificación fue la obediencia de Jesús al Padre, y el precio de esta obediencia fue su sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte. <br />
<br />
Resumiendo, tanto la obediencia como el sufrimiento tienen un rol importante en ambas posiciones. La clave es cuál de ellos tiene el rol primario. Así:<br />
<br />
En la posición A, lo que satisfizo a Dios Padre fue la obediencia de Jesús, y su sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte fueron una consecuencia necesaria de su obediencia que hizo que ésta fuese heroica.<br />
<br />
En la posición B, lo que satisfizo a Dios Padre fue el sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte de Jesús, y su obediencia fue un requisito necesario para que su sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte fuesen aceptables a Dios.<br />
<br />
¿Por qué es importante discernir entre ambas posiciones? Porque si lo que satisfizo a Dios fue la obediencia por amor, o el amor obediente, de Jesús, entonces Dios es Amor como dice San Juan en su primera carta, mientras que si lo que satisfizo a Dios fue el sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte de Jesús en sí mismos, entonces Dios es como una divinidad azteca sedienta de sangre, excepto que es único y todopoderoso.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hasta aquí he mostrado solamente que la posición A es plausible, pero no que su fundamento bíblico es decididamente superior al de la posición B. Para ello, partiendo de la noción de la muerte de Jesús como sacrificio a Dios en expiación por nuestros pecados, y de que este sacrificio fue prefigurado por los sacrificios del Antiguo Testamento, estudiaré qué era lo que agradaba a Dios en éstos.<br />
<br />
La noción de la muerte de Jesús como sacrificio a Dios en expiación por nuestros pecados es mencionada en primer lugar en el cuarto poema del Siervo de Yahveh en Isaías cap. 53:<br />
<br />
"Si se da a sí mismo en expiación, verá descendencia, alargará sus días, y lo que plazca a Yahveh se cumplirá por su mano." (Is 53:10)<br />
<br />
La figura del sacrificio de expiación de Levítico cap. 16 es usada por San Pablo en relación a los dos machos cabríos ofrecidos en dicho sacrificio. En primer lugar, el macho cabrío que era degollado y con cuya sangre se aspergía el propiciatorio que estaba sobre el arca de la alianza (Lev 16:15-16): <br />
<br />
"en virtud de la redención realizada en Cristo Jesús, a quien exhibió Dios como instrumento de propiciación por su propia sangre," (Rom 3:24-25)<br />
<br />
En segundo lugar, el macho cabrío sobre el cual se echaban "todas las culpas, todas las iniquidades de los hijos de Israel" y que era mandado al desierto (Lev 16:21-22):<br />
<br />
"A quien no conoció pecado, le hizo pecado por nosotros, para que viniésemos a ser justicia de Dios en él." (2 Cor 5:21)<br />
<br />
San Juan, por su parte, usa repetidamente la figura del cordero pascual inmolado a la tarde del 14 de Nisán (Abib en el Pentateuco) y con cuya sangre los israelitas untaron los postes y el dintel de sus casas en Egipto (Ex 12:3-13). De hecho, a diferencia de los sinópticos, que ubican la crucifixión de Jesús en el día de Pascua, 15 de Nisán, Juan la ubica en la Víspera (Parasceve) de la Pascua (Jn 18:28, 19:14), o sea el 14 de Nisán, de modo que la muerte de Jesús ocurrió en el mismo momento en que los corderos pascuales eran inmolados en el Templo. Notablemente, la datación de Juan es respaldada por los cálculos contemporáneos de las fases de la luna en esos años, según los cuales el 14 de Nisán fue viernes los años 30 y 33, mientras que el 15 de Nisán no fue viernes en ningún posible año de la Pascua de Jesús. <br />
<br />
La figura del cordero inmolado es usada también por San Pedro en su carta:<br />
<br />
"habéis sido rescatados de la conducta necia heredada de vuestros padres, no con algo caduco, oro o plata, sino con una sangre preciosa, como de cordero sin tacha y sin mancilla, Cristo," (1 Pe 1:18-19)<br />
<br />
Finalmente, la Carta a los Hebreos en sus primeros 10 capítulos desarrolla extensamente la noción del sacrificio de Jesús, en el cual Él es al mismo tiempo sacerdote y víctima. Cito solamente un pasaje:<br />
<br />
"¡cuánto más la sangre de Cristo, que por el Espíritu Eterno se ofreció a sí mismo sin tacha a Dios, purificará de las obras muertas nuestra conciencia para rendir culto a Dios vivo!" (Heb 9:14)<br />
<br />
Todos estos pasajes parecen afirmar que lo que agradó a Dios Padre fue el sufrimiento, la sangre y la muerte de Cristo. Hebreos incluso afirma en otro pasaje que Dios "perfeccionó" a Cristo (obviamente como hombre) mediante los sufrimientos:<br />
<br />
"Convenía, en verdad, que Aquel por quien es todo y para quien es todo, llevara muchos hijos a la gloria, perfeccionando mediante los sufrimientos al que iba a guiarlos a la salvación." (Heb 2:10)<br />
<br />
Ahora bien, ¿lo que perfeccionó a Cristo fueron los sufrimientos en sí mismos, o en tanto estaban asociados a algo más importante? Otro pasaje responde esto:<br />
<br />
"y aun siendo Hijo, aprendió por sus padecimientos la obediencia; y llegado a la perfección, se convirtió en causa de salvación eterna para todos los que le obedecen," (Heb 5:8)<br />
<br />
O sea que lo que perfeccionó a Cristo (como hombre) fue su obediencia al Padre, obediencia en grado heroico por estar unida al sufrimiento, y no el sufrimiento en sí mismo. Volviendo a la cuestión de qué fue lo que agradó al Padre en el sacrificio de Cristo, examinemos qué era lo que agradaba a Dios en los sacrificios del Antiguo Testamento, dado que estos sacrificios prefiguraban el de Jesús. La respuesta está muy clara en dos pasajes:<br />
<br />
"Pero Samuel dijo: «¿Se complace Yahveh en holocaustos y sacrificios tanto como en obedecer la voz de Yahveh? Mirad, obedecer es mejor que sacrificar, escuchar es mejor que la grasa de los carneros.»" (1 Sam 15:22)<br />
<br />
"Porque Yo me complazco en amor fiel (*) antes que sacrificio, en el conocimiento de Dios antes que holocaustos." (Os 6:6)<br />
<br />
(*) “amor fiel” es la traducción de “chesed” o “hesed”, que significa amor asociado tanto con fidelidad como con compasión o misericordia. El cual fue vivido perfectamente por Jesús en sus dos dimensiones: amor obediente y fiel a Dios Padre, y en ese amor, amor compasivo y misericordioso a nosotros.<br />
<br />
Obviamente no hay contradicción entre que Dios se complazca en la obediencia a su voz y que se complazca en el amor fiel, porque nuestro amor a Dios debe necesariamente ser un amor obediente, y por otra parte nuestra obediencia a Dios es perfecta cuando no es por miedo al castigo sino por amor a El, a partir del conocimiento de que El es infinitamente poderoso, sabio y bueno, tal que, porque es infinitamente bueno quiere el mayor bien para nosotros, porque es infinitamente sabio sabe perfectamente qué conviene que hagamos nosotros para alcanzar nuestro mayor bien, y porque es infinitamente poderoso puede hacer El lo que sea necesario para que alcancemos nuestro mayor bien. La perfecta obediencia a Dios se basa en el amor a El, y el amor a Dios se basa en el conocimiento de El. Lo cual nos recuerda otro pasaje del cuarto canto del Servidor: "Por su conocimiento justificará mi Siervo a muchos y las culpas de ellos él soportará." (Is 53:11)<br />
<br />
Por lo tanto, lo que agradaba a Dios en los sacrificios del Antiguo Testamento no era el sufrimiento, la sangre, y la muerte de la víctima en sí mismos, sino la obediencia por amor, o el amor obediente, de quien ofrecía el sacrificio, lo cual es particularmente evidente en el episodio en que Abraham obedece el mandato divino de ofrecerle a Isaac en sacrificio. El Dios verdadero no es una divinidad azteca sedienta de sangre, sino que es Amor como enseña San Juan en su primera carta, y quiere una respuesta de amor, amor necesariamente obediente, de parte de sus creaturas. Queda así claro qué fue lo que agradó a Dios Padre en el sacrificio de Cristo: no su sufrimiento, derramamiento de sangre y muerte en sí mismos, sino su amor obediente, o su obediencia por amor, "hasta la muerte, y muerte de cruz" (Fil 2:8). <br />
<br />
A mi juicio esta posición está de acuerdo con lo que dice el Catecismo en los puntos 603, 609, 614, 615 y 616, del último de los cuales cito: "El «amor hasta el extremo» (Jn 13:1) es el que confiere su valor de redención y de reparación, de expiación y de satisfacción al sacrificio de Cristo."<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>Addendum de 2015 09 19</b><br />
<br />
La posición A, sustitución de obediencia, está en línea con la de dos doctores de la Iglesia del siglo XIII: S. Tomás de Aquino y S. Buenaventura de Bagnoregio, máximos exponentes de las dos grandes escuelas teológicas dentro del catolicismo, la dominicana y la franciscana respectivamente. Cito de:<br />
<br />
Rik van Niewenhove "Late Mediaeval Anotement Theologies", ch. 16 in Francesca Aran Murphy ed. 2015 "The Oxford Handbook of Christology", pp. 250-264.<br />
<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=YssRCgAAQBAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=YssRCgAAQBAJ</a><br />
<br />
Para S. Buenaventura (p. 253):<br />
<br />
the source of merit of Christ's atoning work is not suffering itself but his love and obedience which find expression in that suffering (III Sent. d. 18, a. 1, q. 3).<br />
<br />
la fuente del mérito del trabajo expiatorio de Cristo no es el sufrimiento en sí mismo sino su amor y obediencia que hallan expresión en ese sufrimiento (III Sent. d. 18, a. 1, q. 3).<br />
<br />
Para S. Tomás (p. 255):<br />
<br />
the sufferings of Christ are not the primary source of our salvation, but rather what they denote ('invisibly'), namely his love and obedience to the Father (ST III, q. 47, a. 2; ST III, q. 47, a. 4, ad 2).<br /><br />los sufrimientos de Cristo no son la fuente primaria de nuestra salvación, sino lo que ellos denotan ('invisiblemente'), esto es su amor y obediencia al Padre (ST III, q. 47, a. 2; ST III, q. 47, a. 4, ad 2).<br /><br />(Reestructuré la cita a ST III en el libro porque todo el art. 2 de la q. 47 es relevante, y no solamente la respuesta a la objeción 3.)<br /><br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>Summary in English</b><br />
<br />
Since Old Testament sacrifices were prefigurations of Jesus’ sacrifice, it is useful to consider what in them pleased God. Was it the suffering, blood and death of the victim in themselves? Or was the obedience and love of the offerer? In other words, was YHWH acting like an Aztec blood-thirsty god, or was He acting as Love as the Apostle John defines Him in his 1st letter?<br />
<br />
The answer is in these two passages, which are essential for understanding what pleased God in OT sacrifices, and therefore in Jesus’:<br />
<br />
"And Samuel said, «Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.»" (1 Sam 15:22)<br />
<br />
"For I delight in steadfast love (*) rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hos 6:6)<br />
<br />
(*) “steadfast love” is the translation of “chesed” or “hesed”, which means love associated with both loyalty and kindness. Which was lived perfectly by Jesus in its two dimensions: loyal love to the Father, and in that love, kind, merciful love to us.<br />
<br />
So what pleased God was obedience and love, not the suffering and death of the victim “per se”. Which should make clear what the central component in Jesus’ sacrifice was, what was in it that pleased the Father infinitely and atoned for our faults: not his suffering, pouring of blood and death “per se”, but his obedient love to the Father “to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:8)<br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-69681702665846473482014-12-29T08:56:00.000-03:002014-12-29T09:11:21.004-03:00Escatología Católica - Catholic eschatologyThis article is bilingual, first in Spanish (except this sentence), then in English.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Síntesis de escatología general Católica</b><br />
<br />
Puede describirse como amilenialismo y preterismo parcial con resurrección-transformación y arrebato post-tribulación.<br />
<br />
0. Milenio simbólico, incluyendo la conversión de todo Israel a Cristo luego de "que entrase la plenitud de los gentiles" (Rom 11:12,25-26).<br />
<br />
1. Tribulación (Mt 24:21-26; Mc 13:19-23; 2 Tes 2:3-12; Apoc 20:7-9 menos final de 9), seguida inmediatamente por:<br />
<br />
2. Cataclismo cósmico (Mt 24:29; Mc 13:24-25; Lc 21:25-26; 2 Pe 3:10-12), inmediatamente antes de:<br />
<br />
3. Segunda Venida de Jesús, unida a:<br />
- resurrección de los muertos, con los fieles entre ellos en un estado incorruptible, o sea glorioso,<br />
- transformación, o sea glorificación, de los fieles que estén vivos en ese momento,<br />
- y arrebato ("rapto") de TODOS los fieles (los resucitados y los vivos y transformados) al encuentro de Jesús <br />
(Mt 24:30-31; Mc 13:26-27; Lc 21:27; 1 Tes 4:15-17; 1 Cor 15:51-53).<br />
<br />
4. Juicio Final.<br />
<br />
Los puntos 2 a 4 corresponden a Apoc 20:final de 9-15.<br />
<br />
Así, existe una versión Católica post-tribulacional del arrebato o "rapto", que es clara a partir de:<br />
<br />
a. el uso explícito del término por S. Pablo en 1 Tes 4:17.<br />
<br />
b. la profecía de Jesús en el discurso escatológico del Monte de los Olivos: cuando "inmediatamente después de la tribulación", en medio del cataclismo cósmico, el Hijo del Hombre venga "sobre las nubes del cielo con gran poder y gloria", "El enviará a sus ángeles con sonora trompeta, y reunirán de los cuatro vientos a sus elegidos, desde un extremo de los cielos hasta el otro" (Mt 24:29-31; también Mc 13:24-27). <br />
<br />
c. la traducción correcta de la respuesta de Jesús a la pregunta de los discípulos (implícita en Mateo, explícita en Lucas) sobre "dónde" será su segunda venida:<br />
<br />
"Donde esté el cuerpo, allí también serán reunidos los buitres." (Mt 24:28; Lc 17:37. Del 2º.)<br />
<br />
En ambos pasajes, es esencial que la voz pasiva "serán reunidos" del texto original en griego sea traducida fielmente para reflejar que todos los fieles que en ese momento puedan estar en cualquier punto sobre la tierra (o incluso orbitándola) "serán reunidos" por Dios en torno a Jesús que vuelve en su gloria.<br />
<br />
Por otro lado, la tesis de arrebato pre-tribulación no tiene sentido a partir de dos dichos de Jesús.<br />
<br />
En primer lugar, Mt 24:22 y Mc 13:20. Porque si los elegidos fuesen a ser arrebatados ANTES de la tribulación, no habría ninguna necesidad de "acortar esos dias" (de la tribulación) "en atención a los elegidos".<br />
<br />
En segundo lugar, la predicción y advertencia de Mt 24:23-26 y Mc 13:21-23. Porque si los elegidos fuesen a ser arrebatados ANTES de la tribulación, no tendrían ninguna necesidad de "estar alerta" por esos eventos que Jesús les estaba prediciendo.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<b>Synthesis of Catholic general eschatology</b><br />
<br />
It can be described as amillennialism and partial preterism with post-tribulational resurrection-change and rapture.<br />
<br />
0. Symbolic millennium, including the conversion of all Israel to Christ after "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Rom 11:12,25-26).<br />
<br />
1. Tribulation (Mt 24:21-26; Mk 13:19-23; 2 Thess 2:3-12; Rev 20:7-9 except ending of 9).<br />
<br />
2. Cosmic cataclism (Mt 24:29; Mk 13:24-25; Lk 21:25-26; 2 Pe 3:10-12), immediately before:<br />
<br />
3. Jesus' Second Coming, united to:<br />
- resurrection of the dead, with the faithful among them in an imperishable, i.e. glorious, state,<br />
- change, i.e. glorification, of the faithful who are alive at that moment,<br />
- and rapture of ALL the faithful (the resurrected and the alive and changed) to meet Jesus <br />
(Mt 24:30-31; Mk 13:26-27; Lk 21:27; 1 Thess 4:15-17; 1 Cor 15:51-53).<br />
<br />
4. Final Judgment.<br />
<br />
Points 2 to 4 correspond to Rev 20:ending of 9-15.<br />
<br />
Thus, there is a Catholic post-tribulational version of the rapture, which is clear from:<br />
<br />
a. the explicit use of the term by St. Paul in 1 Thess 4:17.<br />
<br />
b. the prophecy by Jesus in the escatological discourse on the Mount of Olives: when "immediately after the tribulation", in the middle of the cosmic cataclism, the Son of Man comes "on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory", "He will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." (Mt 24:29-31; also Mk 13:24-27). <br />
<br />
c. the correct translation of Jesus' answer to the question from the disciples (implicit in Matthew, explicit in Luke) about "where" his Second Coming will be:<br />
<br />
"Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered." (Mt 24:28; Lk 17:37. From the 2nd.)<br />
<br />
In both passages, it is essential that the passive construction "will be gathered" of the original text in Greek be faithfully translated to reflect that all the faithful that at that moment may be in any point on earth (or even orbiting it) "will be gathered" by God around Jesus who comes back in his glory.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the thesis of pre-tribulational rapture is nonsensical from two sayings of Jesus.<br />
<br />
First, Mt 24:22 and Mk 13:20. Because if the elect were to be raptured BEFORE the tribulation, there would be no need to "cut short" "those days" (of the tribulation) "for the sake of the elect".<br />
<br />
Secondly, the prediction and warning of Mt 24:23-26 and Mk 13:21-23. Because if the elect were to be raptured BEFORE the tribulation, they would have no need to "be on guard" for those events that Jesus was telling them beforehand.<br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-19945390512179336752013-07-14T19:32:00.000-03:002014-12-29T01:51:22.843-03:00Scriptural support for a teaching in LG 16 and GS 22I have just realized that today's liturgical reading of Luke's Gospel, together with another Gospel passage, provides strong scriptural support for a teaching in LG 16 and GS 22, in the passages quoted by CCC 847-848 and 1260 respectively. From today's reading:<br />
<blockquote>
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">And a scholar of the Law stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"<br /><br />He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?"<br /><br />And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."<br /><br />And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; <b>do this, and you will live.</b>"</span><br />
<br />
(Lk 10: 25-28)</blockquote>
<br />
After reading this passage, many Christians - RC, EO and Protestant alike - if it were not for the fact that they have got used to reading it, would probably feel the impulse of jumping and saying to the Lord: "Wait a moment Lord, You have not mentioned faith in You and baptism! How can anyone inherit eternal life without first believing in You as the Eternal and Consubstantial Son of God and being baptized in your Name? RCs and EOs certainly believe that, <b>after</b> that, the faithful must love God and neighbor to <b>remain</b> partakers of divine life (1 Jn 3: 15,17), but they must first believe and be baptized to <b>become</b> that!"<br />
<br />
The problem for those hypothetical startled Christians is that there is another passage in which the Lord said the same thing, even more clearly:<br />
<blockquote>
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"<br /><br />And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but <b>if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.</b>"<br /><br />He said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."</span><br />
<br />
(Mt 19: 16-19)</blockquote>
<br />
Again, the startled Christian would object: "Wait a moment Lord, those are the requirements to <b>remain</b> in eternal life (for RCs and EOs, at least), not to <b>enter into</b> it! We can <b>obtain</b> eternal life only by believing in You as the Son of God and being baptized!"<br />
<br />
The beginning of the solution to this problem is precisely in the different text of the beginning of the second passage in the other two versions of it, i.e. those of Mark and Luke:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;">A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"<br /><br />And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.</span><br />
<br />
(Lk 18: 18-19)</blockquote>
<br />
While a trivial first reading of this passage is that Jesus denies his divinity, an enlightened reading is that Jesus is saying: "<span style="color: blue;">Why do you call Me good</span>, <b>if you have NOT yet come to know that I and the Father are one (Jn 10: 30), each of Us being able to say "I Am Who I Am" as in the burning bush (Ex 3: 14)</b><span style="color: blue;">? No one is good except God alone.</span>" With this reading, it becomes clear that the quoted first part of Jesus' answer to the young rich person, or "ruler", is that which applies to any person of good will who, through no fault of their own, does NOT know that Jesus is the Consubstantial Son of God. Which was also the case of the scholar of the Law in the first passage. Any such persons "who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience (enlightened, in the case of the people in the quoted passages, by the divinely revealed commandments) – those too may achieve eternal salvation." (LG 16)<br />
<br />Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-31748549966881714942010-08-18T13:15:00.016-03:002017-12-20T15:51:58.273-03:00Discerning where the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus subsistsIt is important at this juncture to state plainly the main purpose of this site: <b>help people make their way to the fullness of the knowledge and love of God by becoming members of Jesus Christ in his mystical body which is the Catholic Church.</b> This is the one Universal Church in which subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its Head, the Church that receives from Christ "the fullness of the means of salvation" which He has willed:<br />
<br />
1. correct and complete confession of faith,<br />
<br />
2. full sacramental life, and<br />
<br />
3. ordained ministry in apostolic succession (which is a prerequisite for 2). <br />
<br />
Additionally, this Catholic Church, by enjoying continued divine assistance including infallible magisterial authority, does not suffer from the problems of ecclesiastical deism and definition of the scriptural canon that affect Protestantism.<br />
<br />
<br />
Let's place ourselves for a moment in the shoes of the people making that journey. They see a menu of "sets of particular Churches in communion with one another" that might in principle be "the" one Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ: RC, EO, OO, in order of decreasing size. Then they start to narrow the menu by making these initial steps:<br />
<br />
<br />
- Regarding OO, it is necessary to examine the historical context of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. This is because the discernment of whether the Catholic Church subsists in the RC, EO or OO candidates cannot possibly be done by using principles specific to any of the candidates. Therefore the following facts must be checked:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
- Second (“Robber” for RCs and EOs) Council of Ephesus in 449: 130 attendants. Council of Chalcedon in 451: at least 370 attendants, who in their overwhelming majority signed its confession of faith.<br />
<br />
- Was the high number of diophysite attendants in Chalcedon due to the diophysite side having embarked on a massive consecration of bishops during the run-up to the Council in order to tilt the vote to their favor? No.<br />
<br />
- Were many of those signing the diophysite position pressed in any way by the emperor so as to render their vote invalid? No.</blockquote>
<br />
Therefore the OO option is discarded.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thus those comprising the target audience of this site have to choose between the RC and EO options. The choice is not trivial because the issues of doctrinal disagreement between RCs and EOs (mainly Filioque, Papal Primacy and those related to Palamism) are serious enough that, as a consequence, the technical position of each side is that the other side is in material heresy in a number of matters (even when members of a particular side may choose not to use the h-word for reasons of charity or courtesy). As a result, <b>the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus subsists in only one of the two sides</b>. Notably, each side has a completely different view on the consequences of this objective reality on the status of the other side regarding possession of the means of salvation listed above. Thus:<br />
<br />
- RCs believe that EOs lack 1 but have 2 and 3.<br />
<br />
- most EOs believe that RCs lack 1, 2 and 3. <br />
<br />
<br />
Let's review the issues of doctrinal disagreement and their status to appreciate their seriousness:<br />
<br />
- The Lateran IV Ecumenical Council (1215) defined the dogma of Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS), which was confirmed by the Vatican I Ecumenical Council in its Constitution "Dei Filius" (1870). The teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which were adopted by the EO Churches in three councils held in Constantinople (1341, 1347 and 1351), are against that dogma.<br />
<br />
- Pope Benedict XII in his Constitution "Benedictus Deus" (1336) defined the dogma of Beatific Vision whereby saints in Heaven see the divine essence, which was confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439). The teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which were adopted by the EO Churches in three councils held in Constantinople (1341, 1347 and 1351), are against that dogma.<br />
<br />
- The Ecumenical Councils of Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439) defined dogmatically, quoting from the latter, "that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration", doctrine commonly designated as Filioque. EOs do not accept that dogma, with some EOs denying it outright and other EOs considering it just a theologumenon.<br />
<br />
- The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) defined the dogma of papal primacy, which was confirmed by the Vatican I Ecumenical Council in its Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" (1870), which added the definition of papal infallibility. Both dogmas are denied by EOs.<br />
<br />
<br />
To discern in which side the One Church founded by Jesus subsists, the primary path is to check which of the two doctrinal positions is supported or refuted by the 73 books of the Bible (72 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) that both sides recognize as inspired. Here is a summary of the results of the checks I made in previous posts:<br />
<br />
Filioque: RC position supported by Jn 17:26 and Rev 22:1.<br />
<br />
Papal Primacy: RC position strongly supported by Mt 16:17-19 and additionally by Jn 21:15-17.<br />
<br />
Teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas:<br />
<br />
O1. "God is being and not being." Against Ex 3:14 and Wis 13:1. Strongly against Jn 4:24.<br />
<br />
O2. Divine essence-energies distinction.<br />
<br />
O3. Deification (theosis) through divine energies only. Strongly against Jn 17:26.<br />
<br />
O4. Saints in Heaven see only the divine energies. Strongly against 1 Cor 13:12 and 1 Jn 3:2. Against Mt 5:8.<br />
<br />
<br />
Therefore the biblical texts overwhelmingly support the RC position in almost all the points of disagreement, and are neutral in the rest. <br />
<br />
<br />
The secondary path to confirm which side is the One Church founded by Jesus is to examine the Ecumenical Councils of Lyon II and Florence, which were attended by Eastern bishops who in their overwhelming majority (in Florence all the Eastern bishops but one) approved the decrees defining the doctrine of Filioque. Regarding those Councils, there are two possibilities:<br />
<br />
a. That <b>at least one</b> of those Councils was indisputably Ecumenical (and not just "RC" Ecumenical, which of course for RCs are truly Ecumenical), meaning by that that the positive vote of the majority of Eastern bishops was valid. In this case, the fact that both Councils are accepted by RCs and rejected by EOs would independently confirm that the One Universal Church founded by Jesus subsists in the RC Church.<br />
<br />
b. That <b>in both</b> Councils most of the Eastern bishops did not act freely and in right conscience, but were pressed and/or bribed in a way that rendered their vote invalid. To note, this latter possibility would not prevent both Councils from being "RC" Ecumenical, neither would it affect the conclusion from the examination of biblical passages that the One Universal Church founded by Jesus subsists in the RC Church. It would just not provide additional independent confirmation for that conclusion.<br />
<br />
<br />
It should be noted that, independently of the final result of the discernment, since <b>there is only one Universal Church founded by Jesus</b>, and from the serious doctrinal disagreements between the RC and EO sides it is clear that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus <b>subsists in only one of the two sides</b>, then <b>only one of the two sides can be properly called "Church" as a whole</b>, and the proper term for the totality of particular Churches comprising the other side is "the XX Churches". <br />
<br />
Thus the proper terms for the sides as a whole are either<br />
<br />
a. "the RC Church" and "the EO Churches", or<br />
<br />
b. "the RC Churches" and "the EO Church".<br />
<br />
If my plain stating of this fact sounds uncharitable to some ears, I strongly suggest reading the "Note on the expression "Sister Churches"" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated June 30, 2000 and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The core points are 9 to 12. It's at:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html">http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html</a><br />
<br />
<b>Appendix:</b><br />
<br />
It might be useful to have a formal description of the framework involved in this discernement. Let us call System any of the options among which we are discerning, so that: <br />
<br />
System = {Sources, Entities, Corpus, Rules}<br />
<br />
Thus, a System is comprised of (the examples of Sources and Entities are from the RC Church):<br />
<br />
- Sources of Divine Revelation = {Scripture, Tradition}<br />
<br />
- Authoritative Entities = {Ecumenical Council, Pope}<br />
<br />
- Corpus: definitions by Entities of the content of the divine revelation in the Sources, including the identification of the Sources<br />
<br />
- Rules: Subset of Corpus defining Entities, how they work, and particularly how they define the Corpus.<br />
<br />
The one divinely-founded System must exhibit several levels of logical consistency:<br />
<br />
1. Instrumental: capacity for identifying infallibly and dynamically (i.e. at any time as needed) the content of the divine revelation in the Sources (and the Sources themselves), and for transmitting that content trans-historically and geographically.<br />
<br />
2. Historical: abidance by Rules.<br />
<br />
3. Internal: absence of contradiction between definitions in Corpus and content of Sources, and between definitions in Corpus themselves.<br />
<br />
4. External: absence of contradiction between definitions in Corpus and physical laws or historical facts.<br />
<br />
5. Extraordinary: confirmation by occasional targeted breakings of physical laws (miracles).<br />
<br />
I posit that all five levels of logical consistency are relevant in principle to discern between Systems, although in some practical cases the evidence from looking at one of the levels might be strong enough to dispense with the need to look at the others. Thus I discarded the OO option above on the basis of just historical consistency, by looking at historical context for the Council of Chalcedon. The importance of external consistency can be appreciated by imagining the consequences to any System that had defined geocentrism as dogma. (By the way, the RC Church never did so, even when its authorities prohibited for a long time the publication of books supporting that theory and, as is well known, gave Galileo a hard time.)<br />
<br />
Thus, the main levels for discerning between the RC and EO options are:<br />
<br />
- instrumental: superbly covered in Ray Stamper's comments #88 and #89 to <a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/">this article</a>), and<br />
<br />
- internal: covered in my previous posts and summarized above.<br />
<br />
As I said above, in order for the EO Churches to exhibit historical consistency, it is critical for them to claim that in Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439) the third point in the examination above of the Council of Chalcedon applied to the Eastern bishops, who were either pressed by the Emperor in the first case and practically bribed by the Pope, in the context of the Ottoman threat, in the second. Sure enough that claim does not cause the RC Church to exhibit historical inconsistency, because the Western bishops were under no pressure.<br />
<br />
Finally, regarding extraordinary consistency, either the RC Church has received ample confirmation at this level, or many RC Saints had very serious mental problems or were pathological liars, or the RC Church has been forsaken by God as playground for the dark side. (BTW, I am talking only about RC Church-approved miracles like Lourdes. I perceive Medjugorje as a purely human phenomenon in the very best case.)Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-2342074578355002432010-08-15T18:46:00.019-03:002010-08-29T15:19:35.424-03:00Point 4. Beatific Vision: angels and saints see the divine essence.I will finally address the fourth of the four points of RC-EO disagreement related to the teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which is, in its RC and EO versions:<br />
<br />
C4. Beatific Vision: Pope Benedict XII in his Constitution "Benedictus Deus" (1336) defined that saints in Heaven "see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence." The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) confirmed it in a more succint manner, defining that saints in Heaven "clearly behold the triune God as he is".<br />
<br />
On the other hand, RC St Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between vision and comprehension. Creatures in the beatific vision see the whole, but they do not comprehend it wholly. Only God wholly comprehends God, as no created intellect can comprehend the divine essence (according to Aquinas, not even the glorified soul of Jesus, although I do not know whether this specific point is generally accepted RC doctrine or just Aquinas' personal opinion.)<br />
<br />
<br />
O4. Saints in Heaven do not see the divine essence, only the divine energies.<br />
<br />
<br />
Of course, one way to solve the disagreement would be to prove that there is no ontological distinction between the divine essence and energies, i.e. to solve point 2. However, I will proceed the other way.<br />
<br />
There are two NT passages that are most relevant regarding this issue:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then <strong>I shall know fully, as I am fully known.</strong> (1 Cor 13:12)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for <strong>we shall see him as he is.</strong> (1 Jn 3:2)</span><br />
<br />
Most clearly, the statements that "<strong><span style="color: blue;">I shall know fully, as I am fully known</span></strong>." and that "<span style="color: blue;"><strong>we shall see him as he is</strong></span>" are not compatible with Palamas' doctrine that the blessed do not see the divine essence. Moreover, the Pauline statement seems at first sight even incompatible with Aquinas' restriction that the blessed do not comprehend the divine essence, because God certainly does comprehend mine!<br />
<br />
Regarding the possible objection that the two quoted passages refer to the vision of Jesus in glory like (Rev 1:13-16) and not to the vision of God, an objection which seems to be reinforced by the Pauline reference to God <span style="color: blue;">"whom no human being has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16)</span>, I answer:<br />
<br />
First, that the interpretation of the two passages quoted first as referring to the vision of God and not (only) of Jesus in glory is the most logical by far is clearly seen when we take into account that:<br />
<br />
1. It does not make sense to refer to the future vision as the two passages do if it is only of a (however much) glorified human nature.<br />
<br />
2. The last noun before "<span style="color: blue;">he</span>" and "<span style="color: blue;">him</span>" in the second passage is "<span style="color: blue;">God</span>" (which unequivocally refers to the Father as it is used in the expression "<span style="color: blue;">children of God</span>"), and therefore those pronouns refer to God.<br />
<br />
Second, that St Paul's statement at (1 Tim 6:16) refers only to human beings on earth is clearly seen when we read it in conjunction with Jesus' statement: <span style="color: blue;">"Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God" (Mt 5:8).</span> And at this point it may be useful to compare the interpretations of both statements on the vision of God, regarding:<br />
<br />
- what is meant by "God", and<br />
- the circumstances of the vision or lack thereof.<br />
<br />
xx -- The clean of heart will see God (Mt 5:8). -- No man has seen or can see God (1 Tim 6:16).<br />
<br />
RC -- Essence, in Heaven. -- Essence, on earth.<br />
<br />
EO -- Energies, in Heaven and on earth. -- Essence, on earth and in Heaven.<br />
<br />
While the EO interpretation of "God" in (Mt 5:8) as referring to the divine energies and in (1 Tim 6:16) as referring to the divine essence is clearly arbitrary, the RC interpretation of (Mt 5:8) as referring to Heaven and of (1 Tim 6:16) as referring to earth is completely logical as it derives directly from the verbal tense used in each statement:<br />
<br />
(Mt 5:8): <span style="color: blue;">"will see"</span> = future => in Heaven<br />
<br />
(1 Tim 6:16): <span style="color: blue;">"has seen or can see"</span> = past and present => on earth<br />
Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-41122908655062600892010-08-15T18:35:00.003-03:002010-08-18T17:27:06.339-03:00Point 3. Union with God is through his essence. Also Filioque.The second and third of the four points of RC-EO disagreement related to the teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) are, in their EO version:<br />
<br />
O2. There is a real, ontological distinction between divine essence and divine energies. God is his essence and his energies. The divine essence is the cause of the divine energies, which are uncreated. Each divine Person is the divine essence and the divine energies.<br />
<br />
O3. Deification (theosis) is union with God through his energies (uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit = uncreated grace), and not through his essence.<br />
<br />
Let's assume for a moment that O2 is true, and examine O3 in light of the last statement in Jesus' priestly prayer:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that <strong>the love with which you have loved me may be in them</strong>, and I in them." (Jn 17:26)</span><br />
<br />
Jesus is asking that "<strong>the love with which the Father has loved Him</strong>" may be in us. Is Jesus talking about the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead, or about the love with which the Father loves the Son in his human nature? The answer is just two verses before:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"that they may see <strong>my glory that you gave me</strong>, because <strong>you loved me before the foundation of the world</strong>." (Jn 17:24)</span><br />
<br />
and in case there were any remaining doubts related to which one is the nature whose glory Jesus is talking about (which should be clear from the past tense anyway), there is this also this verse:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with <strong>the glory that I had with you before the world existed</strong>." (Jn 17:5)</span><br />
<br />
Therefore it is clear that "<strong>the love with which the Father has loved Jesus</strong>", which Jesus asks that "<strong>may be in us</strong>", is <strong>the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead</strong>. Now, assuming that there is a real, ontological distinction between divine essence and energies, <strong>the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son "ad-intra" must necessarily be at the level of the essence. And if this love is in us, then the proposition that we only interact with God's energies is false.</strong><br />
<br />
Now, let's try to learn more about that love by looking again at Jn 17:26. <strong>Jesus is placing that love on an equal standing with Himself</strong> regarding the desired presence of both in the disciples. This can be seen even more clearly in some translations of that verse, such as in the New Jerusalem Bible:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"so that <strong>the love with which you loved me</strong> <u>may be in them</u>, and so that <strong>I</strong> <u>may be in them</u>." (Jn 17:26b)</span><br />
<br />
The only possible interpretation then is that <strong>the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead is the Holy Spirit.</strong> So Jesus is asking that the Holy Spirit may be in us. He is thus fulfilling at this moment the promise He had made earlier to the disciples:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate ("Paraclete") to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows him. But you know him, because he remains with you, and <u>will be in you</u>. (Jn 14:16-17)</span><br />
<br />
And at this point, with the help of God and asking for the light of the Holy Spirit, we can address the issue of Filioque. Can the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son remain unidireccional? Will not the Son reciprocate by eternally loving the Father with the same love? Or does this truth revealed by Jesus apply only to the activity of the Son "ad-extra":<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">To this Jesus replied: "In all truth I tell you, by himself the Son can do nothing; he can do only what he sees the Father doing: and whatever the Father does the Son does too." (Jn 5:19)</span><br />
<br />
If <span style="color: blue;">God is love</span>, and if the Son is "<span style="color: blue;">the exact imprint of God's being" (Hb 1:3)</span>, there can be no possible doubt that <strong>the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son is eternally and equally reciprocated</strong>. And since this love is the Holy Spirit, this is a most clear and firm basis for affirming "that <strong>the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, ... and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.</strong>" (Ecumenical Council of Florence, session 6)<br />
<br />
So, the Filioque is central to the RC conception of God.<br />
Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-83536110196378686452010-08-15T18:16:00.057-03:002011-03-14T19:35:48.813-03:00Point 1. God is He Who Is.I will address here the first of the four points of RC-EO disagreement related to the teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which is, in its EO version:<br />
<br />
O1. "God is being and not being." (EO St Gregory Palamas)<br />
<br />
The biblical passage that is most relevant regarding this issue is precisely the fundamental revelation for both the Old and the New Covenants: the revelation of the divine name to Moses in the theophany of the burning bush: <br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">God said to Moses, "<strong>I Am Who I Am</strong>." And He said, "Say this to the people of Israel, <strong>'I Am</strong> has sent me to you.'" (Ex 3:14)</span><br />
<br />
The expressions in bold above, which in the original Hebrew text are: <br />
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: blue;">"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh"</span></em></strong> = <span style="color: blue;"><strong>"I Am Who I Am"</strong></span><br />
and<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong><em>"Ehyeh"</em></strong></span> = <span style="color: blue;"><strong>"I Am"</strong></span><br />
<br />
were translated in the Septuagint as:<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><em>"Ego Eimi Ho On"</em></span></strong> = <strong><span style="color: blue;">"I Am The One Who Is"</span></strong> / <strong><span style="color: blue;">"I Am He Who Is"</span></strong><br />
and<br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;"><em>"Ho On"</em></span></strong> = <strong><span style="color: blue;">"The One Who Is"</span></strong> / <strong><span style="color: blue;">"He Who Is"</span></strong>.<br />
<br />
The fact that the Septuagint translators chose this rendering instead of the (counterfactual) literal translation <em>"Ego Eimi Ho Ego Eimi" </em>is not seen as a fluke by Roman Catholics (RCs) and Eastern Orthodox (EOs) but as a providential design, intended to enable the synthesis between ontology and biblical faith. To note, the Christian certainty that the Septuagint rendering conveys the correct sense of the original Hebrew text does not arise only, or even primarily, from linguistic or philosophical reasons, but from two facts:<br />
<br />
a. It is confirmed by a key teaching in one of the two Old Testament books originally written in Greek, the Wisdom of Solomon, a teaching which clearly echoes in Rom 1:19-21:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing <strong>Him Who Is,</strong> (Wis 13:1)</span><br />
<br />
The coincidence is even clearer in the NETS Septuagint translation at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/, where both Exodus' "<span style="color: blue;"><strong>He Who Is</strong></span>" and Wisdom's "<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Him Who Is</strong></span>" are rendered as "<span style="color: blue;"><strong>The One Who Is</strong></span>".<br />
<br />
b. It is in agreement with the centuries-old patristic tradition, as attested by the following two quotes:<br />
<br />
St Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368). On the Trinity - Book 12 [1]:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"For according to the words spoken to Moses, <span style="color: blue;"><strong>He Who Is</strong> has sent me unto you</span>, we obtain the unambiguous conception that absolute being belongs to God;"</blockquote><br />
St Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 – 389 or 390). Fourth Theological Oration [2]:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"As far then as we can reach, <strong><span style="color: blue;">He Who Is</span></strong>, and God, are the special names of His Essence; and of these especially <strong><span style="color: blue;">He Who Is</span></strong>, not only because when He spake to Moses in the mount, and Moses asked what His Name was, this was what He called Himself, bidding him say to the people “<span style="color: blue;"><strong>I Am</strong> has sent me</span>”, but also because we find that this Name is the more strictly appropriate. For the Name theos (God), ... would still be one of the Relative Names, and not an Absolute one; ... But we are enquiring into a Nature Whose Being is absolute and not into Being bound up with something else. But Being is in its proper sense peculiar to God, and belongs to Him entirely,"</blockquote><br />
To note, it is only in the context of the revelation of the divine name at the burning bush that we are able to understand these three assertions of his divinity by Jesus in John's Gospel:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"For if you do not believe that <strong>I Am</strong>, you will die in your sins." (Jn 8:24)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">"When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will realize that <strong>I Am</strong>" (Jn 8:28)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">"From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that <strong>I Am</strong>." (Jn 13:19)</span><br />
<br />
And if any doubts remained that in the above three instances Jesus is claiming to be the same and only "<strong><span style="color: blue;">I Am</span></strong>" of Exodus 3:14, they would be cleared by his statement: <span style="color: blue;">"The Father and I are one." (Jn 10:30)</span>, which clearly echoes the Shema: <span style="color: blue;"><strong><em>YHWH Echad</em><span style="color: black;">,</span> YHWH is one.</strong> (Dt 6:4)</span><br />
<br />
Additionally, there is a well-known RC private revelation that provides a strong confirmation of this sense of Ex 3:14 and of its importance. In his Life of Catherine of Siena, RC Bl Raymond of Capua records what RC St Catherine (1347-1380) had often told him Christ taught her when He first began appearing to her: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Do you know, daughter, who you are and who I am? If you know these two things you have beatitude in your grasp. You are that who is not; <strong>I Am He Who Is</strong>. Let your soul but become penetrated with this truth, and the Enemy can never lead you astray; you will never be caught in any snare of his, nor ever transgress any commandment of mine; you will have set your feet on the royal road which leads to the fulness of grace, and truth, and light." (Life, no. 92. Original: "<em>Tu sei colei che non è; <strong>Io sono Colui che è.</strong></em>") </blockquote><br />
(BTW, this is a clear example that Church-recognized private revelations, while they certainly do not "improve" or "complete" Christ's definitive Revelation, can confirm the correctness of a certain interpretation of the Revelation. This is also the exact case of St Mary's words to RC St Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes in 1858: "I am the Immaculate Conception", four years after the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had been defined by Pope Pius IX.)<br />
<br />
Catholic magisterium has always taught this sense of Ex 3:14, lately through John Paul II in two audiences (Jul 31 and Aug 7, 1985, available from <a href="http://catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/The+Father?">http://catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/The+Father?</a> ), from which I quote (with a few touches to render the translation more faithful to the Italian original and some rephrasing in the first sentence of the second paragraph):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>According to the tradition of Israel, the name expresses the essence. The Sacred Scriptures give different names of God ... But the name which Moses heard from the midst of the burning bush is as it were the root of all the others. <strong>He who is expresses the very essence of God, which is Being from itself</strong> (original: <strong><em>Essere per se stesso</em></strong>), <strong>subsistent Being,</strong> as the theologians and philosophers say.<br />
<br />
A creature does not possess in itself the source, the reason of its existence, but receives it "from another." This is synthetically expressed in the Latin phrase "ens ab alio". He who creates - the Creator - possesses existence in himself and from himself ("ens a se").<br />
<br />
<strong>To be pertains to his substance: his essence is to be. He is subsisting Being ("Esse subsistens").</strong> Precisely for this reason he cannot not be, he is "necessary" being. Differing from God, who is "necessary being", the things which receive existence from him, that is, creatures, are able not to be. Being does not constitute their essence; they are "contingent" beings.<br />
<br />
These considerations regarding the revealed truth about the creation of the world help us to understand God as "Being." They help also to link this Being with the reply received by Moses to the question about the name of God: "<strong><span style="color: blue;">I am who I am</span></strong>." In the light of these reflections the solemn words heard by St. Catherine of Siena acquire full clarity: "You are that who is not; <strong>I Am He Who Is</strong>". This is the Essence of God, the name of God, read in depth in the faith inspired by his self-revelation, confirmed in the light of the radical truth contained in the concept of creation. It would be fitting, when we refer to God, to write that "<strong>I Am</strong>" and that "<strong>He Is</strong>" in capitals, reserving the lower case for creatures. This would also signify a correct way of reflecting on God according to the categories of "being."<br />
<br />
<strong>Inasmuch as he is "ipsum Esse Subsistens" - that is the absolute fullness of Being and therefore of every perfection</strong> - God is completely transcendent in regard to the world. By his essence, by his divinity, he "goes beyond" and infinitely "surpasses" everything created - both every single creature, however perfect, and the ensemble of creation, the visible and invisible beings.<br />
<br />
It is clear then that the God of our faith, <strong>he who is</strong>, is the God of infinite majesty. This majesty is the glory of the divine Being, the glory of the name of God, many times celebrated in Sacred Scripture.</blockquote>And if it were objected that the self-definition of God as "<strong><span style="color: blue;">I Am</span></strong>", "<strong><span style="color: blue;">He Who Is</span></strong>" is not incompatible with Palamas' statement "God is being and not being", there is yet one more self-definition of God to consider: <span style="color: blue;">"<strong>God is spirit</strong>," (Jn 4:24)</span> which is clearly incompatible with the notion that "God is ... not being". Thus it is clearly seen that, while the RC doctrine is in complete accordance with the biblical texts, the statement by EO St Gregory Palamas is not.<br />
<br />
Moreover, this is clearly confirmed by St. Hilary of Poitiers in precisely the sentences following that quoted above, where the extended quote reads [1]:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"For according to the words spoken to Moses, <span style="color: blue;"><strong>He Who Is</strong> has sent me unto you</span>, we obtain the unambiguous conception that absolute being belongs to God; <strong>since that which is, cannot be thought of or spoken of as not being. For being and not being are contraries, nor can these mutually exclusive descriptions be simultaneously true of one and the same object: for while the one is present, the other must be absent.</strong> Therefore, where anything is, neither conception nor language will admit of its not being."</blockquote><br />
And this is a key point because it is sometimes stated that the Filioque disagreement causes RC’s and EO’s to worship a different God. Here there is clearly an even deeper issue. Because for us RC’s, <strong>God is Being from itself, subsistent Being, absolute fullness of Being</strong> that is infinitely "above" the received, contingent, limited being of creatures, and definitely not “not being”. So we RCs do <strong>not</strong> worship a God which is “not being”. <strong>Our God is He Who Is, YHWH (blessed be his name). And He Who Is is our God</strong>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="color: blue;"><em>Shema Yisrael YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Echad. </em></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Hear O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one.</span></strong> <span style="color: blue;">(Dt 6:4)</span> </blockquote><br />
References:<br />
<br />
[1] <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330212.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330212.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/164-hilary-trinity?start=11">http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/164-hilary-trinity?start=11</a><br />
<br />
[2] <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvi.html">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvi.html</a>Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-86904621068361290762010-08-15T18:05:00.007-03:002014-04-02T23:35:59.236-03:00Four points of RC-EO disagreement related to PalamismEven when Filioque, Papal Primacy and possibly indelibility of Holy Orders are usually considered the main points of disagreement between the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) Churches, there is an additional significant area of disagreement comprising the issues related to the teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359). Below I list the four points of disagreement in this area, in both their Catholic and Orthodox versions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>RC doctrine</b>:<br />
<br />
C1. God is Being from itself, subsistent Being, absolute fullness of Being that is infinitely "above" the received, contingent, limited being of creatures.<br />
<br />
C2. Absolute divine simplicity: God is his essence. Each divine Person is the divine essence.<br />
<br />
C3: Sanctification or deification: union with God by way of two inseparably connected gifts [1] <br />
<br />
- uncreated grace: the indwelling of the three divine Persons, which is specially attributed to the Holy Spirit only by appropriation. “This wonderful union, which is properly called ‘in-dwelling,’ differing only in degree or state from that which binds the blessed to God in eternal happiness, although it is without doubt produced by the presence of the whole Trinity … is attributed in a peculiar manner to the Holy Spirit." (Pope Leo XIII) [2]<br />
<br />
- created grace (sanctifying or deifying grace): the product of the foundational re-creative work (the "new heart" and "new spirit" of Ez 36:26, the "new creation" of 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15) carried out in the soul by the Holy Spirit, to whom the work of sanctification is specially attributed. Quoting RC St Thomas Aquinas, sanctifying grace is "a permanent quality placed by God in the very essence of the soul" (i.e. it is an accident and not a substance), which, together with the supernatural operative capacities, chiefly charity, flowing from it, causes the soul to share in divine life, in divine nature (2 Pe 1:4). I.e., it is precisely by the infusion of sanctifying grace and charity that the soul is inhabited by the Holy Spirit, actually by the three Divine Persons, in a unitive, vivifying mode (Ez 37:14).<br />
<br />
C4. Beatific Vision: saints in Heaven see the divine essence. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>EO doctrine</b>:<br />
<br />
O1. "God is being and not being." (EO St Gregory Palamas)<br />
<br />
O2. There is a real, ontological distinction between divine essence and divine energies. God is his essence and his energies. The divine essence is the cause of the divine energies, which are uncreated. Each divine Person is the divine essence and the divine energies.<br />
<br />
O3. Deification (theosis) is union with God through his energies (uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit = uncreated grace), and not through his essence.<br />
<br />
O4. Saints in Heaven do not see the divine essence, only the divine energies.<br />
<br />
<br />
In my view the less difficult issue of the four is point 3, where the disagreement, if we leave aside the essence-energies issue, is mostly a matter of emphasis. While EOs have placed emphasis in uncreated grace, i.e. receiving the Holy Spirit, RCs have placed emphasis in created grace, the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul. But RC's do believe in uncreated grace, i.e. divine indwelling, and EOs would most probably agree that the Holy Spirit does some very important work in the soul. The main disagreement in this point is that which is a direct consequence of the essence-energies distinction, as EOs believe that only the energies of the Holy Spirit interact with the faithful, and not the essence.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conventions</b>:<br />
<br />
RC-only saints are prefixed "RC St". EO-only saints are prefixed "EO St".<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
[1] Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. "Course on Grace - Part One - Grace Considered Extensively - Chapter II. What is Grace?"<br />
<a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_002.htm">http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_002.htm</a><br />
<br />
[2] Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. "Course on Grace - Part Two - B - Grace Considered Intensively - Chapter XIII. Sanctifying Grace and the Indwelling Trinity"<br />
<a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_004.htm">http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_004.htm</a><br />
<br />
[3] Fr. John A. Hardon S.J. "Course on Grace - Part Two - A - Grace Considered Intensively - Chapter VIII. Sanctifying Grace"<br />
<a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_003.htm">http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_003.htm</a>Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-43283856707760742672010-07-30T14:56:00.009-03:002010-08-05T21:10:49.723-03:00The rock in Mt 16:18: a matter of body languageOne issue of disagreement between Roman Catholics (RC) on one side and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants (EO&P) on the other is the interpretation of Mt 16:18. Literally translated from Aramaic into English, the 1st half of Mt 16:18 would be:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"And so I say to you, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church". (Mt 16:18)</span><br />
<br />
Where both instances of "rock" were "kepha" in the original Aramaic, in which the same word kepha is used for a rock or a man's name. When the text was translated to Greek (by Matthew or the final author), as the word "petra" for a rock is feminine, the 1st Kepha was changed to "Petros" (masculine ending) to make it suitable for a man's name.<br />
<br />
The issue of disagreement between the RC and EO&P interpretations comes from <strong>Jesus' implicit body language</strong>. I will make it explicit between () to render the two interpretations of Mt 16:18:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"And so I say to you</span> (pointing to Simon)<span style="color: blue;">, you are Rock, and </span><strong>(still pointing to Simon)</strong> <span style="color: blue;">upon this rock I will build my church"</span>. (RC interpretation)<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"And so I say to you</span> (pointing to Simon)<span style="color: blue;">, you are Rock, and </span><strong>(now pointing to Himself)</strong> <span style="color: blue;">upon this rock I will build my church"</span>. (EO&P interpretation)<br />
<br />
To note, the EO&P interpretation is conceptually in line with 1 Peter 2:4-5, which uses "lithos" = "stone" instead of "petra" = "rock":<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">"Come to Him</span> (Jesus)<span style="color: blue;">, a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, and, like living stones </span>(the faithful)<span style="color: blue;">, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:4-5)</span><br />
<br />
Thus, in the EO&P interpretation Jesus is the rock / cornerstone upon which the Church is built, and Simon is just another living rock / stone in the Church's building, just like any other faithful is.<br />
<br />
Actually, the EO&P interpretation <strong>is</strong> correct in a certain sense: at the personal, spiritual, existential level Jesus <strong>is</strong> the rock upon which we the faithful are built like living stones (the same rock referred to many times in the Psalms, which is logical since Jesus is "I Am", YHWH), and this truth applies to Simon, his successors the bishops of Rome, and any other faithful. The problem is that it is <strong>not</strong> logical to interpret Jesus' words in Mt 16:18 in that sense, for several reasons:<br />
<br />
<strong>1. Why would Jesus rename Simon as Rock only to say immediately that He Himself was the rock?</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>2. More importantly, why would Jesus rename Simon as Rock if He was meaning that Simon was just another living rock in the Church's building? </strong><br />
<br />
<strong>3. Even more importantly, the only way to interpret adequately Mt 16:18 is by reading it within the whole statement by Jesus.</strong> Let's see what the EO&P interpretation looks like:<br />
<br />
17: <span style="color: blue;">Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.</span> <strong>(In this verse Simon is definitely special.)</strong><br />
<br />
18: <span style="color: blue;">And so I say to you, you are Rock, and upon this rock <span style="color: black;">(Myself)</span> I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.</span> <strong>(In this verse Simon is just like any other faithful, even though he is renamed for some strange reason.)</strong><br />
<br />
19: <span style="color: blue;">I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.</span> <strong>(In this verse Simon is again special. </strong>And thanks to the fact that in Greek personal pronouns have differerent forms for singular and plural, it cannot be argued that there was yet another change in Jesus' body language and now He is pointing to the circle around Him so that "you" refers now to the 12 Apostles.<strong>)</strong><br />
<br />
We must use reason to interpret the Scripture. An interpretation of Mt 16:18 where "upon this rock" does not refer to Simon defies all logic.Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-60323717203535962062010-07-23T13:27:00.013-03:002010-08-18T20:20:17.326-03:00On the role of good works in salvationThis article gathers a couple of comments I posted on "Called to Communion" on July 21-22, 2010.<br />
<br />
First of all, "salvation" here is understood in the Roman Catholic sense of "sharing in divine life", "partaking in divine nature" (which is at the very least roughly equivalent to the Eastern Orthodox concept of "theosis" if we leave aside the essence-energies distinction, see 2 posts forward), and definitively not in the "ad extra", forensic justification sense.<br />
<br />
Having said that, let's see what the Scripture says about the role that good works play in our salvation.<br />
<br />
First of all, Jesus Himself makes it unequivocal that <strong>good works are necessary to remain in salvation</strong>. This is stated in positive statements in John's Gospel, chapters 14 and 15:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” (Jn 14:21)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">“Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.” (Jn 14:23)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">“<strong>Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love</strong>, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.” (Jn 15:9-10)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">“<strong>You are my friends if you do what I command you</strong>. … This I command you: love one another.” (Jn 15:14,17)</span><br />
<br />
The Apostle John, in turn, makes the same concept clear in <span style="color: red;">negative</span> statements in his first letter:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him. (I Jn 3:15) </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: red;">If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him? (I Jn 3:17) </span><br />
<br />
And as if all the above were not enough, there is this gem from Paul:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (I Tim 5:8)</span><br />
<br />
Now, besides being necessary to <strong>remain</strong> in salvation, do good works also <strong>add</strong> to salvation, meaning that by performing them we grow in God's life and love and consequently will be rewarded a greater degree of glory in Heaven?<br />
<br />
Let’s listen first to the Teacher Himself:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple–amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.” (Mt 10:42)</span><br />
<br />
This is expanded in the Last Judgment passage, which I will not quote for obvious length reasons <span style="color: blue;">(Mt 25:31-46)</span>. And if it were argued that what this passage says is that works of charity are necessary to remain in salvation but do not add to salvation, the previous parable where the talent of the lazy servant was given to the servant who already had ten talents should clear the matter.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible <strong>treasure in heaven</strong> that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.” (Lk 12:33)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a <strong>treasure in heaven</strong>. Then come, follow me.” (Lk 18:22)</span><br />
<br />
Let’s now go to Paul. First, this exhortation to Timothy is an exact echo of the last two quoted exhortations by Jesus:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Tell them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up <strong>treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future</strong>, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. (1 Tim 6:18-19)</span><br />
<br />
The following passage also uses the figure of the foundation, but now in the more conventional way of applying it to Jesus Christ:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. <strong>If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.</strong> But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor 3:10-15)</span><br />
<br />
Sometimes the Apostle uses the metaphor of a temple, which God builds with our cooperation, and other times he uses the metaphor of a body, which God makes grow with our cooperation. Sometimes both are used simultaneously, as in Ef 4:11-16, from which I quote:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Rather, <strong>living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ</strong>, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love. (Ef 4:15-16)</span><br />
<br />
Then there is this:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">we do not cease praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding to <strong>live in a manner worthy of the Lord</strong>, so as to be fully pleasing, <strong>in every good work bearing fruit and growing in the knowledge of God</strong>, (Col 1:9-10)</span><br />
<br />
which is related to:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Pe 1:5-8)</span><br />
<br />
As the last two quotes mention “knowledge”, let’s learn from Jesus what that is:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (Jn 17:3)</span><br />
<br />
If this knowledge is eternal life, it cannot be purely intellectual. This is made crystal clear by John in his first letter:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (I Jn 2:4)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.</span> <span style="color: red;">Whoever is without love does not know God,</span> <span style="color: blue;">for God is love. (I Jn 4:7-8)</span><br />
<br />
So, if salvation is having eternal life, and if eternal life is vital knowledge of God, and if by <span style="color: blue;">“living in a manner worthy of the Lord”</span>, i.e. <span style="color: blue;">“living the truth in love”</span>, we <span style="color: blue;">“in every good work bear fruit and grow in the knowledge of God”</span>, then by good works <strong>we not only remain in salvation but also grow in salvation = eternal life = God’s love</strong>. As John says:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. (I Jn 4:12)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"> </span>Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220763751170492994.post-71796841476462084302010-04-19T11:34:00.001-03:002010-07-23T13:16:34.915-03:00On physical evilThe existence of physical evil in nature has posed a difficult problem to many people: how can it be compatible with a Creator who is infinitely powerful and good? We will consider this issue focusing on two main points:<br />
<br />
1. what creatures can be the passive subjects of physical evil, i.e. suffer it, and<br />
<br />
2. what events affecting those creatures can be designated as physical evil.<br />
<br />
Regarding point 1, it is evident that the concept of physical evil refers necessarily to living creatures. The explosion of a supernova that does not affect any life-bearing planet does not constitute physical evil. And moreover, such explosions along the history of the universe were essential for the production of adequate quantities of the heavier chemical elements that are necessary for life. Similarly, a volcanic eruption or an earthquake before there was life on Earth did not constitute physical evil. And moreover, those phenomena are consequences of plate tectonics, which was vital for the existence of life on Earth. <br />
<br />
Now, once life appeared and started to evolve on Earth, at what point could the deaths or injuries of living organisms caused by e.g. a volcanic eruption start to be considered physical evil? <br />
<br />
- Clearly deaths or injuries of bacteria, archaea, protists, plants or fungi do not qualify as evil, since those organisms cannot possibly experience suffering because they do not have a nervous system. Thus we are left with animals except porifera (sponges) and placozoa. <br />
<br />
- And as a simple decentralized nervous system such as that of Ctenophora (comb jellies) and Cnidaria (anemones, corals, jellyfish) works in a basic reactive fashion and cannot experience real suffering, we are left with animals with a central nervous system. <br />
<br />
- And as a complex brain is necessary to experience true suffering, we are left in principle with arthropods (insects, crustaceans, arachnids), molluscs and vertebrates as the potential passive subjects of physical evil. We will stop here for now, and will group them together under the term "higher level animals".<br />
<br />
Regarding point 2, physical evil would consist of suffering experienced by such higher animals, with suffering leading to death possibly the most extreme case. At this point it is useful to analyze separately some of the causes of death and its associated suffering:<br />
<br />
1. old age<br />
<br />
2. natural disaster (e.g. volcanic eruption)<br />
<br />
3. attack by predator<br />
<br />
4. starvation<br />
<br />
Notably, if death by old age were considered physical evil, then a world without physical evil would have some very curious properties, as higher level animals would be immortal. First, once the individuals of a particular species have reached a certain number, they should stop reproducing. (Otherwise, since higher level animals would not die from any cause, there would not be enough physical room on the planet for them.) But once they stop reproducing, they would stop evolving. Therefore a world without physical evil where death by old age is considered physical evil would be incompatible with creation of living creatures by evolution. One way to surmount this difficulty would be to define that, for animals (*), death by old age is not physical evil and that only deaths where the subject does not reach its lifespan potential are (i.e. cases 2, 3 and 4 in the list above).<br />
<br />
Consideration of natural disasters leads to a curious consequence as well: unless higher level animals were intelligent enough to distance themselves from volcanoes, in order to avoid physical evil plate tectonics should have stopped once those animals appeared. So what's the cause of physical evil in this case: the fact that plate tectonics remained active after higher animals appeared (clearly not) or the fact that animals were not intelligent enough to distance themselves from volcanoes?<br />
<br />
But it is the case of starvation whose analysis can provide the most insight. Not an abstract case, but the specific case of St Matthew Island in the Bering Sea in Alaska. In 1944, 29 reindeer were introduced to the island, which was covered with a thick mat of lichens at that time. With the abundance of high quality forage, the reindeer population increased rapidly due to a high birth rate and low mortality (no predators), rising to 1300 animals in 1957 and to 6,000 by the summer of 1963. By 1963 lichen, normally the most important winter forage, had been almost completely depleted by overgrazing, and sedges and grasses were expanding into the sites previously occupied by lichens. The increasing difficulty in obtaining adequate food was evident in the fact that the 1963 reindeer were considerably smaller in both body mass and skeletal proportions than the 1957 animals: in 1963 average body weights had decreased from 1957 by 38 % for adult females and 43 % for adult males. With the reindeer population on an already poor physical condition as a result of competition for high quality summer forage during the summer of 1963, deep snow accumulation during the winter of 1963-64 further restricted the availability of the already depleted winter forage, and almost the entire reindeer population died of starvation, with only 42 animals surviving.<br />
<br />
In this case, was physical evil caused by the fact that lichen did not grow fast enough to compensate for the grazing rate? Clearly not, because if lichen had grown at twice its actual rate, the reindeer population would have just reached a maximum of 12000 in 1966 and crashed the next harsh winter. So doubling the rate of growth of lichen would just double the total amount of suffering. Rather, the cause of starvation was just the fact that the reindeer were not intelligent enough to realize that the island had a finite carrying capacity (i.e. could sustainably support a finite reindeer population) and that they should stabilize their population once it reached that carrying capacity. Instead, they were acting like yeast in culture media in a Petri dish, which keep doubling their population until the nutrient is exhausted and then die off. But while death of yeast is not evil because they do not experience suffering, death of reindeer is. Or is it not?<br />
<br />
And lastly we have the attacks by predators. Notably, the absence of predators in Matthew Island was one of the factors leading to the population explosion and dieoff. But isn't one kind of death worse than the other? Wouldn't the violence involved in death by predators make it a worse fate than an apparently peaceful death by starvation? Not according to the book of Lamentations, at least: "Better for those who perish by the sword than for those who die of hunger, who waste away, as though pierced through, lacking the fruits of the field!" (Lam 4:9)<br />
<br />
We thus come back to our successive restriction of the animals that can be the passive subjects of physical evil. Why stopping at a complex brain and consider physical evil the death of an insect? Why not demanding that the brain must have neocortex, which restricts the selection to mammals? Why not demanding that the neocortex must feature a large frontal lobe, which further restricts the selection to the great apes and humans? Or in functional terms, why not demanding that the animals must be self-aware, i.e. able to pass the mirror test, which would add dolphins and elephants to the last list? And why not just demanding that the brain be developed enough to support the operations of a spiritual soul, leaving just us humans? Why indeed not starting from that point, demanding that, for physical evil to be tragic, its passive subject must be a person with a spiritual soul?<br />
<br />
In our view the last is the only correct approach, as any other threshold to define physical evil is arbitrary. Thus, we posit that physical evil exists in two fundamentally different kinds: non-tragic when it affects animals and tragic when it affects humans. Non-tragic physical evil is part of God's design in creation, and exists in view of the overall greater good of the material cosmos. In contrast, tragic physical evil was not part of the original design in creation, as man was originally "shielded" from the physical evil that would have affected him otherwise as a result of its biological nature: as long as man remained in the divine intimacy, he would not have to suffer or die (Gen 2:17; 3:16, 19). It was as a result of original sin that man lost that privilege ("preternatural gift") and became subject to physical evil just as animals are. With this approach, there is no problem whatsoever harmonizing physical evil with the existence of an all-powerful, infinitely good Creator. <br />
<br />
(*) In contrast to the case of animals, for humans the preternatural gift of bodily immortality would not necessarily have implied that at some point in time they would have had to stop reproducing, because bodily immortality did not imply that each person would have stayed alive on Earth until the end of times. Along the line of 1 Cor 15:51 "We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed," it is legitimate to assume that, if man had not sinned, after a certain number of years (120, 365, 969, whatever), the body of each person would have been glorified without dying and that person would have been taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, to enjoy the Beatific Vision.Johanneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.com0