Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A Blog intended for a range of issues touching on the purpose for man's existence; a purpose nicely summed (and here paraphrased) in the old Baltimore Catechism: We were made to know, love and serve God in this world, and to enjoy Him forever in the next.
Sober Inebriation
Sober inebriation... comes not from drinking a new type of wine but from enjoying God (paraphrased). --St. Bernard
Introductory Essays
My Distributist Page
Catholic Resources
- How To Become Catholic
- The Catholic Apologist's Scritpural Cheat Sheet
- What Is Sacred Tradition by Mark Shea
- Grace And The Divinization Of Humanity by Rosemarie Scott
- Transubstantiation And Reason by John Young
- Is Intellect Immaterial? by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.
- The Pro-Life Argument from Substantial Identity by Patrick Lee
- Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence by Rev. John C. Rager, S.T.D.
Links
About Me
Jesus of Nazareth Study Group
My Blog List
-
-
The market and the moral man14 years ago
22 comments:
Continuation of a discussion on the doctrine of the church with diversions into epsitemology
Kolbitar wrote:
"Or, put positivley, everything you do come into direct contact with is not objective reality, it is, instead, subjective reality. Therefore, by definition, you, who exist in the first person, have, in so far as you do exist in the first person, no access to objective reality, only to subjective reality."
Oh really? What are these objective and subjective realities that you talk about? I can tell you what I mean by them if you like, but the way you use them has no relationship to that.
"Objective reality" is the term referring to that representation of reality by means of an abstractive process of objective observation. We do this by requiring what we understand to be real to agree with what everyone else understands to be real. This is often confused with reality itself especially by atheists who want to argue that the view of reality obtained by science is the totality of what is real. "Subjective reality" is the immediate apprehension of reality by the individual regardless of the fact that it may not completely agree between individuals. Which of these is closer to reality itself? Well the subjective is certainly the more direct contact with reality, that is our immediate experience of reality itself and that underlies a lot of the reasons why I disagree with the naturalist premise, and with the attempt to dismiss this immediate experience as less real in some way. Furthermore I have considerable doubt about the proposition that reality itself can necessarily be reduced to something which is purely objective.
However this does not change the fact that even this "subjective reality" is not reality itself, for we often find errors in the perceptual process and find that we have been mistaken in our perception of reality.
Kolbitar wrote:
"What you must now claim is to somehow infer, from what you do have direct contact with, which is your own subjective reality, that objective reality exists."
You mean show that there really is a reality out there apart from these two representations of it? Well the very fact of this dichotomy between the objective and the subjective implies that this is so, and what really nails the lid on it for me, is that physics encounters things that defy both our expectations and imagination of what could be.
Kolbitar wrote:
"Again, there's nothing from which you can draw the inference that objective reality exists except your own subjective reality."
Speak for yourself.
Kolbitar wrote:
"But that's not the worst of it, for where have you derived this notion of objective reality from in the first place? If it's not from reflecting upon yourself coming into contact with objective reality, but from reflecting upon yourself coming into contact with yourself, then the notion is denuded of any meaning other than what occurred in that latter process. Otherwise, you're claiming, like I said before, to perform the logic defying feat of jumping into the third person perspective, viewing objective reality, and then smuggling it's meaning from that perspective into your purely private world where you then work out how the two interact. In short, you must assume what your starting definition denies you."
Your thoughts on this matter do indeed seem to be in a pickle.
mitchellmckain said:
"Do you require more explanation about what is the difference between these two phrases? Shall I hunt up definitions of the word 'direct'? Or shall I simply reiterate what I have repeatedly explained stands between us and direct access to reality and how we get around it so that we do have access to reality in spite of this?"
Kolbitar wrote: "I know how you get around it; as I said, you implicitly claim to jump into a third person perspective which assumes direct contact with reality, and then smuggle the concept of objective reality back to your first person perspective, which you've defined as purely subjective, where you then proceed to work out a theory which pretends to ignore that it seeks coherence only with reference to what it, by definition, denies."
Incorrect. Those are not my words but a complete replacement of mine with yours in your desperate struggle to force my view into this construction of a representationalist strawman. Thus it looks like I have to try explaining things again.
There is no first person/third person... in my view of things at all. I don't think like a novelist or a camera-man. In my view, there is only the reconstruction of reality in the process of perception as the mind and brain derives meaning from the senses. Thus what stands in the way of our direct contact with reality is the imperfections and limitations in this process -- the fact that we are limited to these sense and to abilities of the mind to make sense of them, and the flaws in the beliefs which affect this process of perception. We get around this barrier by various methods using reason and communication, such as for one example, the methods of science that reveal things about reality that defy our expectations.
Thus we see quite clearly that as our abilities have improved so has our perception of reality improved. Nowhere is this more obvious than when we compare the changes in man's perception of the nature of the earth and the heavens from a flat earth at the center with spheres revolving around it to a 46.5 billion light year radius filled with 80 billion galaxies in which the earth is a globe involved in a variety of motions, around the sun, around our galaxy and in the movement of our galaxy itself.
Kolbitar wrote:
"Yes, and if you click on critical realism in Wiki's philosophy category of realism you'll find that it is a form of representative realism. Scroll down to the section called Locke and Descartes, at the end it reads, 'If critical realism is correct, then representationalism would have to be a correct theory of perception.'
...
So again I ask, why are you using a term the way no one else uses it, and in what sense are you even using it? It's either direct or indirect; if it's indirect then it's representative, but you seemed to deny that earlier."
Ah right! Well I have already expressed my disagreement with Locke's empiricism in our previous discussion and now we can add Descarte to the list of those I disagree with. What you have to do is keep scrolling down on that first page (before this overwhelming desire to click on representationalism) until you get the the part with the heading "Theological critical realism". Then you will find that I am NOT using it in a way that no one else is using it.
I think we have to realize that on the topic of realism we must tread carefully because the diversity of thought here is bewildering. I certainly thank you for opening my eyes to that.
mitchellmckain said: "You see if Christ is the only mediator between man and God and we have a personal relationship with God Himself as our one and only savior then there is no room for someone to say that you have to do what they tell you to do and believe what they tell you to believe in order to be saved. Thus they cannot tell you to send your sons against the Moslems on Crusades or extort money out of you to buy indulgences... you know... that sort of thing. It pays to learn from history."
Kolbitar said: "Mitch, last I checked Christ said we are to love God and our neighbors as ourselves; in fact, loving God is inseperable from loving our neighbors. Furthermore, Christ established a Church, a community of believers, a family of God. Why do I state the obvious? Because the implications perhaps need explicating. To be clear: we don't have a personal relationship with God apart from the body of Christ, and apart from personal relationships with our neighbors, even the worst of them. This means, quite clearly, that our relationship with God invloves imperfection, experience, growth, development ... you know... a history to learn from. As Pope John Paul II put it, "the Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, 'is at once holy and always in need of being purified'."
There is truth in what you say, but on the other hand the way you describe it and use it is incorrect or at least inadequate. We DO have a relationship with God apart from the body of Christ because it is a personal relationship directly with God. And so the man stranded alone on the deserted island is not isolated from God. The man who has everyone against him, may still be comforted and strengthened by his personal relationship with God. A man can go to commune with God in isolation on a mountain top far away, just as Jesus Himself went into the desert fasting alone.
Therefore the point of the words of Christ is that God's heart is a heart for others and His overriding concern is for the downtrodden, the broken hearted, the hopeless and the lost. And THUS it makes absolutely NO SENSE to walk around people declaring how they are beneath you because you are close to God. If you are truly close to God then you would be helping the downtrodden, comforting the broken hearted, encouraging the hopeless, and giving direction to the lost. And yet it is not just about these things either, for Jesus showed us repeatedly by His own example (and shown by other numerous examples in the Bible) that we need to take time to be alone with God.
"He leadeth me beside still waters; He restores my soul."
Whether we are surrounded by the rest of the flock or not, the relationship we have is with Him and not through the flock to Him. It is not on them which we must rely (for they are but stupid sheep like we are), but upon Him.
Kolbitar wrote:
"So, Mitch, why stop there? If you reject the Catholic Church because people were abused in her name, why not reject the basis upon which she was built? In other words, if you reject the Catholic Church merely because she was able to be used as a tool for abuse, then why not reject the body of Christ, i.e., the followers of Christ, who built her foundations"
I do NOT reject the Catholic church. I see, affirm and praise the work of God in the Catholic church. What I reject, is the claim by many Catholics that the Catholic Chruch has authority over Christianity. Christianity is a work of God and not of the Catholic church. The one true Chruch and body of Christ is NOT the Catholic church. The Chruch of Christ is a body organized, administered and lead by Christ Himself, through the personal relationship which He has with every one of its members no matter what human service organizations calling themselves churches, that they may belong to.
Kolbitar wrote:
"who built her foundations and paved the way for such potential abuse; why not reject the Church which formed immediately after Christ on the strength of his promise; in fact, why arbitrarily violate your standard, why not reject the apparently amibigous and careless words of Christ himself, which were so evidently subject to abuse?"
What paved the way for abuse is when people imagined that they had built the foundations (the church) or that God had given His authority over into their hands to speak for Him and to act for Him, for that is when they rejected the Church that is organized, administered and lead by Christ Himself. And I am NOT talking about any kind of time when the Catholic church strayed away from God and the Catholic church became something unholy -- that is all nonsense. The Catholic church was NEVER the body of Christ, because the body of Christ was NEVER a human organization at all. The Catholic church has imagined that with each eccumenical council those who disagreed with them have fallen away and become separated from God but this is all foolishness. For example, when the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox churches disagreed and excommunicated each other in 1054, one side did not succeed in separating the other side from God because they were the ones that truly had the authority of God to do such things. No human being has ever had such authority.
Kolbitar responded to
::Rusmeister once made the analogy of two theologians arguing Sola Scriptura being akin to two lawyers arguing about the law from the same law book but without a judge. I would agree that this analogy is accurate, but I would rather argue without a judge than argue before a judge who is wholly corrupted.
Kolbitar said
"But some of the very things you're arguing came from a judge "wholly corrupt". Obviously, if he's wholly corrupt then that puts the whole of his determinations in question, part of which includes many of your assumptions. The fact is, the determinations made by the Church concern faith and morals, which include doctrine and practice -- they don't concern politics and imperial authority. I can say, with certianty, that I can show you how any part of Catholic doctrine, morality and worship works to establish and perpetuate the very things by which we criticize the actions of the imperial church. Indeed, I've said it before, I found that I had to be, implicitly, a Catholic in order to consistently fault Her members who, calling themselves Catholic, weren't being Catholic; therefore intellectual honesty drove me to make explicit what I tacitly knew" and now I'm a Catholic in word and deed - at least, I attempt to be :-)"
But God exists and God can use "wholly corrupt" people to accomplish holy good works. Thus some people perceive that the Bible is the word of God, even though they haven't the slightest reason to put any trust whatsoever in any church.
Kolbitar responded to
::The dominant question has been "What is the True Church?" The I.C. claims to be the "True Church", but I believe history shows they forfeited any right to such a claim over a millennia and a half ago.
Kolbitar said
"In order to do that, you would have to either discount the saints who lived as Catholics during that time, or divorce them from their catholicity. It's virtually self-evident to me that it's impossible to do either."
That does not follow, because the argument here is NOT that the Catholic church has become something that God is unable work with and its people cannot experience God, but that God in now way depends on that organization and that The Church of the Bible continues as something organized and admistrated by Jesus Himself independent of any human organization.
Lioba said "What I still do not know is if anyone here feels the same way as I about the saddening aspects of all the splitting in the church and wonders how Jesus might see this and how much it inflicts the life of the the whole christianity, the individual and the 'World'."
NO! NO! NO! I don't think He cares about human organization at all. It is just a bunch of childish nonsense that we make so much of it. It is how people treat each other that matters NOT whether then can agree on what everyone must be forced to believe in order to be accepted as Christian or a part of our little clubhouses (churches). In fact quite the opposite, the synoptic gospels make it quite clear that He has NO PATIENCE with the attempts of religious "authorities" to wield religion as a tool of power and the manipulation of people. I am quite sure that the ONLY leaders that Jesus can see in HIS church are those who are loving and serving the downtrodden, forgotten and lost people in the world, and NOT those who are excercising authority in His name. The reformation was a work of God much like Genesis 11, for diversity of life is His stock and trade and it is through such diversity that more needs, hopes and dreams of people are served than otherwise.
Lioba said "If so, the question arises, what can be done besides the interdenominational dialogue of the church officials.
Most of the time I get the impression that people are satisfied with rather poor arguments like:I am right and you are wrong."
But that argument is precisely the tendency of those who confuse unity with uniformity.
Lioba said "The protestant side often says- the unity of the invisible body of Christ is sufficient, diversity in organizations is okay.
I say- the Spiritual Unity of the body of Christ above all diversity is a truth and a consolation, but still the splitting itself is a pity."
Is it a pity that we have so many species of birds? Why can't all the birds get together and be one species.
Lioba said "As for solutions, their is the protestant view-
let´s all go back to the wonderful, pure beginnings of the church, when it was the TRUE church."
WHAT??? Where in the world did you get that idea? The is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY much not the view of my church! The view of my church, the Vineyard, is that a Christianity which is alive and relevant is one that tries NEW things and finds new and creative ways to do church and make God's word work in their lives.
Lioba said "But besides the question if really everything was so wonderful, all living existences are bound to grow and develop- or die. They can keep childlike aspects- the joy of life, a vivid interest in things, but it is no good in staying childish- not to develop, not to gain wisdom, maturity, forms iof expression etc."
Says who? People are different and develop at their own pace. Frankly I often think we should all go back to kindegarten and stop pretending that we are all grown up.
Lioba said "On the other hand, some catholics and orthodox think, all would be fine, if just the people would return to the old church.Thatt might be a good solution for several individuals, but if I look on the churches as whole communities
Ther answers of all sides sound like- o let´s simply "undo" what has happened.
I personally doubt that God has installed a reset- button for history.He has forgiveness, solutions and the chance for a new beginning, but wat was cannot be undone."
Exactly. Things are as they are because that is what has been chosen and we can only go forward not backwards. History is a work of God in response to the sinful nature of man. There is no point in lamenting the way it has gone with all these if-only's because we really have no idea what we are talking about when we do that. Most of it is just a childish demand that things happen our way and is why things are as they are in the first place ---> WE CANNOT SEPARATE OUT OUR MISTAKES FROM WHAT GOD HAS DONE ABOUT IT.
Hi Mitch, let's start with this:
::Oh really? What are these objective and subjective realities that you talk about? I can tell you what I mean by them if you like, but the way you use them has no relationship to that.
Mitch, subjective reality is subjective representation of any type. Objective reality is reality independent of the subject. The objective realities I talk about are, well where to start? Trees, birds, grass, houses, people, stars; need I go on? Subjective reality is sense perception, images and concepts. Your entire epistemology is premised on the idea that YOU are aware of YOUR representations. Mine is premised on the fact that I am aware of objective reality through representations. Your representations are that of which you're aware; mine are that by which I'm aware. Do you see the difference?
::"Objective reality" is the term referring to that representation of reality by means of an abstractive process of objective observation. We do this by requiring what we understand to be real to agree with what everyone else understands to be real.
In a sense, I'm reminded of Chesterton here, who wrote, "A man wrote to say that he accepted nothing but Solipsism, and added that he had often wondered it was not a more common philosophy. Now Solipsism simply means that a man believes in his own existence, but not in anybody or anything else. And it never struck this simple sophist, that if his philosophy was true, there obviously were no other philosophers to profess it." The bottom line, Mitch, is that I think you're begging the question. "Everyone else" is a representation, and you're telling me that in order to determine what is real we have to match up our representations with what? more representations! Don't you see the problem?
Hey again Mitch. You write:
::We DO have a relationship with God apart from the body of Christ because it is a personal relationship directly with God.
In your view, is a relationship with God something that occurs through Christ?
::For example, when the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox churches disagreed and excommunicated each other in 1054, one side did not succeed in separating the other side from God
Real quick, an excommunication does not expell from the Church.
Jesse said...
::Hi Mitch, let's start with this:
::Mitch, subjective reality is subjective representation of any type. Objective reality is reality independent of the subject. The objective realities I talk about are, well where to start? Trees, birds, grass, houses, people, stars; need I go on? Subjective reality is sense perception, images and concepts.
Thus by this identification of "objective reality" with reality itself you deny the existence of any reality apart from what is objective. By your identification of subjective reality with sense perception you deny any reality apart from what is physical. With a such a (poor in my view) understanding I could never be a Christian for it leaves absolutely no room for truth of Christianity in the mind of a scientist. Perhaps your view is the common view and that is why so few scientists believe in God or Christianity.
::Your entire epistemology is premised on the idea that YOU are aware of YOUR representations. ...
Incorrect. That is representationalism. I believe no such thing, for that is obviously nonsensical. Perception operates on the information of sensory data. It is the process by which we extract meaning from this data. It is by this meaning that we are aware of the world. But this awareness is not objective for it does depend upon our beliefs. Thus there are vast differences in the ways that modern man and a man 2000 years ago are/were aware of the world. Our perception and awareness is not reality itself, but is strongly affected by our beliefs.
::Mine is premised on the fact that I am aware of objective reality through representations. "Your representations" are that of which you're aware; mine are that by which I'm aware. Do you see the difference?
Yes I see quite clearly the difference between my view and representationalism and that is what you seem to be having difficulty with. I would say neither of those things but the second is closer to my view, but I would say neither of these thing for even your version sounds a bit more like representationalism (and suffers from some of the same logical flaws) than my view whis is that my awareness IS a representation of reality itself.
::::"Objective reality" is the term referring to that representation of reality by means of an abstractive process of objective observation. We do this by requiring what we understand to be real to agree with what everyone else understands to be real.
::The bottom line, Mitch, is that I think you're begging the question. "Everyone else" is a representation, and you're telling me that in order to determine what is real we have to match up our representations with what? more representations! Don't you see the problem?
Begging what question to prove what? "Objective reality" at its best (most objective) is a construction of modern science, for that is a methodology that has perfected the technique of making observations which are observer independent and thus complete abstracted from all the subjective aspects of human perception. That most certainly is not reality itself, however useful it may be in science and technology for this filtering produces a very limited understanding and awareness of reality itself.
Could we be lost in mere semantics a bit here, do you think?
Jesse said...
::Hey again Mitch. You write:
::::We DO have a relationship with God apart from the body of Christ because it is a personal relationship directly with God.
::In your view, is a relationship with God something that occurs through Christ?
No. I mispoke. I should have said we DO have a relationship with God apart from the other members of the body of Christ because the body of Christ is founded on personal relationships of every member directly with God (Christ). But what gives this relationship life and meaning and makes all these members one body is the relationships between the members. This is of course related to the teaching in the epistle of James. But the point is that God is not limited to these relationships so that we can say that without them a relationship with God is not possible. God is omnipresent and omnipotent and so He is everywhere using all things for His work of salvation.
Jesse said...
::You write:
::::For example, when the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox churches disagreed and excommunicated each other in 1054, one side did not succeed in separating the other side from God
::Real quick, an excommunication does not expell from the Church.
Of course and that is the whole point it expells you only from the church NOT The Church because these are not the same things.
"Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive or suspend membership in a religious community. The word literally means putting [someone] out of communion."
This is quite a reasonable action for many reasons. For example, if Mormon missionaries came to your church with the express purpose of converting members of the church to Mormonism this purpose is hostile to the purpose of Christian fellowship and the church has every right to exclude them from fellowship.
So the question under consideration is whether ones relationship with God depends upon fellowship or "being in communion" with some church and the answer is No.
Hi Mitch, I only have a few minutes before work, so just a few comments here...
::Thus by this identification of "objective reality" with reality itself you deny the existence of any reality apart from what is objective.
Apart from the subject, reality itself is objective reality; in this case to say I deny any reality apart from reality seems redundant.
::By your identification of subjective reality with sense perception you deny any reality apart from what is physical. With a such a (poor in my view) understanding I could never be a Christian for it leaves absolutely no room for truth of Christianity in the mind of a scientist. Perhaps your view is the common view and that is why so few scientists believe in God or Christianity.
Sense perception is our link to the physical world. I ALSO said, remember, that we know through images and concepts. Concepts, or ideas, are universals -- that is, immaterial. It is by these that we infer the existence of God (natural reason) and, being immaterial, the existence of an immaterial faculty, which survives the death of the body. I have no doubt that few scientists understand this :-)
::Incorrect. That is representationalism. I believe no such thing, for that is obviously nonsensical.
But there's no middle ground, Mitch. If you're not aware of objective reality, then you're aware of subjective reality.
::Perception operates on the information of sensory data. It is the process by which we extract meaning from this data. It is by this meaning that we are aware of the world. But this awareness is not objective for it does depend upon our beliefs. Thus there are vast differences in the ways that modern man and a man 2000 years ago are/were aware of the world. Our perception and awareness is not reality itself, but is strongly affected by our beliefs.
But we're aware OF reality, only then are we aware of our awareness. But I don't disagree that we interpret reality based on subjective memory and desires, and therefore it is certainly subjectively colored ; still, if we all put on different colored glasses and look at the same tree we're still all seeing the same tree :-)
:: Yes I see quite clearly the difference between my view and representationalism and that is what you seem to be having difficulty with. I would say neither of those things but the second is closer to my view, but I would say neither of these thing for even your version sounds a bit more like representationalism (and suffers from some of the same logical flaws) than my view whis is that my awareness IS a representation of reality itself.
Mitch, you seem to be denying you're an indirect realist, and that you are, like me, a direct realist. If you are saying that you're aware of reality, and not representations, then I don't see a substantial difference between us.
::Begging what question to prove what? "Objective reality" at its best (most objective) is a construction of modern science, for that is a methodology that has perfected the technique of making observations which are observer independent and thus complete abstracted from all the subjective aspects of human perception. That most certainly is not reality itself, however useful it may be in science and technology for this filtering produces a very limited understanding and awareness of reality itself.
Could we be lost in mere semantics a bit here, do you think?
I think so. I think you're conceiving the term "objective reality" as something like awareness that conforms to physical reality. In other words, as what I would call subjectivity that conforms to physical reality.
::::Thus by this identification of "objective reality" with reality itself you deny the existence of any reality apart from what is objective.
To this Jesse replies...
::Apart from the subject, reality itself is objective reality; in this case to say I deny any reality apart from reality seems redundant.
I deny this claim. Reality itself is NOT purely objective. Just because something is not experienced by others does not man that it isn't real. Think about what you are saying.
::::By your identification of subjective reality with sense perception you deny any reality apart from what is physical. With a such a (poor in my view) understanding I could never be a Christian for it leaves absolutely no room for truth of Christianity in the mind of a scientist. Perhaps your view is the common view and that is why so few scientists believe in God or Christianity.
To this Jesse replies...
::Sense perception is our link to the physical world. I ALSO said, remember, that we know through images and concepts. Concepts, or ideas, are universals -- that is, immaterial. It is by these that we infer the existence of God (natural reason) and, being immaterial, the existence of an immaterial faculty, which survives the death of the body. I have no doubt that few scientists understand this :-)
Well we certainly agree that sense perception is a link to the physical world which is why I objected to the reduction of subjective reality to sense perception alone. But I refute your tenets of substance dualism and idealism. Concepts, ideas and universals are NOT immaterial, these are physical components of a physical mind. Perceptions of abstract entities such as universals and persons are constructions of the mind, just as awareness of the world is a contruction of the mind. We do not perceive persons through any extra (nonphysical or non-material) senses. But even if all the incomming physical data is limited to physical senses, this does not mean that our perceptions and awareness is limited to what is physical because through its process of reconstruction it sees beyond the data of the senses to things which are beyond the senses, both physical and not physical.
::::Incorrect. That is representationalism. I believe no such thing, for that is obviously nonsensical.
To this Jesse replies...
::But there's no middle ground, Mitch. If you're not aware of objective reality, then you're aware of subjective reality.
Obviously your assertion is based on premises which I do not accept. I think your whole epistemology is an artifact of language. Just because "aware of" is like a transitive verb with an object does NOT mean that awareness is something that operates on reality itself in order to be aware of reality. It is pretty clear to me that no such thing is the case, but that our awareness of the world comes through the senses and this is what it operates upon and not upon reality itself. Thus we are aware of reality by reconstructing it from the senses and since this is a process full of limitations and imperfections it is a representation of reality which is reconstructed and not reality itself.
I see this kind of projecting of the artifacts of language upon reality in a lot of antiquated metaphysics including the works of Aristotle and that of the medieval Catholic church. In fact this substance dualism is another example of this. Just because ideas, concepts and universals are nouns upon which the verbs of language act does not mean that these are objects existing independent of our perceptions. They are largely just tools of the process of perception and that is quite often the extent of their reality. Does this mean that persons might also be such or even that physical reality might be nothing more than an artifical contruct like in the movie "The Matrix"? Yes and no. Yes it is possible that someones perception of reality might theoretically have such an artificial source BUT that does not mean that we would not have subtle means of detecting the difference. Likewise by such means we can detect the difference between that which is alive or which is a real person from that which is only an artificial construct, because the nature of the latter is inherently limited by the process of their creation.
Mitch, you write:
::I deny this claim. Reality itself is NOT purely objective. Just because something is not experienced by others does not man that it isn't real.
That's why I said, "Apart from the subject, reality itself is objective reality", thus qualifying my statement.
::Well we certainly agree that sense perception is a link to the physical world which is why I objected to the reduction of subjective reality to sense perception alone. But I refute your tenets of substance dualism and idealism.
There's a difference between an assertion and a refutation :-)
::Concepts, ideas and universals are NOT immaterial, these are physical components of a physical mind.
The distinguishing feature of a physical substance is it's extension in space; it is particularized in matter. A universal is not a particular -- can you point to cow, tree, man, triangle, etc.? No, you can only point to particular instances. How, then, can a particularized organ, a physical thing, contain a meaning that clearly IS NOT particular? Only an immaterial faculty can produce an immaterial concept like tree; otherwise your claim amounts to particularizing "tree", when you can only particularize a tree.
::But I refute your tenets of substance dualism and idealism.
I wonder, do you likewise refute the creed; that Jesus, as a physical being, was also God, Who is not a physical being?
::So the question under consideration is whether ones relationship with God depends upon fellowship or "being in communion" with some church and the answer is No.
Hi Mitch. I think the question, rather, is, does ones relationship with God depend on doing God's will, and is God's will for us to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. I think the answer is yes.
I also think its good to remember that the Catholic Church herself considers membership to be through baptism, even if it be by desire, so that all baptized persons belong to her -- some just not in FULL communion.
Peace
Jesse says
::The distinguishing feature of a physical substance is it's extension in space; it is particularized in matter. A universal is not a particular -- can you point to cow, tree, man, triangle, etc.? No, you can only point to particular instances. How, then, can a particularized organ, a physical thing, contain a meaning that clearly IS NOT particular? Only an immaterial faculty can produce an immaterial concept like tree; otherwise your claim amounts to particularizing "tree", when you can only particularize a tree.
Yes this is the old nominalist question, and my stance is that there is no universals apart from the particluars. The are abstractions, which is to say that they are constructs of the mind which are used as tools in our perceptual process. They may be communicated, shared and inherited much in the same way as the information and techniques contained in DNA are inherited but they are a product of the creativity of living things and there is nothing inevitable or absolute about them. Now some may find their origin in the communications of God and you may choose to think that their representation in the mind of God Himself constitutes a kind of objective/absolute existence to this universal. But I certainly don't think that this means that they are floating out there to be directly perceived by us with some sort of non-physical sensory perception.
Nor do I accept the idealism of the Neoplatonic equivalence of the spiritual with such universals and ideas. I certainly do not think that spiritual things are particulate or in any way derive their nature from laws outside of themselves but nevertheless they are quite particular and not in any way in the nature of a universal or an idea. There is one example that might seem to be an exception to this and it is in the nature of the spirits of animals, who I do believe tend to have more of a spirit as a species rather than as individuals, but this has nothing to do with universals but more to do with the nature of animal life.
Jesse said...
::::But I refute your tenets of substance dualism and idealism.
::I wonder, do you likewise refute the creed; that Jesus, as a physical being, was also God, Who is not a physical being?
I am not quite sure what your point is or what connetion you see between these but I do think it is inevitable that how we see the nature of Jesus will not be precisely identical in every way whatsoever.
Jesus is and was fully God and fully man - the infinite all powerful and omnipresent creator of the universe who counted all power and knowledge as nothing and for the sake of love became a helpless infant, proving that power and knowledge is no more necessary for God to be God than an arm, a memory or knowledge is necessary for a man to be a human being -- proving that God is not defined by power and knowledge but by love. So while God is by nature infinite (without limitation), the very meaning of this includes the fact that He is not limited by some nature we ascribe to Him (and thus not bound or limited to any definitions of men), BUT human kind, not having this nature of infinitude in actuality but (being in the image of God) only in potentiality (realizable only in a relation with God) is very much defined by his finitude. And so for Jesus to show us the way and bridge the gap between man and God, He became a man in truth and thus in all our finitude, but He did not thereby cease to be God because this limitation of Himself to being a finite man was an expression of His infinite nature which gives His will not only a mastery over all things but far more importantly a mastery over Himself.
Thus Jesus always acted as a man should and assured us that all that He could do, we could do also in the same way by asking the Father, and so for example in the Garden, He said, "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?" I find it interesting that He did not make claim to any power of His own either to call on angels Himself or to strike down those who opposed Him -- again showing that although He was God, He had exercised His unlimited ability to limit Himself to the form and abilities of a man.
Jesse said...
::Hi Mitch. I think the question, rather, is, does ones relationship with God depend on doing God's will, and is God's will for us to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. I think the answer is yes.
My answer is no, for now we go to the root of some of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism in the 5 solas. In this case what is relevant is "Sola Gracia" that our salvation (our relationship with God) depends on the work of God alone. Yes it is a work of God in us and so we see it manifested by good works as fruits of the changes that God works in us. But there is no formula for salvation and no path to God, thus no man can truly take the place of God and authoritatively say, "you must follow me". This is why my understanding of Chrisitanity is one that will NOT readily lend itself to any use as a tool for power and the manipulation of others.
::I also think its good to remember that the Catholic Church herself considers membership to be through baptism, even if it be by desire, so that all baptized persons belong to her -- some just not in FULL communion.
Yes I am aware of this and do recognze that this goes a long way towards distinguishing the Catholic church from the type of exclusivity found in many of the cults. I would expect no less from an organization that I consider to be truly Christian. But this certainly does not change a thing with regards to the issue we are discussing for I continue to deny that either RC or EO suceeded in doing anything to the others relationship with God in 1054, but rather if they had done anything it was to themselves by imagining that they could use God like that.
Hi again Mitchell.
::Yes this is the old nominalist question, and my stance is that there is no universals apart from the particluars.
The best way I've heard my take described is that universals are 1) (in terms of their objectivity) immanent in particulars, and, 2) (in terms of their subjectivity) are faithful but inadequate to the particular. Again, and unlike Plato, the position I'm coming from regards universal concepts in the same way as sense perception; that is, as means by which we apprehend objective reality, not as that which we apprehend. In other words, I agree that universals don't exist apart from particulars in the Platonic sense, but they also exist as concepts which are produced by our intellect; as Chesterton put it, "Maritain... says that the external fact fertilises the internal intelligence, as the bee fertilises the flower."
Jesse said...
::::But I refute your tenets of substance dualism and idealism.
::I wonder, do you likewise refute the creed; that Jesus, as a physical being, was also God, Who is not a physical being?
::I am not quite sure what your point is or what connetion you see between these but I do think it is inevitable that how we see the nature of Jesus will not be precisely identical in every way whatsoever.
I thought your point was that the immaterial and the material could not be joined, and that was what you were rejecting.
::My answer is no, for now we go to the root of some of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism in the 5 solas. In this case what is relevant is "Sola Gracia" that our salvation (our relationship with God) depends on the work of God alone. Yes it is a work of God in us and so we see it manifested by good works as fruits of the changes that God works in us. But there is no formula for salvation and no path to God, thus no man can truly take the place of God and authoritatively say, "you must follow me".
I wrote a brief article on the issues of Grace and Salvation: http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-anglo-catholic-salvation.html
Suffice it to say that, though I agree that grace alone saves us, I disagree that faith alone saves us.
::This is why my understanding of Chrisitanity is one that will NOT readily lend itself to any use as a tool for power and the manipulation of others.
Again, by the very fact that what you see as a tool for power and manipulation was premised on the very words of Christ and the apostles, and grew directly out of them, then you may claim YOUR understanding will not readily lend itself to the same, but, at the same time, the very core conviction at the heart of your understanding (Jesus Christ and the Church he directly founded) did readily lend itself to these things; thus if that is the criterion for rejecting my understanding in favor of yours then you have a contradiction at the very heart of your understanding, for you must reject it for the same reason.
::Yes I am aware of this and do recognze that this goes a long way towards distinguishing the Catholic church from the type of exclusivity found in many of the cults. I would expect no less from an organization that I consider to be truly Christian. But this certainly does not change a thing with regards to the issue we are discussing for I continue to deny that either RC or EO suceeded in doing anything to the others relationship with God in 1054, but rather if they had done anything it was to themselves by imagining that they could use God like that.
Speaking only for the Catholic side, the excommunications occuring from the 1054 schism applied only to individual clergymen, not to all of the Eastern Orthodox. Even so, the excommunications acknowledged a real schism, which was a real schism between persons, thus it did effect others relationship with God (any schism in the body of Christ is harmful), if not just those who would have otherwise looked at the unity of Christendom and saw reason to be a Christian.
Let me ask you, do you think a person can lose his salvation, can fall out of grace?
Greetings,
::::I am not quite sure what your point is or what connection you see between these but I do think it is inevitable that how we see the nature of Jesus will not be precisely identical in every way whatsoever.
Jesse responds with...
::I thought your point was that the immaterial and the material could not be joined, and that was what you were rejecting.
Could not be joined??? Hmmm... I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear that when a human being is alive there is a joining of physical and spiritual. But this does not mean that a physical thing becomes spiritual or visa versa, I don't think that is possible. The difference between the two is well defined, for the physical is what it is by the laws of nature which are part of the form of the physical universe while the spiritual is what it is by its own nature. In the joining the actions of the physical being are owned by the spirit as part of its own becoming.
::::My answer is no, for now we go to the root of some of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism in the 5 solas. In this case what is relevant is "Sola Gracia" that our salvation (our relationship with God) depends on the work of God alone. Yes it is a work of God in us and so we see it manifested by good works as fruits of the changes that God works in us. But there is no formula for salvation and no path to God, thus no man can truly take the place of God and authoritatively say, "you must follow me".
Jesse responds with...
::I wrote a brief article on the issues of Grace and Salvation: http://soberinebriationblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-anglo-catholic-salvation.html
Suffice it to say that, though I agree that grace alone saves us, I disagree that faith alone saves us.
Well the way you state sola fide does not even make any sense. That would contradict sola gracia. Whatever the role of faith is it is not a work by which salvation is earned. The usual wording is salvation by grace through faith, but that is hardly any help. I think understanding the meaning of sola fide requires addressing both the question of what is faith first. I define faith as the multifaceted response to the unavoidable reality of uncertainty that includes choice, belief and action. Faith is the foundation of all knowledge, for faith is the only way to escape being paralyzed by the uncertainty in life. In order to live our lives we are forced to make some choices, and thus the meaning of knowledge is that according to which have chosen to live our lives.
Thus it is by faith that we have knowledge of our salvation. First their is our response to what is offered as a gift in the gospel to make a choice whether to accept or reject that gift. Notice that only by such an acceptance can it be a gift for a gift is not forced upon us against our will, and notice that by accepting a gift we to not change it into something which is earned. But that is only the first step in a process, for it is only empty words and opinion unless that choice proceeds through belief to action and thus becomes that which we live by. It is not simply by words that we accept a doctor's help, for we must also submit to his instructions. Nevertheless the point of the combination of sola gratia, sola fide and solus Christus is to exclude any means by which men make salvation a means of manipulation, for salvation is not gained through any prescription given by men telling you what to do or believe, for the required object of our faith is God alone.
::::This is why my understanding of Chrisitanity is one that will NOT readily lend itself to any use as a tool for power and the manipulation of others.
Jesse responds with...
::Again, by the very fact that what you see as a tool for power and manipulation was premised on the very words of Christ and the apostles, and grew directly out of them, then you may claim YOUR understanding will not readily lend itself to the same, but, at the same time, the very core conviction at the heart of your understanding (Jesus Christ and the Church he directly founded) did readily lend itself to these things; thus if that is the criterion for rejecting my understanding in favor of yours then you have a contradiction at the very heart of your understanding, for you must reject it for the same reason.
Of course, this is where the heart of our disagreement lies. You imagine that this represents giving divine authority over into the hands of men for salvation and I repudiate that it is any such thing at all. You seem to see Christianity as a work built by men and I do not. I see it as entirely a work of God alone, accomplished in spite of men and not because of them, and so the result can only be credited to God alone and depend on God alone. Thus I repudiate your argument categorically.
Jesse asks
::Let me ask you, do you think a person can lose his salvation, can fall out of grace?
Ah yes the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security. No I don't believe in that doctrine. On the other hand, not only do I refuse to answer that question, I refuse to ask it. I consider that question improper and even blasphemous. There can be no good motivation for asking such a question. It is faithless. God is the author of salvation and it is a gift which we have no right to. But it is not a simple gift that it is handed over to us like ticket to heaven, its substance is found entirely in the work of God to transform us. I repudiate this idea that grace is some kind license or means by which sin doesn't count. To be under grace simply means that we are in the hands of God to rise or fall by his work in us rather than by the law of sin and human desire. Thus to ask such a question is like asking if we can jump out of the hands of God and this is entirely parallel to Satan's temptation of Jesus to throw Himself off the temple, to which Jesus answered, "thou shall not tempt the Lord your God." Can you spurn the gift which God offers? Yes, you certainly can. But how can we accept this gift if we mock the doctor's ability to save us?
::To be under grace simply means that we are in the hands of God to rise or fall by his work in us rather than by the law of sin and human desire.
So, do you believe everyone is saved, they just don't know it? That everyone is in a state of grace, and our purpose is to make people aware of this?
Mitch, I have to paste and run...
::I consider that question improper and even blasphemous. There can be no good motivation for asking such a question.
Was the author of 1 John "faithless" because he considered it?
1 John 5:16-17:
16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.
Was St. Paul "faithless" for telling Christians not to be deceived?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
::You imagine that this represents giving divine authority over into the hands of men for salvation and I repudiate that it is any such thing at all.
Do you repudiate St. John?
“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23).
Peace
In reply to
::::To be under grace simply means that we are in the hands of God to rise or fall by his work in us rather than by the law of sin and human desire.
Jesse said...
::So, do you believe everyone is saved, they just don't know it? That everyone is in a state of grace, and our purpose is to make people aware of this?
No I do not. Everyone's desitiny by a basic principle of free will is ruled by their own will and desire and by this we are under a law of sin which much like the law of gravity is a law of acceleration. Sin breaks down our free will and moral fibre bit by bit until we are wholly evil. Thus no matter how good we may be as a result of circumstance, birth and upbringing our ultimate destiny is found in an eventual downward plunge.
It is the offer of the gospel that changes this for it gives us the opportunity to exercise our free will in a choice to move from being under the law of sin to being in the hands of God (under grace). By the principle of free will, it is only an exercise of our free will that can make this change, and thus salvation is a gift to be accepted and not something forced upon us. Now coming to this point where we can excercise our free will in this way generally requires considerable work by God.
So does this work by God before our accent not violate the principle of free will? No it does not, sin erodes our free will and the damage it does actually gives God more liberty to do with us as He wills rather than less. Thus God could manipulate Pharoah to act according to His plan without any violation of the Pharaoh's free will. Thus God will work and manipulate the actions of men and the events of history without contradicting free will because sinful men have excercised their free will by abandoning it to act mechanically according to the habits of their sin.
But the aim of God's work of salvation is in the opposite direction to restore our free will and thus to increase our freedom over ourselves rather than His control over us. This God will ALWAYS do, working entirely for our own best interest. But this means that in His work in our lives for our salvation there must come a point where we must exercise our own free will for it, in order for God's work to proceed any further with us.
Thus although it is true that God works at all times for the salvation of all men and to liberate their free will, we are still by the principle of free will under the law of sin until we excercise our free will to accept the offer of the gospel to live by faith under grace rather than exclusively by our own desire.
Your comment this time was so short that I took the time to take a look at your essay on Anglo-Caltholic Salvation.
::Biblical paradox: Philippians 2:12-13 "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."
"Working out your own salvation with fear and trembling" is one way of putting "sole fide", salvation by faith alone, for the things we do in a life of Christian faith should not be done thinking that they accomplish our salvation or that they have any merit for salvation. We do such things out of faithfulness alone submitting ourselves to the will of God, so that His will can work within us. We trust in His goodness and love, know through that faith that His good pleasure is for far better things than anything our own sinful desires could ever bring us to.
::St. Bernard has beautifully expanded upon this, "grace is necessary to salvation, free will equally so -- but grace in order to give salvation, free will in order to receive it. Therefore we should not attribute part of the good to grace and part to free will; it is performed in its entirety by the common and inseparable action of both; entirely by grace, entirely by free will, but springing from the first in the second."
I sympathize with Bernards effort to resolve the paradox between the roles of faith and grace in our salvation but I think this is wrong and unhelpful. It brings to mind a similar rhetoric in what I would call magical christiantity which sees faith as some sort of magical power that God supplies to us in order to effect our salvation. Perhaps this sort of thing is popular in Calvinist interpretations emphasizing "sola gratia" over "sola fide" providing no role for human free will at all. The free will itself, by which we accept the gift of salvation, may indeed be the consequence of the work of God in us, but that [b]choice to accept must neccessarily come from us[/b], if for no other reason than the fact that God demands it.
Now I understand that this magical/Calvinist formula isn't quite what Bernard is saying, but I don't think what he saying is correct either. Salvation is entirely due to the work of God -- entirely by grace and not at all by free will or due to any "accomplishments of faith" either.
Jesse said...
::To put it plainly, we are to obey, and obedience requires faith -- faith is implicit, it's presupposed in any act of obedience: a faith without works is dead. Thus faith and obedience are inseparable.
Faith without works is dead but faith is not obedience at all. This theology of obedience starting with the idea that essence of the fall of man was disobedience, is not exactly incorrect but is a superficial understanding. Obecience is better than sacrificial offerings, but love is the real aim of the work of God not obedience.
Jesse said...
::The Sacramental Tradition is thus both Biblical and reasonable, it just professes that ChristÂ$(Bs (Bgrace works, though in essence through faith and obedience - never the less through a faith and obedience which are manifested in a different way than that of the Protestant.
I quite agree.
::::I consider that question improper and even blasphemous. There can be no good motivation for asking such a question.
Jesse replied
::Was the author of 1 John "faithless" because he considered it?
::Was St. Paul "faithless" for telling Christians not to be deceived?
You have lost me. My answer to whether they are faithless is no, but I see no relationship between what they are saying and what I said.
::::You imagine that this represents giving divine authority over into the hands of men for salvation and I repudiate that it is any such thing at all.
Jesse replies
::Do you repudiate St. John?
::"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23).
No I repudiate your claim that this means what you say it means. I repudiate that this represents giving divine authority over into the hands of men for salvation.
Ok, Mitch. First off, thank you for reading the essay, and for your responses. I think your point about free will and gravity was well put, and I agree with everything in that first part of your response.
::"Working out your own salvation with fear and trembling" is one way of putting "sole fide", salvation by faith alone,
I'm not sure how you're using the word "faith" here. It's one thing to use it in place of trust, but it's another to use it along the lines of being faithful, as in "I've been faithful to my marriage vows". Clearly the latter entails a multitude of works, acts of the will, and sacrifice.
::for the things we do in a life of Christian faith should not be done thinking that they accomplish our salvation or that they have any merit for salvation. We do such things out of faithfulness alone submitting ourselves to the will of God, so that His will can work within us. We trust in His goodness and love, know through that faith that His good pleasure is for far better things than anything our own sinful desires could ever bring us to.
Again, I think you have to examine the meaning of the words you're using. I don't see how you can distinguish "faithfulness" to God from DOING His will, which invloves choice; and I don't see how doing His will is not accomplishing our salvation. Now, you speak of "merit", but there are people who believe everyone is already saved, they just don't know it, and they use the same type of argument against people like you, who say we must choose to accept His gift. Choose, they say? That is a claim, they say, that YOU have accomplished your salvation, that your CHOICE "merited" salvation. And your answer to them is my answer to you, we can do nothing to deserve what Christ did for us to accomplish the potentiality for our salvation, which we make actual simply by letting it into our lives. And just as we let it into our lives so can we let it go, back out of our lives.
::I sympathize with Bernards effort to resolve the paradox between the roles of faith and grace in our salvation but I think this is wrong and unhelpful. It brings to mind a similar rhetoric in what I would call magical christiantity which sees faith as some sort of magical power that God supplies to us in order to effect our salvation. Perhaps this sort of thing is popular in Calvinist interpretations emphasizing "sola gratia" over "sola fide" providing no role for human free will at all. The free will itself, by which we accept the gift of salvation, may indeed be the consequence of the work of God in us, but that [b]choice to accept must neccessarily come from us[/b], if for no other reason than the fact that God demands it.
I think this can be resolved by the point about "faithfulness." Faithfulness is a series of choices, which forms a tendency and habit in the soul. You seem to be viewing Bernard's words in terms of a one time act of faith, but if you view it in light, rather, of the second sense of faith, and realize that Bernard, as a Catholic, certainly believed you could lose your salvation, then it's perfectly evident that he can in no way be confused with a proponenet of "irresistable grace."
::Now I understand that this magical/Calvinist formula isn't quite what Bernard is saying, but I don't think what he saying is correct either. Salvation is entirely due to the work of God -- entirely by grace and not at all by free will or due to any "accomplishments of faith" either.
I'm not sure how you can say salvation is not at all due to free will when you say free will is invloved in accepting it. If you are invlovled then it is not entirely due to the work of God. Grace, and all that entails, is entirely the work of God, and yes, we are saved by grace, but it is through faith and works (James 2:24 Ye see then how that by WORKS a man is justified, and not by faith only). In other words, Bernard is perfectly accurate here.
::::Was the author of 1 John "faithless" because he considered it?
::Was St. Paul "faithless" for telling Christians not to be deceived?
::You have lost me. My answer to whether they are faithless is no, but I see no relationship between what they are saying and what I said.
It seemed that you were basically calling me faithless and blasphemous for asking whether a person can lose his salvation (though you also say you do not believe in eternal security, which means you do believe one can lose his salvation(?) ). Now, aside from the fact that I'm completely confused about your position here, 1 John says there is sin which leads to death, by which he clearly means spiritual death, and St. Paul is telling Christians not to be deceived, so that those who are doing the evil things he mentions are not being saved. They, too, are saying one can lose his salvation. Now, that is clearly not to say that God is not faithful, which seems to be the meaning you switch to in order to hurl charges of blasphemy and such. It is only to say that, just as we can accept His gift, we can also reject it down the road.
::::"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23).
::No I repudiate your claim that this means what you say it means. I repudiate that this represents giving divine authority over into the hands of men for salvation.
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
The Father sends Jesus who sends the Holy Spirit upon the apostles to remit and retain sins. Seems plain as day to me :-)
::::"Working out your own salvation with fear and trembling" is one way of putting "sole fide", salvation by faith alone,
Jesse responds...
::I'm not sure how you're using the word "faith" here. It's one thing to use it in place of trust, but it's another to use it along the lines of being faithful, as in "I've been faithful to my marriage vows". Clearly the latter entails a multitude of works, acts of the will, and sacrifice.
No that is just the point, it isn't really faith unless it is both. What will you say to bridge engineers who say that they put their trust in the bridge they have built, but carefully avoid using the bridge themselves. That is not faith but just a gamble, and perhaps some people approach their Christian life in the same way with an argument like Pascal's wager. It cannot work. Real faith requires both feet, living your life in the way you do because you know it is true. And yes it implies a multitude of unspecified works, acts of will and sacrifice. The problem with "requires" is that the bridge engineer may not actually be avoiding the bridge, he may be prevented by something more imperative.
::::for the things we do in a life of Christian faith should not be done thinking that they accomplish our salvation or that they have any merit for salvation. We do such things out of faithfulness alone submitting ourselves to the will of God, so that His will can work within us. We trust in His goodness and love, knowing through faith that His good pleasure is for far better things than anything our own sinful desires could ever bring us to.
Jesse responds...
::Again, I think you have to examine the meaning of the words you're using. I don't see how you can distinguish "faithfulness" to God from DOING His will, which invloves choice; and I don't see how doing His will is not accomplishing our salvation.
Because it is not ultimately about obedience. If we were talking about Adam before the fall then I would say it was about learning what God had to teach Him. But now it is a bit more than that -- it is a matter of transforming our will from sin to goodness and that is not something that will be accomplished by any work of our own which must originate in our sinful will. If we are faithful then we will surely do as Christ commanded to the best of our understanding but it is not as though we could mess it up if we get it wrong because it is not our works that save us anyway, but the work of God in us.
Jesse says...
::Now, you speak of "merit", but there are people who believe everyone is already saved, they just don't know it, and they use the same type of argument against people like you, who say we must choose to accept His gift. Choose, they say? That is a claim, they say, that YOU have accomplished your salvation, that your CHOICE "merited" salvation.
Though I don't understand your talk of being already saved, I am well aware that the Calvinists make this arguement against any role of free will saying that choice would constitute merit. This is why I have already included in my explanation the very words that refute them, but I will now repeat it. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be a gift if it is forced upon us and so it must be accepted, and yet it is absurd to say that by accepting a gift you transform the gift into something which is earned. I in fact, gave an explanation why this must be so. It is because God work of salvation is a liberation of our free will from the bondage of sin.
Jesse says...
::And your answer to them is my answer to you, we can do nothing to deserve what Christ did for us to accomplish the potentiality for our salvation, which we make actual simply by letting it into our lives. And just as we let it into our lives so can we let it go, back out of our lives.
These are not my words, and although I have no great objection to them, I do prefer my own.
Jesse says...
::I think this can be resolved by the point about "faithfulness." Faithfulness is a series of choices, which forms a tendency and habit in the soul. You seem to be viewing Bernard's words in terms of a one time act of faith, but if you view it in light, rather, of the second sense of faith, and realize that Bernard, as a Catholic, certainly believed you could lose your salvation, then it's perfectly evident that he can in no way be confused with a proponenet of "irresistable grace."
Ah well yes you do bring up an interesting idea: what I might call progressive or gradual justification. The idea is that we can be such complicated creatures that we when acknowledge our sin we may do so only in part and when we repent we may do so only in part and thus when we accept the gift of salvation we may only accept in part. This suggest that moving from being under the law of sin and being under grace can be a gradual process. It is an idea which I have considered before, but I think there is a flaw. I don't think our ultimate destiny can both in God's hands and not in God's hands. And yet I do acknowledge that people may indeed vary a great deal in regards to how far they have let God into their lives. So I would say that onces you have let God have a foot in the door and given any part of yourself into His hands, then you have given Him all that He needs in order to persuade the rest of you. Thus you are truly in God's hands and that is justification. The rest is sanctification.
Jesse says...
::I'm not sure how you can say salvation is not at all due to free will when you say free will is invloved in accepting it. If you are invlovled then it is not entirely due to the work of God. Grace, and all that entails, is entirely the work of God, and yes, we are saved by grace, but it is through faith and works (James 2:24 Ye see then how that by WORKS a man is justified, and not by faith only).
Yes and I can quote: Ephesians 2:9, Romans 11:6, Romans 9:32 and Romans 4:2-6 to show the repeated message that salvation is NOT by works. So what is going on here? Well as we have observed over and over again there is no faith without works, because of the nature of faith, and thus everything the epistle of James says it is true. BUT what we see in Ephesians and Romans is that it is not the works but the faith by which we are saved. "By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."(Ephesians 2:9) "If by grace, thenit is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."(Romans 11:6)
When we look in Romans 4 we see the situation explained, Paul is dealing with people who are going around telling his flock what they must do in order to be saved and so these are the kind of works Paul is speaking against, in particular. Paul is not contradicting James and saying that we can have faith without works, what he is saying is that we must not listen to people going around telling us what we have to do in order to be saved. Salvation comes by the work of God alone and not by any men going around claiming God's authority for themselves to tell us what to do. We must put our faith in God and that faith will bear fruit in works that are from God, and that is the works that the epistle of James speaks of. In other words, if we seek to manipulate and bargain with God, miserly putting out a few good works in order to pay for the wrongs we have done (which is all to common), then we will profit nothing, for this not the gospel.
Salvation is not by any formula or prescribed path, for that is exactly what the Israel tried to do: "Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by works of the law."(Rom 9:32) Jesus explained the same thing in John 5:39, salvation it not found in any formula or written law but in a relationship with the living God.
Jesse says...
::It seemed that you were basically calling me faithless and blasphemous for asking whether a person can lose his salvation (though you also say you do not believe in eternal security, which means you do believe one can lose his salvation(?) ).
No no no.... There is a difference between considering the question in abstract and looking at the practical implications. It is faithless and even blasphemous to approach God in your life of faith such that you will ask God if you can lose your salvation. You are caught between saying that you want to refuse His gift and saying that His gift is a lie and that He cannot succeed. There can be no good motivation for approaching God this way, for it is manipulative (it suggests that you are trying to see what you can get away with) and there is no attitude of "fear and trembling" in this whatsoever. Thus I said it is very much like the temptation of Christ to which he replied, "Thou shall not tempt the Lord, your God." Paul makes it abundantly clear that God's grace is not a pass.
Jesse says...
::Now, aside from the fact that I'm completely confused about your position here, 1 John says there is sin which leads to death, by which he clearly means spiritual death, and St. Paul is telling Christians not to be deceived, so that those who are doing the evil things he mentions are not being saved. They, too, are saying one can lose his salvation. Now, that is clearly not to say that God is not faithful, which seems to be the meaning you switch to in order to hurl charges of blasphemy and such. It is only to say that, just as we can accept His gift, we can also reject it down the road.
Well yes all this is true, on the other hand the life of the Christian goes through many seasons, for God brings to us the experiences we need to grow and sometimes they so painful that they cause us to curse Him and reject Him, but quite often we eventually look back on such times as essential in our spiritual development. Thus it is the usual argument for eternal security is that surely God knows all this, and that once we are in God's hands then surely He will not fail to lead us home. What is universally rejected is that God's success somehow depends on us, because if it did then none of us would be saved. This logic is difficult to refute and thus my reply is that it is not a matter of logic but of attitude - we cannot live a life of faith with the attitude that is suggested by the doctrine of eternal security.
Jesse says...
::Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. The Father sends Jesus who sends the Holy Spirit upon the apostles to remit and retain sins. Seems plain as day to me :-)
And it is plain to me that this does not mean what you say it means.
Knowing the gospel that Christ paid for all sins, we certainly can say to people that in accepting the gift of salvation which is offered to them, their sins are forgiven, and it is true. Likewise knowing that there is no way to the Father except through Christ and thus there are no works of goodness which will make our sins go away, we can certainly say to people that their sins are not forgiven, and it is true. But to say that we have some power to give or take away according to our own whim, or that a sinful man can take away sins of others is just plain insane.
Jesus most definitely lived His life as an example to us, and for this reason He always did in His life what we could do also, showing us how a man should live. Thus He told the disciples that as He had done in life, so should they do also -- SO should we all do. Does this mean that we have magical powers? No. We can do what Jesus did by knowing how through what He has taught us. Armed with the knowledge of the gospel and a personal relationship with God, we can indeed do as Christ did. Thus we can pray for people (as Jesus taught us) that their afflictions will be healed. Likewise, we can share with them the gospel with its offering of the gift of salvation through which their sins will indeed be forgiven.
Post a Comment