Category Archives: Commentaries

Be Skeptical of the Biblical Minimalist School

20 Friday Dec 2019

Posted by in Commentaries

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

33-1232659027iDxr

Biblical Minimalists attempt to dispel a great many details in the narrative of various books of the Old Testament. The attempts are framed by attempting to persuade those to their claims or make fun of detractors as looking anti-historical by using a cherry-picked version of historic-criticism. An example of Biblical Minimalist, or also referred to as “deconstructionist” is their attempt to dispel archaeological evidence that proves of the Israel royal house of David—which was denied as existing at all by skeptics until the Dan inscription was found that bore the name “House of David.”

A Deconstructionist by the name Philip Davies then tried to argue that inscription didn’t have a word divider between the words House of David and therefore wasn’t an inscription describing the ancient royal house as described in the Old Testament. Of course, it is quite common knowledge that in ancient languages word dividers were not always applied and more or less a development of written language. The late Near-East scholar Anson Rainey explains that these scholars tend to be outsiders explaining, “Davies’s objections are those of an amateur standing on the sidelines of epigraphic scholarship. Naveh and Biran cannot be blamed for assuming a modicum of basic knowledge on the part of their readers. They are not used to dealing with the dilettantism of the “deconstructionist” school. Competent scholars will doubtless take issue with some of Naveh and Biran’s interpretations, but Davies can safely be ignored.” (Rainey, Anson F. “The ‘House of David’ and the House of the Deconstructionists.” The BAS Library, 5 Nov. 2015, https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/20/6/3.)

Farewell to the Devil?

18 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

JesusTemptation

In his essay “Farewell to the Devil?”, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) examines and rebuts the argument presented by Swiss Catholic Theologian Herbert Haag, who asserts that Satan does not exist and that Satan was an idea that manifested ancient Jewish culture’s understanding of evil and sin. (Ratzinger, Farewell to the Devil? 197.) Haag’s thesis was written during the time of great cultural upheaval both in secular culture and in Catholic Culture as his book “Farewell to the Devil” would be printed after the Vatican II council. It should be no surprise that Superior General of the Jesuits, Fr. Sosa, has recently made comments that Satan is an analogy making very similar points as presented in Haag’s argument ( A comment that Fr. Sosa has since walked back a bit).

Ratzinger explains that this position is one that uses a methodology that is devoid of literary analysis of scripture but rather is a methodology that focuses on a false historicism (emphasis mine) that those of a different era are either stupid, naive, or both, so in effect, Haag’s position is based on the rhetoric fallacy of “poisoning the well” of the witness testimony of Jesus and the Apostles as it is presented in the New Testament. Haag’s thesis is refuted by Ratzinger by examining the New Testament in which Satan and Demons exist, and the Devil is not a synonym for sin which is claimed by Haag (Ratzinger, Ibid.).

It’s so glaringly obvious in the belief of those in scripture that both Satan and Demons exist that Haag had to admit this is a commonly held belief of those in 1st century Palestine. However, Haag argues that these people were victims of their understanding and culture during this period of time. Again, it’s important to reiterate that Haag’s position is based on his own cultural bias in which he has already assumed those in Jesus’ time are inferior to his own understanding. Naturally, this type of assertion is one of the most dangerous facets of a strict historical-critic exegesis and the use of historicism by modern scholars. Ratzinger does a good job acknowledging that it’s Haag’s bias that has predetermined his conclusion on this matter, Ratzinger writes, “Haag bids the devil farewell, not in his capacity as exegete or interpreter of Scripture, but rather as a contemporary, who considered the existence of a devil untenable (Ratzinger, 198).”

One of the key aspects in understanding Satan and Demons, after examining the role of the Old Testament as being dependent on the New Testament, is understood when Ratzinger writes, “The spiritual battle against the enslaving powers, the exorcism pronounced over a world blinded by demons, is an inseparable part of Jesus’ spiritual way that belongs to the heart of his own mission and of the mission of his disciples.” (Ratzinger, 202). Furthermore, Ratzinger indicates that our understanding of the faith must be rendered within the faith community. If it is to be determined that Satan is merely an analogy to sin or a sort of moral taboo then the Church’s sacramental life with the foundation of baptism would be moot. Ratzinger writes, “One must be able to take baptism at its word, especially in its central action. It indicates what takes place in becoming a Christian and what does not…exorcism and the renunciation of Satan are part of the central action of baptism.” (Ratzinger, 203.)

At the end of the essay, Ratzinger questions what Haag means that the Devil cannot be understood to exist by what we know in our modern age. In many respects, I believe the question of “Farewell to the Devil?” is one that originates in the metaphysical and spiritual and moves into the material, perhaps, there is to be understood better the sacred and the profane. A good measurement of whether something is contingent on faith testimony which is the essence of the faith is its relation to the Incarnation itself.

How does Satan, the demonic, and hell relate to the Incarnation? In the course of the history of the Church, the great heresies have always been misguided teachings on who is Jesus Christ. Satan and hell must be articles of faith as without those parts of revelation, it would render the Incarnation useless. If theologians eliminate Adam and Eve, the fall, hell, and then the slope—as we see today—leads to there being no such thing as sin, then those theologians have rendered Jesus Christ merely an ancient understanding of the world.

Biblical Exegesis: Primarily a philosophical discussion or historical?

11 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 22 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Bourdon_Sebastien-Moses_and_the_Burning_Bush

Pope Benedict XVI explained in his 1988 Erasmus lectures, “The debate about modern exegesis is not at its core a debate among historians, but among philosophers”. (Matthew J. Ramage, Jesus Interpreted, 9).

Is the discussion of the Holy Scriptures primarily a philosophical debate of those who claim there is a God and those who do not?

The statement appears to be correct on the surface; however, the difficulty with this particular assertion is that it is a false dichotomy when it comes to the interpretation of what is true and what actually happened as it is described in the written word. In attempting to determine what is true, the historian–both secular and religious–deals with the axiological value judgment of the truth just as much as any philosopher would when it comes to scriptural exegesis and the matter of what is the truth.

Make sure to pre-order my new book: The Birth of God in Historical Context: An Examination of the Infancy Narrative of Jesus Christ: 

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-birth-of-god-in-history-phillip-hadden/1134980944?ean=9781078744492

 

Do Miracles need a priori knowledge?

04 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Bril_Jesus_walking_on_the_Sea_of_Galilee

Objection: The affirmation of the Resurrection as a miracle is connected to the event itself, a position that rejects, a priori of the miraculous would leave no room for the Resurrection as the Gospels teach it.”
First off, I’d simply point to the picture and ask, “If you had no idea of the miraculous, wouldn’t you have some understanding seeing this event transpire?”

Therefore, No affirmation of the existence of miracles is necessarily needed to witness an event that would be described by one with priori knowledge of miracles as miraculous.

If one did not have the concept of a miracle– or apathetic to the idea–prior to or have a knowledge of miracles before the Resurrection, but had the basic knowledge that dead people do not come back to life; then one would simply have to conclude the very nature of the event is outside of the realms of natural occurrences. If someone knows that people who are dead, by rule, do not come back to life then they would have to formulate a concept for the supernatural as a response to a new discover, thus they would now attain the concept of the miraculous.

The attainment of knowledge of the miraculous (the first reception) from a miraculous event would need to precede any sort of priori concept of the miraculous because if it were required that one needed such knowledge there could never be any miracles that could be recognized to be such as Aristotle, and Aquinas agrees, that all knowledge comes from the senses.

Although, I’d be willing to be more persuaded if one argues from Augustine’s Divine Illumination theory.

Make sure to pre-order my new book: The Birth of God in Historical Context: An Examination of the Infancy Narrative of Jesus Christ:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-birth-of-god-in-history-phillip-hadden/1134980944?ean=9781078744492

St. Bonaventure’s The Soul’s Journey into God: Prologue, A Commentary.

21 Monday Oct 2019

Posted by in Commentaries

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

saint-bonaventure

Traditional Catholic theology is marked by its preference for Manualist Thomistic thought perhaps best represented under the lens of the pre-conciliar theologian, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Naturally, after the Vatican II council, the dominate theological thought has been the Nouvelle théologie—a counter to Aeterni Patris and Neo-Scholasticism of the 19thCentury. The post here will not get into detail about the conflict between the two movements, but it’s important to understand that the shift and development of Neo-Scholasticism was a response to the Enlightenment dominated by skepticism with the introduction of Hume’s, Cartesian, and Kantian philosophical schools of thought. These particular schools of thought turned epistemology on its head and developed a “philosophy [that] turned inward…our understanding of the world…rather than coming to a knowledge of the object through the senses led to further regression of epistemology”[1]

The Papal encyclical Aeterni Patris wriiten by “Pope Leo XIII explained the importance of returning to the Classical model of thinking, “And here it is well to note that our philosophy can only by the grosses injustice be accused of being opposed to the advance and development of natural science. From when the Scholastics, following the opinion of the holy Fathers, always held in anthropology that the human intelligence is only led to knowledge of things without body and matter by things sensible.”[2][3]

In recent years, the Dominican House of Studies in Washington D.C. influence is growing in the younger Catholic academic circles. In some respect, they still hold on to the post-conciliar thought of the Nouvelle théologie of Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s Semi-Universalism and Henri De Lubac’s immanence of God being inherent in Man’s supernatural desire for Him; however, the development of the particular theology dominating these popular mainstream circles is the Nouvelle Theologie with a sprinkling of Thomism into a new development in the 20th and 21st centuries. The best popular representation of these positions is Bishop Robert Barron.

I have been naturally attracted to Augustinian thought rather than Thomistic thought. There’s something, perhaps, appealing to the notion of forms existing metaphysically in their own nature and that there’s an innate recognition of these things in the world. I’ve been musing over the idea of beauty; its role in axiological argument, and preferences being shaped by one’s capability to recognize the beautiful. Of course, I’m currently studying theology in a Thomistic setting where a tension grows by questioning of the said school of thought. In recent months, reflecting on what has been going on during the Amazonian synod in Rome, and being influenced by Neo-Scholasticism setting but still having a love for Augustinian thought, I’ve begun to read St. Bonaventure.

The words of St. Bonaventure are composed with the beauty and beating heart of Augustine and Divine Illumination and framed the Aristotelean thought of clarity. Pope Benedict XVI has experienced his preference for St. Bonaventure but being a proponent of the Nouvelle théologie I am surprised when reading St. Bonaventure that although he is Augustinian in his thought he is still very Aristotelean. At the moment, many are concerned of the allegations of paganism in Rome and the worship of nature and idols. By reading St. Bonaventure’s The Soul’s Journey, St. Bonaventure makes an appeal toward recognizing the vestiges from God’s creation to elevate the person toward God. St. Bonaventure recognizes that it’s the senses that moves the person toward God but being created in the likeness of God there’s light within us (awareness) that precedes the senses gaining knowledge. During my own studies of Thomism, I have thought that the idea that all knowledge coming from the senses is ultimately true, but yet, at the very basic foundation there is consciousness. Is this the same as Cartesian Cogito Ergo Sum? No. Descartes thought is one that is turned inward toward the I am of self; whereas, St. Bonaventure’s is turned toward recognition of the great I AM:

 In the beginning

I call upon the First Beginning,

from whom

all illuminations descend

as from the Father of Lights,

from whom

comes every good and every perfect gift.[4]

The journey for St. Bonaventure is a six step journey in the image of the Seraph that gave St. Francis the stigmata to rest in the presence of God on the seventh day. Bonaventure writes, “There is no other path but through the burning love of the Crucified, a love which so transformed Paul into Christ when he was carried up to the third heaven(2 Cor. 12:2) that he could say: With Christ I am nailed to the cross. I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me(Gal. 2:20). This love also so absorbed the soul of Francis that his spirit shone through his flesh when for two years before his death he carried in his body the sacred stigmata of the passion.[5]

There is no immanence within the thought of St. Bonaventure, the journey toward God is one that always goes through Christ Jesus, he prays:

First, therefore, I invite the reader

to the groans of prayer

through Christ crucified,

through whose blood

we are cleansed from the filth of vice—

so that he not believe

that reading is sufficient without unction,

speculation without devotion,

investigation without wonder,

observation without joy,

work without piety,

knowledge without love,

understanding without humility,

endeavor without divine grace,

reflection as a mirror without divinely inspired wisdom.

To those, therefore, predisposed by divine grace,

the humble and the pious,

the contrite and the devout,

those anointed with the oil of gladness,

the lovers of divine wisdom, and

those inflamed with a desire for it,

to those wishing to give themselves

to glorifying, wondering at and even savoring God,

I propose the following considerations,

suggesting that the mirror presented by the external world

is of little or no value

unless the mirror of our soul

has been cleaned and polished.

Therefore, man of God,

first exercise yourself in remorse of conscience

before you raise your eyes

to the rays of Wisdom reflected in its mirrors,

lest perhaps from gazing upon these rays

you fall into a deeper pit of darkness.[6]

Thus, after St. Bonaventure’s Prologue, he begins the journey by the recognition of God with the rejection of the Albigensian heresy that rejected the good of creation, St. Bonaventure points towards the good of the creature as a ladder that will lead the soul to rest in God.

 

 

 

[1]Phillip, The Affirmation of Real Objective Metaphysical Objects in Catholic Thought, unpublished paper, Holy Apostles College and Seminary, 2019.

[2]Aeterni Patris (August 4, 1879) | LEO XIII. Accessed March 17, 2019. http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html.

[3]Phillip, The Affirmation of Real Objective Metaphysical Objects in Catholic Thought

[4]Bonaventure, Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God; The Tree of Life; The Life of St. Francis, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Ewert Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 53.

[5]Bonaventure, Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God; The Tree of Life; The Life of St. Francis, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Ewert Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 54–55.

[6]Bonaventure, Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God; The Tree of Life; The Life of St. Francis, ed. Richard J. Payne, trans. Ewert Cousins, The Classics of Western Spirituality (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 55–56.

A Saturation of Theology in The Confessions of St. Augustine

10 Wednesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Commentaries

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

image

St. Augustine’s Confessions Book 7 Chapter 14

In this particular section of the Confessions, Augustine gives several short arguments that will be later used by the Scholastics. In a short amount of space, Augustine covers a multitude of ontology and cosmology that really need to utilize within the faith communities as a means to evangelize the world consumed by scientism.

Augustine discusses how a plurality of gods would contradict the nature of God. Naturally, this idea will be further developed by Thomas Aquinas in Chapter 42 of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Aquinas explains in relation to the divine:

“[2] For it is not possible that there be two highest goods, since that which is said by superabundance is found in only one being. But God, as we have shown, is the highest good. God is, therefore, one.

  [3] Again, it has been shown that God is absolutely perfect, lacking no perfection. If, then, there are many gods, there must be many perfect beings. But this is impossible. For, if none of these perfect beings lacks some perfection, and does not have any admixture of imperfection, which is demanded for an absolutely perfect being, nothing will be given in which to distinguish the perfect beings from one another. It is impossible, therefore, that there be many gods.

 It appears that Aquinas isn’t the only scholastic to borrow and develop of Augustine. Augustine gives a sort of proto-ontological argument to illustrate his understanding of unity of God. He writes, “For no soul ever has been able to conceive or ever will conceive anything better than You, the supreme and perfect Good.” Of course, if anyone’s taken a theology or philosophy course this statement may sound familiar, as the idea is usually attributed to St. Anselm of Canterbury who put forth what is known as the Ontological Proof for God’s existence.

In Chapter 3-7 of the Proslogion, one discovers St. Anselm’s argument for the existence of God. The basic argument comes from this statement from St. Anselm is that “O Lord my God, You exist so truly that You cannot even be thought not to exist…For if any mind could think of something better than You, the creature would rise above the Creator and would sit in judgment over the Creator—something which is utterly absurd.”[1]

I find it interesting that St. Anselm proposes that God cannot even be thought not to exist. Recently, I’ve been in conversation with a few Atheists who claim not to believe in God, and yet God ever preoccupies their mind to search out theist to discuss him. Again, it goes back to St. Augustine, our heart is restless until it rests in God.

Augustine also addresses challenges to the omnipotence of God. It’s fairly common for skeptics to challenge Christians by asking, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he could move it?” The question appears at face value to be a formidable objection to the concept of the nature of God. Naturally, when one understands what is God’s nature, he will see the question be absurd. So, if we start with the premise that God is all-powerful because of his omnipotence God could not do anything that would contradict his very nature of being all-powerful. Another example would be could God make a square a triangle? Well, no, they couldn’t be the same thing because for a square to be a square it has to have four sides; therefore, by having three sides it would no longer possess the nature of a square.

[1]Anslem of Canterbury, 94.

Post-Vatican II Christ Centered Ethics

09 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 64 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

not-sure-clipart-1

Recently, I have decided to peruse papers submitted on academia.edu on different Christian topics and post brief commentaries on our blog for discussion purposes. After taking a brief look at different papers, the title “Post Vatican II Christ-Centered Ethical Theology” really lept out at me. And perhaps, a bit of the reason is that I thought it would stir the pot a bit with Scoop—So, I couldn’t help myself.

The author of the paper is a Jesuit by the name Dr. Jean-Marie Hyacinthe Quenum. He begins his introduction quite interesting by claiming:

Christian moral theology as an academic discipline presupposes the self-actualization of Christian mystery in the community of faith called the Church. Christian moral theology draws its methodology and principles from the followers of Jesus Christ worshiping the Holy Trinity and making the fundamental option to live as recreated children of God under the process of God’s justification and sanctification in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Honestly,  I don’t really understand what idea Quenum is trying to convey in the first sentence. I would have to ask what specifically he means by Christian mystery in this statement, i.e. The Trinity, Body of Christ, Passion, sanctifying grace? It’s true that while we understand good action through the revelation of Christ’s actions and teachings in the Gospels; it doesn’t appear to follow Catholic theology of Grace, Justification, and predestination. However, when Quenum writes, “making the fundamental option to live as recreated children of God under the process of God’s justification and sanctification in Christ through the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps, it’s clarity that is missing in his state where he is speaking of our cooperation with the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit through the practice of virtues that allows one to sustain and preserve in grace. Of course, it is through prayer, practicing the sacraments, and works of mercy where God continues to infuse within our souls His graces to live a life of holiness; to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect.

The understanding of grace and its role it plays in our actions, being the goodness of God, is formed from an understanding of classical orthodox understanding founded in the Augustinian and Thomistic traditions. As I would not be surprised if Quenum, being a Jesuit, being formed in the Molinist school of radical free will with God’s middle knowledge merely knowing our receptiveness to His grace, this may have led to these developments in Post-Vatican II thinking.

Quenum writes, “In Post-Vatican II Church Christian moral theology has become in university context a field of Christian ethics dealing with Christian living with real people in a real world of secularized societies. Appropriately called theological ethics, Christian moral theology has become an inspiring discipline, based on Scripture, reason, character formation, commitment to the reign of God, common good, virtues, social responsibility and the goal to become better people of God after the last Adam, Jesus Christ. “

 Again, this begs the question, how is this idea to be played out with the traditional understanding of Catholic theology with grace and predestination? Quenum goes on, “how Christians in their intentions to become Christ-like manifest their fundamental relation to the Trinitarian God creator, savior and transformer of the world by leading a virtuous life of moral responsibility and goodness.

 I am concerned with what he means by ‘intention’ our intention is to accept the grace of God by our free will; however, as God is creator, his grace actualizes our souls so the good that we do in the world comes from God. Our good actions are not our own, but rather our action within the Thomistic and Augustinian understanding of grace is to consent to the grace of God, a acquire an interior freedom that allows our heart to rest.

Quenum does speak later on in the paper about the role of prayer and the Holy Spirit. He says, “It allows the disciple of Jesus Christ to make daily decisions by seeking God’s heart. Prayer consists in listening God’s Word in faith (Hebrew 4: 2).  By building human life on the rock of God’s Word, the disciple of Jesus Christ is open to the agenda of God. The human heart is the deepest part of the human person experiencing the creative presence of the Trinitarian God. From the human heart purified by the presence of the Trinitarian God flows the moral transformation of the person called to discipleship by Christ and anointed by his Spirit.”

The statement on prayer could be okay or worrisome depending on where one places the stresses on the action of the person. Prayer is in many ways initiated by God through grace. We feel a call to it, in effect, we could make decisions to cooperate with God’s call to prayer, part of this is building the habit of prayer in our lives. However, if by the last statement he makes in this paragraph that God transforms us by his grace then the statement becomes more on par. So, again, it may be a clarity issue.

Finally, Quenum’s statement on the Holy Spirit appears to clarify my concerns early on in his paper. He writes:

The Holy Spirit who prays in the human person makes the voice of Christ heard and obeyed. The Holy Spirit guides the believer in the quest of moral transformation. Christian moral transformation requires friendship with Jesus Christ who helps the disciple to appropriate and to assimilate his life, passion, death and resurrection through the work of regeneration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit as comforter empowers the believer for a deeper relationship with the Trinitarian God that brings the fruits of a blessed life.

 Naturally, I find little issues with this paragraph with my stress on grace. The Holy Spirit is what drives our desire to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and to live a life more like his that we read in the Gospels.

Quenum does have some good points about the challenges of Christian ethics in our modern world. He does articulate well that our modern societies have regressed psychological toward pagan hedonism. He writes, “The logic of desire explored by depth psychology has placed pleasure and comfort at the pinnacle of human fulfilment. To say “no” to a desire is to repress it for a law that brings frustration, dissatisfaction and depression. A person led by the logic of desire rejects rules, regulations and laws.”

I do listen to Bishop Robert Barron’s podcast from time to time. Barron does often use an interesting analogy when it comes to sports with our modern ethics. He explains that if you want to hit a baseball or a golf ball well, you have to use certain techniques that have been tried over a period of time and perfected to do those skills well. Naturally, no one objects usually and says I prefer to hit the golf ball my own way, of course, this is because they wish to hit the ball. What we’ve failed to communicate in our modern societies is that to live life well then we do have to live by some rules. These rules are not to repress you, but rather, like cleanly hitting a golf ball, to give you interior freedom to live your life well.

Quenum explains the development of  Post-Vatican II ethics writing:

 “Post-Vatican II theological ethics has the originality of being non- judgmental. It aims at showing God’s mercy and acceptance toward those who have not yet understood the path of salvation brought by Jesus Christ. It provides supportive and brotherly community for those who are sincerely wrong. These people are no longer blamed but accompanied by wise disciples of Jesus Christ in pastoral ministry.  

 In a pluralistic world post-Vatican II theological ethics is open to dialogue which is today the fruitful method of being with others in respectful way. Dialogue in a world of competing and conflicting values makes Christian vulnerable, modest and ready to learn from others.

 I think it’s fair toask,, Do these ‘ethics’ actually work?  On the one hand, the idea of mercy is an idea that conveys the need for it. The need for mercy is the result of sin. In the post-Vatican II theology, this idea hasn’t been conveyed with much success. If we’re sticking to the golfing analogy, it would similar to telling someone who is swinging the club poorly, “it’s okay, I know you didn’t hit the ball, but go ahead swing the club again and see if you can hit it.” If we do not spend the time to explain what needs to be corrected, how can it be expected that a correction will be made?

I will attempt to answer these question with parts of Quenum conclusion:

Fifty years after Vatican II the pilgrim people of God is thinking differently moral life. The splendor of the truth is in the person of Jesus Christ inviting human beings to share the perfect goodness of the Trinitarian God through a virtuous life of love.

 Moral life is no longer about forbidden behaviors and acts which are intrinsically evil. Moral life flows from the human person whose heart is purified by the Gospel message of Jesus Christ and who makes the fundamental option to share the Trinitarian God’s values in the body of Christ led by the Holy Spirit in the renewed family of the Father.

…

Doing Trinitarian theological ethics implies the rejection of moralism, legalism and authoritarianism for a better approach of the human person as a discerning agent inspired by the Gospel that does Justice, Peace and fellowship in the redeemed world.

 Again, I’m not entirely clear about his concluding remarks. At times in the paper, I think he admits that post-Vatican II doesn’t seem to be working, as Christian morality seems to be evaporating. However, it does somewhat appear that his focus on Trinitarian theological ethics because it relies on being led by the grace through the Holy Spirit rejects legalism, but does this imply that any form of correction is legalism? Perhaps, we merely need faith in the grace of the Holy Spirit to transform the lives. It appears this type of theological ethics is similar to a lot of the ‘accompaniment’ ‘pastoral care’ type theology that comes from clerical media personalities.

Overall the text seems vague to me. It has some theology that does make sense in it, but at times the clarity is lacking,

The Historicity of Acts of the Apostles

07 Sunday Jul 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 40 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

st-paul-1

One of the new commenters to All Along the Watchtower claimed that the Historicity of the Acts of the Apostle’s to him was a boring endeavor. Nonetheless, the same person, replied to some of my comments on the topic two separate times. Of course, the person attempted to claim that the book is not to be considered historically accurate. The first time, I was simply going to let him have the last word because I thought it fruitless to add anything more to the conversation because the historical consensus is moving toward my position–TheActs of the Apostles can be trusted–on the subject anyway. However, it appears he needed some sort of validation from me as he commented again; unfortunately, the comment section closed before I could reply to him. So, I’ve decided to go ahead and make it a post.

The scholarship that Acts isn’t to be trusted is outdated. The commenter did offer to post the link to me if I need it; however, I don’t find the need to be deceptive with my sources

A graduate student Jonathan Blake has posted on a scholarly forum on the Historicity of Acts. The academic paper is a good source for the current scholarly understanding of this particular book found in the New Testament and its relation to historical events. It has an incredible amount of citations for anyone to view the many different takes on historicity on the Acts of the Apostles.

Blake acknowledges that “current scholarly attitudes to the historicity of the New Testament book of Acts range widely,” which shows that there is hardly a scholarly consensus on whether it should be accepted or dismissed, so whether it should be accepted as history can still be considered by serious scholars.

Blake mentions that British scholarship on Acts has tended to view the Acts of the Apostles as historical, whereas German scholarship has been more critical of the document. Blakes writes, “Ramsay to W.L. Knox and Bruce. German scholarship has, for the most part, evaluated negatively the historical worth of Acts, from Baur and his school to Dibelius, Conzelmann, and Haenchen. In North American there is no scholarly consensus on the Acts of the Apostles.

…

The entirety of scholarship agrees that the book is reliable in its depiction of the first-century period. “Professor of Religion Charles Talbert judges Acts to be consistently accurate with regard to many details,” writes Blake.

Blake gives examples of these accurate details:

  •  Thessalonican city authorities called politarchs (Acts 17:6, 8)
  •  Grammateus is the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus (Acts 19:35)
  •  Felix and Festus called procurators (Acts 23:24, 26; 24:27)
  •  Centurion Cornelius, tribune Claudius Lysias (Acts 10:1; 21:31, 23:36)
  •  The title proconsul (Greek anthypathos), used for the governors of two senatorial provinces (Acts 13:7‐8; 18:12)
  •  The prohibition against Gentiles in the Temple’s inner court (Acts 21:27‐36)
  •  The function of town assemblies (Acts 19: 29‐41)
  •  Soldiers in the tower of Antonia descended stairs into the Temple precincts (Acts 21:31‐37)

Blakes also mentions that Historian Justin Taylor likewise describes the accuracy of Acts positively,10 and lists many examples.

  •  Trial scenes throughout Acts11
  •  Reference to Phrygo‐Galatia (Acts 16:6; 18:23)12
  •  The voyage from Troas (Acts 16:11‐12)13
  •  Lydia a historical figure (Acts 16:14)14 15
  •  Magistrates named correctly (Acts 16)16
  •  Paul objects to a beating without examination (Acts 16:37)17
  •  A synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1)18
  •  Jason before the city rulers (Acts 17:5‐9)19
  •  Jews in Berea (Acts 17:10)20
  •  Athens full of idols (Acts 17:16)21
  • The Athenians’ curiosity (Acts 17:21)22
  •  Paul on the Areopagus (Acts 17:19) 23 24 25
  •  The ‘unknown god’ (Acts 17:23)26 27
  •  Paul’s visit to Athens (Acts 17:16‐33)28
  •  Jews expelled from Rome (Acts 18:1‐2)29
  •  Gallio the governor of Achaia (Acts 18:12)30
  •  The tribunal of Gallio (Acts 18:12‐16)31
  •  Events in Ephesus (Acts 19:28‐41)32
  •  Paul’s appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11‐12)33

Blake acknowledges that Peter’s address: Acts 4:4 is a point of contention for historians. However, even if historians challenge the notions of 5,000 converts, as discussed I’ve discussed on this blog many times with other ancient histories such as Alexander the Great, the use of numbers in ancient historical documents are consistently used for grandeur and symbolism, not for accurate numbers. 

 Acts 10:1

There is some objection to this particular passage but Blake notes that Historians such as Bond, Speidel, Hilhorst, and Saddington see no difficulty,

The Jerusalem Council: Acts 15

Blake writes, “The description of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2 is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.”

The Jerusalem Council is probably the most contested historical part of the narrative of Acts of the Apostles because of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. What is important though is that in the past, what appears to be a contradiction “Recent scholarship is inclined to treat the Council and its rulings as a historical, though this is sometimes expressed with caution,” as Blake explains. He further explains that “There is an increasing trend among scholars toward considering the Jerusalem Council as historical event. An overwhelming majority identifies the reference to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 with Paul’s account in Gal. 2.1‐10, and this accord is not just limited to the historicity of the gathering alone but extends also to the authenticity of the arguments deriving from the Jerusalem church itself.’”

The “we” passages

There currently is no scholarly consensus on the “we” passages.

The three most common theories on the “we” passages as examined by Blake:

  •  the writer was redacting existing written material or oral sources, whether by genuine eyewitnesses or not.
  • use of the second person plural is a deliberate stylistic device which was common to the genre of the work, but which was not intended to indicate a historical eyewitness,
  • the writer was a genuine historical eyewitness.

Blake does acknowledge the critical commentary citing that “Critical scholars Gerd Lüdemann, Alexander Wedderburn, Hans Conzelmann, and Martin Hengel have treated Acts with scepticism, tempered with occasional acknowledgments of historical validity.” However, as Blake does preface, “Recent modern studies are far more positive in their assessment of the historicity of Acts than many previous critical commentaries.”

I will quote the entirety of Blake’s conclusion

“Current scholarly attitudes towards the historicity of Acts remain mixed, with extremist views expressed at both ends of the spectrum. However attitudes have generally become more positive since the publication of influential works by writers such as Hemer and Hengel, and historians of Rome have renewed their interest in the use of Acts as a valid source of information on the social, legal and political milieu of the empire in the first century. A number of objections to the historicity of specific events in Acts have now been dismissed conclusively, and a new consensus has emerged concerning therelationship of the ‘we’ passages to the question of authorship.”

Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas and Divine Illumination

31 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by in Commentaries, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_Champaigne.jpg

I have been attempting to rehabilitate St. Anselm’s the ontological argument for God. However, no matter how hard I try my own understanding of discovering knowledge is similar to Aquinas’ that it begins with the senses and the recognition of the world. The issue that I’ve developed is that I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle in regards to universals/forms like beauty and truth. Therefore, my ontological argument has more or less become an epistemological argument for God which is Augustinian in nature and tied to Augustine’s theory of knowledge of Divine Illumination.

I’ve been reading a bit on Divine Illumination and Aquinas’ Aristotelian Agent Intellect synthesis into his first principle of knowledge. And not surprisingly, it appears that there are those who claim that Aquinas makes a strict separation from Augustine in regards to Divine Illumination. However, it’s not a settled debate and Peter Kreeft argues in the Summa of the Summa that Aquinas is more Platonic/Augustinian in his understanding than Aristotelian, albeit many Thomist would disagree with his sentiment–I’ve personally asked one. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that what Thomas does is merely move the understanding of Divine Illumination to the material sensory of understanding. For instance, two different husbands may look at their respective spouses and believe their own is more beautiful than the other. Some would argue this indicates that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, what appears to be innate from the two husbands is beauty itself. Sure, it’s their senses that tell them what is beautiful, nonetheless, it is not their senses that is the source for understanding the concept of beauty itself. If this is true, then, it would render that not all knowledge is gained through the senses.

The more I think about this interpretation of knowledge with Aquinas’ synthesis on the sense revealing knowledge, the more I agree with it in accord to Augustine’s philosophy of Divine Illumination in regards to Romans chapter 1 and 2 which speak about knowing God “is manifest in them” and the “law written in our hearts,” I firmly agree with Augustine that we’re in possession of certain knowledge by God; however, we’re only moved to discovering by interactions with creation as attributed by Aquinas emphasis on Participation. So, when we judge beauty, for instance, the concept of the beautiful is divinely instilled by God; however, it is through our experience with a sunrise, a mountain, the ocean, or our loved ones that stir the understanding of the beautiful.

Upon doing more reading on the topic, I find this to be very similar to Bonaventure’s assessment. Perhaps, I need to read more Bonaventure. Naturally, the above is just a short examination of my current work. I am at the moment writing a more detailed treatise on the subject of illumination.