A Tribute to Eleanore Stump

I believe that epistemology is not limited to empiricism.

A professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York City specializes in the so-called ‘biblical historical method.’ This methodological approach to scripture has yielded many relevant and interesting aspects of the societal and cultural experiences that the Jesus of Nazareth would have experienced. However, it also has its downside, insofar that many of these theologians fail to run their conclusions through the rigorous systematic philosophical tests that are needed. This field of biblical scholarship has brought about a plethora of historical informative particularities that then lead to an adaptation in theologies. However, many times these adaptations fail the philosophical attempts at logical scrutiny. This biblical scholarship then develops a ‘detached theology,’ one independent of any rigorous academic philosophical argumentation. I give you an example from a lecture I happened to hear today. This is the scripture under his historical microscope:

1st Corinthians: 2: 1-8
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.
Yet among the mature we do not speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Now, he articulated his position through an organic style of argumentation, but for the sake of analytic philosophy I have compiled what I believe is an accurate reproduction of his argumentation but in the appropriate philosophic format. I see two arguments in his overall articulation. These premises of the first argument are:

1. The Book of Proverbs’ linguistic usage of ‘wisdom’ is historically understood as a representation of the Divine Feminine.
2. Paul, because he was an educated Jew, had a previous knowledge of the Book of Proverbs linguistic usage of ‘wisdom’ as the representation of the Divine Feminine.
3. Paul’s knowledge of the Old Testament’s usages of ‘wisdom’ concludes he also used the term ‘wisdom’ as a representation for the Divine Feminine in his epistle.

I am not arguing the historic process behind any of the argumentation, nor of the historical methodology that produced the information for the argument, I am neither a historian nor an archeologist. Rather, I am arguing against the philosophical logic and cohesiveness of such an argument.
First, premise one has the blanket, un-argued assumption that the writer of the Book of Proverbs specifically and univocally meant ‘wisdom’ to be only used in one meaningful interpretation, namely that of the Divine Feminine. However, because do not know for certain the intention of the author of Proverbs, it is entirely possible that this author’s intent was to have a multiplicity of meanings and interpretation for what is meant by ‘wisdom.’ There is no logical reason to assume that the author meant only one interpretation for the term ‘wisdom,’ especially given the claims by many historical critical methodologists that the Hebrew Bible is full of ambiguous meanings and multifaceted motifs. Additionally, it is also equally logical that the author of Proverbs had meant two meanings simultaneously, including for the sake of argumentation that of the Divine Feminine. For example, the author could have had in mind that the personification of wisdom to be the Divine Feminine as well as a future messianic figure. The unjustified assumption that the author’s intent was narrowly confined to one specific interpretation, and the even narrower assumption that it was the Divine Feminine, is a just that, an unjustified assumption, hardly convincing empirical evidence or logical veracity. Now, with these other logical possibilities, the conclusion of the entire argument has already been shown to be at best, narrow conjecture, but hardly empirical or logical certainty. However, for the sake of his argument, I will make their grandiose philosophical and logical assumptions in the attempt to demonstrate the complete illogicality of this argument.

The second and third premises has several philosophical and logical assumptions as well. First, and the most glaring and egregious of logical assumptions, is that the professor is assuming that it logically follows that because Paul knew of the author’s intent in the Divine Feminine interpretation in the Book of Proverbs that he used that same literary device in his epistle. (I am not arguing against him having this knowledge, although it seems logically questionable, but nevertheless.) The leap in logic can be summed in the following: even an irrefutable, empirically verifiable fact that Paul knew that the author’s intent was to interpret ‘wisdom’ as the Divine Feminine (or the tradition that said such) does not logically conclude that Paul then is articulating that exact same analogy to his usage of the term wisdom in his epistle. That assumption is completely unfounded in its logic, and hardly verifiable. It is just as equally possible, perhaps even more logical, that while Paul may have been educated in the Proverbs interpretation he may have meant something entirely unrelated to it. It is also a possibility that Paul meant absolutely nothing in common with an interpretation of Proverbs, but was just simply using the term wisdom in a different light. It is also possible that even if we grant that Paul may have been alluding to Proverbs, he could have been making an allusion to a Judaic mythology of wisdom, not the personification of the Divine Feminine as such. It is also possible that Paul may have been attempting to give credence to the Proverbs as Hebrew prophecy, as a sign pointing towards Jesus Christ. There are as many possibilities as people to interpret this passage. My point in this regard is that it is hardly logical to make the assumption the professor has, and illogical to articulate it as certainty.

Second Argument
1. Paul in the epistle describes the word ‘wisdom’ as something “secret and hidden” and writes that if the rulers knew this they would not have crucified Christ.
2. Because of Paul’s descriptive term of ‘secret and hidden’ for ‘wisdom,’ he is making a direct correlation between Christ and a ‘secret and hidden’ wisdom.
3. Thus, Paul is writing that Christ is the true Divine Feminine.

The second argument has many logical problems as well. First, if we make his assumption in premise one that Paul is alluding to a specific interpretation of Proverbs, it does not conclude to premise three, the assumption that he is making the statement that Christ is the Divine Feminine. It is just as entirely possible that Paul was alluding to the Divine Feminine and making an analogous statement that Christ is somehow like the Divine Feminine, but it is illogical to assume with certainty that he is the Divine Feminine. In other words, even if we grant the assumption that Paul was alluding to the Divine Feminine (which is not conclusive as we have demonstrated) it does not logically conclude that this alluding must be interpreted as convertible. If we grant this assumption, it is just as logical to assume that Paul was making an analogy, not a statement of fact that Christ really is the Divine Feminine.
Second, there is an unverified assumption that the description of ‘secret and hidden’ is specifically meant to be read as something inside Christ, an hidden truth of his being. This assumption seems to have no grounding in terms of the text, but rather a leap in logic. Furthermore, the text says, “But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.” Nowhere in this or the surrounding text imply that the God’s wisdom which is being ‘spoken of’ has anything to do whatsoever with who Christ actually is.
Finally the conclusion that Paul is articulating the position that if the rulers knew Christ was the Divine Feminine they would not have crucified him is equally unfounded. It is equally possible that Paul is addressing the fact that the rulers did not listen to those who spoke God’s wisdom. Or it is equally possible Paul is making a statement about rulers not know that Jesus was the Christ. In either situation, it would be quite a wide leap to make the assumption Paul is specifically meaning if only the rulers knew he was the Divine Feminine.
As a consequence, in these ways, the biblical historical method has failed in articulating with certainty any of their claims, nor have they demonstrated a likely possibility to them, and even more disheartening is the fact that it even fails in producing a logical and cogent argument.
I believe this attempt at the biblical critical methodology has accepted such ridiculously narrow parameters, namely empirical verificationism, because of their philosophical assumptions. I mean by this that because of certain assumptions made about God, they have condemned themselves to this increasingly narrow position. For example, the reason why many of these theologians argue for this hyper rationalist approach to the scripture is their philosophical assumption that God does not work in space and time. As such, the scriptures have to be approached as any other work of literature, to be dissected and placed under a microscope. However, what philosophical reason do they give for such an assumption of God’s ability? The answer is none, they make these wild assumptions without any articulation, any logical scrutiny, or any rigorous attempts at philosophic arguments. As such, they create a detached theology, one detached from the rigors of logic, and the systematizing of philosophy. So as I see it this enterprise (biblical critical method) has a lot of work to do before it becomes credible, first it must make all attempts to use rigorous attempts as logic, and when assumptions need to be made, make them, but do not claim certainty where certainty is not there. Second, they need to examine their philosophical assumptions of God and epistemology, argue for your beliefs, do not blindly accept what is in vogue. When these two critiques are at least attempted their enterprise will advance well beyond where they are now.

So what’s my point? We need more than the modernist empirical method to scripture. We deserve, and need more, than the biblical critical method.

St. Thomas on Grace and Love

I believe Grace is required for humanity to love God above all things.

Here are my brief notes on St. Thomas' question:

Concerning Grace
Question 3) Whether by his own natural powers and without grace man can love God above all things?


a. If man was not fallen, then he could love according to his natural power (of course still in need of the first movement).
i. To love God above all things is natural for all creatures.
1. This is because it is natural for all things loved to love back according to their natural power.
2. What is good for the ‘part’ is good for the ‘whole,’ since the whole (God) loves us (the part), we love God.
a. In the perfect state, man loved himself and all other things as parts of the whole. As such, he loved the whole (God) above all things, as it is the end of all things.
b. However, in our fallen state, without grace, man loves himself (the part) and follows his private good, not aware of the whole.
c. Therefore, man needs grace to heal this fallen nature so as to love God above all things.


Isn't this a perfect way at explaining the sin of individualism? So then what aspects of our lives are 'curved inward on ourselves' as Karl Rahner would put it, or "following our private good, not aware of the whole?"

Perhaps....Modernism? Postmodernism? Capitalism? Church?

On Confessionalism: Faithful Christian Witness

On Confessionalism: Faithful Christian Witness

Nicholas S. Case

Utrum: Whether it is the case that faithful Christian witness entails confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world.

Videtur: It may seem that faithful Christian witness does not entail confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world. It may also seem that Christian witness should be defined solely as ‘the pious living of one’s life.’ According to this argument, a person may be classified as witnessing to the Christian faith because he or she lives a life of pious devotion, which acts as the presupposed criterion of the Christian life. A common example of the pious life could be a person who gives his or her life to others in service, lives a charitable life of devotion to the Church, and participates in social justice, in God’s preferential option for the poor. According to this argument, if this person has accomplished the appropriate things in his or her life than he or she may be appropriately classified as a witnessing Christian. This belief system is particularly articulated as holding the criterion for faithful witness to Christianity as praxis. This position has been articulated historically by many liberation theologian ( See Gustavo Gutierrez, God-Talk: The Suffering of the Innocent. Also see, Paul Gauthier, The Poor, Jesus, and the Church. Also see, Sebastian Kappen, Jesus and Freedom. Also see, Camilo Torres, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Ernesto Cardenal, and Jon Sobrino) . These theologians would argue that God’s preferential commitment for the poor and oppressed demonstrates the power of Christianity as its ability to help bring justice to people who are oppressed. These theologians then argue that the ecclesiastical role is then measurable insofar as its impact on real, pragmatic items, such as how it influences the resistance to oppression. As such, the individual parishioner’s criterion for faithful witness to Christianity that is implemented is one of measurable accomplishments in the restoration of divine justice in practical, tangible form. It is important to remember that this restoration of divine justice is by its very nature empirically based, entirely demonstrative actions of justice accomplished by individuals. The role of the Christian becomes facilitator of God’s justice in a fallen, unjust world. Therefore, any person who participates in the restoration of divine justice in this world (in pragmatic, empirical actions that lead to social justice) may be accurately classified as faithfully witnessing Christianity. As a consequence, any confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world, because it is not an empirical demonstration of the restoration of divine justice in the practical world is not a necessary qualifier for being a faithful witnessing Christian.

Sed Contra: On the other hand, it may seem that the confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world is not entailed in faithful witness to Christianity because it is an exclusive doctrinal statement. It may seem that doctrinal statements, such as Christ as Savior, limit the full human expression and discovery of religion. This argument is elucidated by explaining that any creedal or formal doctrine (confession) narrows the number of Christians to an exclusive amount (Sometimes this is elucidated by denominations by the idiom, “No Creed but Christ.” See The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) “The Design of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)”) . One could also argue that this confession restricts the person’s ability to experience Christianity in his or her own way, one determined by the individual not dictated by a creedal statement. The attempt in this argument is at egalitarianism, tolerance, and inclusiveness for all people regardless of religious expression or education. This position would argue that to place a qualifier on Christianity that is creedal, in this case confessional, would limit Christianity to only those that have been educated in the faith. As such, this argument argues that to narrow faithful Christian witness only to those who confess dogmatic statements is to limit the Church to a very small minority of people in history. This argument argues that if faithful witnessing of Christianity entails the exclusive confession of Christ, the Church is alienating the vast array of the populace and in so doing the Church becomes divisive instead of inclusive. Some holding this position may also argue that people of other religions may be worshipping the Christian God, yet unaware that they do so (See Karl Rahner’s “Anonymous Christian”). As a result, faithful Christianity is adhered to by a different criterion and not by confessionalism, which is by it being dogmatic, exclusive.

Responsio: I answer that one inescapable and necessary qualifier of faithful witness to Christianity is the confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world.

Ergo: I reply to the first argument as failing on grounds of its presupposed belief that the criterion of Christianity is limited to a person’s actions. The argument that the qualifier of Christianity is something accomplished by humans, or work based, is contrary to traditional theological discourse. Christianity has traditionally argued that salvation is ontologically grounded in divine grace from God. This divine grace is not given to humanity because of actions a person has accomplished in their life, but rather out of a loving relationship and the merciful nature of God. If grace were given to humanity for actions accomplished, than grace would be secondary to action. If grace is secondary to action than humanity needs not grace, as pious merit-bearing actions were accomplished without it. Thus, this grace becomes a cheap, unnecessary gift from God.
According to St. Augustine , the incarnate Christ was not a natural occurrence; Christ was given to this world through divine intervention. In other words, Christ did not randomly occur, the incarnation was an intentional purposeful action (See St. Augustine’s Letter to Pelagius. Chapter 2). As such, Christ functions as the eternal giver of righteousness and salvation in humanity. Therefore, righteousness and salvation are not contingent on our works, but on the mercy of God and His incarnation. The incarnation being not of natural origin, requires a need on humanity’s part for salvation that is outside of its own natural ability. If humanity is need of salvation outside of itself, then salvation independent of divine grace is impossible. As a consequence, the criterion for faithful witnessing Christianity must include more than works which by itself is only of human hands. Thus, faithful witnessing Christianity must entail the confession of Christ as Savior of all the world.

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may ‘merit’ something from God, in terms of divine justice, but this was contingent only because of the primacy of the gift of divine grace which came first out of the mercy of God. As such, St. Thomas argued that grace was the primary gift from God that allows for merit based works, and for our salvation which was merited through Christ (See St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica. Part III on the Merit of Christ). If divine grace must be primary to enable merit based works as meritorious, and if this divine grace is merited through Christ, then faithful witnessing Christianity must include the confession of Christ as Savior.
The argument for works also fails on scriptural grounds, particularly as demonstrated by Jesus in the story of the Prodigal Son. Jesus specifically demonstrates in this parable that the son which squandered his inheritance is no less loved by the father than the one who stayed home and was obedient. The ramifications of this parable demonstrate that works are not the criterion for justification. As these arguments demonstrate, salvation is not based on works, but given through grace merited through Christ. If the incarnation of Christ was not a natural occurrence, and if humanity was given Christ for our righteousness and salvation, then confessing Christ as Savior of all the world is a qualifier against those who deny the divinity and necessity of Christ. Therefore, in these ways, the confession of Christ as Savior must be a qualifier for Christianity.

I reply to the second argument as failing in its presupposed belief that the statement of Christ as Savior of all the world is uniquely exclusive in its statement. It is true that dogmatic statements express a belief in reality, a statement of what a group of people purport to be truth. As such, Christianity should bare no regret in descriptively and propositionally articulating what it believes to be truth. Any statement about how the real world functions is descriptive, but it also is a statement of rejection (See Christopher Morse’s Not Every Spirit, Via Negativa). If a person argues that the world is round, they are articulating a position that excludes the belief that the world is flat. Are those people then being intolerant to those who believe the world is flat? As rational humans, we constantly make statements about the world in which we live, if I throw something off a building it will fall, if I stand in a busy intersection, a car will hit me. These are all examples of statements of expressing reality, and as a result are excluding that which is not reality. The truth of reality is not contingent on us believing that this reality is true. Just as we as humans differentiate between objects, and make truth statements at a most basic level, we than too may make them on more complex levels as well. All people accomplish defining parameters and denying the beliefs of others, and as such confessing Christ as Savior is not unique in that is rejects other worldviews. Any statement, insofar as it reveals something about reality, is an exclusive statement. As such the fact that confessionalism is exclusive is not unique, but part of what it means to be a rational human. One may charge, isn’t there a difference between truth statements on a basic level than those on an religious level? The single criterion that is being met in both circumstances is one of purporting what reality is. There are obvious different levels of sophistication to reality, but whether we express that reality on a basic level of natural laws, or on a metaphysical level, each statements are attempts to define the parameters of reality, and as such both are exclusive. If all propositional statements are purporting a belief in the parameters of reality, then religious creedal statements are not unique in purporting a belief that is exclusive. Therefore, the confession of Christ as Savior of all the world is not alone in its exclusiveness and as such the argument against it as being uniquely exclusive fails.

The second argument also fails in its presupposed belief that egalitarianism, tolerance and inclusiveness is mediated through non-doctrinal statements. What is the goal of being tolerant if no one ever purported a belief statement? If no one ever made a statement about reality (which is an impossibility, but hypothetically) then there would never be a need for tolerance. The fact is the experience of our world is the opposite, humans do make statements of our world, and as such tolerance is something strived for because those disagreements of reality do exist. If there were not doctrinal statements, or statements purporting reality, then there would be no need for tolerance. If there is a need for tolerance, as the argument suggests, then that demonstrates a presupposed problem of adjudicating propositional statements of reality. In both cases, the second argument defeats its own purpose. Therefore the confession of Jesus Christ as Savior of all the world is one necessary, and inescapable qualifier for faithful Christian witness.

Cardinal Dulles

I was first introduced to Cardinal Dulles through a Jesuit Priest/Professor. His death is loss for the entirety of Christ's Church. Living in New York, I will always regret not having gone to hear him lecture. Nevertheless I was especially moved and influenced by his words of the Hereafter and in particular on Hell. I recommend it to you:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=488

I especially find his last paragraph one of the greatest syntheses of salvation I have read. It is a treasure not only to myself, but to many.

Truth vs. Pluralism

I believe in the eternality, universality and Truth that is God. I will demonstrate that this conviction will meet each of the ten criteria laid out in Christopher Morse's "Not Every Spirit." The first of the so-called “Ten C’s” that I will apply is continuity with the apostolic tradition. The three components of my statement are congruent with the apostolic tradition because it operates under both understandings of tradition. First, all three components are ‘handed down’ to Christians from history through the creeds, e.g. The Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed and the Gregorian Creed of 594. Second all three components demonstrate the freedom of Christianity and point to the eternal salvation that the Christ represents. This freedom is eternal, universal and the truth as found in the Gospels. The second ‘C’ is congruence with scripture. My components in the statement meet the criterion for congruence with scripture as seen in the context of 1 Timothy 2:6 where the author shows the universal redeeming aspect of the Christ, “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men.” The third ‘C’ is consistency with worship; these components meet this criterion for two reasons. One, all three components have a history of usage in worship throughout the history of the Church. From St. Augustine to St. Thomas, all Christendom for centuries used liturgies that spoke of the three components of God, e.g. the Liturgy of the Hours. Second all three components of God are ‘preachable,’ as the universality of Christ’s redemption must be preached to all people.
The fourth ‘C’ is catholicity; this criterion is self evident given the components. The universality, eternality and truth of God are catholic, they by definition “extend everywhere, always, and upon all.” The fifth ‘C’ is consonance with experience, which the three components of God adhere to. All Christians experience the universality, eternality, and truth through our awareness of the redemptive power of Christ. Christians separated by class; society, geography, time and space experience together this universal power. This experience solidifies the body of Christ in all ages, giving us the experience of universality, eternality and truth of God. The sixth ‘C’ is conformity with conscience, which the components meet because the “outcome of the statement never leads to anything that is contrary to God’s Word.” This also allows for a freedom of conscience for people to determine their own understanding and even reject the Word of God. Because God is eternal, universal, and the truth all people have the ability to understand God, yet this triad also allows for people to use their conscience to reject God, as we are not born with the knowledge of God, it must be an acquired knowledge. The seventh ‘C’ is consequence, the statement meets this criterion because consequence implies future and the future of all three components is God itself. God is universal, eternal, and the truth and as a logical consequence God will always be universal, eternal and the truth. The material, created world will one day end as all causes except the first cause must at one point reach an end. When this occurs there will only be the triad God, as a consequence this allows for the freedom of humanity on Earth, but the ultimate victory of Christ.
The eighth ‘C’ is cruciality; the triad statement meets this criterion because cruciality implies that the doctrine must be crucial for both the short and long term consequences. The short term and long term cruciality of the statement implies that a Christian must always be both recognizing the eternality of God with knowledge that will be an end, yet also be aware of the present and be attentive to the universality and truth in our current time. This means the Christian must stand for the truth of God both now and forever. The ninth ‘C’ is coherence, the statement meets this criterion because it meets both an ‘internal coherence’ and an ‘external coherence.’ The internal coherence is demonstrated as follows: if God is eternal God must also be universal as whatever is eternal must apply to all time and space and what is universal, because it applies to all time and space, must also be eternal. Truth may be defined as a congruence with ‘the way things really are.’ Because ‘the way things really are’ must by definition be something in all time and space, if it is something that really is, then it adheres to both eternality and universality. The statement is also externally coherent as other disciplines and philosophies rely on the eternality, universality and truth of God. This is most notable in the work of philosophers up to the modern period. However, if a modern and postmodern is to adhere to the principle of the ‘universality of nature’ that all science is predicated on; it is adhering to the triad, namely something eternal, universal and truthful. In this way the statement meets the criterion of coherence. The final and tenth ‘C’ is comprehensiveness, which my statement meets because it meets the standards of dogmatic evaluations and critiques, as well as adds to current global matters. It contains presuppositions that all disciplines share, namely a basic belief in universality. Science, philosophy, psychology, and other fields rely on the universality of their principals; this triad statement gives validity to the vast array of current academic disciplines.

Thus religious pluralism is incongruent with Christianity.

Something I came up with while despising Nominalism

Can someone please tell me where a nominalist, (predicate, trope theory, whoever) might get out of this infinite regress?

1. Nominalism leads to the eradication of certainty.
2. Because certainty is no longer justifiable, science must rely on probability.
3. Probability relies on an underlying belief based on natural laws.
4. These underlying natural laws are based on observation.
5. The justification that observation of probability in nature is based on a linear perspective of historic events.
6. In this manner, without Truths or universals to hold as an end, the nominalist argument goes into an infinite regress.
7. Consequently, according to the nominalist logic, science should be abolished as unjustifiable.