tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Foster's Theological ReflectionsEdgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger18745125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-17531728043950734242024-03-27T17:10:53.591-07:002024-03-27T17:10:53.591-07:00Therefore, the notion that the transmitter of orig...Therefore, the notion that the transmitter of original sin is the pleasure and sensation woven into the act of procreation is mistaken. Because<br /><br />a) pleasure would exist even in the mere state of nature, and yet it would not propagate original sin.<br /><br />b) Conversely, if in the current order of salvation this desire and sensation were completely eliminated, original sin would still be transmitted. This questionable view feeds off the concept that the essence of original sin is not a relation (deprivation of grace) but a quality (exclusively or primarily disordered desire); then, indeed, the idea presents itself that its transmitter is also the disordered desire.<br /><br />This implies that the holiness of parents or their exemption from original sin (through baptism) does not protect their children from it. The word of the Apostle (1 Cor 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Cf. August. Pecc. merit. II 9; Serm. 294, 16; Thom Mal. 4, 6 ad 4.), to which Calvin refers in support of his view, does not pertain to justification but states: the children of Christian parents are born as candidates for justification, for Christian holiness; and to this extent (as those called to holiness, metonymically) the Apostle calls them holy.<br /><br />Challenges. 1. The human soul is created by God; procreation as such only realizes the condition for the soul's creation. However, what God creates is good; thus, procreation does not transmit original sin. For it would make God the author of sin, who creates the soul. – Solution. The soul, considered in itself, as God's creation, is good. Indeed, it is intended to form a substantial unity with the body. This too is good. Moreover, there is nothing wrong in becoming a descendant of Adam through this. Therefore, God could have willed these three aspects. Original sin only falls upon the person through incorporation into Adam's family, thereby taking upon themselves the sin-inheritance of Adam, the patriarch. But this is not by God's will, but by Adam's. God only permits this; and He could do so without detriment to His holiness. All the more so because the establishment of a new human being, or a new subject of sin, here does not signify a new offense against God; it is a fact already completed once and for all with Adam's personal sin; there is no God-offending, rebellious spirit in Adam's descendants under the title of original sin alone (Cf. Thom Mal. 4, 1; Pot. 3, 9 ad 3.).<br /><br />2. If original sin spreads through procreation, marriage as a sin-propagating entity is somewhat evil. – Solution. Procreation is only the instrument, not the causative reason, of original sin; the causative reason is Adam's transgression. Procreation and marriage, in themselves, considering their nature, are good; for their positive intention is directed towards the creation of a good human being, who only incidentally, contrary to the procreative intention of the parents, attracts the deprivation of grace as an inheritance from Adam. Even so, with original sin, it is better for a human being to be brought into existence than not to exist at all (Thom 1II 83, 1 ad 5.), not to mention their Christian calling.Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-8965012318771087732024-03-27T17:08:17.072-07:002024-03-27T17:08:17.072-07:00It is a Catholic dogma that original sin is not tr...It is a Catholic dogma that original sin is not transmitted by imitation but through inheritance (transmission). This is because the essence of original sin includes that it is an inherent sin for everyone, even if not a personal act. Only Pelagianism and rationalism, which deny the Catholic concept of original sin, could conceive that original sin does not propagate through inheritance. However, in terms of how this transmission occurs, various thoughts have emerged among Catholic theologians over time. Today, however, it is a universal view, which we must state with certainty: original sin is transmitted through procreation from the male, insofar as by this means every individual is incorporated into Adam's family tree, thereby attracting the fate flowing from the patriarch, the original sin (August. Concup. nupt. II 26, 41 ff.; Thom 1II 83, 1 ad 4; Mal. 4, 1).<br /><br />Proof. The bearer of original sin is not the body, nor the combination of body and soul, but solely the soul; because only it is capable of bearing sanctifying grace, and consequently, it can also be the subject of deprivation of grace. However, the soul does not carry original sin as a separate entity but only insofar as it gives life and form to a body belonging to Adam's family (as the form informing the human body). God did not envision the human soul as a spirit intended for and starting as an angel but thrust into a body as punishment (Origen), but as the substantial form of the body; and it only becomes a partaker in Adam's inherited sin if it becomes a member of Adam's family, that is, if it is incorporated into the family tree in which Adam's sin's debts and consequences continue to live and act. This happens through procreation; specifically, through male procreation; because this represents the active, formal principle of the propagation of the human species (the female represents the passive, material principle) [Thom 1II 81, 5 ad 1]. Just as, in the case of Adam's fidelity, procreation would have been the means of transmitting supernatural goods, now being the propagator of a nature deprived of supernatural goods, it also spreads the deprivation; in the same way, the disgrace of a stigmatized man or the misfortune of a disfavored man is transmitted to their descendants through the procreation of the family's male members.<br /><br />It is evident from this that the law of original sin applies to everyone who is a descendant of Adam by the will of a man (Jn 1:13). Conversely, anyone not born of a man through procreation does not partake in original sin in any capacity or degree: Jesus Christ.Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-32342341845172468152024-03-27T16:58:34.861-07:002024-03-27T16:58:34.861-07:00@Edgar Foster
"Are you saying that tradition...@Edgar Foster<br /><br />"Are you saying that tradition did not influence his interpretation of the Bible?"<br /><br />No way, on the contrary! I have just said that each of the early Christian church fathers only dared to represent such interpretation of the Scriptures that had a basis in Tradition. The "sola Scriptura" is a modern innovation. There was a consensus that the creed cannot be orthodox of those who cannot refer to any of "the fathers", so his claim is an innovation.<br /><br />Augustine in bk.2 on Baptism against the Donatists ch.7 says, “This custom I believe comes from Apostolic tradition, just as many things are not found in their writings nor in the later councils, and yet because they are guarded by the universal Church they are believed to have been handed on and commended only by them.” And bk.4 ch.6, “The custom which even then men, looking backwards, did not see instituted by later people, is rightly believed to have been handed on by the Apostles.” And bk.4 ch.24, “What the universal Church holds and which was not instituted by Councils but was always retained, is very rightly believed to have been handed on by Apostolic tradition.”<br /><br />Athanasius in his book on the Decrees of the Nicene Synod against Eusebius says, “Behold, we indeed have shown that this opinion has been handed on by hand from the Fathers to the Fathers. But you, O new Jews and sons of Caiaphas, what ancestors of your names can you show?”Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-52907549457689086842024-03-27T09:40:10.554-07:002024-03-27T09:40:10.554-07:00Roman, I take the natural descent language more li...Roman, I take the natural descent language more literally in view of Romans 5:12. We sin and die and nothing unclean can produce something clean: so I'm not sure how I was born into sin and shaped in iniquity if it wasn't passed down like a sickness being passed from parent to child. Maybe sin cannot be verified by scientific experimentation but something has to be passed down through the sex act for us to all be sinners and dying because of Adam. <br /><br />Are we guilty in the eyes of God when we're born? What about Ephesians 2:1-3 or Colossians 1:21-22? <br /><br />I like reading Augustine and Origen although I disagree with them both on one level or another although I'm more sympathetic to the latter than to the former. Sorry, my brother, but I am not a fan of Neoplatonism. For starters, I take issue with Neoplatonism about how to define evil, about the existence of Forms, and Plotinus' emanationist theory. However, I find his theory of beauty fascinating and his analysis of the mind's/soul's journey to the One.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-86789567106808734492024-03-27T01:30:45.108-07:002024-03-27T01:30:45.108-07:00I agree that sin was passed down by "natural ...I agree that sin was passed down by "natural descent" (obviously one has to take that metaphorically, or at best analogically, 'sin' is not some physical defect empirically verifiable in the genetic code), but what I take issue with in Augustine is the idea that what was passed down was some forensic 'guilt,' and I think the view that what was passed down was something more akin to a sickness (you see this more in the eastern tradition which never left the Greek) needing to be healed (alienation from God is a condition we find ourselves in, not something requiring punishment). <br /><br />Actually his NeoPlatonic thought (especially his theory of capital T truth, and forms in the mind of God) are what I like about him, and what I dislike is his systematic theology and scriptural interpretation, now that I think about it Origen's theology and scriptural interpretation is what I love about Origen, his neoplatonic flourishes I tend to think were mostly wrong headed (not entirely, but a lot of it), so my approach to Origen and Augustine are almost complete opposites.Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08465384281243187922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-3086907662169965162024-03-26T20:38:27.656-07:002024-03-26T20:38:27.656-07:00Nincsnevem, I haven't watch the movie yet, bu...Nincsnevem, I haven't watch the movie yet, but plan on it. <br /><br />Are you saying that tradition did not influence his interpretation of the Bible? I know that he wrestled with Manichean thought and Neoplatonic Philosophy shaped his theology.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-50269886615902824922024-03-26T14:54:31.896-07:002024-03-26T14:54:31.896-07:00By the way, how did you like the movie I recommend...By the way, how did you like the movie I recommended?Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-21305987926473673622024-03-26T14:50:30.597-07:002024-03-26T14:50:30.597-07:00@Mr. Foster
" I agree that Augustine's k...@Mr. Foster<br /><br />" I agree that Augustine's knowledge of Greek was weak, so his interpretations were based on other factors, including tradition and Neoplatonic thought."<br /><br />I don't see a logical connection between the beginning and the end of this sentence. Just because he didn't know Greek well, why should it follow that he was influenced by such and such? The most that follows from this is that he mainly did not read the Bible in Greek, but at first in the Vetus Latina (Itala) translation, and then Jerome started constantly sending him his translation, the Vulgate.<br /><br />Augustine was not "influenced" by tradition, but he simply did not stand on the basis of the norm of "sola Scriptura" invented only in the 16th century, and he believed that the Church's "kerygma" was an apostolic tradition that had to be preserved and was the standard guideline for the interpretation of Scripture. But he is not the only one, practically all ancient Christian authors write about the importance of keeping "the Tradition", such as: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.Nincsnevemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06888282878602282770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-59054666278923178422024-03-26T07:59:31.743-07:002024-03-26T07:59:31.743-07:00Thanks, I found Bergson's introduction to meta...Thanks, I found Bergson's introduction to metaphysics online, it's short enough to digest rather quickly, so that will be good.<br /><br />I too think spirit is metaphysical, although it's not a stretch at all for me since I'm something of an idealist :).Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08465384281243187922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-46966779833877671402024-03-26T06:27:44.650-07:002024-03-26T06:27:44.650-07:00Interesting point, Anonymous. Another point about ...Interesting point, Anonymous. Another point about Adam is that he was the progenitor of the human race and the family head. <br /><br />Roman, I agree that Augustine's knowledge of Greek was weak, so his interpretations were based on other factors, including tradition and Neoplatonic thought. <br /><br />Michael Molloy writes that no western theologian was more influential than Augustine between his day and circa 1517. Despite his lack of proficiency with Greek, I think he's right about sin being passed down by natural descent.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-85623981913937172012024-03-26T01:23:30.962-07:002024-03-26T01:23:30.962-07:00Augustine's inability to read Greek sufficient...Augustine's inability to read Greek sufficiently has led to all kinds of tangles in western theological interpretation, since his interpretations were held so highly (not without reason Augustine was a theological genius, nevertheless not being able to read Greek sufficiently is a major major handicap).Romanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08465384281243187922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-32545876905059265252024-03-25T22:05:59.799-07:002024-03-25T22:05:59.799-07:00Could this be another example of shiliach?
Technic...Could this be another example of shiliach?<br />Technically the devil is the “cause” but Adam ( technically Eve) was his instrument and death entered into the human race via Adam because he sinned first as I don’t think Satan can “naturally” dieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-36015205746146207492024-03-25T21:21:26.882-07:002024-03-25T21:21:26.882-07:00The apostle John later took up similar themes in h...The apostle John later took up similar themes in his first epistle (chapter 3).Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-28629039571733429952024-03-25T15:29:52.045-07:002024-03-25T15:29:52.045-07:00John.ch.8:44NIV"You belong to your father, th...John.ch.8:44NIV"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. "<br /><br />Matthew.Ch.5:44,45NIV"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. "<br /><br />The apostle would certainly have precedent for referring to Satan as the father of sinners in the sense of pioneer/founder.<br /><br />aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-24769697126394954132024-03-25T12:29:19.305-07:002024-03-25T12:29:19.305-07:00Come on Google, it's 2024 let's get that e...Come on Google, it's 2024 let's get that edit button already.aservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-22745055636651071702024-03-25T12:17:48.767-07:002024-03-25T12:17:48.767-07:00Things, not thongs ☺
Why does autocorrect do that...Things, not thongs ☺<br /><br />Why does autocorrect do that?Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-67415188106809307472024-03-25T12:16:59.095-07:002024-03-25T12:16:59.095-07:00Well, no flattery intended, but you have strengths...Well, no flattery intended, but you have strengths that I don't. The questions often make me reconsider thongs or reevaluate ideas.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-78622936282055901712024-03-25T11:24:32.917-07:002024-03-25T11:24:32.917-07:00That's all I was driving at but it took a whil...That's all I was driving at but it took a while to get their. As I said before, I am not great at conveying my thoughts.Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-84055452785718780842024-03-25T10:42:53.773-07:002024-03-25T10:42:53.773-07:00I agree that "some" by itself is vague. ...I agree that "some" by itself is vague. However, my point is that the vagueness might not disappear but it's attenuated/lessened when one utters a particular affirmative or particular negative proposition. I guess we could say, "At least one dog is a canine," but we traditionally say "Some dogs are canines" instead. If you read the material I posted from De Morgan at Google Books, he made a similar point. <br /><br />Here's another thing to consider: logic aims for precision. It is a work in progress. Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-23643906900256025592024-03-25T09:06:58.448-07:002024-03-25T09:06:58.448-07:00https://www.etymonline.com/word/some
It did have ...https://www.etymonline.com/word/some<br /><br />It did have precision but not anymore-<br /><br />Use as a quasi-adverb before numerals began in Old English, originally "out of" (as in sum feowra "one of four").Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-75960656712846734452024-03-25T09:02:41.907-07:002024-03-25T09:02:41.907-07:00https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negationDuncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-48209587127662693382024-03-25T08:57:14.025-07:002024-03-25T08:57:14.025-07:00Some shrubs are oaks.
Some shrubs are oaks.<br /><br />Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-79741054675029035302024-03-25T08:53:56.600-07:002024-03-25T08:53:56.600-07:00Some oaks are trees
Some non-trees are non-oaks.Some oaks are trees<br /><br />Some non-trees are non-oaks.Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-27453366339060502722024-03-25T08:38:03.570-07:002024-03-25T08:38:03.570-07:00@servant, thanks. I agree with everything stated. ...@servant, thanks. I agree with everything stated. As another example, All trees are biological organisms and Some trees are not biological organisms cannot both be true at the same time or with respect to the same referent, etc.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-60152503295197700502024-03-25T05:38:39.179-07:002024-03-25T05:38:39.179-07:00Mutual exclusivity:In logic and probability theory...Mutual exclusivity:In logic and probability theory, two events (or propositions) are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both occur at the same time. A clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.<br /><br />In the coin-tossing example, both outcomes are, in theory, collectively exhaustive, which means that at least one of the outcomes must happen, so these two possibilities together exhaust all the possibilities.[1] However, not all mutually exclusive events are collectively exhaustive. For example, the outcomes 1 and 4 of a single roll of a six-sided die are mutually exclusive (both cannot happen at the same time) but not collectively exhaustive (there are other possible outcomes; 2,3,5,6).:<br />https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_exclusivityaservantofJEHOVAHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139986930474302181noreply@blogger.com