Recommended Book about the LXX by Natalio Marcos

 

Credo Ut Intelligam Versus Crede Ut Intelligas

 Feel free to fact check me here--this was written back in 2013:

I teach a course on human nature and once used a work by Leslie Stevenson and David Haberman entitled Ten Theories of Human Nature. It's now up to twelve theories, but here is one thing I've noted about the book (among others) which I hope the editors/authors change one day.

I have found a small technical error in Stevenson and Haberman's book. On page 130, Augustine of Hippo is quoted as saying, "I believe in order to understand" (The Latin is credo ut intelligam); yet that evidently is not what the bishop wrote. The expression credo ut intelligam was uttered or written by Anselm of Canterbury (the so-called father of Medieval theology). Augustine actually said or wrote the words "Crede, ut intelligas" (Believe, in order to understand). One form is indicative whereas the other is imperatival.
See Augustine's Sermon 43.7, 9 and the Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, pages 85-86.
Maybe one day this change will be made in Stevenson/Haberman.

It may sound like I'm picking nits, but Augustine died in 430 CE; conversely, Anselm is a 11-12th century figure. While he certainly derived his saying from Augustine, technically, one speech act is indicative while the other is a command. Nevertheless, I would concede that the point remains the same.

Is It Possible to be Happy Now?

Is it possible to be happy prior to death? The ancient Greeks debated this question intensely. Some concluded that happiness in this life is not possible: that's why there's the famous saw, "Call no man [person] happy until he [she] dies," which we find discussed in some ancient writers. So is it possible to be happy in this life or should we postpone calling someone happy until death?

Consider two scriptures:

"O the happiness of the people that is thus, O the happiness of the people whose God is Jehovah!" (Psalm 144:15 Young's Literal Translation)

"After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. And so Job died, an old man and full of years" (Job 42:16-17 NIV).

The ISV states that Job lived a "full life."  The point is that he was satisfied or fulfilled because he faithfully worshiped God even through adversity. One only has to read the book of Ecclesiates (Qoheleth) to realize that life apart from our Creator is vain. We can be happy--even now--if we keep integrity (Hebrew, tam) to God. We might suffer times of depression, loneliness, hardship or feelings of worthlessness, but those serving God can have a sense of deep fulfillment like the Savior did when he suffered and gave his life in order that we might live into perpetuity (Hebrews 12:1-3).

Can A Thing Be the Efficient Cause of Itself?

Efficient Cause Definition: "the immediate agent in the production of an effect"

An efficient cause brings something into being or sets it in motion (e.g., a sculptor is the efficient cause of a bronze statue). With this in mind, one might ask whether it's possible for the universe to be its own efficient cause. Thomas Aquinas' answer is below:

"There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for then it would be prior to itself, which is impossible" (Aquinas).

Hence, it seems highlly unlikely, to say the least, that the cosmos could be its own efficient cause. Just as a house needs a builder, so the universe needs an efficirent cause outside itself. See Hebrews 3:4.

In this regard, Origen of Alexandria uses autotheos which means something like "Godself" or God Himself, a term that distinguishes the Father from other "gods" (theoi) and that includes the Logos. I guess Origen wants to say that while the Logos and other ontic deities are gods by participation in the Father's divinity, the Father is God by his very nature (John 17:3) and he is the source or fount of divinity. The Father also does not need an efficient cause.

Words of the Month (November 2024)-Terms from Logic

I could have put "soundness" instead or used "valid" and sound, but the point remains the same. Also, the argument in the example is neither valid nor sound since it commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent rather than affirming the antecedent.