History
of Christian Thought: 405-1650
George
Lindbeck
1/13/93
According to Wilkins, there are two uses of historical
theology: critical historical analysis (intellectual history) and theological
analysis of historic Christian thought (a prescriptive element). For instance, Abelard distinguished authentic
versus inauthentic teachings. He
discussed four ways to account for differences in theology: ingenuine quotes,
retractions, changes in the meaning of terms, and a later finding of
incorrectness of views once thought to be correct (e.g. the creation doctrine
and divine simplicity). Aquinus wrote a
treatise on theological method in which he argued that changed settings may
necessitate different theological methods and terms. But neither theologian, nor those before
them, accounted for doctrinal change on historical grounds. In the 1600’s, theology was conceived of as
having a history, and this was recognized as a field. Salomo Semler, for instance, argued that
theology is shaped by times. In the early
1800’s, historical theology was established as a separate discipline. In the 1900’s, the field became dominated by
historians, with a greater awareness of social forces and a better ‘heretic’
analysis. The focus is the intellectual history of Christianity, where the
settings of the theologies is salient.
But, this entailed a historical filter of theology where God isn’t in
the center of the work and with a loss of understanding and depth. The assumption is that past texts only have
theological relevance if they are translated into the categories of our
age. But early Christian texts such as
the Bible are not just for past times, so the native language of Christianity
is for today. Christian terms and
concepts grow out of concrete historical settings, so recourse to historical
writings and settings is necessary in understanding Christianity. Because historical writings are influenced by
their times, it is necessary to understand the times too. There must, however, be a theological point
of reference (God—the unity among the diversity). The aim of the field of Historical Theology
is finding God (as the trinity). But,
the trinity is not accepted as classically established by all demonstrations
(i.e. excludes some people). Wilkins
argues that the means are spiritual as well as intellectual, loving God above
all else. Perception is important but
not critical in seeing how the texts fit together to fit into a whole with
internal coherence.
Lindbeck
argues that Wilkins can be criticized as excluding the voices of some, such as
liberation theologists. Discipleship may
allow Church powers to exclude some scholars (e.g. heretics). Also, Wilkins can’t account for diversity at one
time. Abelard and Aquinas, for instance. Lindbeck looks for similarities where others
saw differences.
Richard
Norris, too, argues that the setting influences theology. Faith in a community is historical as well as
present. Tradition implies a ‘handing
on’—active, maintaining Christian experience.
Rano
argues that the object of faith is the faith of the Church. He emphasizes the scientific quality
too. But, like Watkins, the object of
this is faith today.
Peligan
argues that the object is good history.
The method and criterion must be that of historians, yet working in a
conversation with theologians. He sees a
danger in historicism. Therefore, there
is a tension between doctrinal continuity and truth (though he has no criterion
on ‘truth’). Like Wilkin, he tries to be
objective even as the goal is to understand tradition for today. Therefore, this field can inform one’s
theology today.
1/15/03
The
focus of this course is Soteriology in Western theology within traditional
christological and Trinitarian doctrines.
The doctrine of justification and sanctification (how saved and growing
in grace), nature and grace, sin (harmatology), predestination (relation to
free will), atonement, and the means of grace (eucharist and pentance). Other related topics include the relationship
between reason (philosophy) and faith (theology).
His first text was On the Spirit and the
Letter (416). It was an
anti-Pelagius document. Plagius (born in
360) was a British monk and a reforming voice within Rome .
In 406, the Pelagian controversy began.
Pelagius looked at Augustine’s Confessions, focusing on a prayer
which assumes the impossible—that one can do what God asks. Pelagius argued that we can do what
God commands. Pelagius’ reform movement
held that 1) humans don’t lose freedom in choosing the good, 2) sinfulness is
resistable because we are born good (so bonds of sin are due to habit, custom,
or disposition, 3) grace is not required but is a gift from God which can
help. Grace is the gift of having a good
nature. Nature is grace. Grace also includes external aids, such as
the ten commandments and the example of Jesus.
Pelagius looked like a defender of traditional Christianity, but was
actually a reformer. Augustine, in
constrast, looked like an innovator but was actually quite traditional. Christians before Pelagius emphasized freedom
(rather than predestination). Augustine
had emphasized it earlier when arguing against the Gnostics. Grace had been
considered liberation from powers of sin by virtue of entering the Church. Then it became the distinction between
nominal and real Christians. To
Pelagius, grace qua forces holding us captive became individual habit rather
than a cosmic force. So self
advancement, and even sinlessness, became possible. Paul distinguished inner (rational/law/will)
from outer (law of the mind) law.
Pelagius claimed that outer law included accidentally acquired
habits. Augustine: this imports pagan
philosophy into Paul. To Pelagius,
freedom of will (inner law/rational) makes us capable of being good. Knowledge and free will (good nature) is
sufficient for virtue. The was Greek
philosophy: if one knows what is good, one can do it.
Augustine,
in response, argues for praise and thanksgiving, in place of Plagian pride and
ingratitude. The broad question was how to become just/righteous/saved. Pelagius claimed that one could be saved by
knowledge of the ten commandments and the example of Jesus, and
free-will(choice). Augustine, like Pelagius,
believed in free will and good nature.
But unlike Pelagius, Augustine held that sin is not accidentally
acquired. One is born sinful. Due to original sin, we lost the choice to do
good. Therefore, more is needed than
knowledge and good nature to do good.
This is contrary to Greek philosophy.
One needs an infusion of grace as well as aids to transform mind and
will.
Augustine’s
neo-platonic philosophy:
The
doctrine of illumination. Plato:
understanding of suprasensations(of universals). Knowledge is from god within (the
illuminator—allows us to understand universals in a human way). Augustine: the inner teacher is Jesus Christ,
for everyone whether they know it or not.
So human knowledge depends on the divine. Pelagius: not so, as we are born with a good
nature. To Augustine, love and faith,
too, are dependent upon God (infused grace within). Grace is the indwelling holy spirit, via love
enabling Christ to be effective. So one
can love God only via the Holy Spirit.
We can consent to the truth only by love given by God.
1/19/93
Augustine’s
On the Spirit and the Letter.
Theses: against Plagian Pride.
Salvation requires grace beyond God’s free gifts of free-will and human
nature. This help is as an infused grace
via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (love).
The argument is as follows. 2 Cor
3:6 The letter kills but the spirit
keeps alive. The issue is how to interpret this verse. To Augustine, the letter is law (e.g. the
Commandments)—what we ought to do.
Without infused grace, it kills.
Pelagius, in contrast, maintained that the letter that kills is the literal
interpretation of the law; figurative interpretation is the spirit. Augustine agrees with this interpretation,
but argues that it is not sufficient—literal and figurative differences is not
necessarily the main distinction in a given verse. Augustine is against the view holding that
the letter is Jewish laws whereas the spirit is Christ’s laws. In the new law (Christ’s) are included most
Jewish laws, so there is not a distinction between literal old and new laws.
Rather, the contrast is between how the laws are obeyed: in love (the spirit)
or done for oneself to gain salvation (the letter which kills). Augustine uses scripture in his
arguments. He cites Phil 2:13[1]
to emphasize what God gives us over what had been given to us as human
nature. He interprets the verse in line
with his view of grace (infused). Spirit
and Letter show that scripture as a whole supports Augustine’s view of
grace. Augustine makes more sense of
scripture than Pelagius does. It is
important to account for the scope or ‘gestalt’ of the scripture. Criterion: what interpretation best fits
scripture as a whole. The theses of
Augustine are not abstract propositions independent of the scripture, but are
guidelines for illuminating the meaning of scripture—a way of reading scripture. Yet, Augustine does not argue via doctrines;
he uses scriptural exigesis. Augustine
came up with the doctrine of original sin (which led to the loss of freedom). This doctrine was not used to argue Spirit
and Letter. Lex orandi (the patterns of
prayer appealed to) is missing in Spirit and Letter. The neo-platonic outlook of Augustine is not
appealed to. Such extra-scriptural
appeals are not used. But Augustine’s
ontology, based on neo-Platonic philosophy, is used in the theses.
A
three-tiered ontology: God, Soul, Bodies.
Emminationist—increasing diversity as God flows downward, then back up
in concentration. The universe is a
flowing circularity—a flowing out ofrom the one and back again. Augustine argued that everyone can engage in
upward contemplation via infused grace, thus returning back upwards. Aristotle had held that only a few could do
that. Augustine’s modification of
neo-platonic ontology: return back upwards via love in the infused grace
(including infants due to the grace of baptism). Augustine did not modify the following:
higher can effect lower, not vice versa. Evil is a deprivation of the good
(privatio bioni). This is neo-platonic.
Evil does not mean non-being.
Evil is a privation rather than a deficiency. Given the neo-platonic hierarchical scheme
and that lower things can’t have power over things higher (lower things can’t
turn back upward by one’s own power), one can not make up lost ontological
being without grace infused by God. E.g.
original sin due to the Fall, so grace is necessary for man to do good. While the neo-platonic structure is behind
Augustine’s interpretation of grace, it is not used in the argument in Spirit
& Letter; instead, scripture was used there. This is why that text had long-lasting appeal.
Consequences:
relatively broad appeal of Spirit & Letter because the reader need not hold
Augustine’s other doctrine to agree with Spirit & Letter. The two theses: help beyond nature is
infused. This is minimal
Augustinianism(semi-Plageianism), affirmed by the Councils of Carthage and
Ephasis. Moderate Augustinianism adds
the prevenience of grace (not in Spirit & Letter). While the call of grace is necessary for one to
do good, one can respond or not respond to the grace. The consent is our own, rather than being of
grace. With total prevenience, the
consent to grace is from God. Roman
Catholics believe this.
1/20/93
Augustine’s
Spirit & Letter answers three questions. How does one become righteous? By the spirit-grace, enabling one to like doing
the good (delight is part of love).
Augustine had distinguished between two kinds of love: love as
happiness, as directed to a goal which is delightful as itself (e.g. beauty as
intrinsically delightful), and love as a means toward such a goal (God as the
only thing to be loved for its sake; the highest good. For everything else, to
be loved as a means toward God.[2] In Spirit & Letter, love is delight, so
the need for grace is self-evident. The
core of Augustine’s argument is that via grace one receives delight/love in the
good. Augustine uses scripture to
support this thesis that love is delight.
Augustine also answers the question of how we get grace. Faith.
Therefore, if we pray for grace in the belief that God is merciful, God
will give us grace. Faith is necessary
to pray for the faith which gives grace.
Augustine also answers how we get faith.
Grace preceeds faith. But will is
necessary too.
Minimum
Augustinianism: need for grace, and grace has an infused character. Moderate Augustianianism: prevenience: God
starts anything good. The gap is closed;
God is behind the choice to ask for grace.
Conservatives claimed that humans have to be able to freely respond. Augustine replied that this freedom is from
grace. 1 Cor. 4-7: even the free
response is a gift (grace). But, how can
a gift involve freedom? To Augustine,
freedom can mean ability, voluntary/willingness, or liberium arbitrium (free
choice; consenting or not). Grace: once
it is given to me, I am free (voluntary) to respond. So Augustine views free will in the sense of
being voluntary. In his Retractions,
Augustine went on to claim that if one is to maintain dependence on God, desire
itself for faith must be a gift from God.
Single predestination is part of moderate Augustinianism. It implies total prevenience. God gives grace to those whom He elects. So grace is not given due to merit; merit
itself is a product of grace.
Strong
Augustinianism: irresistible grace, perseverance (grace must continue to be
affirmed because grace is necessary for us to respond or affirm), and double
predestination (from beginning, a predisposition to salvation as well as others
damned. Irresistable grace: if those
whom God predestines are saved, then grace must be irresistible. So we are not responsible for our own refusal
to grace (unlike total prevenience). God
chooses some to save and others to damn (so not universalism). Augustine seems to suggests these points in
his later writings, but he doesn’t explicitly affirm them. Refusing to choose God, this is a defect; due
to the weakness of one’s will—due to the Fall.
So single predestination need not become double predestination. God chooses some to be saved; others don’t
have the freedom to be saved. God
doesn’t choose the latter. Some human
responsibility. Semi-Plagianism:
minimal Augustinianism, plus rejecting moderate Augustinianism. The Council of Orange affirmed minimal and
moderate Augustinianism. The eastern
church understood infusion; we are saved via incorporation in Jesus Christ, so
our humanity comes to share in his divinity.
This is incompatible with Plegianism (save oneself). So this conflict didn’t occur in the East.
The
Council of Orange :
When
Augustine was old, ‘conservatives’ such as John Cassian and Vincent Lerius
objected to the Antinoianism of Augustine.
In Augustine’s theology, there was a place for irresponsibility due to
the doctrines of prevenience and perseverance.
Vincent Lerius wrote a famous treatise against Augustine, casting his
position as an innovation which had misled Popes. This controversy went on for about 100
years. Then in 509, the Pope suggested
that 14 bishops assemble at Orange
to affirm theses of his own. These
affirm a moderate Augustinianism, against double predestination as well as the
position of the conservatives.
Augustine
presumes original sin. But his Spirit
& Letter is more positive, only saying that we can’t reach delight
alone.
1/22/93
Augustine
held that humans are helpless to save themselves by their own power; we are
totally dependent upon grace. This view
is related to his understanding of sin.
Our complete helplessness is either a consequence of our own finitude as
created creatures, or is the result of our Fall (product of sin). The emphasis in on our helplessness, as a
result of sin (the Fall, or original sin).
For Augustine’s opponents, finitude plays a larger role. Why has Augustine’s view of salvation by
grace alone been found to be appealing?
How can people be righteous?
Justification. How? That is the question. Pelagius claimed that humans are born
good. So there is no problem with the
salvation of unbaptised infants. This
was the more popular view. Augustine, in
contrast, believed that humans are born bad due to original sin. Both men believed that Christian faith is
necessary for salvation. Augustine’s
view is seen as more pastoral, and as a good argument against Pelagian Pride.
Peter
Brown wrote Augustine by Hippo, a good biography including the sociology
of Pelagius v. Augustine. Pelagius is
sen as an elite movement—as self-righteous ‘puritans’. Augustine is seen as pastorally pleasing but
in fostering irresponsibility. Augustine
counters that the law should be followed because to do so shows the presence of
grace. Augustine is viewed as harsh on
humans, but Pelagius’ emphasis on free-will came across as rigorous on what
humans must do. For Augustine,
predestination is not the starting-point.
529-604:
The empire collapsed in the West, but the culture remained. Then, cultural change occurred from 604 to
767. Then, the Carolingian period
(767-877). In 800, Charlemaign was
crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire . The emperor had control of the continent of Europe . Relative
peace ensued, allowing some flourishing of the arts and theology. Discussion of the real presence of the
eucharist (focus on the elements of it).
It was novel for there to be treatices on a sacrament. The discussion on the relationship of the
elements to Jesus Christ’s body and blood, continued through the
centuries. A focus on Jesus Christ exclusively. The authors of the Carolingian period had
German ancestory and language. A problem: classical Latin was a foreign
language; only a clerical elite learned it.
Trying to understand texts in a foreign language was problematic. A period of transmission, to repeat what was
written in the past. This wasn’t what
actually happened. For instance, Alguinn
quoted Augustine on the trinity, but only from a selection of Augustine’s
works. Ratroundness quoted the
Fathers. Robertous started on his
own.
By
604, there had been economic, political, and social collapse. Illiterate barbarians had taken over and
didn’t know enough to keep the political/economic/social systems up. Forests came back. By 767, the population had declined, and some
cities and agrarian areas disappeared. What was left were some clearings and
villages here and there. The Holy Roman Empire exercised only superficial
control. But, after Gregory, there was
cultural discontinuity. Learning was
done in monestaries. Via the liturgy,
these social/political/economic changes affected theology. Monks misunderstood ancient texts because
they didn’t have the liturgy of the old.
The Church had changed from counter-cultural to be coexistant with
society. In Augustine’s time, infant
baptism was not popular; most people joined the church as adults. In the Carolingian period, however, there was
infant baptism and no general preparation for becoming a Christian. This meant that there had been a change in
what the liturgically important event was.
Whereas in the early church, people were baptized as adults, in Carolingian
times the eucharist was viewed as a continuation of infant baptism.
1/22/93:
Discussion
Augustine:
at what point does grace engage the human?
What room is there for free agency?
Why do some withhold consent? Letter
& Spirit deals with grace and free agency. It might be asked whether the unexampled life
is possible. Free-will itself is God’s
gift. Our will is severely impaired and
so too is our nature. Nature and grace
are intertwined. Will is both nature and
grace. We speak of grace as if it were a
thing; rather, grace is a relationship between God and the soul. Pelagius: knowledge if law is necessary for
righteousness. Assp: if you know what to
do, you will do it. Augustine: knowledge
is necessary but not sufficient. One
needs not only knowledge and the example of Jesus Christ, but the infused Holy
Spirit as well. Augustine wants to hold
on to both grace (associated with righteousness) and free will (associated with
sin), with the good due to God and evil due to humans. In later years, Augustine emphasized
predestination, deemphasizing free-will.
The human will is assisted by grace, constant cooperation between them
is implied. Grace, acting on the will,
plus grace (Christ quality) gives rise to a cured will.
1/25/93
In
the middle ages, to be a Christian meant that one had been baptized. Baptism and the Eurcharist were seen as
reinforcing each other—baptism and the eurcharist qua becoming part of the body
of Christ (participation in the crucified and risen Christ). Later, they were separated such that baptism
stood for purification/forgiveness/deliverance from original sin (i.e. infant
baptism)[3]. When they were unified, only some people were
baptized and received communion. Older
people were baptized (immersion, with oil/confirmation). When they were separated, all were baptized
but only some received communion, baptism was private (infant) while communion
was communal (no infant eucharist), and confirmation was separated from
baptism. The benefit of the Eucharist
was medicine of immortality. During the
Carolingian period, it became primary.
The liturgy was increasingly said in a foreign language (Latin) in an
illiterate society. A shift from words,
elements, and objects to attention on actions and the objects. A clerical orientation of the action (of the
liturgy); the laity became spectators.
In the words of consecration, invocation of the holy spirit disappeared
(in the West). So, a concentration on
the elements. In the Carolingian period,
a belief that divine power fills sacred objects. This belief was contrary to Greek
philosophy. Church writers downplayed
it. Whereas before, the emphasis in the
eucharist was its communal aspect, in the Carolingian period sacrifice
(offering and consecration) was emphasized, making that liturgy central. A shift in the Eucharist from holy people
(the Church is the body of Christ, so in communion we are receiving ourselves),
to holy objects.
Ratramnus
and Radbertus on the matter of the real presence in the holy objects. They used two terms: veritas (appearance, or
truth—e.g. bread and wine) and figura (inner reality concealed). From epistemology and ontology,
respectively. Ratramnus used these terms
as stated here. Radbertus reversed them:
figura is the truth while veritas is the inner reality. According to Lindbeck, both of these
theologians emphasized the body and blood as veritas. Ratramnus emphasized figura of the presence
of Christ; veritas—the bread and wine.
He used the language of the fathers which made him seem to agree with
Radbertus. Luther agreed with Radbertus
while Zwingli and Calvin agreed with Ratramnus.
Both Radbertus and Ratramnus assumed that complete theological
uniformity was necessary for unity.
1/27/93
To
Augustine, sacraments refer to things assigned by God whereas words refer to
things assigned by social convention.
The sacramentum (tantum)—sacrament only—water, bread and wine: accidents
not in the substance. In the Eucharist,
body and blood (in the substance but not the accidents) are located between the
sign and the signified(the effect of the sign).
Bread and wine: sign of. Grace:
signified. Important: the relationship
between the sign (body and blood) and the signified. Augustine: when the word is added to the
sign, that which is signified is signified.
The word makes the sacrament. The
sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace which affects the grace which
it signifies. This implies sacramental
causality. Augustine leaves ambigious
the relation of the body and blood, and bread and wine. Lindbeck: for Augustine, body an blood as
well as bread and wine would be signs.
Body and blood signs of that which is life-giving. Aquinas: the body and blood are themselves
life-giving to body and soul. Why did
Augustine say that water and word affect grace if it is believed? The belief is causally efficacisis in causing
grace. Aquinas cites this from Augustine
to show that Augustine said that words as well as body and blood effectively
cause grace. Aquinas claimed that
visible things can cause grace. Aquinas thought he was following
Augustine. But later, Calvin read
Augustine in another way—that Augustine show body and blood as signs that do
not in themselves cause grace as a life-giving efficacious cause. The invisible grace is conferred by God
directly. According to Plato, divine
reality as inward. Augustine claimed
that the sacraments are a reminder of that inward reality. Aquinas claimed that the sign directly
changes grace and is thus life-giving.
The
debate between Radbertus and Ratramnus was settled in the 1000’s in a
controversy between Berangaruis and Lanfrane.
Berangaruis had read Augustine’s theory of signs, using Aristotle’s
logic without the neo-Platonic view of Augustine. The result was a memorialist interpretation
of the Eucharist (a reminder of Jesus Christ).[4] Without the neo-platonic element, ‘reminder’
is relatively empty. In contrast was the
Capernaite Herasy—physicalist (the body and blood of the historical Jesus in
the Eucharist). Radbertus in part. After Berangaruis and Lafrane, the body was
seen as the ascended body of Jesus. Same
as the historical Jesus but not physicalist.
Transsubstantiation
Doctrine: uses Aristotle’s substance (continues) and accidents (visible). Substance is non-spacial, the center of
physical reality, not visible. Some
accidents may not be visible, but they are not of the substance. According to this doctrine, the substance
changes at the consecration. The body
and blood are a sign of the inward grace which it causes. Radbertus and Ratramnus both went back and
forth on the physical presence of body and blood. Accidents can refer to any attribute not
essential to the substance. Accidents
are properties of substance. Substance
is necessarily essential to the substance.
1/29/93
Background
to Anselm:
Liturgical
penance. Changes in liturgy gave rise to
changes in piety (the way the biblical message is experienced and
practiced). Anselm was the first to
grapple with the historical question: theological changes as a response to a
change in experience. Whereas Ratramnus
and Radbertus lived in a period of transmission, Anselm lived in a period of
assimilation (indiginization of Christianity).
There was a change in penance, especially between 877 and 1033 (the time
of Anselm). Penance had been rarely
done—only for major scandals which affected the Church. It had been a sacrament of reconciliation
with the community. Contrition (sorrow
for sin) leading to confession (to the Church) leading to penance (may last for
years) and absolution. The purpose:
supplying evidence that one who had injured society was sorry, so the society
could readmit him. In Ireland , a
different pattern emerged. Penance
became more of a private matter, administered to individuals as a way of normal
church discipline for minor as well as major sins. Contrition leading to confession leading to
absolution(declarative as distinct from the word from God which actually
forgives sins) and penance (disciplinary, no longer to show society, and for
satisfaction, paying compensation). Is
forgiveness in absolution even though still have to do penance? Absolution—forgiveness of sin eternally. No penalties in hell yet termporal penalties
not forgiven. Therefore, satisfaction
becomes a substitute for temporal penalties.
The latter were more sincere before Anselm’s time. This change worked out via piety rather than
from a change in formal theology. The
cross makes up for our external penance.
Christ as the vindicator figure.
Only from around 950 was Christ seen as the victim. A change in depiction. Vindicator (king in victory) to victim. This was reflected in the hymns as the victim
depiction was salient through the middle ages.
How does this relate to the Eucharist?
From Rad and Rat to Anselm, the contents had changed. Immortality-giving power of the Eurcharist
(fount of immortality) during the Carolingian period) changed to the body and
blood as the concentrated symbol (Mary Douglas) of Jesus on the cross (the
Eucharist as the offering/sacrifice) during Anselm’s time.
Social/political
changes: After the Carolianian period,
the dark middle ages began (late 800’s and 900’s). Asiatic invaders from the East, Vikings from
the North, and Muslims from the South.
What was rebuilt superficially by the Holy Roman
Empire during the Carolianian period was destroyed. A grass-roots recovery based on local power
(power from below) then began. Stronger
economic and political power than during the Carolianian period. By 1000, economic development had begun. A warming climate, and an increasing
population in Europe . In intellectual matters, links to the past
were severed. So, no mindless
copying. Men sought instead to
understand in new ways the old texts.
In the 1000’s, three of Aristotle’s treatices became increasingly
available. How to reason, how to find
good premises, and how to detect logical errors. This new terrain was learnt by the
clergy. Scientists learnt theology
too. A change from rhetorical to
dialectical. Then, a change from monastic theology to scholastic theology. The beginning of the separation of
spirituality and theological writing.
This distinction remains to this day.
Rhetoric involves persuasion with a focus on the audience. Dialectic is of demonstration, with a focus
on the subject-matter. Rhetoric
emphasizes an appeal to the emotions (preaching) whereas dialectic emphasizes
logic (math and the exact sciences).
These changes occurred during Anselm’s time.
1/29/93:
Discussion
Transubstantiation. Substance: the subject. Body and blood. Accidents: predicate. Substance is individualized (essense
isn’t).
Ratramus
vs. Radburtus:
They
differ on whether Jesus’s historical body (his true body) is the body in the
Eucharistist (figurative).Radburtus claims they are the same, as both are
mystical(veritas), whereas Ratramus emphasizes the dissimilarity—Jesus’ historical
body (veritas, or ‘true’, as the inward=outward) as distinct from the body in
the Eucharist (figurative, as the inward does not equal the outward). Truth: inward = outward; figure: inward
differs from outward.
Objective:
change in body in the Eucharist occurs whether you are there or not. Subjective: until you receive it, it isn’t
the body (receptionist). How do Ratramus
and Radburtus fit in this dichotomy?
2/1/93
Anselm:
He
is viewed as the best theologian between Augustine and Aquinus. Knoll claims he transcends his age.
In
the 1000’s, Anselm went to France
from North Italy . In terms of intellectual history, the
monastic rhetorical and philosophical approach was then giving rise to the
academic scholastic ‘dialogue’ theological approach. Anselm was between these two; he had no
division between philosophy and theology.
Ontological arguments for the existence of God went into his philosophy. Anselm’s faith-seeking understanding (credo
at intelligam—from Augustine), was to understand and intellectually contemplate
that which one believes.
Anselm’s
ontological proof of God’s existence.
Three propositions. First, the
believer knows that God is such that a greater can not be thought. Second, God exists only in my mind. Third, a contradiction: God exists outside
and within? Therefore, God is not just
inside. He exists outside my mind. If He is just inside, then He is not the
greatest that can be thought. Gaunilo
was critical of this ‘proof’. Karl
Barth, on the other hand, claimed that this is a theological rather than a
philosophical matter. This is to make
understanding a dialectic. Augustine was
less dialectically stringent; rather, he used contemplative intuition rather
than an opposition. Both Augustine and
Anselm were seeking faith-seeking understanding.
The
Cur Dies Homo: Anselm, as archbishop at Canterbury ,
engaged in the theological dispute due to the increase in the Jewish population
in Europe .
Bozo
studied at Laon and had dialogically worked out an argument against incarnation.
The
problem: God created a perfect universe.
To harm it is infinitely serious.
Anselm’s
propostions:
- God willed a perfect
universe; created humans for eternal blessedness.
- Such blessedness requires
adherence to rightness/rectitude.
- Humans refused to do this, so
we lost blessedness.
- No human can restore what has
been lost.
- So in absence of an external
aid, blessedness is lost.
Anselm
was concerned with the species; individuals being of secondary importance. God’s plan is frustrated by 3-5. Man can’t restore himself, so some means
outside of man is needed.
Objections:
- The incarnation is infinitely
shameful for God.
- If a less shameful way to
redeem man, it would be rational for God to do it.
- God is rational.
So, if the incarnation occurred, God is either foolish or
powerless.
Anselm’s
solution: satisfaction—perfect obedience.
Redemption must be a satisfaction which is equal or more to the
sin. Something must be added which is
more than the loss of the sin. So,
perfect obedience is necessary. So the
incarnation was necessary. As
alternatives, unconditional forgiveness.
But this rewards evil. Or
punishment. Order would be
reestablished. But, total good would be
less. So there must be
satisfaction—something more than making up for the loss of sin. Man ought to perform the satisfaction, but we
can’t because we are finite sinful beings.
We owed perfect obedience beforehand.
Satisfaction is needed to ‘pay’ God for the injury suffered. Perfect obedience from man isn’t enough. Only the god-man can and ought to do it.
The
incarnation makes up for sin, but does not give satisfaction (payment to God
for the injury done). Jesus Christ paid
our satisfaction.
2/3/93
Anselm’s
dialectical necessity of Deus Homo: The God-Man. It is necessary, given the logical argument
made by Anselm. It is a conditional
argument: if God is just, merciful, and created a perfect universe with a
species of free creatures. If they fall,
then the incarnation is necessary. A
necessity compatible with God’s freedom, so it is not a constraint on God. Two kinds of questions can be raised. Is the argument internally coherent? Are his premises correct? Consider whether there are alternatives that
discplace the necessity as well as or better than Anselm.
Anselm’s
rhetorical picturing of Deus Homo.
Anselm uses the metaphor of a painted background. A moziac.
Central biblical parts are indispensable (e.g. the passion story), and while others are not. These others include the virgin birth,
Augustine’s claim that humans were created to replace the fallen angels
(Anselm: humans were created for their own sake and are not necessary for the
painting), and culturally attractive imagery such as feudalism.
Honor
held feudal society together. Rights,
duties and privileges were salient.
Everyone, even surfs, had honor, which was violated if any party did not
assume their duties. When God’s honor is
violated, order and beauty of the universe in relation to the creator is
violated. Lindbeck: Anselm’s honor issue
is not necessary to his argument.
Alternatives
to Anselm’s Satisfaction-Incarnation argument: The ransom theory which Bernard
uses. Or understanding salvation as
divination. The human problem is
mortality rather than sin. Salvation is
immortality, to become divine though not God.
Human nature divinized. The West, using legalistic rather than
ontological terms, didn’t buy into this view for awhile. Legalistic: sin as
like breaking the law. Also, the West was platonic: human nature as a single
entity or whole. Platonic realism: all universals are universals. Their full
reality is in the idea. Christian
theology: the idea of God. Humans
participate in the idea of the human. In
contrast, 1) moderate realism (Aristotle): common human nature is within
humans. Yet, no humanity outside of us in an idea, and 2) nominalism
(conceptualism): positivist, and the idea that all we are is individual humans
(we share a common name). Western
thought is not as platonic as Anselm.
Anselm: via incarnation, humans are divinized. This really didn’t take
hold in the West. Lindbeck: could one
see the problem as sin and come up with a different notion of salvation, not
necessarily divination. Key: the
analysis of the problem and the support need to be consistent.
Abelard
had a moral influence theory for the atonement and incarnation. He agreed with Bozo against the ransom
theory. So not logical (i.e.
inconsistent with other premises of God) to think of the devil having rights
over men who have sinned; that God must break this right by the incarnation
(the devil gets caught). 1 Cor 4:6-7:
the powers of the world would not have
crucified Jesus had they known who he was.
Abelard does not distinguish between punishment and satisfaction. He concludes that Jesus is punished for us
according to Anselm’s account. Abelard
rejects the penal substitution theory which he thinks Anselm is arguing. So Abelard is not really rejecting Anselm’s
account, as satisfaction does not imply punishment. Like Anselm, Abelard was influenced by a
cross-centered piety. The transforming
love from Jesus’ death forgives our sins.
Abelard’s understanding of the atonement as well as the incarnation. But what about an angel as an
alternative? And what happens to sins
not forgiven? Also, what if the universe
was not made perfect? Pelagius: our
action—it is necessary for us to respond in love. Abelard: God gives us this love to
respond. Lindbeck: but this creates
problems.
According
to Abelard, it is one’s duty to follow one’s conscience, even when it is
wrong. We have impulses to do what we
think is wrong. The impulses are not
sin; rather, one’s consent to them is sin.
Key: whether they result in action.
Original sin: impulses not in themselves sinful. So if Jesus had not been crucified, then the
crucifiers would have sinned in not following their consciences. This plays
into semi-Plagianism: it is up to us whether we consent or not.
Sic
et Non (yes and no). The application
of dialectic to a new area of thought (to the authorities of the faith). Abelard has 158 questions on many
topics. He cites authorities on both
sides, identifying conflicts in the sources.
He looks at their contexts (translation errors, how language is
used). Then, a residue of contradiction,
weighing authorities by reputation and reason.
This was the beginning of modern historical criticism. Also, the influence of ‘yes and no’ on how
Aquinas sets up his questions—a thesis in the middle of each article. First, objections, then responses (argument
for the thesis), then answers to the objections. Western theologians, like Abelard, expect to
find problems with statements of authorities.
Eastern theologians assume that everyone basically in agreement.
2/5/93
Anselm
died in 1109. Abelard: 1079-1142. Bernard: 1090-1154.
Bernard:
He
saw Abelard as having plagian pride. He
saw Abelard’s moral influence theory as insufficient because it depends upon
something we do—our response to Jesus.
Initiative and responsibility seem to be left up to humans. Bernard stressed the prevenience of God. Self-righteous humans are the worst
kind. Humility was stressed by
Bernard. In this sense, Bernard is
Augustinian. Bernard was a monastic
reformer and a spiritual guide. He was
indifferent to logic (e.g. as used by Anselm and Abelard). He saw it as in contrast to
spirituality. Bernard did not reject
Abelard’s language (e.g. that Christ saves by his act of love). Like Abelard, Bernard believed that what
Christ did more than makes up for the evil in the universe. To Bernard, atonement is a ransom paid to the
devil. A fish-hook to trick the devil in
the struggle between God and the devil.
Jesus as the hero-warrior-mediator, defeating the devil. Not until the 1200’s did Bernard’s ransom
theory lose influence. Jesus as victor. Luther would pick up on this. Similar to Bernard, Anselm saw Adam and Eve
as traitors but Jesus triumphed.
Lindbeck: Anselm’s theory was less adapted to feudalism. Anselm did not depend upon his own
culture. This could explain the
influence of him beyond his age. Unlike
feudal culture, Anselm’s basic pattern was not triangular (God, devil,
humans). Rather, God and humans. Humans deal directly with God, humans being
for the Fall, rather than having been seduced by the enemy. Abelard too has two main actors (God and
humans), though unlike Anselm humanity’s role is central (as no price is being
paid; rather, in atonement one finds love solo gratia). In Bernard’s ransom theory, in contrast,
there are three main actors.
2/5/93:
Discussion
Anselm
does not discuss original sin. It is a
presupposition to the argument rather than a premise. Is it necessary for his argument? Anselm’s focus is on how God’s honor has been
defiled. In this sense, Anselm is in
line with that which is salient in the feudal culture (honor). It is necessary that Jesus dies to give
satisfaction. He was sinless and didn’t
have to die. It was his choice.
Anselm
had two audiences:
The
non-Christian. His purpose was not to
convert; rather, it was to remove obstacles to faith. Theists, such as Jews and Muslims, were
steeped in logic yet didn’t accept the incarnation. So Anselm focused on the incarnation rather
than the issue of God which he assumed had been already agreed to.
The
Christian. Anselm wants Christians to
more fully enjoy their faith, via understanding what they believe. The logic of faith was beautiful to
Anselm. His aim of mankind: to enjoy
God; perfect obedience. This is
just. Theology is the beginning of
blessedness. The starting point is the
blessingness of God. The loss of
perfection is the starting point. The
Fall is the disorder in the universe.
Disorder is more important than is sin.
If this disorder is not corrected, God would be frustrated. But this can’t be as it is not in God’s
nature, so there must be a correction.
It is necessary to restore order that there be satisfaction through a
God-man.
In a
nutshell, Anselm is concerned about the problem of justice and the mercy of
God. Atonement is necessary and Jesus
did not die in necessity. Why
satisfaction? Why not forgiveness or punishment? Forgiveness would not be just; evil would
have the same status as good. And
punishment lowers the net-good, and would not restore the order of the
universe. Satisfaction: only God is able
to make it, but only man’s responsibility.
The God-man is necessary.
God
is faithful to himself; he is not bound to necessity. Anselm claims that mercy doesn’t work when
incongruent with justice. Satisfaction
fills in the hole plus it makes up for not having honored God when we should
have done so. It all goes back to ORDER:
mercy can’t be unjust. Satifaction
relates justice and mercy such that order is restored. It maintains honor in the ordering of
things.
According
to Forde, the resurrection doesn’t seem necessary for Anselm. The cross leads to sacrifice which provides
the satisfaction. Does God have to be
satisfied? What about God’s mercy and
love? According to Forde, “Jesus
himself, though he might have and quite possibly did reckon with a violent
death…, seems not to have understood or interpreted his own death as a
sacrifice for others or ransom for sin.”
If so, then Anselm’s view of vicarious satisfaction finds little support
in the scripture. Scripture never speaks
of God as one who has to be satisfied or propitiated before being merciful or
forgiving. Since Jesus voluntarily
gave himself up to death, he gave more
than was required.[5] To Forde, “God must die and be raised. The ‘must’…is not the abstract and a priori
‘must’ of a rational or legal scheme, but an a posteriori reflection of the
mercy actually given.” To Forde, there
are three problems with Anselm:
- How could Christ’s death be
necessary and at the same time be a free and voluntary sacrifice?
- Equivolence between Jesus’
death and the demand of the divine honor not demonstrated. But, a logical fallacy: worth
assumed. So equivelence can’t be
demonstrated; you can’t prove the worth of something by asking how great
an evil it would be to destroy it.
Anselm: the evil of destroying Jesus is greater than the evil of
allowing the human race to be destroyed.
So Jesus’ life was worth more than that of all humans’ sin.
- Justice above mercy. But, if God gets satisfaction, where is
mercy at all? Mercy against justice is wrong?
Anselm
provides an account to explain why God would let Jesus suffer unless He had
to. But is Anselm’s explanation too much
a legalistic rationalization which oversimplifies the human problem?
2/15/93
‘The
Aristitilian Invasion’: the 1200’s
Transformations
in Western Europe ; changes accelerated in the
1100’s. For instance, educational
systems: a university was created(Balonia, in Italy ,
was established in 1150; the University
of Paris Spain
and the Muslim schools. Aristotle’s
texts were accompanied by commentaries.
For instance, Averroes, in Spain ,
and Avicenna from central Asia . These were Arab thinkers. The initial wave of latin thought came via
Averroes. He had been influenced by
neo-platonism, an Aristotilian way of thinking, and a pantheistic world-view
(deterministic).
To
Aristotle, ‘nous’ is the highest intellect principle. The supreme nous (thought thinking about
itself) is the highest kind of activity.
Pure actuality (no change); not changed by temporal change. The unmoved mover. It is a focus for desire. All activities aspire to it. Nous moves everything else to it, but is
itself unmoving. Averroes combined this
with Platonist thinking. The
Neo-platonist ideal was ‘the one’: cascades of light moving to a non-extended
light; everything goes from it, becoming more and more fragmented as it gets
further and further away. To Averroe,
the one is nous. So, not oneness;
rather, intelligence that creates reality by radiating outward. Aristotle taught that the agent intellect is
one in all humans. It is the power that
abstracts forms from matter. When
thinking in the abstract, one gets pure intelligibles such that everyone’s
ideas are the same. For instance,
2+2=4. No temporal, cultural or
individual conditioning once it is achieved.
These pure things always exist in things (Plato: apart from
things). One agent intellect in the
Universe. We think of abstract universals to the extent we participate in this
one mind (monopsychism). The one agent
intellect is from, not in, God. So, the
higher one searches for knowledge, the less of an individual one is. At death, one’s mind joins with the one agent
intellect. This is to deny individual
immortality and individual free-will.
Other
changes in the 1200’s included the emergence of castles and gothic
cathedrals. Also, the crusades (four)
were in that century. Trade was
stimulated, and cities grew. Marco Polo
lived then, for instance.
For
theology, there was a new kind of religious order. The growth of cities stressed the parish
system, and monestaries were too remote to help. So the Dominicans and Fransicians were
established to serve the urban poor. The
Dominicans emphasized education (against heresies).
At
the fourth Laterin Council at 1215, transubstantiation was accepted, and confession
was made mandatory at least once per year.
Trial by ordeal under the church was no longer ok. For instance, someone suspected to be a
heretic could no longer be thrown in blessed water to see if they sink. So, a fight against magic.
This
period was more rational than was the late middle ages. Recall that the late 1600’s included the Salem witch trials.
Averroism
was a threat to Christianity. Students
learned it at the universities, where Aristotle’s material was primary. Theology was for the elite (not all the
clergy). The Arts and Sciences was
Averroism. Most of the educated clergy
studied it, so the church authorities turned to the new orders for help. At the University of Paris
2/17/93
Aquinas(1225-1275):
His
philosophy ws incidental to his theological task. He used Aristotle rather than Plato.
The
ontological contrast between Plato and Aristotle: Are forms (universals)
antecedent to the concrete thing (ante reim)? Plato: yes.
Universal form is transcendent.
To Christian Platonists, universal forms exist in the mind of God. Aristotle: no. Nominalist: no. Are the forms imminent in the particulars (in
re)? Plato: yes. Aristotle: yes (an individualized, so only
potentially universal). Nominalist:
no. Are forms after the thing, in minds
(post rem)? Plato: yes. Aristotle: yes: potential universalizability
becomes actual when in human minds, yet not perfectly so. Fully actual only in God’s mind. So we exist more fully in the mind of
God. Nominalist: yes. We form universal concepts so that as
concepts, rather than real things, exist universally in the mind.
Plato’s
ideas originated in math. He saw how
abstract mathematical structures are in concrete things. Mathematical reality seems like it is out
there to be discovered. To Aristotle,
the form of circularity is present to some degree in concrete realities and in
minds, but not having independent existence.
To the nominalist, circularity is a form which humans invent.
Epistemology:
how one comes to know. Plato: know by
turning inward and upward, away from sensory experience. To Aristotle, all knowledge is from sensory
experience, from which we abstract the universals; some things can only be
known by inference. The proper object of
the mind is the essence of material things.
So, turn toward sensory experience.
In
sum, for Plato reality: forms are out there.
For Aristotle, reality: forms are in sensible things. Plato is thus more favorable to the
mystical. For Aquinas, mystical
experience (direct intuitive knowledge of the divine) is an unpredictable gift
from God. It is not strived for.
Human
Nature:
Aristotle:
The soul: the substantial form of the body.
No soul without a body. The form of the fetus becomes a human sould when
it develops to a certain point. So
Aristotle denied the immortal life of the soul.
Due to having reason (an immaterial grasping an immaterial reality), the
soul can exist without a body. Separated
souls are not persons. He accounts for
the resurrection; Plato doesn’t.
Plato:
The soul: reality beyond the body, taken up by bodies. Soul and body are two separate substances.
Augustine
saw theology as a practical science, whereas Aquinas saw it as primarily
speculative, as it considers truth.
Philosophy is within theology only in giving probably support. So, arguments about God are theologically
only probable arguments. Only scripture is of God necessarily. Faith may be enhanced by reasoning,
however. If one uses reason to find
faith, then faith suffers.
2/19/93:
Discussion
Aquina’s
arguments: he first considers
objections, then cites an authority (sed contra), then gives a reply
(responsio).
Aquinus
argued that if God is truth, then correct reason could not contradict
revelation. Reason can error; revelation
can’t. So revelation is superior.
On
the existence of God: whether God exists.
Aquinas uses reason (proof), yet he had also claimed that revelation is
superior. Proof: 5 ways. 1-3: defining the term ‘God’. 4-5: qualitative proofs. Closer to the Christian view of God. Is this proof? Given, only sure knowledge is from
revelation, the five proofs are demonstrations of revelations. Aquinas didn’t intend the proofs as
proofs. Arguments from reason have
probable weight. Faith we have;
revelation is from God. Faith is a
theological virtue. Faith is belief and
assent. Evil is belief without assent. Will (assent) and intellect (belief). Two sorts of faith: formed and unformed. Only faith formed by charity (will) is
virtuous. Otherwise, it is just
belief. Luther: faith alone. But, Aquinas didn’t talk of
justification. Charity without faith is
loving something other than God. So
faith must be prior. Faith gives content
to what is loved.
Aquinas
sees all things as being directed to God. The Summa is about this. His theology is directed toward the beginning
of heaven in us now; our end in God.
Augustine is more concerned with sin and redemption. To Aquinas, God is perfect and primary. Aquinas was using Augustine here. His Platonism forms the basis for the
orientation of the Summa. Constructs on
it use Aristotle. Platonism expresses the
end. Aristotle used in the means to the
end. This gives Aquinas balance.
2/24/93
Aristotle’s
causes(e.g. of a chair):
Formal:
shape (it’s nature)
Material:
wood (what it is made of)
Efficient:
the builder (something that pushes something else)
Final:
to sit on (the purpose or function of)
Faith
vs. Reason; revealed theology vs. natural philosophy (formal v. material
causes)
For
instance, A book. Several formalities
of: can be thrown, read, smelled. A
human. Several formalities of: as
chemicals, or for whom Jesus died. So
the same material object can be known in different ways.
There
is a formal distinction between theology and philosophy. Material: different domains/classes of
objects. They can be known by theology(faith) or philosophy(reason). Like two
circles with a little bit in common. The
trinity and incarnation can be known only by faith (God as the redeemer of the
world and the goal of human longing) and the sensible world only by reason
(though it can include inferences from theology (God as the first cause—as a
preamble). Aquinas: natural theology, as
a preamble, serves as a foundation for the formal relation between reason and
faith. No longer a material distinction;
rather, a formal distinction. Preambles
can be known by reason as well as by faith.
For instance, on the circularity of the earth, faith doesn’t displace
reason. Faith knows about the material
world, the preamble, and the trinity/incarnation. Reason knows about the material world and the
preamble. From faith, reason can give
demonstrations (rather than probable knowledge) of preambles. Theology takes scripture as its first
premise. Reason doesn’t displace faith. If one knows philosophically that God exists,
one still needs faith to believe because of different formal causes. So, if a material distinction between
theology and philosophy, reason displaces faith. If a formal distinction, reason does not
displace it. The will moves the
intellect when the will is attracted to a truth of which the will knows in
revelation. First, love of the truth
(revealed), then movement of the will, then assent of the intellect. So reason within theology(faith) to clarify
what is believed and to answer objections to the faith. From the point of view
of theology, one does not come to faith by reason, ,rather than via love (which
then moves the intellect).
God
is not directly knowable. Because of
Atheists, God is not self-evident. Also,
God is not self-evident because knowledge starts with sense experience. This is so (indirectness of knowing God) from
the point of view of theology as well as philosophy (indirectly via faith as
well as reason). So, Aquinas gives an
ontological argument of God. Philosophical
demonstrations from theology: probabilistic knowledge of scripture. Within theology, there are five probable
arguments of faith for the existence of God.
All
our knowledge of God is by analogy. So
it has a negative aspect—what God is not.
From two directions. By negative
perfections (said of God by denying): infinite, immutable, one. God is not limited yet also transcended. Probable arguments for that which is
known/revealed already by faith. Second,
there are positive attributes of God (yet includes negations): intelligent,
will, love. Both ways are removing
imperfections of God and affirming qualities; saying what God is not.
2/26/93
Based
on Aristotle:
Ipsum
esse (to be itself) is the first cause, operating on the 2nd
causes, the act (necessarily or freely) to change (move) something from state x
to y.
Based
on Plato (the traditional view):
God
as the unity and purpose of all perfections.
Aquinas did not disagree with this, but thought that a model based on
Aristotle would be better. Plato: ideas
as ideational. To Artistotle, ideas as activity: thought thinking of
itself. Aquinas: the act of existence as an act in and of
itself. Esse: real; Essentia: the
essence. Aquinas distinguishes these two. Does it exist, of the former; What is
it, of the latter. Two separate
questions. To exist is an act distinguishable from descriptions of what
something is. To Aquinas, the first
cause is: to be itself. God is
existence—an infinite sea of being. God
is revealed; God is: to be itself (ipsum esse). The first cause confers existence onto
everything. The second cause is the
essence (which is based on ipsum esse).
God
is the total cause and yet the creatures, on the level of essence, have
freedom. So God is the total cause,
whether we have free-will or not. God as
the first cause is radically different from the second cause. Talking about God is analogical rather than
equivocal or univocal. Aquinas gives
examples of analogical terms (eg. Healthy).
Analogy signifies different relations to one and the same thing. Lindbeck’s examples: the river flows; time
flows. ‘flow’ is here used
analogically. Also, ‘see’ can be used
mentally as well as physically. We know
something of the two realities as there is other information on both.
But with God, this ‘info’ is missing.
Consider the difference between significatum (that which is
signified—which is affirmed in the case of God) and modus significandi
(the mode of signifying—which is not affirmed in the case of God). So you can’t make words describing God
informative. What we say about God tells
us nothing of what is in God (ipsum esse). But, we can understand how things are related
to God.
2/26/93: Discussion
Two
types of grace:
- Habitual. Infused grace. Habitual injection of grace, restoring
freedom of the will which was lost in the Fall. The Fall maes it
impossible for us to turn to God alone.
Grace is needed to establish the possibility.
- The grace that sustains us.
According
to Lindbeck, Aquinas on atonement has some differences from Anselm’s view that
mercy is not inconsistent with Justice (punishment and satisfaction is
just).
The
capacity to do good is due to grace which is given to all. Some say yes, some say no. Augustine, in contrast, maintained that grace
is only given to the elect. Aquinas
believes in predestination but not in an elect. Aquinas assumed that all were baptized. This was by in large true in his day. Predestination was a separate issue from that
of grace. Aquinas: those who are damned are lost because they have freely
sinned even though they had been given grace.
So, not universal salvation even though everyone gets grace. Aquinas sees ‘choice’ in a sea of grace. The more powerfully God acts, the freer we
are. Grace gives us the power to be what
we can be (free). The doctrine of
original sin isn’t the culprit behind the idea that many people are in
hell. Strict moral plageans put more
people in hell than did those of solo gratia. The Western church has put an emphasis on
sin; the Eastern church has put an emphasis on death. The eastern church is platonic: Because of
the incarnation, humanity changed—became divinized. Implication: universal salvation. In contrast, the western church has
emphasized the cross.
Statements
from Aquinas (Summa T.):
Q.
20, art. 1: “actions of will or appetite which refer to good are bound to be
naturally prior to those which refer to evil” and “that which is more universal
is naturally prior”.
Q.
2, art. 3: “that which has the greatest truth is also greatest in being”
Q.
16, art. 1: “truth consists in conformity between an intellect and a thing”
Q.
21, art. 4: “when God acts mercifully, he does not do what is contrary to his
justice, but does more than his justice requires”[6]
Q.
22 Art. 1: “God in his abundant goodness bestows what is owing to a creature
more liberally than its relative status deserves”
Q.
22, art. 2: providence is “the reason for the ordination of things to their
end” “Every agent acts for the sake of an end.
Q.
23, art. 1: Predestination is “the reason why a rational creature is brought to
eternal life”.
To
love is to will good for someone (IQ. 26, arts2-3), the reason why man inclines
to virtue is that he is rational. To act
virtuously is to act in accordance with reason.
“The
loss of original justice has the character of punishment. Death and all
attendent defects of the body are therefore the punishments of original sin.”
(II ae, 85, 5 resp).
The
form of man, his rational soul, isn’t entirely dependent on corporeal matter
(1-II ae, 85, 6).
“Nor
can the debt of punishment be forgiven save by God alone, against whom the
offence is committed, and who is the judge of men (II ae, Q.109, art 8, resp).
Sin
is falling short of what befits one’s nature (I-II, Q. 109, a8).
3/1/93
Philosophy,
or natural theology, provides probable support for faith. From the standpoint
of revealed theology(e.g.predestination, sin, grace, justification, merit, and
hope), however, philosophy provides tools rather than probable support. Aquinas was the first wave of Aristotilian
philosophy in theology. Aquinas uses
Augustine’s Christian Platonism in his affirmations. But, he uses Aristotle’s categories. Unlike Augustine, Aquinas starts with God as
omnicausal (the first cause), with creatures’ free-will as the second cause,
making up the total cause. Not two
finite causes, such as two men pulling a baige along a canal wherein only one
is necessary. Rather, God is necessary
as the first cause whether we act or not.
So the first and second cause can each be the total cause. To Augustine, sin is the reason for our total
helplessness. To Aquinas, we are totally
helpless not only because we sin but because we are natural creatures.
Grace,
to Aquinas, is a disposition given by God, as the favor of God and the gift of
God. Uncreated grace is primary while
uncreated grace, or the disposition to the good, is secondary. Aquinus emphasizes this distinction whereas
Augustine does not make it. The analysis
of grace as uncreated and created has an Aristotilian basis. Created grace depends on uncreated grace. The preparation for grace is itself dependent
on grace. Grace is before anything we do.
Prevenience of grace. The infusion of grace changes the direction of our
being. Transformation of self, then God
forgives and accepts us. A
transformational model. From the view of
humans, the order is reversed.
Forgiveness first (resembles the forensic model). People may think they have grace when they
don’t. Aristotle claimed that we have knowledge of what is inside of us from
sensory experience. So we do not have
certain knowledge of being saved. To
Aquinas, faith, love, and hope are necessary.
Hope has certainty—it is to be certain of God’s goodness.
3/5/93:
Discussion
Worship
is only to God, whereas veneration includes giving honor to holy people
(nothing is being asked for; asking the saints to pray with one). Mary is honored by Catholics because she was
obedient to God. This was not meritorious, as it is what would be expected.
Hoeck
and Gansfort: the issue with regard to indulgences was authority. Getting out of purgatory (not hell) is
conditional on contributions. The authority of scripture is above that of
tradition. Oberman interprets Hoeck and Gansfort as two traditions. An authoritarian oral tradition with written
tradition. Not distinct; two sources of
tradition (the church fixes scripture into canon—the church’s appropriation of
scripture, a communal thing, was key).
There is also the authority of scripture and the church. To Oberman, there is continuity between
Augustine and the reformers in a spectrum.
So the change in the reformation has not been as much as we have
thought. Vincent of Lerins interprets
catholocism as what is everywhere, by all people and at all times believed (the
Christian lowest common denominator).
Three
great splits in Christianity: Church v. Synagogue, East v. West, Protestant v.
Catholic.
Purgatory:
Catherine
of Genoa viewed purgatory as an experience like one she had had—experience of a
mystical union, of being purified and of desiring God. So the key is the soul’s transaction with
God. Purgatory as terrible temporary
torment to purify one’s soul. A far less
pain than there would be if one were to be separated from God. Purgatory includes a longing for God, yet
separated by sin experienced as pain, yet there is also joy.
3/5/93
1300-1500:
1500’s
represented a break with the past, shown in the Rennasance and the
Reformation. The climate had turned bad
for agriculture (famines) in the 1300-1500 period. A decline in the population of Western Europe . In
religion, clinging to old patterns, even when dysfunction because it was not
known how to replace them. No new
monastic orders. An increase in church
corruption, even as there was an increase in literacy. In general, there were increasing divisions
and pluralism in society, with the lack of a unifying vision. But, there were advances too. Logic advanced, as did technology (glasses,
clocks, and navigation). Popular piety,
Christian faith at the personal level, was increasing. Pilgrimages, cults of saints and Mary, and
indulgences. Theology was done in
academia rather than in monestaries. It
was not tied to the political, economic, and social contexts. There was a call for reform ‘in head and
members’. The Condemnation of 1277,
against Latin Avaroism (use of Aristotle in Latin Theology—e.g. Aquinas),
influenced university theology. This theology
emphasized freedom of God as well as humans, being anti-determinism. The potentia absoluta (absolute power
of God) was emphasized. Freedom over
that of self. Contradictory, so logic
was used. Led to speculations which
themselves led to later scientific advances.
The potentia ordmata (the ordaining freedom of God): necessity
leading to God’s freedom and human freedom.
This fit with nominalism and was against Latin Avarroism. The analogically intelligible moderate
realism (aristotilian) was replaced by nominalistic univocity (breaking reality
into parts via logic—an atomistic view of reality). So universals not in reality but in the mind
as concepts (conceptualist and terminist).
For instance, Ockham (1349) was nominalist in name only. Emphasis on freedom. Reality as atomistic facts, sorted out by God
in His freedom. Platonic: God as the
total of the universals. Via Moderna
Nominalist dominated universities.
Other schools, such as Vix Antique (Scotist and Thomist) were
influence by the above.
3/22/93
Late
Medieval: 1500’s
Doctrinal
turmoil. Trends went toward reform as
well as Catholocism. An issue was
authority: how does a tradition reach decisions about what is a doctrine? Oberman: scripture is materially but not
formally sufficient. ‘Tradition
One’. One can find implicit as well as
explicit things in scripture. Or, one
could see two sources of authoritative revelation: oral tradition (can
suppliment scripture) and scripture (not materially sufficient but can play a
decisive role). ‘Tradition Two’. Practices not verbally articulated can be
within ‘tradition’. Scripture read from
a particular form of worship. Human vs
divine traditions. The church’s
interpretation of scripture (eg. The credo, the trinity), as a divine
tradition. Do the creeds simply interpret scriptures or is it creative
interpretation in a way that scripture itself doesn’t include? Mainline reformers and Medieval Church
Tradition
one: scripture not formally sufficient.
Issue: did the church’s interpretation authentically summarize
scripture, or did it go beyond scripture via the guidance of the holy
spirit? This issue was not raised in the
late Middle Ages. How one goes about
authoritatively interpreting scripture went unclarified. Rather, emphasis was on freedom (e.g.
Thomists, Sartists, and Nominalists).
The universe as a ‘heap of facts’ ordered by an external will of
God. So ont just one order
possible. In the late Middle Ages, the
universe was seen as not necessarily ordered in a hierarchical order.
Grace
and Glory:
Scotus
saw no necessary relationship between grace and glory. Grace as not necessarily a prerequisite for
glory. Created grace was no longer seen
as the indwelling of the holy spirit; rather, uncreated grace as the indwelling
of the holy spirit, but it was downplayed.
A polarization between grace and freedom: divine and human
causation. In the 1200’s (e.g. Aquinas),
sola gratia tended to treate humans as passive in the process of
justification. God as the sole
actor. Those believing in human freedom
denied the prevenience of grace, seeing humans as part of the cause of
justification. Augustine’s view of God
as the total first cause and humans as the total free cause was not upheld in
the late middle ages. Augustine held
that God predestines us to salvation. All that is left is double-predestination
or semi-plagianism.
3/23/93
Developments
in the late middle ages:
The infused grace-glory relation, still unclear, was seen
then as a contract. The reward of glory
is not merited, but is given by God.
Earlier, it was seen as an intrinsic relationship. Second, a growing influence of human
contribution. God and man—each a partial
cause. Recall that the traditional
Augustianian view was that God was either the sole cause(Augustine) or
all-cause(Aquinas and Augustine).
Quod
in se facere: ‘to do what is in one’.
If done, god won’t deny grace.
So, denies prevenient grace.
Emphasis on human initiative.
Reconcilable with Augustine’s view of God’s freedom. Augustine: God’s ordination freely of
glory. Human effort after grace is
given. In the late middle ages, however,
human effort too. ‘Neo-plagenian’. Pentence was emphasized in the liturgy. Issue: how does a fallen baptized Christian
become justified and sanctified? How
does one know? The proper practice of
pentance. A shift from baptism/eucharist
to eucharist(Anselm), to pentence. An
anxiety over the question of the forgiveness of sins led to introspective
self-examination, with motives included and the proper attitude. Previously, contrition (sorrow for sins out
of love of God—i.e. Aquinas). Late
middle ages: attrition--servile fear of punishment was sufficient, fitting with
the idea that we do what we can. Biel was a
neo-plagean. He was on the eve of the
Reformation. A contritionist and a late
nominalist. Kolde (1480), influenced by Biel , focused on
preparation for confession. To him,
contrition meant one was capable of doing it from one’s own natural power,
there being sufficient free-will for this to be possible. Luther: such contrition is so hard that he
felt he would hate God. So Luther had a
terror of conscience.
Attritionists:
John
of Paltz, an Augustinian (as was Luther), argued that God was not so
strict. Luther: this could lead to the
lost soul. Luther was not a lax
attritionist; he did not want to ease up on himself. Bradwardine—Occum of Fiori, another
attritionist, felt that being freely sorry is enough. Luther’s solution was powerful in Europe , so others had been suffering from terrified
consciences.
The
neo-plagean problem was not pride.
Anxiety over salvation had been pride.
The solution had been sola gratia.
The neo-plageans felt that a little free-will was also necessary. This was not the same thing as pride. Luther felt the problem was neo-plageanism
and the promise of salvation. The
problem was no longer pride. Recall that
in the late middle ages, pentence was important—the forgiveness of guilt was
salient. Penalties were thought to be
not only temporal but in purgatory as well.
Indulgences and purgatory were salient at the time. Prayers for the dead were for those who had
died yet not yet purged by the discipline of satisfactions but were destined
for heaven. This was influenced by a
clarified notion of purgatory and of indulgences which were used for the
remission of pentences. Sufferage of the
church for the remission of the satisfactions.
Key was the jurisdictional right of the church. In the 95 Theses, was Luther attacking the
doctrine of indulgences (as prayer speeding up the process of purgation)? Does Catherine of Seana’s understanding of
purgatory oppose Luther’s opposition in his theses? Lindbeck: No.
Therefore, Luther was against only the abuses of indulgences rather than
against the theology behind them.
In
the Heenburg dispute of 1518, the emphasis was on humility (the importance of
faith formed by humility). In 1519, a
different kind of answer by Luther. A
different structure than in 1518.
3/26/93
Reformers
saw two problems: neoplagianism and the certainty of salvation. Reformers such
as Luther used Augustine, who had stressed the human inability to contribute to
his or her own salvation, sola prevenient grace, and the sinful nature of
mankind. But, neo-plagianism was not
that opposed to Augustine, as it was a penitential kind. The terrified conscience. The sola gratia was silent on this. Luther studied scripture, guided by
Augustine. By 1517-18 (Heidelburg),
Luther had made progress on answering the problem of the terrified
conscience. In 1545, Luther wrote on
God’s righteousness, as being an active, punishment, attribute of God. God’s righteousness is in Paul (Romans
1:17). It is by His righteousness that
He justifies us. Some relation to faith.
By the time of Heidelburg, Luther had come up with Justification by
Faith. Luther understood faith as
infused—a subjective disposition formed by humility. Faith of recognition of one’s sins. This is what is justified. Faith which lives the life of the cross; a
precondition for forgiveness.
Pre-reform
views of justification:
The
Transformative Model: transformation (via infused grace) leads to
forgiveness/justification (conditional).
The
Forensic Model: Unconditional justification/forgiveness leads to
sanctification, with good actions as spontaneous fruits. God’s judicial declaration of righteousness,
the promise of forgiveness imputing alien righteousness via performative
language(e.g. like marriage, the language describes the union between God and
the soul at the beginning of the transformation). Christ’s righteousness belongs to us; our
sins are assumed by Christ. The ‘blessed exchange’. An alien righteousness comes into us via the
word of promise and forgiveness. Christ
is the actor. The inwardly free Lord and
the servant. Sola fide. Luther held this view.
To
Luther, justification is the dialogue between sinner and God. Faith, to Luther, is the reception of the
first righteousness by trust (fiducia), secondarily by assent (assensus). Before the reformers, the assent was
emphasized. To Luther, God alone
justifies. It is God’s promise:
forgiveness in Jesus Christ, the object of faith. God may really change us, but this is not
what justifies us.
It
is by grace alone, through the work of the Holy Spirit, that one receives faith
(sola gratia). How is it
assured? Not trusting one’s own faith;
rather, it is the certainty in God’s declaration/promise in Jesus Christ. So it
is in looking outward, rather than inward into one’s self.
Augustine
held the transformative model, as from God’s point of view. Aquinas held the forensic model, as from the
sinner’s perspective. Luther agreed that
theology should be done from the sinner’s view (coram deo). Not from an objective, detached, point of
view. Whereas Aquinas took a sapientiel point of view (the doxilatical point of
view), Luther took an existential point of view. To Luther, the assurance of salvation depends
on God, not the self. To Aquinas, hope
is as certainty because of God. Therefore,
pre-reform had room for the reform’s solution to the problem of the certainty
of salvation was not discovered until modern times under hope (Aquinas) and
faith (Luther).
3/26/93:
Discussion
Luther
was against the emphasis on the goodness of the religious life. He thought few are actually called. The fact that it was a prevalent social
practice, laxity in them due to those who were in it who weren’t really called. He gives validity to non-religious life. Luther didn’t think the Church had gone astray,
although Calvin did.
The
righteousness imputed to us is alien, from the cross (God’s righteousness)
precedes ‘proper’ righteousness.
Therefore, we are made humble(ie. Proper righteousness) by God’s gift
(of alien righteousness). Humility is a
response to God’s gift.
How
different are Luther and Aquinas on grace?
Both held that God is the first cause.
On free-will, Luther believed that we have the freedom to sin. We are at once justified and a sinner. Both Aquinas and Luther believed in sola
gratia. Luther used material from
Augustine and Aquinas.
Do
alien and proper righteousness function like primary and secondary causes? Yes.
Luther wants to emphasize grace, deemphasizing the virtuous life, or
works righteousness. Being virtuous doesn’t
justify one. To Aquinas, works
righteousness is not such a big problem, though he would agree that
justification isn’t through it.
3/29/93
Tillick
argued that in the forensic model, God makes us righteous despite the fact that
we retain our sinful nature. God does so
by accepting us(justification), and then He makes us acceptable
(sanctification). It is actualized
outwardly, spontaneously and freely, against resistence. Spontaneously due to the change in faith,
from which one is no longer preoccupied with one’s self. It is spontaneous—one follows the law without
trying. Faith=Trust. In realizing this, one is justified.
Both
the forensic and transformative models are sola gratia. Luther is Augustinian (Platonist) whereas
Aquinas is Aristotilian.
In
the forensic mdel, neither pride nor disorientation are primary; rather, sin,
or the lack of belief, is primary. The
basic condition of sinfulness is faithlessness, which leads to anxiety. Sin as non-belief leads to anxiety. This idea is linked to modern existentialism
(Kiekagaard and Hiedeger). Possible ways
to respond include self-assertion and fearfulness (dependence upon
ideolatry). Luther opposed these
responses, responding instead that through law comes the knowledge of sin. We should be liberated from law as well as
sin. Self-centeredness makes us
rebellious. Beyond Augustine, Luther
argued that anxiety is intensified through the law. An anxious effort to follow the law, and an
anxious despair from not following the law are caused by the law. So, a state of faithlessness and anxiety is
intensified by the law. Augustine and
Luther argued that our highest virtues are our worst sin. Self-righteousness is based on anxiety which
refuses to recognize itself.
Sanctification is not from the law, but by sponstaneously doing good
works. Resistance to it is due to the
sin of Adam. Augustine and Luther did not hold a spirit-body dualism, though
they saw the flesh as self-centeredness and they believed in sola gratia. Luther emphasized the ‘new creation’ in
justification, which spontaneously does good acts. But, this new self is against the old self,
and this conflict is never resolved.
Luther views the process of sanctification as an intensification of the
conflict with the old self. The self is
no longer justified as itself. The self
is relational to God, sin and the devil.
Wilford Joest wrote on the excentric self, fighting against the old
self.
Luther
wrote on simultaneous justification and pecator. We are simultaneously wholly righteous and
wholly sinner. Augustine didn’t claim
this. For Luther, even our best deeds
are sinful. For instance, we take pride
in our selflessness. Our nature doesn’t
change. Even the best saints do good
acts in sin. The Council of Trent condemned sola fide without rejecting sola
gratia.
3/31/93
The
Renissiance and Reformation were polemically related to their preceeding years
in the Middle Ages. The 1600’s saw the
rise of science in a new age. Reform
began in Germanic lands, which were relatively disorganized so more money was
taken out of them to Rome . France ,
Spain , and England , in
contrast, had states, and thus nationalism.
By
1523, Erasmus, whose aim was good conduct (humanistic) and who retained some
freedom of will (a role in justification, though grace does more), didn’t agree
with Luther. In The Bondage of the
Will, Luther is upset about Erasmus, seeing him as being a
neo-plagian. For Luther, God is the sole
cause of our justification. God is even
the cause of our resistence, even though God does not cause us to sin. Luther could be read as a universalist and
for double-predestination. Luther was
unsystematic in his thinking, so it is difficult to come up with a coherent
picture of him. Luther was pastoral and
a rhetorian, focused on rescuing people from despair. Sola fide alone is comforting. To Luther, theology as the grammer of faith
never reaches the truth; rather, truth is reached by preaching and praying (not
by logical arguments). So it is hard to
see a standard order or pattern in his theology, including for his doctrine of
sola scriptura.
4/2/93
By
the late 1500’s, Aquinas’ view was still not common. Double predestination had become known from
Luther’s Bondage of the Will.
Luther
emphasized the literal reading of scripture, and advocated the use of early
creeds to interpret it. For instance, Luther took literally the passage that
all believers are priests. So he
attacked Richard of St. Victor’s allegorical theme of transformation by
grace. Luther emphasized what justification
means in ordinary life in line with justification by faith. Bible stories make this concrete, being
legitimate to the extent that they contain ‘Christ’. He viewed scripture as the written word of
the Trinitarian God giving Jesus Christ.
Luther distinguished between law and the gospel, salvation being in the
latter as free forgiveness. This was not
old vs new testament; rather, he distinguished between the commandments and the
promises. Luther deemphasized the
epistle of James because of the emphasis there on one’s own works in
justification.
Luther
on Law: The purpose of law is to reveal sin so as to drive us to Christ. There are two purposes of law. First, civil.
To organize life in social situations (so it is in the Church too). Key: order is to be maintained. Second, universally applicable natural law to
be applied in particular contexts. In
both of these purposes, law has been distorted by sin. Luther was against canon law, as people saw
it as too complex.
Luther
vs. Aquinas:
Luther
used the forensic model whereas Aquinas had used the transformative model. Luther’s aim was consulation for consciences
whereas Aquinas’s aim was contemplation of God.
Luther claimed sola gratia (alien/imputed) and sola fides, wherein we
are wholly justified and wholly sinner (a bi-located ‘relational self’). Aquinas saw it in terms of a changed
substantial self (partly justified/partly sinner) of infused/inherent grace
formed by love (assensus). Luther saw
sin as total helplessness (unfaith) whereas Aquinas saw sin as aimlessness
(disorder). Luther saw no freedom in the
will, whereas Aquinas saw freedom in the will, but it is wholly dependent upon
God’s initial causality. Whereas Luther
believed in monergism (God as the sole cause), thus leading to double predestination,
Aquinas believed in panergism (all causing), thus believing in single
predestination. Luther saw God as
univocal but paradoxical, whereas Aquinas saw God as unified (analogical).
In
contrast, Erasmus was interested in good conduct (morality). He saw God as the moral rewarder and punisher
(univocal and non-pardoxical). He saw
God as partly causeing (synergism), thus having foreknowledge. So our wills are partly independent.
4/2/93:
Discussion
Luther
claims that any choice that is made outside of faith is sin. So freedom is to do the good, the very
possibility of which is granted by God.
The only good deeds are from good motives which come from the love of
God. So one needs faith to know what is
right and to have the right motive.
Proper righteousness is subsequent to justification, flowing out as a
consequence of grace. There is no room
for our independent agency; everything that happens is from God’s will. But what about evil? Luther does not provide a theodicy.
Because
God has the freedom, is he a judging, wrathful God? Luther claims that God is a saving God. Both are accurate, due to Luther’s view
favoring double predestination. One need
not worry about whether one will be saved or damned as it has already been
decided.
According
to Aquinas, baptism erases the effect of original sin. After this, cooperative grace, so some free
will. Luther rejects cooperative grace
and free will, yet not determinate. We
are not free to resist grace, yet we are responsible for our own sin. A dialectic.
Luther doesn’t deny freedom of choice in civil matters; rather, it’s
just that we can’t make choices about justification. Moral righteousness is a gray area, between
civil and proper righteousness. Luther
claims that grace is needed for moral righteousness. So keep separate the moral and political
realms.
Luther
claims that one who is justified wants to do the law, not because good works
merit. Luther is Christocentric, not
saying much about the Holy Spirit. The
function of the law (commandments) is to guide one to the gospel (promises),
which in turn leads one to Christ. Some
books in the Bible are relatively less important, given this view: James,
Revelation, Ester, Hebrews, and Jude.
Other books are more salient, such as John, Romans, Galatans, and
Aphesians.
George
Casmin claims there are four senses in which scripture can be interpreted. Luther stresses the literal sense
(historic). He is against spiritualism,
including allegory (something in the text corresponds to something else),
anagogical (theological), and tropological (moral).
4/5/93
Scripture
vs. Sacraments:
Zwangli
and Luther had a dispute over the Lord’s Supper and were the major cause of
scism within the Reformation.
On
the Lord’s Supper, there are three main groups of texts from scripture:
- Accounts of the Lord’s
Supper (1 Cor 11, Mt, and Lk)
- The flesh/spirit relationship
(Jn 6:63)
- Reception of the elements (1
Cor 10-11)
And one creedal statement: Jesus Christ is the ascended Lord.
Luther rejected transubstantiation as a philosophical
doctrine not in scripture. So, contrary
to Aristotle, though Luther made use of Aristotle in other areas. Luther was against reason invading theology
(against the humanistic renaissance). He
sounds like an irrationalist, yet he does use philosophical arguments on some issues. He argued that transubstantiation involves
needless multiple miracles. Why have
two(Jesus’ body and blood, and the absence of bread and wine) when scripture
only has one(body and blood)
Zwingli
was against Eucharistic Realism. He
argued that the presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the bread and wine
is idolatrist (confines or identifies the divine with something physical and
finite). So he is against the ceremonies
and reverence of the Eucharist. Luther,
in contrast, was not opposed to the ceremony.
Elemental realism. Hoen pointed
out that ‘is’ in the bible can signify rather than identify. Luther admits this possibility (but says not
necessarily). The bread and wine signify
the presence of the body and blood of Christ.
But unless it is necessary to interpret ‘is’ as signifying, don’t. Key: the incarnation, Christ’s divinity, is
not a symbol but is present in his humanity.
So, his body and blood are present in the bread and wine.
Zwingli
uses proof and text for a spiritual interpretation of communion, without the
presence of the body and blood in the bread and wine. So he is a dualist: the soul (spirit) v.
body(flesh). In this sense, Zwingli is a
platonist. Spiritual communion refers to
all flesh and all spirit—referring to a relationship rather than to a
presence. Luther claims that this means
that ‘is as signify’ is not necessary.
According
to Zwingli, what happens to the congregation, as the body of Christ, is what is
important. Faith is a grace given prior
to the celebration of the Eucharist. The
receptionist position; faith as a precondition.
To Luther, the Eucharist is by grace; it forgives sins. It is the promise and gift of himself, not
conditional on faith. Faith is not prior
to the gift. If it were, faith would be works righteousness. The gift, received via faith, is independent
of faith.
Luther
believed in mandicatio impiorum (infidelium): unbelievers also receive the body
and blood in the Eucharist. Zwingli: no.
Zwingli
argued that the incarnation involved the finite nature and divinity together
metaphorically. If Jesus remains
human/finite after the resurrection, then he is limited spacially and
temporally so he is not in our time and space. So he could not be truly present
in the bread and wine.
According
to Luther, there are three ways that something can be present:
- Circumscriptively (having
boundaries)
- Definitively (in a space and
time, but not locateable) Jesus.
- Repletively (makes jumps in
time and space, so present everywhere) Jesus.
To
Luther, Jesus in the Eucharist is present repletively. As the right hand of God, Jesus is
everywhere, yet not available everywhere anytime due to the incarnation.
4/7/93
Luther:
the body and blood are signs of a present reality. The bread and wine, and body and blood, are
instruments/vehicles to bring Christ within.
We actually receive the signs of unification with Jesus.
Zwingli:
the body and blood are signs of an absent reality. Sacraments are a means of the proclamation (a
means of grace).
Patristic
worship being around the sacraments led to theological changes. New to the reformation, changes in beliefs
(lex credendi) led to changes in the liturgy (lex orandi). In the twentieth century, more was known
about the patristic practices and beliefs.
We now know that both Luther and Trent were away from patristic
practices and beliefs. So there has been
a movement back to the patristic, with more unification seen. In the Middle Ages, there was a radical
separation between the Eucharist as sacrifice and Communion (congregational
groups). The Mass came to be seen as
having magical power and linked to sacrifice.
This was abused for profit, as people paid for benefits.
A
fundamental problem: works righteousness.
So, legitimate reforms. To
Luther, the fundamental problem of the Church was works righteousness in the
Eucharistic sacrifice. So the reform was
to shift the meaning of the Eucharist from sacrifice to communion. In the late middle ages, communion was
infrequent. When done, most people
didn’t take it more than once per year.
To Luther, communion had to be to a congregation. So, he advocated increased frequency of
it.
The
Catholic Church saw grace going to communicants. Zwingli saw the elements used as expressing
signs to remember the cross. So it is
something good that we do (to remember the cross). Luther saw this approach as works
righteousness. Calvin sided with Luther,
but agreed with Zwingli. Body and blood
is with God, outside of our space and time.
Yet, the Eucharist is a gift from god so body and blood are not
localized (not elemental realism). The
Eucharist, to Calvin, is an efficacious sign (not real presence) toward union
with God, so to feed upon. So, a
spiritual communion with Christ, the emphasis being in the relationship between
God and the individual. So Calvin saw
the Eucharist as the occasion for the union.
Real presence on the occasion of the union.
Baptism:
In
patristic times, it was seen as union with Christ. In the Late Medieval period, it was thought
to remove original sin. Luther saw it as
giving faith (infants baptized have faith).
Zwingli saw it as a sign of membership.
Calvin saw it as a seal, confirming and strengthening faith, taking
effect as the infant grows up.
4/8/93:
Discussion
Think
of the trinity as follows:each person participates in each Godly function; each
person is ‘chair’ in a specific area.
The trinity was not an issue in the Reformation.
Calvin:
Knowledge
of God is in us, according to Calvin, but is not sufficient for salvation. Needed is the knowledge of God for me via
revelation (e.g. Christ died for me).
See, John Dillenberger, John Calvin.
Faith
and Love: The priority of God’s action.
It is necessary in order to love God, knowing that God loves us. Aquinas claimed that faith is prior to love
(unfirmed faith). To Calvin, knowledge
is not faith or piety. Faith is
knowledge and personal relationship to God and sanctification of Christ’s
spirit (grace). Calvin emphasizes the
spirit, whereas Luther didn’t. To
Calvin, true piety is not separate from one’s faith. Not justified by good works, but Calvin’s
emphasis is on the imperative of the Christian life.
Humans
love the glory of God via natural and revealed knowledge. This is to love the beauty of God, in the
aesthetic sense. Knowledge of self
reveals the work of God (in us). Life of faith involves the human experience,
so you can’t separate the human experience of faith from knowledge of God. Calvin emphasizes experience.
4/12/93
Repressed
reformers:
- Waldensians (Peter Waldo,
late 1100’s) Opposed a hierarchical
church; became Calvinists.
- Moravians (Wyclif, 1384d;
John Huss, 1415d(Hussites))
Anti-papal (Wyclif), Calvinist (Huss), and Lutheran/Reformed combo
(Court Zinzmdorf). Zinzmdorf
(1760d) founded the present
- Mennonites (Anabaptists; eg.
Menno Simons, 1559d.) Zwingli
(sacraments as testimony of one’s faith).
He eliminated infant baptism.
Anabaptists have firm discipline, high standards, and their church
life is influenced by medieval monasticism. Total pacifism, no oaths, and separation
from the world (no government or judicial posts). The Amish are conservative
Anabaptists. The Anabaptists were
associated with the peasant revolt and thus were persecuted. The civil authority proclaimed rebaptism
a blasphemy with the penalty being death.
These
were Trinitarian Christians. They were
heretical movements for left-wing reform.
Radical
Reformers included the Anabaptists, Spiritualists, and
Rationalists(anti-trinitarians)
They
opposed the sociopolitical establishment, as they were antiestablishment
radicals.
Calvinists
thought of themselves as mainstream Catholics.
Calvin himself executed an anti-trinitarian.
Calvin
emphasized the first 600 years of the Church, a time in which Augustine’s
thought was emphasized. Anglicans,
Lutheran, and Reformers adhere to patristics.
Luther was of the first generation of reformers. He wanted to remain in
the Roman Catholic Church, though he was against papal territory. He wanted the lay people to be more involved
in the Church’s activities. He did not
have a theology of the church (ecclesiology), with changed politics as a
result. Calvin was a second generation reformer. He began six years after Luther. Calvin thought the Roman Church had lost its
right to be the Church. He provided an
ecclesiology (presby), but was toerant to an episcopacy. Unlike Luther, Calvin was not concerned about
the terrified conscience. Like Luther,
Calvin was sola fide. But not as an
answer to the terrified conscience.
Rather, he looked to rising above the world to union with God
(happiness). Jesus was how to get up
there. Reconciled God’s justice and
mercy (using Anselm’s atonement).
Predestination is not central to Calvin, nor is the relation between God
and man.
Calvin’s
principles:
Restoration
of the image of God via union with Jesus Christ. The universe is like an mirror: the glory of
God is reflected to the eyes of faith via scripture. Angels are the messengers of God. Humans are the highest created beings, not
just because of the incarnation. To the
degree that humans turn to God, as the responsibility of our whole being, we
are images, or reflections of, God. Gratitude makes humans into the image of
God. Gratitude is a gift, dependent on
God. The desire to do God’s will,
involving obedience and praise. Sin is
the destruction of the image of god. The
reflection mirrored is distorted by sin, so it is not total. These is some sense of divinity in everyone,
yet without obedience. Dissatisfied with
life, we seek satisfaction in making up an image (idols).
4/14/93
Sensus
Divinatatus: sense of divinity
Aquinas claimed that humans could have some knowledge of
God, abstracting from concrete conditions.
Using scripture, he gave five philosophical arguments for God’s
existence. Aquinas was
contemplative. Calvin, on the other
hand, was self-involved. He claimed that some innate apriori (Platonist)
knowledge of God is available, but is useless for salvation. Calvin, like Aristotle and Augustine, was
interested in practical knowledge of God.
We create idols and religions to fill our dissatisfaction (which is due
to sin). This is not good; instead, we
should turn to God in trust. Calvin
claimed that glimmers of God’s glory is in human nature, though in a distorted
way. Sin (ingratitude) leads to
ignorance. Luther saw sin as
unfaith/distrust. Augustine saw sin as
turning toward lower goods. Aquinas saw
sin as a lack of direction, or orientation to meaning.
According to Calvin, the focus should be on union with
God. A mystical union, at the beginning (rather than at the end). For this, faith, forgiveness and
reconciliation are necessary. Faith is the instrumental cause of the
union. Faith is the sure knowledge of
God, firm and certain, involving trust and praise. Luther saw faith primarily as trust and reliance.
Jesus Christ alone is the perfect image of God. He was perfectly obedient to God, which led
him to the Cross. Chris is perfect
humanity and God; a priest, king and prophet.
Repentance is a change of mind, involving mortification
(being killed; sorrow) and vivification (being revived; new life;
sanctification). Like Augustine (and
more so than Luther), Calvin emphasized the struggle to obey God. Luther emphasized liberation from law as
sanctification as a struggle between our own spontaneity and non-spontaneity,
leading to progress in learning and trust.
To Calvin, the lack of spontaneity
in loving God is a sign of our imperfection. Even the greatest saints sin. But it is a progressive struggle (like
Augustine). It is a sign that the work
of God is within us. To Luther, it is a
sign that we are still sinners.
Calvin saw justification as God accepting us, not due to a
change within us. Even though we sin, it
is due to the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
So justification is an imputation of Jesus’ righteousness to us. Luther had a different order: Repentence
(mortification) leads to justification (faith) which leads to sanctification
(vivification/union). Calvin claimed in
contrast that you can’t repent unless you already have faith. Repentance leads to justification which leads
to sanctification. Luther: law leads to
despair which leads to turning to Christ by faith (justification). To Calvin, justification is not due to the
struggle to be good. It is a guide
against pride, whereas for Lutehr it is consolation against the terrified
conscience.
Predestination for Calvin plays the same role as it does
for Luther. God has elected those who
believe. We all resist; the work of the
Holy Spirit gets some of us beyond this resistance. God is equally responsible for resistence and
overcoming resistence (double predestination).
In general, Luther and Calvin had different approaches,
but are not contradictory.
4/16/93
Council of Trent :
The reformers were able to show that the Church had departed
from sola gratia and had embraced semi-plagianism. At Trent ,
the Church was against the semi-plagianism.
In the early 1900’s, Harnack claimed that the late medieval Church had
indeed been semi-plagean. The consensus
from dialogue at the end of the twentieth century between Lutherans, Anglicans,
and Catholics resulted in the consensus that there was no contradiction between
the reformers and Trent as both were sola gratia, with differences only in
emphasis.
Reform had actually started before the Reformation in an
indigenous reform movement from within the Catholic Church. In Spain the government controlled the
ecclesiastical structure. This
eliminated abuses in the Church there, so there was no Lutherianism there
(further reform was not necessary). But
it led to zealous fanaticism (the Spanish inquisition). But in Florence ,
Savonarola was burned before the reformation began for preaching repentence.
She changed the pattern of life there. Pope Alexander VI declared her to be a
heretic. In 1509, the Oratory of Divine
Love, a group of laity, emphasized sola fide.
In 1541, there was a caucus of the Catholic and Lutheran
groups in hopes of avoiding a schism.
Contrarena led the Catholic group, whereas Melenthan led the
Lutherans. There was agreement on sola
fide: in justification, one trusts only God (not oneself). Justification involves an inward
transformation. So the final judgment
was double justification: trust in God (alien righteousness) and inner
transformation (infused righteousness). This distinguished between ontolological
(transformative model) and existential (alien righteousness). But neither Luther nor Rome liked the idea of double
justification. To Luther, it left open
works righteousness. The contemporary
Catholic position is that the forensic metaphor breaks down when God lets
people ‘out of jail’. God’s declaration
accomplishes God’s verdict. So the
declaration and inward transformation are connected (more so than at Regensburg ).
1545 Trent . Five years after Regensburg . It was a reforming council, on discipline such
as selling indulgences and to require seminaries. The council also redefined Catholic dogma,
which helped Catholics gain ground in the late 1500’s. Neo-plagianism was rejected in Canons 2 and
3. It was an attempt to minimalize those
excluded yet without going beyond the Catholic position. It failed.
The reformation positions that were rejected can be seen as characatures
of the protestant position. Calvin read Trent according to the
authors’ intentions (trying to deny Lutheranism and Calvinism). So Calvin tried to find the most schismatic
interpretation of Trent . According to Lindbeck, ,if Trent had been read charitably, it would not
be seen as inconsistent with Luther or Calvin.
For instance, Trent can be read as advocating not trusting in one’s own
merits, it adopted an incropratist (infused grace) view as the cause of merit
(so trust God entirely). We do his gifts in merit, so trust God entirely. Canons 12-14: don’t trust self (not
justification by faith alone). Calvin
also said don’t trust yourself. Both condemn faith in faith. Canon 25: sin in every good work, so
forgiveness is needed for even our best acts.
So, the canons do not exclude the reformation. Trent and the Reformation need not have been
read as being contradictory.
4/16/93:
Discussion
The
relation between justification and sanctification is central to understanding
Calvin. Justification is instantaneous,
by Christ alone. Sanctification is at
the same time and later, progressive and continuous. Election depends on God’s choice, on the
cross. Calvin uses double predestination
so people won’t worry about it. Jesus’
act is only for the elect. Some people
are going to hell; Jesus didn’t suffer for them. Salvation and damnation are both done for the
glory of God. We don’t know if we are
saved, yet some have some assurance by having done good works.
Knowledge
of God is distinct from faith. Knowledge
of God, from nature: that there is a creator.
It makes me know something about myself—that I am not God. From my unworthiness, we gain a sense of our
need of God.
Formed
faith is acquired with charity, whereas unformed faith is without charity. To Aquinas, formed faith is necessary for
salvation. Calvin includes unformed
faith, because he does not like the distinction. Formed faith is different from knowledge of
God( that God exists and is the creator).
Formed faith leads us to realize that God is benevolent. Then, we can participate with Christ (union
with Christ, Christ becomes in us).
Faith is the inward embrace. In
using this mystical transformative language, Calvin is not just forensic (God
declaring that one is righteous).
Christ
on the cross is the locus of our salvation.
In sanctification, good works are the fruit of being justified. Effort suggests the fruit. The struggle suggests Christ within, from
divine initiative. This is not works
righteousness. Luther emphasizes
justification more than Calvin does.
Luther uses the forensic model, stressing forgiveness at once.
4/19/93
Guest
Lecturer
At
the time of the Reformation, there was a renewal of religious orders and reform
from within in Spain . In the 1400’s, there had been the Spanish
Inquisition, against heretics in southern France, decendents of Jews and
Muslems who had converted to Christianity, and against any in a fervent renewal
movement (St. John of the Cross, and Ignatious of Loyola were
investigated).
Mysticism
spirituality:
Teresa
of Abela (1500’s) was a nun. She wrote Teaching
and Instruction in the Life of Prayer and Reform of an Order. She pointed to the inner struggle involved in
living a Christian life, there being a gap between appearance and reality (of
self to others). Her emphasis was on
dependence on grace (from Augustine).
From grace comes efforts at prayer.
Are
we passive, manipulated by God?
Resistence is possible to union with God, but not to rapture with
God(intimacy of God’s overpowering). The
complex interaction between the person and God is not a question of
resistability; rather, it is of God’s choice.
Grace:
Grace
transforms, making one humble and aware of our need for God. Grace is forensic, expressing the condition
of the sinner while being righteous.
There are two struggles, one within the person (human striving) and
between God and the person which emphasizes God’s grace overwhelming human
effort. These two struggles are a
paradox of our own individual effort (striving) and divine assistance. But
human striving is really God working through the person.
Ignatius
(1491-1556):
He
was a soldier, wounded in 1521. Upon his
conversion, he was torn between being a soldier and a follower of Christ. He chooses the latter, incorporating elements
of a soldier’s life. He emphasized study
and pilgrimages, spiritual discipline (becomes the Jesuit discipline), the
spirit of the will, the break with stoicism, spiritual exercises, intense
meditation on scenes involving Jesus, and conversation(prayer) with God. He wanted to radicalize the alternatives of
being either with God or not. A
clear-cut choice in meditation, using the imagination. To form the will, one is asked to
choose. Three degrees of
commitment—different degrees of holding something back. There is a psychological difference between
thinking of Jesus and being there with him, the latter being conducive to
action. Contemplation in action. He polarizes and simplifies the world, a
struggle between God and satan. The
spiritual practice includes rules on vigils, fasting, and pilgrimages in order
to pray and act. Rules also on obedience
to the Church. The Church=Christ. So being obedient to the Church is to be
obedient to Christ. Ignatius
acknowledged predestination, and claimed that faith and grace are important,
though he did not mention the reformers.
He tried to balance our dependence on God with the idea that Christian
life means a certain way of life. Unlike
Luther, Ignatius is concerned about laxity, yet he does not want to say human
effort is necessary.
Teresa
emphasizes the gift of grace (contemplation), whereas Ignatius emphasizes
reforming of the will so actions will change.
The
mystical theology maintains that experiences in Christian life leads to grace.
4/21/93
Augustine:
Strong—double
predestination and sola gratia. Calvin,
Jansonius(1638), and Pascal
Moderate—single
predestination and sola gratia. Aquinas,
Luther Ignatius, and Bellarmine(1621)
Semi—grace
and free-will. Molina (1600): prevenience of grace; free-will used to
cooperate.
Then,
a shift to Justification. The Catholic
Church used a transformative model, then the Reformation used a forensic model. At Trent ,
all three forms of Augustine were attempted to be included, but most naturally
moderate Augustine. Trent affirmed the prevenience of grace. Jansonists took the strong form. Rome
opposed it in 1654. Jansonism affirmed
that grace is irresistible, that some acts are meritorious; freedom from
external compulsion only. So merit is a product of irresistible grace. Also, Jansonists claimed that it is heretical
to deny that crass is irresistible (so the molinists were heretics). And it is heretical to assert that Christ
died for all humans.
Later
Calvinism included Beza (1609d), and Arenus who reacted to Beza in affirming
moderate Augustine but leaning toward Semi.
Later, what was called Arminianism was Semi. John Wesley, for instance. Reaction against Armanus lead to Dort (1619) in which total depravity, unconditional
election, limited atonement, irrestability of grace, and the perseverance of
the elect was decreed. The Westminister
Confessions were in 1647. Lambeth
Articles had been in 1595, written by the Archbishop of Canterbury, affirming
double predestination.
Sublapsarianism:
decrees of election and rejection follow the Fall.
Supralapsarianism:
decrees are antecedent to the means appointed to achieve them. Predestination is the original intent of
God.
4/23/93
The
reformers had a rhetorical theology (proclaimed), even as their concerns
differed. For instance, Luther wanted to
deal with terrified consciences, whereas Calvin wanted to promote the Christian
good life. Aristotle’s logic
dominated—order a set of premises from which conclusions could be deduced. For instance, it is claimed in the
Westminister Confession that good consequences can be deduced from
scripture. That is, if the internal
order of scripture passages can be organized, they can be turned into
propositions. The ‘Protestant
Orthodoxy’: turn affirmations of faith into premises. The Catholic Church used tradition, too, as
premises. Calvin’s argument: from a
knowledge of God and self, authority of scripture. The other reformers claimed the reverse: from
the authority of scripture, knowledge of God and self.
In
late Calvinism, faith is an apprehension of God’s goodness through Jesus Christ
(as merciful to us). There is thus a
cognitive dimension prior to the fiduciary dimension. Yet, for Calvin as well as Luther, assurance
is faith. Extrospective (clinging to
God’s promises in Jesus Christ, true faith only if one is elected) vs.
introspective (experientialism as the basis of knowing whether one has true
faith). Late Calvinism syllogism: if I
don’t have faith, then I’m not of the elect (i.e. damned). If I do have faith, then I am one of the
elect. Late Calvinists saw themselves as
damned and stressed repentence in their experience. If one is repentant, then one is pretty sure
of one’s election. Assurance of election
is in terms of doing what one is capable of, being dependent upon God. Thus, trusting God and Jesus, repenting and
living a good Christian life.
4/23/01:
Discussion
Augustine
got prevenience of grace from Paul. Then Orange
and Cartherage, then Aquinas, Luther and Trent.
At Trent ,
justification was in terms of prevenience of grace with a human input.
Sin. Original sin, then concupiscence
(inappropriate desire). Concupiscence is
not itself sin, but if acted upon, it is sin.
It is not necessarily behavior, as the key is mental assent. Idolatry: putting one’s priorities not in
God. In Luther’s view, there are no good
acts. They are somewhat contrary to
concupiscence as they are not in themselves sin. But Luther doesn’t separate concupiscence and
other sinful acts.
Calvin
holds justification and sanctification together.
Venial
sin does not separate us from God, and can be worked out in purgatory(e.g.
missing mass). Mortal sin separates us
from God (e.g. murder and adultery)
Justification
at Trent was
both transformative (emphasized) and forensic (justification by faith). Faith is necessary but not sufficient for
justification. Canon 9 is against
justification by faith if this means nothing else is necessary. Trent
here is closer to Luther than to Calvin.
Trent
asserts the reality of grace working in person, plus justification by
faith. So Trent, Calvin and Luther are
not necessarily in conflict.
Grace
is from God but is not the same as God.
Eastern
Church: divine essence (God’s persons) vs. energies (of what one has in
divination—authentic participation in God).
The Western
Church Western Church
4/26/01
Jeremy
Taylor was the first mainstream theologian to admit that he disagreed with
Augustine. He was an Anglican who wrote
his famous text in 1658. His context was
the English Civil War, ten years before his text. The thirty year war and the peace of
Westfalia were also in his context. It
was not just a religious war.
The consensus of interpreting scripture in
terms of Augustine was breaking down, to be replaced by modern theology. Taylor
appealed to Luther, used reason(from the Greek and Roman classics), and was
traditional in liturgical style. He
argued that the notion of double predestination was obsurd. Later, pietistic protestants (the puritans)
rejected (double) predestination. The
problem for Taylor
was Augustine’s understanding of original sin in which God imputes the guilt of
Adam to his descendents by God’s own decree in judical terms. Original sin would then involve guilt for
something we didn’t do, or, to be separated from God would be to be guilty. Taylor
argued that the imputation of guilt from Adam makes double predestination
necessary. So, if one is against
predestination, one has to deny original sin.
If we are not guilty for original sin, then infants who die before they
are baptized will not go to hell.
Lutherans baptized infants with uncertainty, not sure if scripture
implies that unbaptized infants go to hell.
Calvin was hopeful about the fate of unbaptized infants. So Taylor
was not Calvinist, but agreed with their hope for unbaptized infants. Taylor
also disagreed with Anselm’s notion of atonement. Anselm (1600’s) claimed that Jesus bears our
punishment (i.e. not satisfaction). Taylor was against this
penal substitution notion. To Taylor , it undermines the
necessity of the atoning Christ and disassociates ideas from sensibility. The idea of the necessity of Christ’s atoning
increased into the 1800’s as the denial of the divinity of Jesus spread into
deism. Did Taylor start this?
At
around 1650, a new era of theology began.
Taylor
was of marginal importance for this new theology. Locke was more important. Theology and Philosophy had been closely
integrated until then. The Church was
torn apart by disputes at the time, which generated uncertainty of what
constitutes a reliable source of Christian truth. Rationalism, Pietism (experience), Scripturalism
(dogmatic adherence), Church Authority (in isolation), and Science
(empiricism). Protestantism used the
first three. Science did not cause this
uncertainty, but was a product of it.
The
study of Christian thought: one can learn both the unity and pluralism in the
Christian mainstream. The mainstream are
those for whom Jesus Christ is God with us and in history, witnessed by
scripture and interpreted by creeds (eg. Trinity). Within that mainstream, there have been
conflicts (different problems and contexts) and unifications. Many of the differences have been due to the
attempt to bring Jesus Christ into different contexts (and problems). So differences in theology are due especially
to different contexts. So understand
others from the inside (their context) before criticizing them. This is necessary for reconciliation. Develop patterns of thought and disposition
to understand another from the inside.
The study of history helps.
[1]
“For it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for
his good pleasure.”
[2]
Alternative theologies of love: love, not that which is delightful, but is of
the needy; compassion. And love as the
responsibility of gratitude.
[3]
FomesPeccati: the effects of original sin; inability to do right.
[4]
A neo-platonic ‘reminder’ involves participation in a divine reality (i.e.
absorbed in another reality).
[5]
On the critics of Anselm, see: McIntyre, John St. Anselm and his Critics,
Edinburgh(1954): Oliver & Boyd.
[6]
Whereas Anselm uses transaction-exchange justice, Aquinas uses distributive justice
(according to worth).
