Argument against the prosperity doctrine and determinism

by Andrea Elizabeth

From the Prolog of Ohrid for today:

THE HOLY FORTY-TWO MARTYRS FROM AMMORIA
They were all commanders of the Byzantine Emperor Theophilus. When the Emperor Theophilus lost the battle against the Saracens at the city of Ammoria, the Saracens captured the city, enslaved many Christians and among them these commanders. The remaining Christians were either killed or sold into slavery. The commanders were thrown into prison where they remained for seven years. Many times the Muslim leaders came to them. They counseled and advised the commanders to embrace the Islamic Faith, but the commanders did not want to hear about it. When the Saracens spoke to the commanders, saying, “Mohammed is the true prophet and not Christ,” the commanders asked them, “If there were two men debating about a field and the one said, `This field is mine,’ and the other, `It is not, it is mine,’ and near by, one of them had many witnesses saying it is his field and the other had no witnesses, but only himself, what would you say, `Whose field is it?’” The Saracens answered, “Indeed, to him who had many witnesses!” “You have judged correctly,” the commanders answered. That is the way with Christ and Mohammed. Christ has many witnesses: the Prophets of old, from Moses to John the Forerunner, whom you also recognize and who witness to and about Him [Christ], but Mohammed witnesses only to himself that he is a prophet and does not have even one witness. The Saracens were ashamed and again they tried to defend their faith in this manner: “Our faith is better than the Christian Faith as proved by this: God gave us the victory over you and gave us the best land in the world and a kingdom much greater than Christianity.” To that the commanders replied, “If it were so, then the idolatry of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Hellenes, Romans, and the fire-worship of the Persians would be the true faith for, at one time, all of these people conquered the others and ruled over them. It is evident that your victory, power and wealth do not prove the truth of your faith. We know that God, at times, gives victory to Christians and, at other times, allows torture and suffering so as to correct them and to bring them to repentance and purification of their sins.” After seven years, they were beheaded in the year 845 A.D. Their bodies were then thrown into the Euphrates river, but they floated to the other side of the shore where they were gathered and honorably buried by Christians.

But what about the Bible verses where God promises to prosper you?

First thing that comes to mind is that these are promised to Israel as a whole, not to individuals. Second thing, ‘What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul’. Third thing, what about all the wealthy Christians out there?

First thing that comes to my mind about the last question, ‘It is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle’. The other day I was thinking this relates to the Rich Young Ruler who was attached to too many things to give them up for Christ. He couldn’t fit through the small hole with all his stuff.

Then why is being prospered presented as a good thing?

Old Testament materialist typology of spiritual blessings?

That sounds gnostic.

C.S. Lewis implies in The Great Divorce that material things get more real in heaven. I take that to mean we exchange them. ;Lest a grain of wheat fall to the earth and die’, it can’t grow into a healthy plant. Material things are like seeds. Gotta plant them, not horde them. In this way a rich man is to live the same way as a desert hermit. Just as unattached to his money and stuff, even though he, unlike the ‘desert ascetic’, or martyr for that matter, keeps getting more of it.

(references to the above quotes supplied upon request if you want to put me through digging them up)

freedom

by Andrea Elizabeth

When I say “transported” I don’t mean that I have an out of body experience where I’m flying above cloud 9. It’s more like a momentary vacation from cares and bothersome logismoi that distract me. Remembering God’s eternal kingdom posits (Kierkegaard’s word) eternity in the midst of temporal affairs and makes them seem less overwhelming.

On a different note in the next section on the nothing of anxiety inducing paganistic fatalism, (take a breath) “Fate [...] is the unity of necessity and the accidental.” (p. 96) I find that freeing.

Using evil

by Andrea Elizabeth

Speaking of Gollum (and Dr. Vermillion) and if God uses evil to bring about good, the part in Lord of the Rings where Gandalf says that Gollum has a part yet to play has always bothered me. I didn’t see Gollum as being necessary to the success of the mission, and if he was then it seems to me that Gandalf was too obscure about how to handle him and should have warned Frodo and Sam more. Assigning him a necessary part means that evil is necessary.

The other day Jared said that he believed that Gollum could have been saved/repented, and that he did do some key things to guide Frodo and Sam. That made me remember that it did seem possible for him to turn to the good side until they met Faramir (I’ve only seen the movies). Still, Gandalf’s prophecy was about the necessity of Gollum’s guidance which was not contingent on if he repented or not.

One could possibly believe this and not believe that God ordains evil. Frodo obviously did not have experience fighting Sauron’s forces or knowledge of the backroads. Plus he was very enticed by the ring. We could say that these are all post-fall states. If the fall is plan – B, then one has to work with what one has, and post-fall we have evil mingled in with good. Wheat lives alongside tares. I suppose in the Divine economy, tares can be used for kindling, and even dandelion recipes in order to sustain a person. Sometimes being bitten by an ill-intentioned creature is what it takes to snatch us out of the larger jaws of death, as it were.

In that case, God did not will for a creature to be ill-intentioned, or for his chosen ones to be enticed towards evil, but since the latter was, and would only listen to the former, he was allowed proximity. For a time. This doesn’t deal with bad things happening to mature, impassive people. I wouldn’t know about that.

Tolstoy on Determinism

by Andrea Elizabeth

War and Peace (14)

Volume III begins with a philosophy of determinative causes in the context of the Napoleonic wars.

When an apple ripens and falls – what makes it fall? Is it that it is attracted to the ground, is it that the stem withers, is it that the sun has dried it up, that it has grown heavier, that the wind shakes it, that the boy standing underneath wants to eat it?

No one thing is the cause. All this is only the coincidence of conditions under which every organic, elemental event of life is accomplished. And the botanist who finds that the apple falls because the cellular tissue degenerates, and so on, will be as right and as wrong as the child who stands underneath and says that the apple fell because he wanted to eat it and prayed for it. As he who says that Napoleon went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander wanted him to perish, will be both right and wrong, so he will be right and wrong who says that an undermined hill weighing a million pounds collapsed because the last worker struck it a last time with his pick. In historical events the so-called great men are labels that give the event a name, which, just as with labels, has the least connection of all with the event itself.

Their every action, which to them seems willed by themselves, in the historical sense is not willed, but happens in connection with the whole course of history and has been destined from before all ages. (p. 606)

Up to this last sentence I thought he didn’t believe in determined causes at all, but here he is promoting destiny. Destined by whom or what? God, Karma?

One thing about Calvinism I used to like was the idea of predestination where God is causing “all things to work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose”. This is how I’ve made peace with bad things in my life. There’s a reason. In emphasizing free will, it can seem more like we are subject to each other’s whims, and that God is not in control. I(?) don’t let myself go that far with it. I like the complexity and broad thinking that Tolstoy employs, and agree (if this is what he means by destiny) that some sense can be made of the multitude of variables that bring about every outcome. God’s hand is omnipresent, but not heavy, usually.

There is a way to bring in matter/antimatter and stability (Crime and Punishment)/instability of character (Brothers Karamazov), which lack seems almost voluntaristic, but I’ll do it this way instead. Perhaps God is the unexplained reason why matter has survived the probability of an equal amount of antimatter annihilating it completely. This prevention could be known as God’s will. But why would he allow antimatter in the first place? Necessary tension for the good of the material? But what about the material that gets destroyed, or at least does not live ever well? Is survival of the fittest a loving plan? Only if overcoming is available to everyone. God is only loving if there is enough energy available to keep everyone together. I believe there is. That healing is available to everyone – so the reason that some aren’t healed is that they didn’t try. Not that all can or have to attain the same outcome in this life. There are some who maybe do not want goodness, however much the ones who do are confused about it due to their gnomic wills. I’ll leave that in God’s merciful hands.

About instability of character and voluntarism in Brothers Karamazov, the character of Lise in particular troubled me in that I believed her instability at the end was unfounded. Perhaps she lacked the attention that Raskolnikov was given in Crime in Punishment to satisfactorily explain her transformation. Her sudden change seemed almost soap operaish where people change willy nilly and you can’t count on any story line following a stable trajectory. Perhaps stability (surviving antimatter) is more tenuous than I have been romantically trained to believe. This is why we must be vigilant.

Metropolitan Jonah and Presbytera Eugenia

by Andrea Elizabeth

This past Saturday, The Nativity of Our Lord Monastery for women, which was consecrated by Metropolitan Jonah just last September, hosted Facing Jerusalem, A Scriptural, Historical and Iconographic Lenten Retreat, presented by Dr. Presbytera Eugenia Constantinou. It was preceded by Divine Liturgy with Metropolitan Jonah. It was my first time to this new monastery to which I hope to return regularly, as often as I can manage the 4 hour round trip.

The choir for the Liturgy consisted of talented ladies from St. Seraphim Cathedral, who sang melodic Russian compositions, sometimes in Slavonic. Metropolitan Jonah gave the homily on the responsibility of the hierarchy for the salvation of the people, and then afterward spoke on the upcoming meeting of the different jurisdictional Bishops in May to discuss unity in America. Fr. Oliver Herbel recently posted on this conference and provides a prayer by the laity for it’s direction.

Presbytera Eugenia then spent the next eight hours delving deep into the Orthodox Lenten journey, explaining the context for the Lenten Gospel and Epistle readings, as well as Patristic commentary, which prepare us for Holy Week, Christ’s journey to the cross. I did not take detailed notes, but will share some of her points as I remember and understand them.

She said that the Epistles from Hebrews reveal Christ as God and High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek, not the Mosaic law, even though Moses is a “type” of Christ.

The Gospel readings from Mark and John reveal Christ as the Son of God, King of Israel, the “secret” Messiah, and the suffering servant. A particular insight that I found helpful during this section was her explanation of what it means to take up your cross. She said that most say this means that we are to endure through ailments and/or mistreatment, etc., but it is more than this. She emphasized that Christ suffered willingly and sacrificially, which is different than passive acceptance.

For Holy Week, she discussed the laws and attitudes of the Jews. I wont go into that except to say that she made a case that it wasn’t just jealousy or passion or a desire to deceive or trick that caused the leaders to condemn Christ, but a conviction that as a rabbi, He truly violated their ritual purity laws and blasphemed against God. She also explained how this was because He was of the Order of Melchizedec and not the Levitical priesthood.

For Great and Holy Friday, she explained why the cross is a scandal to the Jews, Muslims, Greeks and Romans. The Jews (and Muslims) to this day do not believe God would suffer the humiliation of the cross – even if the “man” truly rose from the dead. Nowadays they believe Isaiah 53 refers to the suffering Jewish people, not the Messiah. The Romans and Greeks in their Manecheism or Gnosticism couldn’t accept that Christ would become human – created and thus lesser than God. Docetism also developed from this idea. She showed an ancient graffiti where Christians were mocked as having a God suspended from the cross – it was a picture of a suspended man with a horse’s head and a worshipper admitting that was his God. How ridiculous. Now it makes more sense why no one could just make up or rationalize their way to our faith.

She also talked about Christ’s attitudes and statements to the Pharisees and how He, before the end, escaped their snares. During the Q&A, after most of the over 100 people had gone, not expecting or able to stay for such a long day, I feebly asked (expanding on others’ comments) about Christ’s conflicting attitudes of “disgust” and acknowledging their intelligence of the law, and then at the end His blaming their treatment on ignorance; and how this “pardon” relates to free will. During the back and forth she talked about “Bible speak” which sounds like God hardened their hearts, but could be considered sarcastic like “lest they repent”, heaven forbid. They were ignorant and ‘knew not what they did’ because they were blinded by being wedded to their system and their positions of power and were not willing to humble themselves or open themselves to change – so ultimately it was their own free will that caused them to reject Christ. Even in Judas’ case. God did not cause him to betray Christ, he just made the crucifixion easier.

It is very helpful to have this additional context.

Olivier Clément

by Andrea Elizabeth

I couldn’t find the answer to yesterday’s question by skimming Olivier Clément’s The Roots of Christian Mysticism, though many passages came pretty close. Perhaps if I read it cover to cover I may. In the following section I find some of my other ponderings on this blog addressed, such as the balance of free will and grace, God’s sovereignty, and reminiscences of St. Dionysius (through Dr. John D. Jones) describing God’s transcendence as well as Beauty being one of God’s overarching attributes or energies.

[Hilary of Poitiers] discovered in the biblical teaching of the Jews the living God who transcends all things yet is present in them, outside everything yet inside, the ex-centric centre, the ‘author of beauty’ disclosed in the beauty of the world. But only the Gospel of the Word-made-flesh, the Gospel of the resurrection of the flesh, could assure him that he would not be ‘reduced to non-being’: that he, Hilary, was an irreplaceable person and would be wholly loved and saved, body and soul, by the combination of grace and his own freedom.

[...] But it was necessary also to recognize God’s work…

‘Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span?’ (Isaiah 40.12).

and later:

‘Heaven is my throine and the earth is my footstool… All these things my hand has made’ (Isaiah 66: 1-2).

The whole heavens are held in God’s hand, the whole earth in the hollow of his hand… The heaven is also his throne and the earth his footstool. We should certainly avoid too human an image of God, as someone sitting on a throne with his feet on a footstool. His throne and footstool are his infinite omnipotence, which embraces everything in the hollow of his hand. The imagery borrowed from created things signifies that God exists in them and outside them, that he both transcends and pervades them, that he surpasses all creatures and yet dwells in them. The hollow of his hand symbolizes the power of his divinity revealing itself. The throne and the footstool show he controls external objects because he is within them, but at the same time he envelops them and encloses them within himself. He is inside and outside everything… Nothing is beyond the reach of the one who is infinite… What came to light as a result of my search was well expressed by the prophet:

‘Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?

Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

If I ascend to heaven, thou art there!

If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there!

If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,

even there thy hand shall lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me’ (Psalm 139.7-10).

There is no place without God; place does not exist except in God…

I was happy contemplating the mystery of his wisdom and his unapproachableness. I worshipped the eternity and immeasurable greatness of my Father and Creator. But I longed also to behold the beauty of my Lord… My ardour, deceived by the weakness of my mind, was trapped in its own search, when I discovered in the words of the prophet this magnificent thought about God:

‘For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator’ (Wisdom 13.5).

The sky and the air are beautiful, the earth and the sea are beautiful. By divine grace the universe was called by the Greeks ‘cosmos’, meaning ‘ornament’ … Surely the author of all created beauty must himself be the beauty in all beauty?

[...] I came to know the light of the world… I understood that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us… Those who welcomed him became children of God, by a birth not in the flesh but in faith… This gift of God is offered to everyone… We can receive it because of our freedom which was given us expressly for this purpose. But this very power given to each person to be a child of God was bogged down in weak and hesitant faith. Our own difficulties make hope painful, our desire becomes infuriating and our faith grows weak. That is why the Word was made flesh: by means of the Word-made-flesh the flesh was enabled to raise itself up to the Word… Without surrendering his divinity God was made of our flesh… My soul joyfully received the revelation of this mystery. By means of my faith I was called to a new birth. I was able to receive this new birth from on high… I was assured that I could not be reduced to non-being. (Hilary of Poitiers The Trinity, 1,1-13, PL 10, 25-35)

God is absolute beauty because he is absolute personal existence. As such, he awakens our desire, sets it free and draws it to himself. He sets beings within their limits but he calls them into communion with one another without confusing them. Being himself beyond movement or rest, he gives to each creature an identity that is exact and distinct, but is nevertheless capable of development when brought to life by the dynamic power of love. (p. 18-21)

How much Determinism?

by Andrea Elizabeth

When I first read the following passages from the Iliad a few days ago, my thought was that Calvinists have inherited their views of God’s Sovereignty from ancient Greek (Hellenic) thought.

Agamemnon on offending Achilles:

Often have the Achaeans spoken to me of this matter and upbraided me, but it was not I that did it: Zeus, and Fate, and Erinys that walks in darkness struck me mad when we were assembled on the day that I took from Achilles the meed that had been awarded to him. What could I do? All things are in the hand of heaven, and Folly, eldest daughter of Zeus’ daughters, shuts men’s eyes to their detruction. She walks delicately, not on the solid earth, but hovers over the heads of men to make them stumble or to ensnare them. (p.300)

To Odysseus: “I will swear as you would have me do; I do so of my own free will, neither shall I take the name of heaven in vain.” (p. 302)

Then Achilles also rose and said to the Argives: “Father Zeus, of a truth you blind men’s eyes and bane them. The son of Atreus had not else stirred me to so fierce an anger, nor so stubbornly taken Briseis from me against my will. Surely Zeus must have counseled the destruction of many an Argive.” (p. 304)

But then two of my children who attended Archimandrite Zacharias’ talk to the youth in Dallas Saturday night came home telling me the he said it was God’s will that Rebecca encourage Jacob to trick Isaac by pretending he was Esau. I had been taught differently growing up (not by Calvinists). That Rebecca and Jacob’s counselling together was faithless in God’s ability to make Jacob the heir of Isaac’s blessing legitimately and according to His promise. They disobediently (and against God’s will) resorted to lies because they didn’t wait on God.

When George came home and heard of it, he said that Archimandrite Zacharias spoke according to ancient Rabbinic tradition and that my spin on it was a new-fangled Protestant gloss. Really?

Now I’m confused. I’m hanging on to Agamemnon’s free will in spite of it all though.

A softer view of Blessed Augustine

by Andrea Elizabeth

I’m almost 3/4 through The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church, and I’m very impressed with the circumspection and depth of research that Fr. Seraphim Rose put into this study towards the end of his life on this earth. This is the first book I’ve read directly by him as my other acquaintance with his thought is from Father Seraphim Rose, His Life and Works by Hieromonk Damascene. As I recall of that work, Father Seraphim’s personal attitudes and opinions were detailed. In this book on Blessed Augustine, I am seeing Fr. Seraphim practice what he preached. Namely, a submission to the Patristic witness permeated by the savor of Orthodoxy.

Fr. Seraphim does not gloss over the Church Father’s errors, but instead gives perspective of them through what other Church Fathers said about him. It seems that despite the errors, which are the only things explained so far, he was greatly loved and respected. It is interesting to me to see how fondly and delicately St. John Cassian, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Photius, St. Mark of Ephesus and others talked about him amidst disagreement. Blessed Augustine was not denounced as a heretic, but was instead characterized as having certain “imprecise” views of grace, free will, predestination and purgatory.

Even the greatest thinker does not exert influence in an intellectual vacuum; the reason why extreme predestinarianism broke out at different times in the West (and not in the East) was due first of all, not to Augustine’s teaching (which was only a pretext and a seeming justificaton), but rather to the overly-logical mentality which has always been present in the peoples of the West: in Augustine’s case it produced exaggerations in a basically Orthodox thinker, while in the case of Calvin (for example) it produced an abominable heresy in someone who was far indeed from Orthodoxy in thought and feeling. If Augustine had taught his doctrine in the East and in Greek, there would have been no heresy of predestinarianism there, or at least none with the widespread consequences of the Western heresies; the non-rationalistic character of the Eastern mind would not have drawn any consequences from Augustine’s exaggerations, and in general would have paid less attention to him than the West did, seeing in him what the Orthodox Church today continues to see in him: a venerable Father of the Church, not without his errors, who ranks rather behind the greatest Fathers of the East and West. (p. 50)

Father Seraphim characterizes condemnations of Blessed Augustine as a heretic by modern Orthodox as being “western” in nature.

Then St. Photius presents an objection typical of the all-too-often narrowly-logical Latin mentality: “If they taught well, then everyone who considers them as Fathers should accept their idea; but if they have not spoken piously, they should be cast out together with the heretics.” [Fr. Seraphim later brings this out as leading to the doctrine of Papal Infallability.] The answer of St. Photius to this rationalistic view is a model of the depth, sensitivity, and compassion with which true Orthodoxy looks on those who have erred in good faith: “Have there not been complicated conditions which have forced many Fathers in part to express themselves imprecisely, in part to speak with adaptation to circumstances under the attacks of enemies, and at times out of human ignorance to which they also were subject?… If some have spoken imprecisely, or for some reason not known to us, even deviated from the right path, but no question was put to them nor did anyone challenge them to learn the truth – we admit them to the list of Fathers, just as if they had not said it, because of their righteousness of life and distinguished virtue and their faith, faultless in other respects. We do not, however, follow their teaching in which they stray from the path of truth…. [...] but we embrace the men. (p. 66)

Submission to the powers that be

by Andrea Elizabeth

The topic of what to do when leadership seems to be going in the wrong direction has been brought up a few times lately, my post on chiliasm, and in Infallibly Through We on Orrologion in particular. I recently read in Father Seraphim Rose, His Life and Works of difficulties he and Gleb had with their hierarch/Abbot, Archbishop Anthony when they were first tonsured monks in their new St. Herman Brotherhood Skete. They were determined that their Skete would be of the hermit style, not a center of Orthodox Spirituality for seekers. The Synod of Bishops communicated through Archbishop Anthony that they wanted the brothers to become Hieromonks so that they could serve Liturgy every Sunday and be more accommodating to visitors. This gave the Brothers much anxiety for the first few years as they resisted this direction. They looked to the departed Archbishop John of San Francisco as their spiritual father and believed that he approved of their vision, not the Synod of current Bishops.

I am keeping an open mind about this, but it does cause anxiety because Archbishop John had also wanted to ordain Eugene as a Priest Monk right before he died, and before they left for the wilderness. But both hierarchs backed down in the face of Brother Eugene’s determination (as well as his success as a publisher, which they also considered a great asset). Then it is pointed out how the Brothers received little signs of encouragement from other places that confirmed they had chosen rightly, as well as direction from Metropolitan Laurus from Jordanville to be open and honest to Archbishop Anthony, who ended up apologizing and supporting them. Fr. Seraphim seemed much more at peace about submission to hierarchs after this apology, and instructed other dissatisfied inquirers to be respectful even amidst disagreement.

Monastics, especially hermit ones, seem to constantly have to be on the defensive about their solitary ambitions. One can see that there was a great need for good parish priests at the time, and this puts a certain amount of pressure on those who seem capable. But now with hindsight, can we say that Eugene did more good in the direction he chose? I’m not far enough in the book yet to find out. It seems that St. Herman of Alaska publications are still going strong and I hope this book will relate how influential it is. I’m to the part now where it is talking about now Father Seraphim’s approach to the Fathers in his personal studies and how to acquire their mind. He studied both eastern and western Fathers, most notably St. Augustine from the west. He read his Confession every year, and it is brought out that he identified with him. I wonder if the hedonism of the 50′s and 60′s to which Eugene was exposed and participated in to some extent during his early adulthood brings about a certain response in a repentant Christian. Apparently St. Augustine was also involved in similar activities in his early days. My inquiries right now are how much to relate to western traditions when one is seeking to be thoroughly Orthodox, and how critical one should be when one reads them. Or does it depend on personality? I’m a pretty high “judging” scorer. With Fr. Seraphim’s critical thinking, I would hope that he would be discerning on which parts of St. Augustine to keep, and which to chunk or at least correct. I want to hear an acknowledgment from Fr. Seraphim that there are things to at least caution against that lead to determinism while reading St. Augustine, so that I can have more peace about the former’s approach. This is also how I’m reading David B. Hart.

Dr. Hart on ADS, free will, and the Ordo Theologiae

by Andrea Elizabeth

Dr. Hart seems to have a push/pull style. Either in appreciation followed by harsh critique, or the reverse. A bit past half-way in Christ and Nothing he’s nicer to Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics.

In any event, developed Christian theology rejected nothing good in the metaphysics, ethics, or method of ancient philosophy, but — with a kind of omnivorous glee — assimilated such elements as served its ends, and always improved them in the process. Stoic morality, Plato’s language of the Good, Aristotle’s metaphysics of act and potency — all became richer and more coherent when emancipated from the morbid myths of sacrificial economy and tragic necessity. In truth, Christian theology nowhere more wantonly celebrated its triumph over the old gods than in the use it made of the so-called spolia Aegyptorum; and, by despoiling pagan philosophy of its most splendid achievements and integrating them into a vision of reality more complete than philosophy could attain on its own, theology took to itself irrevocably all the intellectual glories of antiquity. The temples were stripped of their gold and precious ornaments, the sacred vessels were carried away into the precincts of the Church and turned to better uses, and nothing was left behind but a few grim, gaunt ruins to lure back the occasional disenchanted Christian and shelter a few atavistic ghosts.

If he, like Goliath, got tired of unworthy opponents, as was brought out in reviews of his new book on neo-atheism, I guess he feels he has to play Good Cop and Bad Cop at the same time. I gather Plato did as well in his dialogues. Fiction writers get to do this too, especially wide thinking ones like Dostoevsky. Here he’s harder on the moderns,

it does seem clear to me that the special preoccupations and perversities of modern philosophy were incubated in the age of late Scholasticism, with the rise of nominalism and voluntarism. Whereas earlier theology spoke of God as Goodness as such, whose every act (by virtue of divine simplicity) expresses His nature, the spectre that haunts late Scholastic thought is a God whose will precedes His nature, and whose acts then are feats of pure spontaneity. It is a logically incoherent way of conceiving of God, as it happens (though I cannot argue that here), but it is a powerful idea, elevating as it does will over all else and redefining freedom — for God and, by extension, for us — not as the unhindered realization of a nature (the liberty to “become what you are”), but as the absolute liberty of the will in determining even what its nature is.

Forgive me for commenting before I finish the rest, but I’m afraid I’ll forget my reaction, and I guess I don’t want to be alone on the journey. At the beginning of the essay he talked about everyone nowadays having too much freedom to choose. I’m not sure how he ties that into nihilism yet, and I’ve never heard that the late scholastics posit that God’s will precedes his nature. The Fathers have been clear, in my reading, about denouncing determinism. The first time I heard a firm stance on this was in Patriarch Jeremiah the II’s three replies [edited 6-28-09 to say that the excerpt about determinism seems to have been edited out, I guess I'll have to buy the book and excerpt it myself] to the Augsburg Confession given from 1576 to 1581. To me, nature preceding will is deterministic. Further, having will or activities proceed from Person and precede Nature does not necessarily imply “spontaneity”, which has the connotation of reactionarianism or impulsivity. God can still be a consistent good willer. God is good. Subject/God, verb/activities or will, object/nature. Maybe it’s different in the Greek, I don’t know. Even romantic languages put adjectives after nouns. Adjectives are subordinate to the person, and to me, “Nature” is an adjective, or at least words that describe it are.

God has a perfect will, we do not. So so far I do not see the problem with having too many things to choose from in today’s world. (btw, I do not know the difference between voluntarism and free will) But there is more opportunity for an imperfect will to achieve it’s desires, or at least it’s easier and more socially acceptable. This does not have to be a bad thing. To choose rightly out of love rather than lack of opportunity to choose wrongly, or from fear of retribution is a higher way to choose, imo. Mother Gabriella said that the fear of the Lord is being afraid to hurt one’s beloved.

Therefore I do not see that reversing the order allows humans to determine what human nature is. There are semantics involved, but Christ determined all human nature to be in His image and likeness and when humans choose differently in sinning, they exhibit a corrupted, or hidden human nature, not an anything-goes nature.

Unrelated comment: I like what he says about God not creating or needing our sacrifices out of any necessity on His part.