Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[cfauster]

The question was raised as to whether people today think natural disasters are specifically and individually intended by God or, in contrast, that the phrase “acts of God” is just a useful expression in insurance policies to mean “no human is at fault or to blame.”

I will quote from a new article entitled “The Secularization of Chance: Toward Understanding the Impact of the Probability Revolution on Christian Belief in Divine Providence” by Josh Reeves published in Zygon Vol. 50, Issue 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 604-620. I don’t know if the following link works for everyone or just people affiliated with institutions that subscribe to the journal:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zygo.12191/pdf

Here are some highlights.

“Chance is a topic of scorn in Christian theology because it is seen to undermine belief in God’s providence: the idea that God actively cares for the world, rather than being a detached observer or unconcerned with creation. Though many Christians have been tempted to see God’s providence in ways that resemble fate—ruling the world by a strict predetermined necessity—the Christian tradition has emphasized God’s active governance over particular events. God’s sovereignty means that no events happen unless ordained or permitted by God.”

“… part of the modern loss of confidence in divine providence results from the mismatch between Calvin’s God—which governs each decision to the smallest detail—and the world as described by the probability revolution: one where even the most seemingly random happenings can be predicted. As chance has become a mundane part of the modern world, it becomes harder to see divine concern for particulars behind the laws that characterize chance.”

“Is God really making decisions on a case-by-case basis, as Calvin’s theology suggests? If God’s actions mirror the outcomes of chance in a vast majority of cases, why believe that each event in the world results from the special intervention of God? One might still hold on to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, but Calvin’s picture of God as an energetic deity controlling every micro-event in the world seems implausible. The divine will is thus not as accessible in the natural world for many Christians today as it was for their Christian and Israelite ancestors who cast lots. Christians today do not throw dice as a way to receive an answer to prayer because they, at least implicitly, believe the coin flip is governed by the law of large numbers.”

“The mistake of premodern theologians was to argue that purpose and chance are mutually exclusive; each event in the world could be neatly divided into two categories, with the outcome either chosen by a purposeful intelligence or pure happenstance. The discovery of statistical laws challenges this picture by showing how chance and predictability are often intertwined. If this is the case, theologians can offer more nuanced accounts of God’s relationship to the world.”

 

[simpleas]

Humani Generis, paragraph 12. Please refer to words in bold. This particular “union of all” refers to the secular goal of the “big happy tent” which is imprudent eirenism where people can break bread together while denying annoying Catholic doctrines.

Please note that this particular Humani Generis “union of all” is man-made and thus, in a variety of ways, it opposes Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
“But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all,* but only to their destruction*.”

Today, when we look at the possibilities of a secular union of all in a big happy tent, we can find all kinds of Catholic doctrines shoved under the rug. There are two such doctrines that are pertinent to this thread. 1. the reality of Adam and 2. the reality of Original Sin. Both Adam and his Original Sin are major factors in the destruction of the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.

In fairness to all,
it is also important to understand the objections to the reality of Adam and the misinterpretations of Original Sin. Therefore, those who are familiar with the various personal opinions of popular public authors, including prolific e-mails and media presentations – would you share your information? Obviously, one does not have to believe the stealth attacks on basic foundational doctrines. Yet, it is important to understand the means and ways some people use – hoping to upset, change, and modernize the Catholic Church.

Please, please understand that the Good Shepherd constantly seeks the union of all in His flock. However, the Good Shepherd recognizes that some, not all, sheep will prefer to go elsewhere.
***CCC ***1730-1732 is a necessary truth.

Please, please understand that the Good Shepherd constantly seeks the union of all in His flock. However, the Good Shepherd recognizes that some, not all, sheep will prefer to go elsewhere.
***CCC ***1730-1732 is a necessary truth.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him

As for Adam, this is the same for us. I like what is written here, especially the part, left in the hand of our own counsel ( which I guess means own conscience) and of our own accord to seek our creator.

That seems to me to be what the sheep are doing.

 

[simpleas]

The question was raised as to whether people today think natural disasters are specifically and individually intended by God or, in contrast, that the phrase “acts of God” is just a useful expression in insurance policies to mean “no human is at fault or to blame.”

I will quote from a new article entitled “The Secularization of Chance: Toward Understanding the Impact of the Probability Revolution on Christian Belief in Divine Providence” by Josh Reeves published in Zygon Vol. 50, Issue 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 604-620. I don’t know if the following link works for everyone or just people affiliated with institutions that subscribe to the journal:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zygo.12191/pdf

Here are some highlights.

“Chance is a topic of scorn in Christian theology because it is seen to undermine belief in God’s providence: the idea that God actively cares for the world, rather than being a detached observer or unconcerned with creation. Though many Christians have been tempted to see God’s providence in ways that resemble fate—ruling the world by a strict predetermined necessity—the Christian tradition has emphasized God’s active governance over particular events. God’s sovereignty means that no events happen unless ordained or permitted by God.”

“… part of the modern loss of confidence in divine providence results from the mismatch between Calvin’s God—which governs each decision to the smallest detail—and the world as described by the probability revolution: one where even the most seemingly random happenings can be predicted. As chance has become a mundane part of the modern world, it becomes harder to see divine concern for particulars behind the laws that characterize chance.”

“Is God really making decisions on a case-by-case basis, as Calvin’s theology suggests? If God’s actions mirror the outcomes of chance in a vast majority of cases, why believe that each event in the world results from the special intervention of God? One might still hold on to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, but Calvin’s picture of God as an energetic deity controlling every micro-event in the world seems implausible. The divine will is thus not as accessible in the natural world for many Christians today as it was for their Christian and Israelite ancestors who cast lots. Christians today do not throw dice as a way to receive an answer to prayer because they, at least implicitly, believe the coin flip is governed by the law of large numbers.”

“The mistake of premodern theologians was to argue that purpose and chance are mutually exclusive; each event in the world could be neatly divided into two categories, with the outcome either chosen by a purposeful intelligence or pure happenstance. The discovery of statistical laws challenges this picture by showing how chance and predictability are often intertwined. If this is the case, theologians can offer more nuanced accounts of God’s relationship to the world.”

The link did not work but thanks for the information.

So, anyone believe that the natural disasters that we see today are God’s intended acts for the sin of the people? Or was this O.T thought.

In the new order of things, Jesus takes away the sin of the world, so no longer would we see natural disasters as acts of God, we certainly do not believe murdering others on behalf of God as instructions from God.

Thoughts?

 

[Richca]

The link did not work but thanks for the information.

So, anyone believe that the natural disasters that we see today are God’s intended acts for the sin of the people? Or was this O.T thought.

In the new order of things, Jesus takes away the sin of the world, so no longer would we see natural disasters as acts of God, we certainly do not believe murdering others on behalf of God as instructions from God.

Thoughts?

Jesus said ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matt. 5: 17-18).

Nothing happens by chance in the world, for nothing can take place without God’s causality as the CCC#308 says: " The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for “without a Creator the creature vanishes”

The Old Testament which is the word of God teaches theological truth, again as the CCC#304 explains: “And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him. the prayer of the Psalms is the great school of this trust.”

Again the CCC#303 says concerning the providence of God: "The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. the sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events: “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” (Psalm 115:3).

Sin, especially mortal sin, causes a break with our relationship with God as well as with our neighbor and the entire creation. Again, Holy Scripture makes this evident in the Fall of Adam and Eve and explained by the CCC#400: "Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”

God caused the Flood because of the sins of humankind. God did not create humans to die by natural disasters but to be immortal and it is clear from Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church that death is the result of sin as St Paul explains “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death” (Romans 5:12). Adam and Eve would not have died here on earth if they had never sinned nor any of their descendants if they had not sinned.

Natural disasters which kill people are the result of sin and the sins of the world, this is the teaching of Holy Scripture. They are punishments inflicted by God on the world for the sins of the world even though good people may be part of the casualties for our present life here on earth is not our eternal home for the world as we know it is passing away. Again, because of sin, creation has become hostile to man, harmony has been broken with creation. The scripture says “I am Yahweh and there is no other. I form the light and I create the darkness. I make well-being, and I create disaster. I, Yahweh, do all these things” (Isaiah 45: 6-7).

And again "Good and evil, life and death,
poverty and riches—all are from the LORD. (Sirach 11: 14). Yes, our life and manner of death are from the Lord.

The forces of nature are all under the control of God. Earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, etc, are second causes and they cannot cause anything without the first cause, God. And God does not cause anything without a reason or purpose as it is written:
How varied are your works, LORD! In wisdom you have made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures" (Psalm 104: 24).

 

[OneSheep]

Humani Generis, paragraph 12. Please refer to words in bold. This particular “union of all” refers to the secular goal of the “big happy tent” which is imprudent eirenism where people can break bread together while denying annoying Catholic doctrines.

Please note that this particular Humani Generis “union of all” is man-made and thus, in a variety of ways, it opposes Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

“But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all,* but only to their destruction*.”
​

Hi Granny,

Perhaps you may recall this quote:

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

So, if we take quotes from the two popes together, we can admit that there are legitimate differences, and neither Pope is saying that those with legitimate differences should not be incorporated in the Church. Humani Generi is not referring to “differences” that involve the variety of beliefs concerning particular issues. Neither pope is advocating exclusion of those who have legitimate differences.

And all of those with legitimate differences are to harmonize them in a “superior unity”. If the Eucharist, Granny is not one example of such “superior unity”, then I do not know what is. If you are advocating a “little tent”, then it does give the impression that you think some Catholics do not belong.

Which brings us back to fear. Do you fear that something bad will happen if the Church assimilates more than one interpretation of the creation story? Would such open-mindedness shake your faith? Would allowance of a different intepretation of the creation story cause bad things to happen?

God Bless​

 

[simpleas]

Jesus said ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matt. 5: 17-18).

Nothing happens by chance in the world, for nothing can take place without God’s causality as the CCC#308 says: " The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for “without a Creator the creature vanishes”

The Old Testament which is the word of God teaches theological truth, again as the CCC#304 explains: “And so we see the Holy Spirit, the principal author of Sacred Scripture, often attributing actions to God without mentioning any secondary causes. This is not a “primitive mode of speech”, but a profound way of recalling God’s primacy and absolute Lordship over history and the world, and so of educating his people to trust in him. the prayer of the Psalms is the great school of this trust.”

Again the CCC#303 says concerning the providence of God: "The witness of Scripture is unanimous that the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and its history. the sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events: “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” (Psalm 115:3).

Sin, especially mortal sin, causes a break with our relationship with God as well as with our neighbor and the entire creation. Again, Holy Scripture makes this evident in the Fall of Adam and Eve and explained by the CCC#400: "Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”

God caused the Flood because of the sins of humankind. God did not create humans to die by natural disasters but to be immortal and it is clear from Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church that death is the result of sin as St Paul explains “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death” (Romans 5:12). Adam and Eve would not have died here on earth if they had never sinned nor any of their descendants if they had not sinned.

Natural disasters which kill people are the result of sin and the sins of the world, this is the teaching of Holy Scripture. They are punishments inflicted by God on the world for the sins of the world even though good people may be part of the casualties for our present life here on earth is not our eternal home for the world as we know it is passing away. Again, because of sin, creation has become hostile to man, harmony has been broken with creation. The scripture says “I am Yahweh and there is no other. I form the light and I create the darkness. I make well-being, and I create disaster. I, Yahweh, do all these things” (Isaiah 45: 6-7).

And again "Good and evil, life and death,
poverty and riches—all are from the LORD. (Sirach 11: 14). Yes, our life and manner of death are from the Lord.

The forces of nature are all under the control of God. Earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, etc, are second causes and they cannot cause anything without the first cause, God. And God does not cause anything without a reason or purpose as it is written:
How varied are your works, LORD! In wisdom you have made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures" (Psalm 104: 24).

Thanks.

I see from post #371 that you consider today’s and yesterdays natural causes to be the hand of God and not just the nature of the planet we live on. I on one hand know that all is created by God and so all that happens must be willed by God, but cannot believe in God intending certain natural causes as a punishment to his children.
What is the point of human life then.

From post # 371 you said :

I think you would agree that Adam cannot be held responsible for our own personal sins so my comments here are not particularly pointing as if I think you would hold such a view. These comments of mine are provided as material for food for thought.

While Adam can not beheld responsible for our sin, he is held responsible for the broken human/divine relationship. If sin had never entered this earth, we would have a much better earthy life.
Funny we can not blame Adam for our sins, yet it was he who broke the relationship causing us to fall, and damaging humans, along with this planet.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

Perhaps you may recall this quote:

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

So, if we take quotes from the two popes together, we can admit that there are legitimate differences, and neither Pope is saying that those with legitimate differences should not be incorporated in the Church. Humani Generi is not referring to “differences” that involve the variety of beliefs concerning particular issues. Neither pope is advocating exclusion of those who have legitimate differences.

And all of those with legitimate differences are to harmonize them in a “superior unity”. If the Eucharist, Granny is not one example of such “superior unity”, then I do not know what is. If you are advocating a “little tent”, then it does give the impression that you think some Catholics do not belong.

Which brings us back to fear. Do you fear that something bad will happen if the Church assimilates more than one interpretation of the creation story? Would such open-mindedness shake your faith? Would allowance of a different intepretation of the creation story cause bad things to happen?

God Bless

Specifics please.

What are the specific legitimate differences?

Which color vestments should be worn next Sunday by the Pope? In the creation stories for children, should Adam and Eve hide behind low trees or tall bushes?

Get real!

 

[OneSheep]

Specifics please.

What are the specific legitimate differences?

Which color vestments should be worn next Sunday by the Pope? In the creation stories for children, should Adam and Eve hide behind low trees or tall bushes?

Get real!

Hi Granny!

Uh, to the first question, it depends on the Sunday, the second question, high. A&E are always standing up in the pictures I remember. Oh, but then there are the strategically placed fig leaves.

As to examples of differences, any statement that presents God as infinitely loving and merciful is legitimate. Any statement that presents God as promoting justice is legitimate. Sometimes, but rarely, these aspects conflict. There are interpretations of the creation story that present God as just, but a bit lacking in mercy, and there are interpretations that present God as merciful, but a bit unjust.

To me, the answer lies in not a co-mingling, but in observation of the human himself. That is what brings us back to the human conscience. We can respect the human desire for justice, but God’s justice is in the form of infinite love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Yes, what happened in your version of the creation story inspires your desire to smack Adam upside the head, and your reaction is normal and natural.

Jesus takes pains to inspire a new way, Granny. He eats with sinners and the ostracized, even the hated. He lets go of desire for status, wealth, and ultimately popularity. He asks us to forgive everyone we hold something against. If there is anything in our doctrine that compels us to wrath, then there is something to add to the doctrine to dissipate that wrath. God forgives, always. He has not wrath.

Is that real enough?

 

[cfauster]

… death is the result of sin as St Paul explains “Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death” (Romans 5:12).

Here is something I just read today:
"… for Paul the Adam story is about how sin entered the world … [but] we can’t jump from Genesis 1-3 to Romans 5 and think we’re doing history … "

If interested, here’s the link:
biologos.org/blog/ecf-conference-video-feature-adam-and-the-scientists-by-scot-mcknight

 

[grannymh]

Here is something I just read today:
"… for Paul the Adam story is about how sin entered the world … [but] we can’t jump from Genesis 1-3 to Romans 5 and think we’re doing history … "

If interested, here’s the link:
biologos.org/blog/ecf-conference-video-feature-adam-and-the-scientists-by-scot-mcknight

I was interested until I saw this sentence and stopped reading.

It has long been noted that the Apostle Paul did not merely retell the Adam story from Genesis, but instead gave a new spin on it. For example, for Paul the Adam story is about how sin entered the world; but Genesis 3 doesn’t even use the word “sin”.

My apology. In my humble opinion, the person who commented about the word “sin” not being in Genesis, chapter 3 … And wondering why Eve was not mentioned in Romans …

 

[grannymh]

Is that real enough?

It sure is real enough. Thank you so very much.:flowers:

 

[OneSheep]

It sure is real enough. Thank you so very much.:flowers:

Oh Granny, you are the sweetest. I hope all those around you never take for granted your generosity and sharp intelligence - now don’t go deny’n it!

You know, for some crazy reason I just get so much sorted out in our interactions. You challenge my thinking. Thanks.

 

[Richca]

The question was raised as to whether people today think natural disasters are specifically and individually intended by God or, in contrast, that the phrase “acts of God” is just a useful expression in insurance policies to mean “no human is at fault or to blame.”

I will quote from a new article entitled “The Secularization of Chance: Toward Understanding the Impact of the Probability Revolution on Christian Belief in Divine Providence” by Josh Reeves published in Zygon Vol. 50, Issue 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 604-620. I don’t know if the following link works for everyone or just people affiliated with institutions that subscribe to the journal:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zygo.12191/pdf

Here are some highlights.

"
“The mistake of premodern theologians was to argue that purpose and chance are mutually exclusive; each event in the world could be neatly divided into two categories, with the outcome either chosen by a purposeful intelligence or pure happenstance. The discovery of statistical laws challenges this picture by showing how chance and predictability are often intertwined. If this is the case, theologians can offer more nuanced accounts of God’s relationship to the world.”

Thank you for the post cfauster. However, I’m going to have to disagree with Josh Reeves that premodern theologians made a mistake especially if one of these premodern theologians includes St Thomas Aquinas. Firstly, it is questionable if the view Reeves is espousing is in conformity with Sacred Scripture which is certain truth. In my opinion, it is not. Secondly, Aquinas, following St Augustine, teaches that nothing happens by chance in the world if we consider that whatever does happen in the world in dependent on the first and universal cause, God. The discovery of statistical laws if such is actually the case doesn’t make any difference. First of all, Aquinas may not interpret statistical laws the way it is interpreted today which probably does not take into account God at all. Secondly, the notion of statistical laws has to do with second and particular causes, that is, things created by God. Second or particular causes, whatever their nature, all fall under the order of the first and universal cause, God, and no particular cause can escape the order of the universal cause. Without getting into this in any more detail, the so called discovery of statistical laws has nothing to do with Aquinas’ doctrine. Simply put, there is no proportion between the first cause and the divine will, which united with God’s knowledge is the cause of things and is of infinite power, and creatures who are finite.

 

[cfauster]

Thank you, Richca. Interesting topic. I realize it’s tangential to the thread. Hopefully it’s still worthwhile to some.

Reeves notes the following in his essay re. Aquinas:

“Though persuaded by [Aristotle’s] philosophy of nature, Aquinas was also a follower of Augustine. As so he says in the Summa Theologiae: “But as to the order of Divine providence, ‘nothing in the world happens by chance,’ as Augustine declares” (Aquinas 1948, IA, Q.103, Art.1).”

“The use of lot casting in the Old Testament raises worries for Aquinas and other theologians to address. Why does the Hebrews’ use of the practice look similar to the widespread use of magic in the pagan world? Is the lot casting truly effective, or the superstitious projection of human wishes upon contingent events, as Aristotle might say? Finally, if it is valid, why is it not used regularly in Christian decision making, such as electing Christian pastors and bishops?”

“Though Aquinas believes in “consulatory” lots in theory, in practice he says one should only use it in extreme circumstances. Now that the Holy Spirit guides the church, it would be insulting to try to obtain divine guidance through divination. He says: “As long as a man can discover and accomplish by himself what he ought to do, he tempts God if he resorts to lots, or any other such method, to ascertain what he should do” (2012, 195). It is not even lawful to elect church officials by lot, as it was in the Book of Acts, for it occurred before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The only time lot casting would be appropriate for Christians is in matters of urgent necessity, as long as it is undertaken with appropriate prayers and reverence. He illustrates this with an example from Augustine, where church officials must flee from persecution but they cannot agree about where to relocate.”

“Chance in the premodern mind was something individual, happening to particular persons at particular times. But in the modern world, chance applies to populations, which means the behavior of many individuals grouped together can be predictable. Moderns perceive the future in ways that Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin could not conceive because our ability to quantify chance has transformed our ideas about the universe and human nature.”

Richca, if I understand your position, you would argue that what Reeves calls modern ideas about chance are either wrong or irrelevant to theology. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[simpleas]

This makes sense.

xt3.com/library/view.php?id=5778

Why does God allow natural disasters to occur? In this video, Fr. Robert Barron talks about the recent tsunami in Japan, and the problem with evil looking at present, past and ancient disasters

 

[cfauster]

Thanks!

The comments (appearing below the video window at the xt3 site showing the Fr. Barron video) are also interesting, with several quoting parts of the Catechism.

“Theodicy through a Lens of Science” by Wilton H. Bunch was just published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Non-subscribers will not be able to access the article for a period of time, but I will provide a short quote:

“Does the hypothesis that evil results from random
events mean that God is totally separate, distant,
and disinterested in our grief and sorrows? Is this a
theodicy only because it totally protects God from
any responsibility? Not at all. The suffering Christ,
who took on our humanity, is ever present and near,
ready to provide comfort to suffering humans…God’s grace is
frequently best recognized when a person is totally
out of control and unable to predict what will happen
next. Since Christian belief begins with the reception
of grace, our attempts at elimination of uncertainty
may make it harder to receive and experience grace…
It is this confidence of grace—although not proven
or even fully explained, but attested to by many—
that God is not responsible for our suffering but is
with us in our suffering, that allows us to worship
God despite our sorrows.”

 

[Richca]

Thank you, Richca. Interesting topic. I realize it’s tangential to the thread. Hopefully it’s still worthwhile to some.

Reeves notes the following in his essay re. Aquinas:

“Though persuaded by [Aristotle’s] philosophy of nature, Aquinas was also a follower of Augustine. As so he says in the Summa Theologiae: “But as to the order of Divine providence, ‘nothing in the world happens by chance,’ as Augustine declares” (Aquinas 1948, IA, Q.103, Art.1).”

“Chance in the premodern mind was something individual, happening to particular persons at particular times. But in the modern world, chance applies to populations, which means the behavior of many individuals grouped together can be predictable. Moderns perceive the future in ways that Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin could not conceive because our ability to quantify chance has transformed our ideas about the universe and human nature.”

Richca, if I understand your position, you would argue that what Reeves calls modern ideas about chance are either wrong or irrelevant to theology. Do I understand you correctly?

Thanks for the post, cfauster. In the previous post, I made this statement “Without getting into this in any more detail, the so called discovery of statistical laws has nothing to do with Aquinas’ doctrine.” What I meant here is that the discovery of statistical laws is not going to effect or bring about a change in Aquinas’ doctrine. As I mentioned in that previous post, statistical laws, populations, or whatever have to do with second causes, that is, creatures created by God. And all second causes are dependent on and fall under the ordering of the first cause, God, His providence and plan for the world. God’s providence is simply the execution of the plan God has conceived in His mind for the world, its creatures and especially humans and their end. Everything is subject to God’s providence including the free actions of human beings and there is no event in the world that is a surprise to God as there is no event or effect that can take place without God’s causality.

I’m not exactly sure what Reeves is getting at. I went to the link you gave but I was only able to read the first page. It is clear to me though he is talking about second causes, that is, the world which God created and events that happen in the world. It appears to me also that I think he wants to say that God’s providence includes at least some events that happen by sheer chance. But there is no event in the world that doesn’t have a cause; there is no event in the world, barring a miracle from God, that just shows up ‘out of the blue." And in Aquinas’ view, all the events of the world can be traced back to God who is the first efficient cause without whom no event in the world can possibly take place.

When Reeves says “Moderns perceive the future in ways that Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin could not conceive,” he is making a very general statement here because not all moderns may agree with his opinion or what he considers moderns idea of chance. I suppose he considers that everyone must agree or does agree with his own idea of chance or what is propounded in some field of study. This does not mean that philosophy or metaphysics or theology may agree with it. These later have their own idea of what the idea of chance entails and for Aquinas, chance is nothing more than the accidental or causal convergence of non-accidental lines of secondary causation. For Aquinas is committed to the philosophical axiom that every agent acts for an end. The idea of “chance” events in the world then for Aquinas, can only be made sense of by appeal to final causes (Aquinas was committed to the four causes of Aristotle, namely, the material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause).

For example, suppose a farmer discovers buried treasure in the field he is plowing. The discovery of the treasure by the farmer did not happen just “out of the blue.” The farmer was intentionally plowing his field and we may surmise that someone intentionally buried the treasure in his field at some time. The discovery was in no way intended by either the farmer or the person who buried the treasure. However, the treasure did not get into the farmer’s field accidentally or by chance or without a cause nor was the farmer plowing his field accidentally or by chance. So the discovery of the treasure by the farmer is an accidental or “chance” concurrence of non-accidental lines of causation, that is, the farmer intentionally plowing his field though not for the purpose of finding some treasure and the person who intentionally buried the treasure there though not with the purpose of the farmer finding it. Since the actions of both the farmer and the person who buried the treasure are reduced to God, the first cause, the discovery of the treasure by the farmer is an effect of God’s causality which God foresaw and willed to take place from all eternity in his plan for the world. Accordingly, Aquinas says "But as to the order of Divine providence, ‘nothing in the world happens by chance,’ as Augustine declares”

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Richca View Post
… death is the result of sin as St Paul explains "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.(Romans 5:12).

Here is something I just read today:
"… for Paul the Adam story is about how sin entered the world … [but] we can’t jump from Genesis 1-3 to Romans 5 and think we’re doing history … "

If interested, here’s the link:
biologos.org/blog/ecf-conference-video-feature-adam-and-the-scientists-by-scot-mcknight

Well, I don’t know how else we are to understand St Paul here except that he is talking about an historical first man Adam in Genesis. Paul says “by one man sin entered the world, and by sin death.” The “one man” here is Adam. And he contrasts the first Adam with the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Since we hold that Jesus Christ was a real historical person, I don’t see any reason to believe that Paul thinks the first Adam was not historical. Again, Paul says “by one man sin entered the world,” and this one man is the historical Adam of Genesis. Then Paul goes on to contrast the one man Adam with the one man Jesus Christ, for example, “For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5: 19).

This is how the fathers of the Church understood what St Paul was saying here, indeed, this is how the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church has understood it. The Council of Trent for the Catholic Church dogmatically defined what St Paul is saying here in Romans 5: 12-21 in its decrees on original sin. And we, that is, catholics believe that Christ entrusted to the magisterium of the Church the authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Decrees on original sin from the Council of Trent:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be [Page 23] saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,–whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I left out canon 5 as I’m running out of room in this post but anybody can find it on the internet or the vatican website.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates the dogmatic teaching of Trent on original sin.

 

[cfauster]

What I meant here is that the discovery of statistical laws is not going to effect or bring about a change in Aquinas’ doctrine … statistical laws, populations, or whatever have to do with second causes, that is, creatures created by God. And all second causes are dependent on and fall under the ordering of the first cause, God, His providence and plan for the world. God’s providence is simply the execution of the plan God has conceived in His mind for the world, its creatures and especially humans and their end. Everything is subject to God’s providence including the free actions of human beings and there is no event in the world that is a surprise to God as there is no event or effect that can take place without God’s causality.

I’m not exactly sure what Reeves is getting at … It appears to me also that I think he wants to say that God’s providence includes at least some events that happen by sheer chance. But there is no event in the world that doesn’t have a cause; there is no event in the world, barring a miracle from God, that just shows up ‘out of the blue." And in Aquinas’ view, all the events of the world can be traced back to God who is the first efficient cause without whom no event in the world can possibly take place … chance is nothing more than the accidental or causal convergence of non-accidental lines of secondary causation. For Aquinas is committed to the philosophical axiom that every agent acts for an end.

I tend to agree with you, that in fact Aquinas already understood more of what Reeves is emphasizing than perhaps Reeves describes in the Zygon essay. For example, not only did Aquinas distinguish between primary and secondary causation, Aquinas also distinguished between contingent events and other events. Another example Aquinas used was of a debtor and creditor happening to encounter one another at a market, without either intending or planning to meet each other there. It’s similar to your example of the farmer discovering buried treasure in a field. I’ll quote Stephen Barr’s essay “Chance, By Design” as Barr explains what Aquinas had to say about it:

“To put it another way, in St. Thomas’ example, we call the discovery of the debtor a chance event precisely because the debtor and the creditor independently decided to go to the market. But what if they had the same master, who sent them separately to the market so that they should meet, only seemingly by accident? If God has written the cosmic play so that the human race and each specific human being would come to exist, it would seem that there is no causal independence. Everything in the universe would be rigged and not random. This is the very heart of the problem … The problem arises, as do so many other false problems, from a confusion of horizontal and vertical causality. When people speak of randomness, whether in science, in other professions, or in everyday life, they are not speaking of how things in this world relate to God, but how they are related to each other; that is, they are referring to the horizontal level of causality. What is involved is the independence of various natural causes from each other, which leads to what I called “natural randomness” earlier. If you toss a coin ten times, there is no natural mechanism by which any toss significantly affects the others. And if you need nine of them to come up heads to win a game, there is no natural mechanism by which your need can cause them to come up heads…
A comparison of “natural randomness” and “natural laws” may be helpful here. The fundamental laws of nature also have to do with horizontal causal relationships. Ordinarily, God causes things to happen in accordance with those laws, as when water runs downhill, and on much rarer occasions he causes things to happen that contravene those laws, as when water once turned into wine. In all cases, however, whether the kinds of horizontal relationships we call natural laws hold or fail to hold, it is God who, in the vertical sense, is causing things to happen, and to happen just as they do …
Similarly, most things happen in accordance with natural randomness and therefore with natural probabilities, such as coin tosses coming out heads 50 percent of the time …
In either case, whether or not things unfold in accordance with natural randomness and natural probabilities, it is God who in the vertical sense is causing them to happen that way. As St. Thomas put it, “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity, happens infallibly and of necessity; [whereas those things that divine providence conceives should happen from contingency], happen by contingency.” By itself, the doctrine of divine providence only tells us that everything unfolds in accordance with God’s plan. It does not tell us what that plan is, either in its general features or in its particular details. It does not tell us the mix of law and chance, or of necessity and contingency, that God chose to use in his plan.”

For the entire essay, see
inters.org/files/Barr-Chance-Design.pdf

 

[cfauster]

Well, I don’t know how else we are to understand St Paul here except that he is talking about an historical first man Adam in Genesis … .

Indeed, and I think the BioLogos item would agree. When the BioLogos author says one cannot “jump” from Genesis to Romans and think one is doing history, I interpreted the point to be that the Genesis author might not have understood Adam the same way as did Paul. The BioLogos piece goes on to describe a couple ways of understanding that, one being that revelation is progressive such that only after time (and especially after Jesus) could someone like Paul reflect back on Genesis with the perspective that naturally the Genesis author(s) lacked. I think the BioLogos piece gave another way to think about it as well. Anyway, I think the point was, it’s worth reading Genesis both with an eye towards understanding what the original intended meaning was when it was written, as well as what Paul later understood from his perspective illuminated by Christ and the Holy Spirit.