The God of the Old Testament

[Huiou_Theou]

I wouldn’t say that one infallible degree negates the enormous contribution by Aquinas nor does it in any way trump him. Duns Scotus simply stated what others had speculated upon in a way that was acceptable to the Magisterium and settled a long debated matter of faith. I think it too simplistic to give him too much credit for hitting upon a solution built on the work of others, don’t you? But me thinks you are overstating here simply to make a provocative opening statement. Or am I wrong?

:yup: :flowers:

But I’ll still argue it does trump him in 1 way… (I’ve been trumped several times too.)
If Aquinas were trumped in general, he wouldn’t be studied today as he is.
So I do agree with you in general but I want everyone to remember that what Aquinas teaches is compatible with the Truth that the Catholic Church has received; but it isn’t definitive of that Truth. (Fides et Ratio; PJP II).

There are many examples I could cite; including ones in the writing of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict…) which contradict some of the absolute statements Aquinas reached, even regarding the Eucharist and regarding the idea of Jesus being an “Icon” through which one can see God. None of this discredits Aquinas, but it does caution us not to blindly grab things Aquinas has said as dogmatic when they are not yet approved to that level.

Thank you…I think. Seriously, though, it’s good to see you posting again, HT (if I may take the liberty of using your initials).

I bow to you in this. I am not well versed in Aquinas, I’m afraid. The Assemblies of God and even the Episcopal Church, to which I belonged before being reconciled to the Church, are a bit weak on Aquinas.

Which just means that the ongoing study of Aquinas and others is still ahead of us both with prudence and temperance and esp. perseverance being required…

Yes, God’s law is immutable no matter when or to whom it was given. My point was merely that God’s justice was applied to the offenders in the OT without the saving graces available to us because of the redemption Christ wrought on mankind’s behave.

I have one of those elusive thoughts which your last statement just brought to my attention; but I am not able to pin down an articulate summary of it. I just notice that there is something mysterious about how God having united with a man in the flesh changes the grace (a gift of relationship) that is possible to have with God;
Augustine, for example, talks about Noe’s ark as a “type” representing the body (enfleshment/incarnation) of Christ; as if Christ had already come partially; and St. Peter talks about how Jesus descended to the dead in order to preach to those who “disobeyed” in Noe’s day (rather than to those who had obeyed.)

The word you bring up, “justice”, means “right relationship” first and foremost and that is what is so apparently/facilely different in the OT and NT.

I have this odd sense/premonition that the OT receives those graces at a time when we do not see it; but that even they receive the graces of the redemption. I didn’t say that well, but perhaps I will be able to in the future when I understand it better.

Yes indeed. The redemption by Christ informs our interpretation of the OT. It cannot help but do so since the NT completed the Old Covenant in the New Covenant of mercy and grace for all men.

 

[fred_conty]

@ Della, you said,
“God can never and never has ordered anythig evil or unfair”

Did I say that???

I believe you misunderstood what I said.

Have a nice day.

 

[Della]

@ Della, you said,
“God can never and never has ordered anythig evil or unfair”

Did I say that???

I believe you misunderstood what I said.

Have a nice day.

Oh no, you certainly didn’t write that. Sorry for the confusion. I only meant to address what I’ve read from other posters on CAF when this topic has come up–to head off one of the old chestnuts of those who accuse God of being cruel/unjust. Again, sorry. You have a great day too! :tiphat:

 

[Della]

:yup: :flowers:

But I’ll still argue it does trump him in 1 way… (I’ve been trumped several times too.)
If Aquinas were trumped in general, he wouldn’t be studied today as he is.
So I do agree with you in general but I want everyone to remember that what Aquinas teaches is compatible with the Truth that the Catholic Church has received; but it isn’t definitive of that Truth. (Fides et Ratio; PJP II).

There are many examples I could cite; including ones in the writing of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict…) which contradict some of the absolute statements Aquinas reached, even regarding the Eucharist and regarding the idea of Jesus being an “Icon” through which one can see God. None of this discredits Aquinas, but it does caution us not to blindly grab things Aquinas has said as dogmatic when they are not yet approved to that level.

So true. I hate it when people cherry pick to “prove” this or that. Aquinas, indeed all the Great Mystic writers and theologians deserve better than that, don’t they?

Which just means that the ongoing study of Aquinas and others is still ahead of us both with prudence and temperance and esp. perseverance being required…

Indeed. I’ve tried to read Aquinas and I deeply appreciate his thought and logical way of stating objections and answers, but it doesn’t mean I understand what he’s saying. I loved G. K. Chesterton’s book, though. It helped bring the great man to life, so I could understand his place in our Catholic heritage, and that’s about as far as I’m capable of going, I’m afraid.

I have one of those elusive thoughts which your last statement just brought to my attention; but I am not able to pin down an articulate summary of it. I just notice that there is something mysterious about how God having united with a man in the flesh changes the grace (a gift of relationship) that is possible to have with God;
Augustine, for example, talks about Noe’s ark as a “type” representing the body (enfleshment/incarnation) of Christ; as if Christ had already come partially; and St. Peter talks about how Jesus descended to the dead in order to preach to those who “disobeyed” in Noe’s day (rather than to those who had obeyed.)

The word you bring up, “justice”, means “right relationship” first and foremost and that is what is so apparently/facilely different in the OT and NT.

I have this odd sense/premonition that the OT receives those graces at a time when we do not see it; but that even they receive the graces of the redemption. I didn’t say that well, but perhaps I will be able to in the future when I understand it better.

I understand what you are saying and agree. Just because people died as supposed enemies in the OT doesn’t mean they were automatically damned. Jesus died for them, as well. It puts me in mind of the righteous Calomen soldier who had worshiped Tash all his life meeting Aslan “on the other side” and realizing that it was Aslan all along that he had been working for. Not knowing who Aslan really was and being taught falsehoods all his life he was not culpable for his ignorance, but Aslan ascribed his good works to himself. Does that make any sense?

Great to be talking to you again!