Trust No Man (Advice Worthy of Acceptance)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agathon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not seeing your reference. Could you link directly?

Aquinas does distinguish the theological virtue of faith from faith “commonly so-called.”
In this way faith is distinguished from all other things pertaining to the intellect. For when we describe it as "evidence," we distinguish it from opinion, suspicion, and doubt, which do not make the intellect adhere to anything firmly; when we go on to say, “of things that appear not,” we distinguish it from science and understanding, the object of which is something apparent; and when we say that it is “the substance of things to be hoped for,” we distinguish the virtue of faith from faith commonly so called, which has no reference to the beatitude we hope for.
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The virtue itself of faith (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 4)
Click to expand...
Here, Aquinas is clearly speaking of the supernatural virtue of faith “as evidence,” just as the author of Hebrews did.
 
I guess you could be categorized with the Pharisees who kicked the blind man out simply because of their pride.
 
Agathon said:
I guess you could be categorized with the Pharisees who kicked the blind man out simply because of their pride.
Click to expand...
Personal attacks in these forums is forbidden by forum rules. One more from you and I will report you to the moderators.
 
My point that one should trust anyone stands on solid ground. As for personal attacks, I simply made a point that going at me for making a “private interpretation” was similar to the Pharisees getting mad at the blind man for putting two and two together wasn’t personal.
 
Last edited:
Agathon said:
Which is exactly why we’re told “Cursed is the man who trusts in man.” God doesn’t have faith since, as Aquinas stated “Faith…implies a certain defect…and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him (ST, ch. 9: ques. 7: article 3).”
Click to expand...
It seems you have gotten your Aquinas quote directly from a blog that argues precisely the point you are trying to make, here:


You might want to read all of what Aquinas, himself, writes before you go trusting interpretations of Aquinas.
 
Agathon said:
My point that one should trust anyone stands.
Click to expand...
If your point is that no human being can ever be trusted then that is incorrect.
If you mean that we can always trust God but sometimes people can let us down then I agree with that.
In short when it comes to trust we should mainly depend on God but can also trust people.
 
Agathon said:
Which is exactly why we’re told “Cursed is the man who trusts in man.” God doesn’t have faith since, as Aquinas stated “Faith…implies a certain defect…and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him (ST, ch. 9: ques. 7: article 3).”
Click to expand...
I’ve checked four different versions of the Summa and none divide it into chapters. There are parts and question divisions, but not chapters.

I am going with my assumption that your quote and ideas regarding trust came from the blog I cited, rather than from Aquinas, himself.

That would be ironic given your overall thesis about not trusting human beings, since you are trusting the blog writer.

Or, do you happen to be that blog writer?

If so, a direct link to the source of that Aquinas quote would be most helpful, since we can then see what was omitted along with its full context.
 
Fauken said:
I think I found it. It’s under Article 3:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4007.htm#article3
Click to expand...
What it seems to boil down to is that Christ, being God, and thus being perfectly omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent would not need to exercise faith in himself as a virtue since he would himself be the fulfillment of all that could possibly be hoped for. God could not exercise faith in himself as a virtue, so to speak, since God is, himself, the perfect fulfillment of all.

We, as human beings, would need to exercise the supernatural virtue of faith in God, but God, himself, would not need to have faith in himself.
 
Agathon said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
That would be ironic given your overall thesis about not trusting human beings, since you are trusting the blog writer.
Click to expand...
I don’t trust him. Agreeing with someone doesn’t necessarily imply trust.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, it does mean that you trust that he is accurately depicting Aquinas’ full meaning of the term ‘faith’ when he makes use of a small and dissected fragment of a quotation from Aquinas. Your referencing that exact quote is evidence of your trust in his depiction.

You are trusting that what he is claiming Aquinas said on the subject accurately captures what Aquinas actually did say and mean.

That is ‘trust,’ since you didn’t actually see or even read what Aquinas wrote. I would suppose that perfectly captures the essence of what we have to trust you mean by trust – confidence without evidence – since you haven’t actually clarified that is what you do mean.
 
Last edited:
V
“HarryStotle said:
Well, actually, it does mean that you trust that he is accurately depicting Aquinas’ full meaning of the term ‘faith’ when he makes use of a small and dissected fragment of a quotation from Aquinas. Your referencing that exact quote is evidence of your trust in his depiction.

You are trusting that what he is claiming Aquinas said on the subject accurately captures what Aquinas actually did say and mean.

That is ‘trust,’ since you didn’t actually see or even read what Aquinas wrote. I would suppose that perfectly captures the essence of what we have to trust you mean by trust – confidence without evidence – since you haven’t actually clarified that is what you do mean.
Click to expand...

I actually have read that segment before. So whether I trust the blogger is irrelevant.
 
Agathon said:
I actually have read that segment before. So whether I trust the blogger is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Okay, but did you read the larger section where Aquinas does expound at length on what faith is.

http://newadvent.org/summa/3.htm

That would be Secunda Secundæ Partis, Questions 1 through 16, especially Question 4 on the Virtue of Faith.

http://newadvent.org/summa/3004.htm

He says:
Now the act of faith is to believe, as stated above (II-II:2:3), which is an act of the intellect determinate to one object of the will’s command. Hence an act of faith is related both to the object of the will, i.e. to the good and the end, and to the object of the intellect, i.e. to the true. And since faith, through being a theological virtue, as stated above (I-II:62:2), has one same thing for object and end, its object and end must, of necessity, be in proportion to one another. Now it has been already stated (II-II:1:4) that the object of faith is the First Truth, as unseen, and whatever we hold on account thereof: so that it must needs be under the aspect of something unseen that the First Truth is the end of the act of faith, which aspect is that of a thing hoped for, according to the Apostle (Romans 8:25): “We hope for that which we see not”: because to see the truth is to possess it. Now one hopes not for what one has already, but for what one has not, as stated above (I-II:67:4). Accordingly the relation of the act of faith to its end which is the object of the will, is indicated by the words: “Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for.”
Click to expand...
In short, the object of faith and “…its end which is the object of the will,” in the ‘theological virtue’ sense is the True and the Good, both of which are unseen, not immediately apparent, and hence lacking “evidence” in the sense of being physically manifest. That does not mean, however, that theological faith implies without any reason or just blind.

It means cultivating the attitude that ultimately there is in a final sense, the Truth (or ‘the First Truth,’ in Aquinas’ words) and the Good, the final end for which we exist.

To lack this kind of faith means, essentially, a loss of ultimate meaning in life since it implies a denial of the truth of God’s existence and a denial of the final Good for which we exist. Both of those being transcendent implies they are not immediately or perceptually “apparent,” but that does not imply the reasons for having faith in the True or the Good are completely without warrant.
 
Last edited:
So if an atheist says that Jesus is Lord, just to deceive his interlocutor, it’s because the Holy Spirit told him!
 
Agathon said:
People are way too inconsistent and imperfect to put their trust in. Instead of trusting people, one should trust God.
Click to expand...
This is a common dilemma for those who have been disappointed by others. The problem with this formulation is that it rules out God’s ability to heal broken relationships and enable forgiveness. He would not have spoken so much about the importance of forgiveness if it were not true that people are inconsistent, imperfect, and sometimes just mean!
 
Agathon said:
God Himself said it through His prophet Jeremiah. “Thus says the LORD: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.”
Click to expand...
Yes, but this is speaking of choosing man rather than God. A person can do both. Besides, trusting others rarely has anything to do with making “flesh his strength”.
Agathon said:
We aren’t supposed to rely on people.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how anyone can read the Scriptures and come up with such a conclusion. That being said, I do understand how a person whose trust has been damaged would come to this conclusion.
Agathon said:
We are supposed to put our confidence in God that He will lead those in authority to make the right decision.
Click to expand...
Again, this sounds like black and white/either or thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top