tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1420093134571892773.post1103985376920920322..comments2018-10-14T23:23:56.634-07:00Comments on The Bayou Thebaid: John of Damascus: ProlegomenaJ. B. Aitkenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15616638312087360239noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1420093134571892773.post-25106845944828296482015-05-11T16:58:24.580-07:002015-05-11T16:58:24.580-07:00John uses rational arguments to prove:
a) God exis...John uses rational arguments to prove:<br />a) God exists<br />b) the divine being is not plural<br />c) the divine being is immutable. <br /><br />Further, I am not sure what you think I am saying.J. B. Aitkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616638312087360239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1420093134571892773.post-37868576318003202852015-05-11T16:22:03.199-07:002015-05-11T16:22:03.199-07:00It seems to me, that even a cursory reading of the...It seems to me, that even a cursory reading of the <i>On the Orthodox Faith</i> counters your contention here, as Saint John clearly lays out the preconditions for proper exploration of reason. In the very first Book and Chapter Saint John lays out his presupposition and the very foundation upon which everything which he lays out afterwards. " He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. <b>With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them,</b> not removing everlasting boundaries,<b> <i>nor overpassing the Divine Tradition. </i> </b><br /><br />So it seems to me, that at the outset, you are still not allowing John to speak for himself, but hope to bootleg your own values into his writings. His entire work is predicated on reason <i>firmly set within</i> Holy Tradition and <i>not</i> outside of it. That which agrees with Tradition therefore is reasonable - that at variance is unreasonable. For many of the Fathers, including Augustine, discourse using reason or natural theology was allowable, but would need to be reigned in by Tradition as the final arbiter. This is why Augustine began writing a book of <i>Retractions</i> before his death attempting to correct many things he had said or written in debate that did not have firm grounding in Tradition. No Church Father felt that their explorations into were valid unless they conformed to the broad consensus of the Spirit and the Holy Traditions protected by that Spirit. <br /><br />Thus the plumbline of true rationality is clearly the revelation of God through the living Traditions of the Church, not through scholastic rationalism. Submission in Love and parity to the Church defined kenosis and true reason...as opposed to natural reason.<br /><br />The problem here is that true "Logic" - "reason" and "rationality" for the Fathers is quite different from scholastic rationalism and the "logic" and "rationality used by Western theologians and to which you are speaking and see. Your analysis of Saint John relies on eisegesis rather than exegesis, for even as he speak of natural theology, he leaves himself open to correction and alignment with the whole of Tradition alone. For John, reason is to be kept within the bounds of Tradition in order to protect it from human twisting as much as possible. <br /><br />Since you are at variance with the Divine Traditions that John himself defends, rejecting his approach, your very definition of reason is at variance with the limits he sets to reason. You and he are not speaking about the same thing. <br /><br />This is why it is difficult for you and I - and for you and John to communicate. Our formulations of what constitutes "logic" are set upon different foundations. Just as trinitarians and unitarians do not speak of the same God while using the same words and same scriptures...so neither do you and Saint John speak of the same "logic" when you use the same word.<br /><br />Blessings to you and yours. You are in my prayers by name daily.ajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04719126279251871627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1420093134571892773.post-3549885906790523892015-05-09T16:42:38.736-07:002015-05-09T16:42:38.736-07:00Whether that is true or not, John completely rejec...Whether that is true or not, John completely rejects Romanides's claim on natural theology. As to the fathers not using logic, logic includes basic things like <br />a = a<br />a = ~~a<br /><br />If that isn't true, and if people don't use that, they cannot communicate.J. B. Aitkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15616638312087360239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1420093134571892773.post-30757407322988179852015-05-09T10:41:57.201-07:002015-05-09T10:41:57.201-07:00Interesting read. I am at a Protestant seminary....Interesting read. I am at a Protestant seminary. One of my professors reads the Philokalia this same way. Everytime he sees the word "mind" he translates it "intellect". And each time he reads the word "reason" he translates it as "rationality". <br /><br />I think your observations here are important for us to consider when trying to wrestle with the epistemological grounds for faith. <br /><br />You say the Fathers were not adverse to using "logic" even apart from scripture and partistic consensus. That is a statement I think you would want to explore and unpack.<br />I think that we miss in the early churches writing the basic presuppositions that they understood...that reason independent Kenosis is bare knowledge and cannot be true rationality. It is clear that ALL humanity wrestles with being observers and judges of the world around them. Clearly, Christians throughout history have struggled with the basic root of epistemology. I fear though that the reading we give to their words are often lost in a low semantic range in which we do not differentiate between dianoia, nous, kardia, splangchna, I fear that often, like my dear professor we read these things so woodenly as to evacuate them of the meaning they truly had when they spoke of reason and intellect and rationality which could never be independent of the revelation of God and being subject to the Spirit in the church bound by Love. <br /><br />There is always an energizing work of the Spirit in gnosis, which can be darkened by our own self will. True logic and true rationality are presupposed and often clearly cited as being not speculative but revelatory with the disvernment between the two being Love and mutual submission within the ecumenia and the consensus of Tradition.<br /><br />I truly believe that this issue gets to the heart of "faith" as either a rational excercise or an ontological act of selfless love. <br /><br />I liked reading your thoughts on this and the questions you asked. ajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04719126279251871627noreply@blogger.com