Augustine: "a thing is not ineffable which can be called ineffable"

-
There is some contradiction of terms, since, if that is ineffable which cannot be spoken of, a thing is not ineffable which can be called ineffable" (Christian Instruction 1.6.6)

Populære opslag fra denne blog

Nein!(?) A negative "point of contact" in the Epistle to Diognetus?

-
Billede
Still working on The Epistle to Diognetus , which keeps making associations to modern theology pop up. This time it's Karl Barth's debate with Emil Brunner. Consider the epistle's claim that, “[...]being convicted in the past time by our own deeds as unworthy of life, we might now be made deserving by the goodness of God, and having made clear our inability to enter into the kingdom of God of ourselves, might be enabled by the ability of God.” (9.1, Lightfoot) and “Having then in the former time demonstrated the inability of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed a Saviour able to save even creatures which have no ability, He willed that for both reasons we should believe in His goodness[...]” (9.6, Lightfoot) If by 'dialectical theology' we mean that God's 'yes' and 'no' are inseparable (Tillich), this is certainly a specimen of such. The two elements, negative and positive, come together in faith (in an Aufhebung! ), or? A...
Read more »

Origen on the continuity between the commandments of the law and of Jesus (Matt. 5:38-39)

-
"[...]it is written in the Lamentations of Jeremiah: 'It is good for a man when he bears a yoke in his youth, he will sit alone and in silence when he has taken it on himself. He will give a cheek to the man who smites him and shall be filled with reproaches.' The gospel, then, does not lay down laws in contradiction to the God of the law, not even if we interpret literally the saying about a blot on the jaw. And neither Moses nor Jesus is wrong. Nor did the Father forget when sent Jesus the commands which he had given to Moses. Nor did He condemn His own laws, and change His mind, and send His messenger for the opposite purpose. " (Con. Cel. VII,25)
Read more »

Exceptions to God's love? A thought on violence and salvation, Anabaptists, Yoder, Barth and Luther

-
Billede
"Anabaptists" being tortured for rejecting violence and saying that there will be an end to otherworldly torture. In the Lutheran Augsburg Confession (CA) the so-called Anabaptists were condemned not just for their baptist practices but also for their views on eschatology, soteriology and ethics. First there is the Anabaptist rejection of violence. The Lutherans condemned the Anabaptists for teaching the necessity of not engaging as soldiers in “just war”, to “sit as judges” and to award “just punishments”. ”They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians.” (CA § XVI) On soteriology we hear that Lutherans believe that the devil and sinners shall be tortured without end, while the Anabaptists are condemned for teaching that there will be an end to torture: ”They condemn the Anabaptists, who think that there will be an end to the punishments of condemned men and devils.” (CA § XVII) While the claim that there will be an end to punishments...
Read more »