The Lincoln Project goes up in smoke!

Well those neo-con blokes at The Lincoln Project really went off the rails this week. For those who haven't heard of the so-called Lincoln Project, be grateful. Very grateful. These are a group of so-called "Republicans" who have decided to head the "Republicans against Trump" coalition for 2020. Their main goal is to persuade enough GOP voters to either become so fed up with Trump that they don't vote or to tilt to vote for Biden or third party. The folks over at The Lincoln Project clearly want Biden to win 2020. But they are engaging in very odd and deceitful tactics to do so, and this week, they really hit rock-bottom. Their Twitter feed is more revolting than the President's that they want to eject from the White House!

Not even corn pop ran this many bad dudes!

For starters, these dudes are bad dudes. They're lying scumbags and news media is now starting to do their home work to figure this out. Only one of the founders of the so-called Lincoln Project is actually still a registered Republican to begin with. Secondly, they appear to have no grasp on independent voters and their target audience seems to only be Republicans. I highly doubt the amount of Republicans they are persuading is as big as it would appear. I'm an independent, what have I to do with Bush and McCain and Romney? These are the kind of Republicans they've supported in the past. A war criminal that brought us into Iraq and Afghanistan, a treasonous neo-con who wanted every single nation that wasn't the U.S. bombed to smitherines, and a Wall Street corporate hologram. They must surely know the Democrat grassroots won't want anything to do with them after the "revolution" is completed, right?

But they really went off the deep end this week. Starting with such glorious tweets as the following.

We also troll on Instagram.

Follow us: https://t.co/IexsBByhHp pic.twitter.com/BgwRhLpHpo

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) July 29, 2020

 

Impotus Americanus is one of the heaviest leaders in the animal kingdom, and is famously known to be an orange, ruddy color not found in nature. pic.twitter.com/8ccudG6krq

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) July 31, 2020

But their ultimate self-inflicted wound this week came when they ran their ad against GOP Senator Susan Collins. When their mission is to go after the "most right wing" of the GOP congressman and they're wasting money going after the left-wing Susan Collins, a pro-abortion socialist in favor of expanding big government healthcare, you know we've got some hacks on our hands. It should have been telling when their Twitter feed was taken over by a college graduate with a degree women and gender studies but now the cat's out of the bag!

The advertisement was not just an awful waste of money to spend on a neo-con left-wing GOP senator, it also portrayed an horrible ignorance of history of the twentieth century. Something only a millenial college graduate with a degree in women and gender studies could do any way, certainly not a bunch of neo-cons still trying to masquerade as Republicans when they've already abandoned that party long ago. Though their ad against Susan Collins proves that they're not actually for any Republican reform any more by now. But then they go out and accuse Susan Collins of McCarthyism?!? What exactly is McCarthyism? McCarthyism is a paranoid delusional syndrome named after Senator Joseph McCarthy who accused his political opponents of being spies and agents of...Russia. What is McCarthyism? It's a delusional syndrome where one accuses one's political opponents of being...foreign agents, specifically of...Russia. Sound familiar? Who are the real McCarthyists? Oh, yeah, that would be The Lincoln Project.

The irony is that Susan Collins is not accused of McCarthyism for flat-out defending the innocence of Trump in regards to "collusion with Russia" which we know by now never happened to begin with, she is accused of McCarthyism for maintaining our rule of law in that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The ad is a whole lot of bunk, a garbage piece of delusional paranoia, and frankly just a conspiratorial lie. And yet the new American Left has decided that conspiracy theories are the new "norm" and questioning conspiracy theories means they can now re-define the game. But McCarthyism is in the history books and its meaning is well-established. People who know history not only will know that it's a lie and a damned lie to accuse Susan Collins of such, but also, congratulations, The Lincoln Project just wasted money going after a liberal GOP politician that no one is worried about maintaining the seat of any way. Except maybe Susan Collins.

To add insult to injury, there was also a Tweet on Thursday from The Lincoln Project demanding Trump resign. Oh, I thought they cared about getting him out of office democratically. Maybe they realize their organization is being exposed as the joke it is. Or maybe they realize that Trump is going to be re-elected.

The Demonic nature of identity politics

Disability, ethnic background, skin color, etc. I think this blatantly sums up what's wrong with identity politics. It's demonic and refuses to look at us as individual souls. https://t.co/WPRePwKsEX

— ☩ Daniel ☩ Roberts ☩ (@NewEnglandSun) July 30, 2020

This conversation was part of one I had with Michelle Maher on Twitter in regards to demons that we deal with. For me, my personal demon is autism. I am high functioning. But it is hard for me to understand social cues that appear normally for other people. Sometimes, I view people as attacking me when they aren't. And a lot of overloading situations lead to what is called a "meltdown". These are ways of handling that stress build-up.

But each autistic person is different. None of us come with a manual. Irregardless of our disability, we are not all alike. My mother very frequently likes to get me involved in activities with other autistic people. Activities and groups in which autistic people are all lumped together into a collective pool. That's a problem and that stems from an identity politics emerging in the autistic community. I prefer not to bring attention to my own autism for obvious reasons. Because I am not defined by my disability. I am defined by who I am even though other people may want me to be identified by my disability. And that reveals the demonic nature of identity politics that Michelle Maher brings attention to here.

We are no longer judged by our individual souls. We are reduced to being a part of a group and we receive collective judgment rather than the individual judgment that Jesus sees us. Liberal Protestants are correct in that American politics has led to a poisonous individualism. But there is also another side to the coin that liberal Protestants neglect. The poisonous collectivism. The Church's social teaching maintains both solidarity and subsidiarinism. I will never run a #ActuallyAutistic because I am not trying to score points on the grounds of my disability. We have our own stories and our own souls.

Just like each white person is different, each black person is different, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, etc. So is every autistic person different, every OCD person different, ADHD, ADD, etc. Going back to my misjudged social cues, there was a time I encountered the Crazy Church Lady before having much of a developed relationship with her. She commented on the blue birds outside the church reminding her that Spring was here. I believed she was attacking me. Telling me I should not look outside the window. She still does not understand me fully. She does not quite understand that I ask these repeated questions for clarification in a stressful situation. "Why can't I look outside the window?" "Why are you telling me I can't look outside the window?" Etc. Recently, it was "Where is [your daughter]?" I am a mixture when it comes to touch. Some people have realized this...like our deaconess who will ask if she may touch me before she touches me with holy water or says a prayer of exorcism over me. Crazy Church Lady has not...I should probably help her with that. She deemed it appropriate to give me an uninvited hug at that time and some reading this know what happened next and so I will not go into detail.

If you meet one autistic person, you meet one autistic person. I have difficulties with the groups that my mom would like me to get involved in with other autistic people precisely because they force me into an identity group that mitigates my own individual soul. That is a poisonous collectivism. We are meant to share the same goals in theosis, we are not meant to be reduced to the level of sameness. We are not all legs or arms or eyes or ears. As the body of Christ, we are collected together in different body parts. God is Trinity. He is three different persons. We are called to be collected the same way he is. But by reducing our lives to a certain disability or health malady, we are enforcing a demonic collectivism on people that destroys their individual souls. The souls that Christ wants us to have are unique and individual. But souls that collectively unite and come together in Him. I am autistic but not like other autistic people.

The intra-Catholic warfare!

Yeah, Christians still treat each other like crap even after all these years. That is because we are all sinners and fall way short of the glory of God. Recently, in the intra-Catholic circles, we see an obsession with Vatican II and that if one does not accept Vatican II as a legitimate council, then one must be banished and chastised to the outer nether. Or if one accepts Vatican II, one is a dirty and filthy liberal. Or if one accepts Vatican II with qualifications, then they aren't a true Catholic either. The neo-Catholics as I refer to them are really something else though. Going so far as to proclaim that one must accept every jot and tittle of what a Pope says or one is not a "True Catholic®" and yadda, yadda, yadda. Or the accusation that such Traditionalists are "Protestantizing!" by opposing a heresy that a Pope has held to even though the Eastern Orthodox are never accused of such. It is really mind-boggling. I recently heard that Taylor Marshall is a "schismatic" (he's not).

The problem is that such concepts come from a radically hyper-interpretation of Vatican I which, ironically, is sorely contradicted by Vatican II. Vatican II sought out to clarify what Vatican I taught. How do we have an infallible Pope? How is one man free from error on doctrinal decisions? Can it be possible he could lead us into heresy? And Vatican II actually limited and favored a heavily more limited view on the subject of Papal infallibility. A good work on the subject would Primacy in the Church ed. by John Chryssavgis. I think there is a favoritism toward the usage of more liberalized theology in there and so I only recommend with qualifications but what is found in there is a theology of Vatican II that favors a staunchly more limited view on Papal infallibility.

Of course, the nonsense of the pro-Vatican II Catholics in stating that one accept the full demands of Vatican II is that Vatican II never actually makes any anathemas. It was set out as a pastoral council. Such a kind of council is unprecedented. I'm not going to waste time arguing whether it was a legitimate council or not but I have seen arguments from some Catholics that Vatican II may not have actually been a council at all in consideration of the prerequisites of a council. Even further, the fact that there are no anathemas would indicate that whatever "dogmas" it attempted to define cannot actually be forced as Catholic orthodoxy. This generally leads me to mockingly jest sometimes, "Can't excommunicate me, it's against your religion." The ultra-hardcore neo-Catholic doesn't really see the contradiction that he has set up for himself. He tends to have his cake and eat it too.

Claiming that one "support" Vatican II if one is traditionalist is also highly deceptive. When what you mean is not supporting Vatican II on the basis of all the previous tradition but instead supporting all the previous tradition under the interpretation of Vatican II, you are not actually maintaining to tradition. The "spirit of Vatican II" crap that has emerged in post-Vatican II discourse is probably what led Cardinal Vigano to indicting the post-Vatican II era of the Church as having mutated the Church into two churches. As Crazy Church Lady would tell me, Vatican II, pre-Vatican II, it's all the same Holy Mother Church. I think Vatican II has led to certain liberalized theology that it never intended to lead but after having read The Great Facade, I think there is a lot to say for a traditionalist reading of the precepts of the council. Especially when one looks at the Anglican Ordinariate, one could make the case that was what the Novus Ordo was meant to look like rather than the ad populum priests all over.

Then there is whole "Pope Francis Catholic" nonsense. I have no way of judging the humility of Pope Francis, but if he is truly a humble player, I'm certain he gets a chuckle about the lunacy of such a demented term. One should think of the First Letter to the Corinthians to understand how weird and puzzling such an idea is. St. Paul is thankful that he did not baptize individuals but only preached the Gospel. Not because he's changed his mind that baptism is not important but because the Holy Spirit's activity is what is important. The Church does not operate under a "spirit of Vatican II" any more that there is a "Pope Francis Catholic". In fact, these terms really make us look like we're having the same problems as the Corinthians did! One person said, "I'm with Apollos!" Another said, "I'm with Paul!" And another said, "I'm with Christ!" With these "spirit of Vatican II", "Pope Francis Catholic", and "Traditionalist Catholic" stuff, we really sound exactly like the...Corinthians! It's nonsense! There's no "Pope Francis Catholic" any more than there's a "spirit of Vatican II" and good grief, all Catholics are traditionalists!

Pope Francis is not the only Pope that ever lived and there will most certainly be another. Vatican II is not the only council and there will most certainly be another. The tradition will continue as it has and we'll grow in knowledge of the Holy Spirit. There will be bad Popes and there will be good Popes. That's the way history plays it out. But one is not "more Catholic" based on their adherence to a "spirit of Vatican II" that didn't show up until the 60s and one is not "more Catholic" based on their adherence to the homilies of Pope Francis. This is absurdity. The Church of Corinth is us right now. The Church of Corinth reflects what we've become. Such scuffles are nothing new in the Church and the remedy remains the same. The remedy is to restore ourselves to proper worship of Christ.

The Triads Book 1, Ch 1 - St. Gregory Palamas

St. Gregory Palamas starts off his most famous work The Triads with an explanation of knowledge in the Church fathers compared to the Pagan philosophy. Reading it, I am amazed by how much this chapter already compares to today's world where we are practically run by Teachers' Unions telling us they need more money to educate our children or our children will be disadvantaged especially seeing as they seem more than content to declare themselves utterly useless as they resort to online education. I don't care how long it takes to put together an online class, an online class will never be as great as an in-person class since humans are naturally relational animals. That is what we are created for.

St. Gregory Palamas begins by affirming that we possess the use of reason within ourselves, sin has disabled these divine images within ourselves from being seen (1.3). If you read my series on original sin, you will see this is the similar view that the Latins have, if not the exact same under slightly different worded language. There is a distinction between the divine knowledge which is sought and the worldly knowledge which is foolishness (1.8). The knowledge that St. Gregory opposes is the knowledge that is lacking in love. The knowledge that puffs up. True knowledge in God is derived from love. It builds (1.9). Knowledge from worldly education is not true spiritual knowledge (1.10). It is different and stands in opposition to the spiritual knowledge.

The knowledge that comes from the Hellenic philosophy not only is opposed to God, it also has a demonic source (1.15). Plato appeals to demons, Hesiod seeks nine demons in his entire Theogony. This is a scathing assessment of classical philosophy to a Western mind but it is important for the Christian to understand. Any truth that is to be discovered in a heresy is not because God is the source of the heresy or  because the heresy leads to God but because God is the source of all true knowledge and all false knowledge is a corruption of the true knowledge. A psyche infected by demons  "turns toward evil", while the "holy and disciplined spirit will flee from deceit" (1.16). The Hellenic philosophy cannot have knowledge in it. The true philosopher (lover of wisdom) will ascend toward the wisdom of God.

Much to the chagrin of the worldly education, St. Gregory deems it as empty and unnecessary to the spiritual life. "[W]orldly education serves natural knowledge. It cannot become spiritual unless it is allied to faith and love in God" (1.9). St. Gregory condemns the men who attempt to force worldly education and worldly knowledge on Christians (1.5). "It is the Hellenic heresy that concentrates all its enthusiasm and interest on those who research the science of such things" (1.3). This should be thought of most importantly when it comes to the state enforcing that all must learn a certain set of knowledges. I have often heard it said of me by many a Christian that I am "smart" and I "know my stuff" and I always bat down such sentiment because to bask in worldly knowledge is not gaining anything. Certainly, it is helpful to know one's Scriptures, to know the church fathers, and to know the doctrines and precepts of the faith. These are the only thing of value to know. But one is not saved by knowing The Philokalia, indeed it has not been translated wholly into English, or the works of St. John Chrysostom, or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. The saints should very well be read and learned from but knowledge of their works is not unto salvation. Knowledge of the Gospel leads to transformation. Understanding is not key. Faith precedes understanding. Faith is key.

But does St. Gregory condemn the learning of worldly things? No. Actually, St. Gregory Palamas was quite a learned man himself. The "Second Theologian" said of St. Athanasius, "the benefit gained from his secular studies was that he learned to define what he judged it good to disregard" (1.6). Unless one has adopted a monastic life, no one is prohibited from learning the worldly knowledges (1.12). It is how they are used that is important. He uses the analogy of snake venom as the flesh of snakes can be turned into an antidote to use against itself when the victim is suffering from the bite (1.10). It is important and sometimes necessary to use the false knowledge against itself and to correct it. This is where discernment comes in and as a soul seeks the true wisdom of God, they begin to see how valueless the worldly wisdom is.

Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (3 - Bayle and Hume on Monarchy)

Bayle and Hume on Monarchy, Scepticism, and Forms of Government - Sally Jenkinson

For the most part, people tend to speak favorably of the form of government of their home country. It is typical for Americans to praise a republican form of government and to praise the American Revolution and to scorn a monarchial form of government since that is what the American republic broke away from. But Bayle and Hume approach their theories of government from a slightly different perspective. Both are under monarchies but "[b]oth followed the sceptical mode in philosophy, and both applied critical argument to received constitutional ideas of their age" (Monarchisms, 62). Though sceptical this does not mean that their views were not pragmatic. They were "committed to a the promotion of an Enlightened society" and while long known for their philosophical works, are now becoming more known for their political works as well (62).

Scepticism can be understood different ways in different contexts. For the purpose of the study on Hume and Bayle, it is necessary to come to a definition on how scepticism can be applied to their approaches on political philosophy. "In epistomology the word 'scepticism' is used mainly in opposition to to the word 'dogmatism'" (63). Dogmatic thinkers appeal to authority to support their arguments and pre-conceived ideas. Sceptical thinkers refrain from passing judgment. This is the trend that is seen in the writings of Bayle and Hume. Sceptical thinkers will question theories "of government advanced by a rival" (64). They may not necessarily promote a theory. He questions "both the validity of a theory, [and] also the good faith of those who advance it" (64). Finally, the sceptical thinker puts in place an alternative theory to the one demolished.

The three main classical theories on monarchy are monarchy as rule by one person, monarchy as rule by one person in the interests of all, and monarchy as power transferred by inheritance. In Aristotle's six-fold system, "government could be that of one, the few, or the many" (65). Thus, the inverse relations of monarchy, aristocracy, and polity as opposed to tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. But this does not mean that a monarchy need not be governed in such a way as to promote the interests of all. And for monarchies, it was commonly argued that if power was routinely transferred to the ruler's heir, "there was less risk of violent conflict among contenders for office" (66). Thus, a monarchy was typically seen as a guarantor of more stability.

Bayle's position is a critique of those who praise a certain form of government over another. Bayle begins with a critique of Hobbes. Hobbes "had once attempted through his translation of Thucydides to persuade his compatriots that disorder and confusion follow from the republican form of government" (67). But this would never convince someone with anti-monarchial positions as they would already approach the question with the position that republican governments provide order. Such was Bayle's reasoning. "Bayle notes that different circumstances produce different forms of government" but the one that keeps the peace the best is the one that is to be praised (67). Bayle, in his Dictionnaire, makes similar arguments against hereditary power. While other forms of government have their weak points, they are not "as are kings, susceptible to infancy or decrepitude" (67-68). The reign of Charles VI "precipitated 'the darkest and most turbulent dissention' in France" (68).

Hume makes the attempt to argue for a hereditary monarchy. In his Treatise on Human Nature, he reasons that "men are commonly induced to place the son of their late monarchy on the throne and suppose him to inherit his father's authority...the presumed consent of the father, the imitation of succession to to private families, the interest, which the state has in chusing the person, who is most powerful, and has the most numerous followers; all these reasons lead men to prefer the son of their late monarch to any other person" (68-69). Hume is inclined to the position that "humankind is apt to base its institutions on imagination, so that even an act of chance, conquest, is characteristically transformed into a tradition" (69). If government is supposed to secure society from such convulsions, then the greatest risk to disorder would be a doubt emerging in the line of succession. Thus, a hereditary monarchy would erase such doubts. Hume's belief is that governments eventually arise naturally. Government development is to arise naturally and the most natural form of government would have to be a one ruler society, a monarchy. Yet, he also maintains that government can be oppressive, so oppressive that people might be justified in revolting against it (70).

In his "weak case for hereditary monarchy and prudential, retrospective, case for resistance to tyranny, Hume manages to defend the status quo of the constitution of church and state in Britain in the eighteenth century" (70-71). The Revolution of 1688 is defended, "whereby the monarchy was transferred from a Catholic dynasty to a Protestant dynasty...he defends the establishment...of a new hereditary monarchy...'the linear heir' - is likely to provide a more stable transfer...the mixed hereditary monarchy is superior to the absolute hereditary monarchies of the European continent" (71). The civil sovereign must "protect society from disorder as a means to the end of promoting enlightenment" (71).

For both Bayle and Hume, "[a] government must be neither so tyrannical that it is overthrown, nor so pusillanimous that it dissolves into tumult and chaos" (72). Experience taught that society was at risk if the monarch did not support some form of public religion, though it was not necessary as to which religious preference the monarch supported. Bayle and Hume defended "the absolute sovereignty of any regime as a necessary...condition of public peace" (73). Diplomatically, monarchy had to be supported in France, republicanism in Geneva, and mixed government in the Netherlands. Neither accept dogmatical ways of thinking in "their preferred alternatives to the ideas of their opponents" (74).

Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (2 - Absolute, not Arbitrary Power: Monarchism in the Thought of the Huguenots and Pierre Bayle)

'Absolute, Not Arbitrary, Power': Monarchism and Politics in the Thought of the Huguenots and Pierre Bayle - Luisa Simonutti

This second chapter focuses on some of the historical controversies that develop in Enlightenment France under the reign of Louis XIV between the Protestants and the Catholics. "In the writings of the Catholic controversialists, and by certain voices on the Huguenot side, the French Protestants were defined as...Idolators of royal authority" (Monarchisms, 45). It is within the context and history of these disputes as well as the ongoing religious wars, that the Huguenots would eventually adopt a more absolutist stance on the Divine right of kings.

The Huguenots were actually quick and vociferous to defend the authority of the French monarchy as they continued to seek pacification with the Crown. One such text, read out "[t]hey are persaded that after that which they owe to God, they are obliged to render obedience without limits to Your Majesty." (45) They believed that giving the king his proper obedience would guarantee them the "freedom to serve God according to their consciences" (45). But the anti-Huguenot literature was printed out in an effort to form the Huguenots into obedience and compliance with the state religion. These authors believed that in the promulgation of edicts, there would be a path created "that would quiet the Huguenots and allow [the king] to retake control little by little, instead of having the country in constant revolt." (46) But the Hguenots persisted in their diligent obedience to the king, and in a text known as Advertissement aux Protestantes des Provinces, a distinguishment was drawn between the Huguenots, the Muslims, the Pagans, and the Arians.

"But  one has never seen them armed  against their princes and they have never wanted to defend their worship by force of arms: they have left that maxim to the pagans, the Muslims, and the false church of the Arians. And why have they acted like that? Because they have made it a point of inviolable conscience to never defend themselves against their Sovereigns, no matter how unjust and cruel they were." (46)

It was Antoine Arnauld who became the author in charge of responding to the polemics of the Huguenot Pierre Jurieu, "claiming that that the latter's sole purpose was to render Catholics suspect in the eyes of all the princes of Europe" (47). Jurieu maintains that Huguenot rulers could not exert tolerance toward Catholics in the same way Catholic rulers could exert tolerance toward Huguenots because Catholic rulers swore allegiance to one who was king of kings. This meant heresy could effectively despoil a king of all his rights to authority. In conclusion, the king should trust the Huguenots only because "they are the only party of whose loyalty he can be perfectly sure." (48)

Arnauld rebukes this polemicist severely, arguing "from the very origins of the sect the Reformed had always at the tips of their tongues a very significant proviso to their loyalty, that is, that the kings should not command them to act counter to their conscience and religion" (48). He looks at definitions provided in De Jure Magistuum by Theodore Bézè and Vindiciae contra Tyrannos in which the term is used "to describe only worthy kings who were entirely lacking of the characteristics of the tyrant" (48). The Protestants' sole reason for their loyalty to the Crown is the perseverance of their religion while Catholics were loyal to the Crown even before the king's conversion to Catholicism and in the events leading to the Edict of Nantes. The French Reformed "recognized in royal power the form of government which was better adapted to to protect the existence of the Huguenot subjects and the legality of the Protestant religion" (49). The main criticism from the Protestants was generally directed at Papism. Arnauld would take to the defense of his own religion as he writes Le véritable portrait de Guillaume Henry de Nassau, nouvel Absalon, nouvel Hérode, nouveau Cromwel, nouveau Néron, "a violent reprimand directed at William III who, according to Arnauld, in his inhumane ambition had, like Absalom, taken up arms against King David, his father; ...like Herod, had attempted to kill the infant futre King of the Jews." (50) William of Orange was comparable to Oliver Cromwell in that he overthrew the legitimate king. "William of Orange was another Nero who cruelly attacked Catholics" (50). Arnauld saw such fierce attacks hurled by the Huguenot Jurieu against Catholics and took it upon himself in his Apologie to defend the king and to propose laws which would further the authority of the Crown (50-51).

It was here that Pierre Bayle emerges to defend the Huguenot position in the Dictionaire and the Commentaire philosophique. Bayle was aware of the difficulties when it came to "a concept of universal tolerance which, beyond the confessional connotations, was still unable to base itself on either reason or morals" (51). The case for the rights of the people "has been upheld not only by the seditious and by dissidents, but also by 'many people of great judgment and exemplary virture' (52). Because not even religion can guarantee the possession of truth, "the rights of conscience are to be found in the awareness that the human soul is pervaded by an 'invincible ignorance' which urges it to choose what appears to be true, but the nucleus pf which is beyond its knowledge." (52) Bayle argues that the right of the sword to does not extend to potentially fallible errors of conscience and that this right does not extend to persecute religions (53). In Lettre d'un refugié françois à un nouveau converti, he writes:

"Concerning subjects who are oppressed for their religion taking up arms, with no intention to do violence to anybody but only to procure an honest liberty to follow the light of their conscience, disposed to be loyal to their sovereign in all other matters, I have known very able and very pious people in this country who have said it is licit, and that we should be ashamed of what our Fathers have said in this regard." (53)

In his Avis aux refugiez, Bayle argues that two diseases that could infect France are a the seditious and defamatory books and a spirit of republicanism "that wants no less than to introduce anarchy into the world" (53). Venice and Holland may have had republican elements to their societies but they were by no means encouraging of disobedience and every man had the duty to be obedient to the state in which he served. The main distinction being the power residing in a single individual in a monarchy.

Elie Merlat's response in Traité du pauvoir absolu des souverains pour servir d'instruction, de consolation et d'apologie aux Eglises Reformées de France qui sont affligées was to defend the full absolute authority of kings and to condemn any such hints at sedition as indefensible by true religion. "It is only God, the sole magistrate of kings and princes, who may eventually punish their crimes or oust tyrants from power" (55). Merlat makes his case from the Scriptures. Merlat further defends the authority and right of Louis XIV to persecute the Huguenots as "a personal choice...in relation to the Papacy and the Gallican clergy" (55). The restoration of the Edict of Nantes is only about restoring a fundamental law to French society.

And so in the Huguenots is a philosophy of obedience to the Crown similar and possibly distinct from the Catholics. Perhaps Arnauld's criticisms are correct of his opponents or perhaps they are slander. There's no way for us to read into the minds and thought processes of these Huguenot thinkers.

Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (1 - Spinoza on Republics)

I hope to do a chapter-by-chapter synopsis of this book in the coming posts. Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment is not a philosophical-political work arguing in favor or against monarchial views in the age of the Enlightenment. It is rather an intellectual history of monarchist views and monarchist authors, as well as republican authors who argued that monarchist governments were the best way to sustain republican forms of government, throughout the Enlightenment era. The Enlightenment era has come to be known as the age of democracy and classical liberalism but that is far from the truth. While there were certainly many revolutions, democratic uprisings, rebellions, and attempts to cripple monarchial regimes, the Enlightenment was filled with numerous philosophers and intellectuals who fought to preserve monarchial systems of government and in government. As our great age becomes infatuated with democracy, it is important to recollect on the monarchist ideals of the past. Especially as we witness democracy come to its dying gasps for oxygen.

Spinoza on Res Publica, Republics, and Monarchies - Hans Blom

The first chapter focuses on Benedictus de Spinoza's response to Pieter de la Court's assessment of the current state of the Dutch Republic. De la Court takes a strong anti-monarchial stance on governance and attempts to explain "that monarchies suffer from the unbridled passions of their monarchs, whose greatest good would seem to be the oppression and exploitation of their subjects, with unfaithful foreign politics in their wake" (20). Thus,  de la Court fancies a "well-ordered popular government [that] promotes commerce and trade and thus the general well-being in ways that a monarchy can only dream of" (20-21). Such an argument is bizarre to say the least. Wouldn't a popular government that is well-ordered be controlled inevitably by people who would take the same negative role a monarch would? Thus enters Spinoza to explain that the philosophy that "'Right makes might' captures the nature of politics as much in monarchial as in non-monarchial rule" (21). Spinoza sees human nature the same everywhere and "the several forms of government differ by circumstances, not on principle" (21).

If it wasn't clear, Spinoza by no means intends to argue in favor of monarchism. Spinoza instead intends to address the shortcomings of de la Court's arguments against monarchism and explain that monarchies have a tendency to work just as well as popular governments. This is similar to F.A. Hayek's own assessment of autocratic rule in The Road to Serfdom. That said, Spinoza does argue that any government's duty is to care for its people and "a well-ordered monarchy is the more absolute, the more it cares for the well-being of its people" (21). As Hayek also points out, "Nor must we forget that there has often been more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies...The fashionable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened is not without danger. ... The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the dangers which we face." (Road to Serfdom, 110-111)

Back to Spinoza. One of the concepts appearing in Spinoza is potentia multitudinis or the power of the multitudes. Spinoza develops a philosophy that "not only in a state of nature does right equal might, but that this also holds for the political state. ... the rights a state can exercise over its subjects will never exceed the power of the state's body, that is, the multitude" (Monarchisms, 25). Marxists conclude then that the multitude is the power of the state while libertarians jump to the conclusion that the multitude is an individual in an ontological sense "in practice, and according to Spinoza, it will never be the case that each and every individual of the multitude is rational...and thus fail to be an individual in the Spinozan sense" (25). But is Spinoza's philosophy fitting in either category? The two key elements for Spinoza's conception of the multitude are his focus on man as "a particle of nature" who is not his own master, but carrying on "his natural determiation" (25). The second element is his view that the republica must establish its relationship with God "a conceptual structure or frame to which men...relate in their capacity as actors in society" (25-26). The multitude is therefore a collective unit "guided as if by one mind" (27).

De la Court takes up a defense of popular government with the view that equality is the necessary regulation to ensure a functioning popular government (29). He takes the view that ordinary people with their actions and endeavors make the best rule and that "[m]onarchial rule is the worst form of government because its supposed advantage of a single-headed government to avoid dissension and lack of political virtue, in practice turns into its disadvantage: the king will be manipulated by his courtiers and reduced to a bundle of lusts" (30). De la  Court's stance against monarchy seeks to take the worst of monarchy and come to the conclusion that popular government is therefore the "lesser of evils". /this is a classical way to understand republican reactions to monarchist viewpoints. Spinoza and de la Court certainly agree on the basic ideas of government, that the state be as one body with one mind, but they differ in their treatment of monarchial rule (37).

Spinoza's republican ontology, "allowed him to insist on the reality of Orangism in the Dutch Republic. A monarchy, provided it be well-ordered, does not preclude liberty nor the well-being of the people, if only it is understood that for a state to be guided una mente veluti it has to have the proper institutions that adhere to its conatus" (39). This conatus is arrived at by "showing that a stable republic...is an individual" and the second step pointed out "the motivations of the Dutch republicans to promote a strong republic by liberating the energies of its citizens by way of an appropriate political organization" (38). Spinoza's stance thus can be considered a form of constitutional monarchy with the monarch acting as the one mind for the republic or state.

Is Jesus also the Father?

Sabellianism is a wicked heresy that teaches that the distinctions of persons in God are an optical illusion sent to distract believers by Satan himself and lead people into Hell. Sabellianism exists today in the denomination of Oneness Pentecostalism but others have taken this heresy as well. Oneness believers, as they are called, sometimes call themselves Jesus-only believers, but they have attempted to assert to Trinitarians that Jesus is nothing more than a liar. That his relationship with his Father is an illusion of trickery. Thus, Oneness doctrine affirms that the incarnate God is an inherently immoral liar. But if a liar died for your sins, then you have no real salvation.

I've been reflecting a lot lately on the Trinity after having been harassed by a Jesus-only believer on a video I posted some time ago which challenged the Oneness doctrine to the core. The Scriptures that contradict the Oneness doctrine are large and ample in existence. I prefer to use just one to silence them. That would be Matt. 3:16-17. They typically insist, "no theologian worth a grain of salt would use that as a proof text of the Trinity!" The problem is that it's not being used as a positive proof of the Trinity but as a negation of Oneness doctrine. Oneness doctrine refuses to see any distinction between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Matt. 3:16-17, the baptism of Jesus, shows quite clearly that there is distinction between the three. The Father speaks to the Son and declares "this is my Son". Oneness doctrine at this point teaches that the distinction is an optical illusion of Satan's meant to lead us into Hell. They accuse Trinitarians of "reading Trinity into Scriptures" but then they'll go into this text and insist that Jesus's "spirit" in Heaven was declaring his "flesh" on Earth his Son. (Naturally, this spirit/flesh distinction in the person of Jesus leads to further complications on the cross as one wonders if they can be saved if just the "flesh" died while a "spirit" part was in Heaven according to their theology.)

So already, they play the little game of accusing others of what they alone are guilty of doing. No one has read into it that Jesus is being declared "Son" by another being in Heaven who is also clearly God. That is exactly what the text says! But to the Oneness believer, they are insistent so much that the Trinity is what is read into Scriptures that they won't even seek to understand what Trinitarians actually believe. It would appear to me that fear tactics are being brought on by their leaders and they are experiencing pressure not to even investigate Trinitarian doctrine but rather take at face value what their leaders say. If Sabellian "exegesis" is acceptable extra-Biblical reading, why is it foul for Trinitarians to appeal to "exegesis" or mere explanations of their doctrine? That is what the Athanasian Creed is. It is not meant to exegete the Scriptures. It is meant to explain a doctrine that has already been exegeted from Scriptures. It is why I tell these anti-Trinitarian Oneness believers to cite the Athanasian Creed before they accuse Trinitarians of "three-God" worship.

"For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God." (Athanasian Creed)

Note that Trinitarians do not need to be told that "God is one". Trinitarians believe that and affirm that in their teachings.

"This is the cause why it says, the Lord our God is one Lord Deuteronomy 6:4, and also proclaims the Only-begotten God by the name of Godhead, without dividing the Unity into a dual signification, so as to call the Father and the Son two Gods, although each is proclaimed by the holy writers as God. The Father is God: the Son is God: and yet by the same proclamation God is One, because no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead. For if (according to the idea of those who have been led astray) the nature of the Holy Trinity were diverse, the number would by consequence be extended to a plurality of Gods, being divided according to the diversity of essence in the subjects. But since the Divine, single, and unchanging nature, that it may be one, rejects all diversity in essence, it does not admit in its own case the signification of multitude; but as it is called one nature, so it is called in the singular by all its other names, God, Good, Holy, Saviour, Just, Judge, and every other Divine name conceivable: whether one says that the names refer to nature or to operation, we shall not dispute the point." (On Not Three Gods, St. Gregory of Nyssa)

St. John of Damascus affirms the singular nature of God, "God is one and not many is no matter of doubt to those who believe in the Holy Scriptures." (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk1ch5)

"But with those that do not believe in the Holy Scriptures we will reason thus. The Deity is perfect , and without blemish in goodness, and wisdom, and power, without beginning, without end, everlasting, uncircumscribed , and in short, perfect in all things. Should we say, then, that there are many Gods, we must recognise difference among the many. For if there is no difference among them, they are one rather than many. But if there is difference among them, what becomes of the perfectness? For that which comes short of perfection, whether it be in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place, could not be God. But it is this very identity in all respects that shows that the Deity is one and not many. Again, if there are many Gods, how can one maintain that God is uncircumscribed? For where the one would be, the other could not be." (ibid)

But what of the Trinity? St. John of Damascus describes...

"The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any way separate from Him, but ever is in Him. But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abides ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father." (ch8)

It's not the Trinitarian doctrine does not teach that God is one, but that the Trinity doctrine understands that God's oneness has been revealed in harmony with a threeness. This, St. John of Damascus summarizes neatly.

"Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son : but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His Romans 8:9, says the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:29 It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit." (ibid)

Trinitarians reject that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "parts" of God because God is infinite. Infinity cannot be divided into parts. It is impossible to divide infinity. That said, we also read several times that the one God in Scriptures is identified as the Father. This, as St. John of Damascus tells us, is because of the Father's role as the cause. The Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is the point from which the divinity flows. So the Father, when mentioned with the Son and the Holy Spirit, is appropriately accepted by Trinitarians as "the only true God", while when the Son is alone, he is appropriately declared God. John 17:1-3 declares the Father the only true God but 1 John 5:20-21 declares the Son the true God, and Acts 5 declares the Holy Spirit as God.

A multitude of times, we see the distinction throughout Scriptures. Hebrews 1:9-12 shows us a conversation between God the Father and God the Son. "Therefore God, thy God has set you a throne above your companions". The resurrected Christ says unto the Church in Philadelphia, "to the one who is victorious, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God" (Rev. 3:12). How can the resurrected Lord claim to even have a God if he is the "only person in the Godhead"? Oneness theology must twist the obvious Scriptures to their destruction. Lamb and Ancient One are seen being worshiped as the Holy Spirit flows from the throne room (Rev. 4-5). St. Paul greets the Corinthians in the tri-fold (2 Cor. 13:14). Jesus instructs the Apostles to baptize in the tri-fold (Matt. 28:19).

The error of Oneness theology rests on two texts that do not add up except in light of Trinitarian doctrine. Isaiah 9:6 which lists a series of names by which Messiah shall be called, one of them being "Everlasting Father". John 14:9-10 in which St. Phillip asks to see the Father and Jesus declares that if St. Phillip has seen him, he has seen the Father. Neither of these prove such and in weight of all the prior evidence must be interpreted in light of the distinction.

The first thing to make mention of in regards to Isaiah 9:6 is that the child will be called by those names. Those are names. Since the Trinity affirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, share the same name, then it makes sense that their name would also be "Jehovah-is-salvation" which is what the name Jesus translates to. But that does not deny the distinction which already exists. The second point to make is that the Father is the Father in relation to the Son. This means that the Son in relation to others may very well be a father, and an Everlasting Father, but not the Father. Thus, the Oneness error hinges on a grievous misunderstanding of the Trinity in order to disprove it. This is called "straw-manning".

I prefer to let St. John Chrysostom give his commentary on John 14:9-10.

"Then to distinguish the Persons He says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father, lest any one should assert that the same is Father, the same Son. For had He been the Father, He would not have said, He that has seen Me has seen Him. Why then did He not reply, you ask things impossible, and not allowed to man; to Me alone is this possible? Because Philip had said, it suffices us, as though knowing Christ, He shows that he had not even seen Him. For assuredly he would have known the Father, had he been able to know the Son. Wherefore He says, He that has seen Me, has seen the Father. If any one has seen Me, he shall also behold Him. What He says is of this kind: It is not possible to see either Me or Him. For Philip sought the knowledge which is by sight, and since he thought that he had so seen Christ, he desired in like manner to see the Father; but Jesus shows him that he had not even seen Himself. And if any one here call knowledge, sight, I do not contradict him, for, he that has known Me, says Christ, has known the Father. Yet He did not say this, but desiring to establish the Consubstantiality, declared, he that knows My Essence, knows that of the Father also. And what is this? says some one; for he who is acquainted with creation knows also God. Yet all are acquainted with creation, and have seen it, but all do not know God. Besides, let us consider what Philip seeks to see. Is it the wisdom of the Father? Is it His goodness? Not so, but the very whatever God is, the very Essence. To this therefore Christ answers, He that has seen Me. Now he that has seen the creation, has not also seen the Essence of God. If any one has seen Me, he has seen the Father, He says. Now had He been of a different Essence, He would not have spoken thus. But to make use of a grosser argument, no man that knows not what gold is, can discern the substance of gold in silver. For one nature is not shown by another. Wherefore He rightly rebuked him, saying, Am I so long with you? Have you enjoyed such teaching, have you seen miracles wrought with authority, and all belonging to the Godhead, which the Father alone works, sins forgiven, secrets published, death retreating, a creation wrought from earth, and have you not known Me? Because He was clothed with flesh, therefore He said, Have you not known Me?" (Homily 74 on the Gospel of John)

Of course, a Oneness "believer" might say that this is not "Scriptural" since I am providing extra-Biblical commentary at this point. But then again, what is the Oneness believer's reading of Matt. 3:16-17 in such a convoluted way as to insist that Our Lord is a great deceiver come to deliver us but "extra-Biblical commentary"? Accuse others of what you alone are guilty of is the hereticks' doctrine. It is not the doctrine of Christ. It is even more telling when I demand these Oneness believers to "confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that he is risen from the dead" that they seek to warp the statement of faith given by St. Peter and they attempt to qualify it, but they have no regard for the second part. Maybe their savior never rose from the dead? Maybe their savior never died? That's what happens when you accept bad theology. You end up with a savior incapable of saving. I do hope these people come to realize the abuse their leaders are giving them and that they are able to flee this false and wicked doctrine by allowing the Scriptures to speak, rather then reading Sabellianism into every turn of the page.

Why the Trinity is most certainly NOT Pagan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQUhnUBofWE

I made this video years ago. It's still true today.

The "Trinities" that people use to smite the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity as "pagan" are no where near close in substance to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Many of them are Three-god trios which the Trinity is not, since it is monotheistic. Or they present Modalism which simply refutes the "Jesus-onlyist" heresy of the modern day Sabellians and demonstrates "Oneness" believers as irredeemably pagan. Some of them present only binities. None of them come close to touching the monotheistic doctrine of the Trinity. That's telling. Not a single one of these straw-man arguments actually looks at what the Christian doctrine is. Many even say the creeds of the Church aren't Biblical so they don't bother reading them. Whether or not their "Biblical" is irrelevant when it comes to representing the doctrine you disagree with. These creeds are what explain to Christians what the doctrine of the Trinity is. And Christians are people who believe that God is a Trinity.

Recovering the orthodox doctrine of original sin (3)

Part one.

Part two.

This final part, I will cover original sin and how some of the Eastern fathers talk about it. Obviously, a blog can never provide full extensive coverage of it and most of the doctrine only becomes hotly contested in the West in later doctrines. But the relevant doctrine is what is to be covered.

I talked in part one about how the Reformed theologians introduced the doctrine of total depravity onto St. Augustine. While St. Augustine certainly changes his views quite a bit until his falling asleep, the doctrine of total depravity appears relatively foreign to him. In the second part, I covered what the Medieval Catholic doctrine was and the distinction between original sin and personal sin. Not only that, I also covered the concept of injustice and original justice very briefly and how the disruption of order is what is meant by the concept of original sin as it exists in Medieval Catholic teaching. Now I turn to the East.

Starting with St. John Chrysostom, we read the following: 

As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so does the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? Through the sin of one. But what means, for that all have sinned? This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal. (Homily 10 on Romans)

That pretty much summarizes the entirety of the Eastern view on original sin and even the Western view on original sin. It is through the sin of the one man, Adam, that all men became mortal. As we learned through St. Anselm, the question was never about the personal sin of those who followed but the causation of the personal sin of Adam. What followed was the subjugation of man to a state of mortality and fallenness. This is reiterated in St. Basil's work as well.

For the blood of the sheep is a type of the blood of Christ; and the firstborn, a type of the first-formed. And inasmuch as the first-formed of necessity exists in us, and, in sequence of succession, is transmitted till the end, it follows that in Adam we all die, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and that death reigned Romans 5:17 until the fulfilling of the law and the coming of Christ. And the firstborn were preserved by God from being touched by the destroyer, to show that we who were made alive in Christ no longer die in Adam. (On the Holy Spirit, ch14)

The theme is repeated in St. Athanasius as well.

For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ says: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive: and so forth. For no longer now do we die as subject to condemnation; but as men who rise from the dead we await the general resurrection of all, which 1 Timothy 6:15 in its own times He shall show, even God, Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it upon us. (On the Incarnation, ch10.5)

St. Gregory of Nyssa summarizes the Eastern point of view quite neatly when he reiterates what frees us and allows us to regain entrance into Paradise.

You opened the prison, and released the condemned; You sprinkled us with clean water, and cleanse us from our filthiness. No longer shall Adam be confounded when called by You, nor hide himself, convicted by his conscience, cowering in the thicket of Paradise. Nor shall the flaming sword encircle Paradise around, and make the entrance inaccessible to those that draw near; but all is turned to joy for us that were the heirs of sin: Paradise, yea, heaven itself may be trodden by man: and the creation, in the world and above the world, that once was at variance with itself, is knit together in friendship: and we men are made to join in the angels' song, offering the worship of their praise to God. (On the Baptism of Christ)

The main difference between the Medieval Catholic viewpoint and the viewpoint of the Eastern fathers is that the philosophical jargon is non-existent in the teachings of the Eastern fathers. Both show that human nature is corrupted by the sin of Adam and both show that the nature of man must be restored by God. There is no major or significant difference between the two viewpoints other than the absence of philosophical jargon. The West became much more developed in its theology as a result of defining concepts throughout history though that also left it a tad more susceptible to change. The East, by allowing itself to remain simple, has been very resistant to change. Of course, on occasion, definitions are very important which is why the Church needs to remember we are made up of both East and West. Where one is incomplete, the other must make up.

The doctrine of original sin is the most simple doctrine of the Christian faith. The term the East generally uses is ancestral sin, however the same Truth is carried. The East has maintained that death has passed upon and held humanity captive as a result of the sin of Adam. The West teaches this too. Sometimes, words as "corrupted" nature will be used. Other times, there will be no further words used. That matters not. Both doctrines are ironically, essentially the same. The East is ultimately just like the West in many ways. It's just Christianity but theologians of modern times will go "hoo-hoo" over the differences sometimes. Here, I present the teachings on original sin in some of the major Eastern fathers to show their simplistic statements on the subject. 

Recovering the orthodox doctrine of original sin (2)

The first part is here. In the first part, I covered how the Protestant Reformers corrupted the teachings of St. Augustine to form a warped view on original sin which took them straight to total depravity. Even the libertarian free will philosophers of the Protestant theologians ended up taking the view of total depravity due to the force of pseudo-orthodoxy it imposed upon the Protestant faithful. Working backwards through history though takes us next to the Medieval Catholic theology as it began to permeate. The most well-developed theologies concerning original sin exist in both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm. What exactly is the Medieval Catholic teaching of original sin? Does it become that total depravity view that we see existing in the Protestant theologians of the Reformation?

Both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm begin their reflections by comparing original sin to original justice. St. Anselm describes original justice as the justice that Adam and Eve possessed "as soon as they began to exist as humans" (Virgin Conception and Original Sin, ch1). "'original' comes fro the word 'origin'...original sin...is likely to be called 'original' either after the origin of human nature...or after each individual's origin or beginning" (ibid). He distinguishes original sin from personal sin. Personal sin is that which arises from the individual "after he has become a person distinct from other persons" but original sin is contracted from the origin of the person (ibid). Adam and Eve therefore commit a personal sin and not an original sin.

Their bodies after their sin became like those of brute beasts, subject to corruption and these appetites, and deprived of the gifts they had lost, were themselves infected with carnal appetites. And because the whole of human nature was contained in Adam and Eve, and nothing of it existed outside them, the whole of human nature was weakened and corrupted. (ch2)

So in the theology of St. Anselm we see that original sin is described as a state of injustice that has been brought upon the human race by the first personal sin of the two first parents. However, St. Anselm is far from teaching the total depravity of the Reformers. As I have mentioned in another post, St. Anselm describes the current state of affairs for the human race using an analogy of a pearl knocked into the mud (Cur Deus Homo?, Bk1.ch19). This in sharp contrast to the total depravity. Man is still a pearl but the pearl is now covered in mud. That is the injustice of original sin and that injustice is the justice that must be repaired.

St. Thomas Aquinas relies heavily on St. Anselm to build up his argument in regards to original sin. St. Thomas Aquinas defines original sin as "an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice" (Summa Theologiaei, I-II 81:1). It is similar to a bodily ailment as one is subjected to a sickness that damages the body. While maintaining the position that man has been corrupted by the first sin, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the ways that Man is now finding himself in a state of depravity.

I answer that, The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (60, 1; 63, 1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature. Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (Question 50, Article 1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue. (I-II, 85:1)

Indeed, God's act is creation. His first act is to create the light. He continues to create the natural world until he rests. God's act is creation. God does not destroy. Satan's act is destruction. Satan's act is uncreation. It is why St. Anselm speaks of sin as nothingness. "Injustice...does not exist, any more than blindness exists. For blindness is nothing but the absence of vision where vision should be." (Virgin Conception and Original Sin, ch5) Injustice and evil are nothing more than the absence of good. But humanity cannot lose its goodness for then the image of God would be lost. This is seen prominently in Medieval Catholic theology as God becomes understood as a pure act of creation. If man has lost the image of God as total depravity falsely teaches, then all sorts of sins between men against each other would be justified because we aren't actually attacking anything. Man would be drifting toward nothingness.

Thus, we see in the Medieval Catholic theology that there exists a distinction between original sin and personal sin. Man retains responsibility over his actions even if in a damaged sense. Man is not totally depraved of all faculties that relate to the image of God but is depraved of original justice. In the Latin, the word iustitia is literally translated as "order". Because of the first sin, Man is in a state of disorder. That is injustice. Injustice is not so much an act as it is a state that Man is in. Thus, original sin is a state that Man is in. It is not a personal act he has committed. This also differs sharply from the Reformers' understanding of original sin. It acknowledges that Man is both communal and an individual. The Reformers only acknowledge that Man is communal and they seek to put him in the communal context wresting Man away from his individuality. It is why Luther and Calvin seek to deny free will and it is why the Wesleyan theology must argue that grace is how free will is restored to the individual.

Finally, I end this section with this piece from the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, Canon V: "If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema."

Part 3 will focus on the early teachings of the Eastern fathers.