|
ahub
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: andrew
Country: Canada
Metro: Calgary
Birthday: 8/1/1984
Gender: Male
Interests: I like to hang out with people and to just spend time laughing with them. I also like to have some serious chats too, but only when truth and love are in affect. I like music and reading and writing.
Expertise: I'm good at being me, having a hard time making decisions and having good chats when the other person takes the first step.
Occupation: Teacher
Industry: Education
Message: message meEmail: email me
MSN: ahub101@hotmail.com
Member Since:
6/22/2004
|
|
| THIS BLOG IS MOVING TO A NEW SITE: http://important-topics-ahub.blogspot.com/
The new Blogger site enables me to display links that I like, tailor things a little more, and allows you to search the site archives using a keyword search.
http://www.xanga.com/ahub has been functioning since Wednesday, June 23th, 2004. There has been a little over five years of consistent blogging on this site, but it seems about time to shut it down. Well, I'll leave it up, but I won't post anything new here.
| | |
| Recently I received an email that concluded with this: Love the sinner, hate the sin.
It is easy to understand this in the wrong way, from both directions. I mean, (1) if you are the speaker of the sentence it is easy to forget that you are a sinner and that the other person, who is in fact a sinner, is essentially good, else God would not love him. And (2) if you are the receiver of such a sentiment it can easily offend us to think of ourselves as sinners, and we wonder if that other person knows at all how to differentiate between what I do and who I am.
I would like to show two quotes that help us understand this phrase. The first quote comes from C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, the chapter entitled Forgiveness), and the other comes from St. Thomas Aquinas (Commentary on the Ten Commandments, in the preamble explaining how love for God and neighbour fulfills all the commandments). It is important to note that these authors make none of the aforementioned mistakes. The authors (1) explicitly or implicitely admit their own sinfulness. (2)They wish that others would lead the happiest of lives, not wishing them condemnation or hell, realizing that God is good in every way. (3) The authors show that this phrase must lead us to be merciful, compassionate and forgiving. (4) Lastly, there is justice going on, in that the evil is rightly hated while those whom God has created and loved are being loved.
The most important notice I can give is this: those people who use this phrase wrongly, to condemn people, to judge those they should not judge, to feel justified in feeling high and "righteous", to be unmerciful or unforgiving...those people don't understand God correctly, as these authors do. C.S. Lewis and St. Thomas Aquinas understand God to be the epitome of Goodness, Justice, Wisdom, and Power. Christians believe that God is so good and merciful and life-affirming that he paid a great - the greatest - price to help us. He is Just in that all of sin has been punished, through Christ, and that he has done it through a human to free humans and that he has not removed our free will to reject his goodness. He is wise because he devised a way to do all this. And all of this would be meaningless if God could not actually do this, but God is in fact all-powerful. Anyways, enough with my introduction.
(1)
For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life - namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit of greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made [more] human again. - C. S. Lewis
(2)
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” This precept the Jews and Pharisees badly understood, believing that God commanded them to love their friends and hate their enemies. Therefore, by “neighbors” they understood only friends. Christ meant to repudiate this understanding when he said (Mt 5:44): “Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you.” Note that whoever hates his brother is not in the state of salvation (1 Jn 2:9): “He who hates his brother is in the darkness.”
We must be aware, however, of texts to the contrary. For the saints hated some people (Ps 138:22): “I hated them with perfect hatred.” And in the Gospel (Lk 14:26): “If anyone does not hate his father and mother and wife and sons and brothers and sisters, even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple.” We should realize that in all that we do, what Christ did should be our example. For God loves and hates. In any man two things should be considered: his nature and the wrong. What is of nature in man should be loved, what is wrong should be hated. So if anyone wished a person to be in hell, he would be hating his nature, but if he wished him to be good, he would be hating the sin, which should always be hated (Ps 5:7): “You hate all who do evil.” And (Wis 11:25), “Lord, you love all that exists, and hate nothing which you have made.” See, then, what God loves and hates: He loves what is of nature and hates what is wrong.
We should realize, however, that sometimes a person can do evil without sinning, that is, when he does evil so that he may desire good, because God also does this. For instance, when a man is sick and is converted to good, whereas while he was well he was evil. In the same way someone can be converted to good when he meets adversity, after being evil while living in prosperity, according to the text (Is 28:19): “Terror alone shall convey the message.” Another case is to desire the evil of a tyrant destroying the Church, in as much as you desire the good of the Church through the destruction of the tyrant; thus (2 Mac 1:17): “Blessed in every way be God who has punished the wicked.” And all must want this not just by willing it, but also by doing it. For it is not a sin justly to hang the evil; for they are ministers of God who do this, according the Apostle (Rm 13), and these people are acting in love, because punishment is given at times to castigate evil, and at times for the sake of a greater and divine good. For the good of a city is a greater good than the life of one man. But note that it is not enough not to wish evil, but one must also wish good, that is the correction of the sinner and eternal life.
For someone can wish the good of another in two ways. One way is general, in so far as the person is a creature of God and is capable of partaking in eternal life. The other way is special, in so far as the person is a friend or companion. No one is excluded from a general love, for everyone should pray for everyone, and help anyone in extreme need. But you are not held to be familiar with everyone, unless he asks pardon, because then he would be your friend; and if you refused him you would be hating a friend. Thus it is said (Mt 6:14-15): “If you forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you yours; but if you do not forgive them, neither will your Father forgive you your sins.” And in the Lord’s Prayer it is said (Mt 6:9): “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
| | |
| A big question for some people is whether or not it is fitting for God to come in the flesh. Recently I read an article for Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica where he addresses this very question. Hopefully after reading the below, more people will be interested in Thomas' work, and love God more deeply.
It is good to note that Thomas is quite hard to read for beginners. Also, in the Summa Theologica, Thomas always states a topic (here, "Of the Fitness of the Incarnation"), asks certain questions about it (Whether it was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate?), then gives several objections (see below), followed by an "On the contrary", where he sites some trustworthy source. Then he states his reply ("I reply that"...his personal reply to the question is not below.) Finally, he concludes with replies to the objections that he had earlier stated (in my quotations below I put the Reply immediately after the Objection to make it easier to follow).
Objection 2. Further, it is not fitting to unite things that are infinitely apart, even as it would not be a fitting union if one were "to paint a figure in which the neck of a horse was joined to the head of a man" [Horace, Ars. Poet., line 1]. But God and flesh are infinitely apart; since God is most simple, and flesh is most composite--especially human flesh. Therefore it was not fitting that God should be united to human flesh.
Reply to Objection 2. To be united to God in unity of person was not fitting to human flesh, according to its natural endowments, since it was above its dignity; nevertheless, it was fitting that God, by reason of His infinite goodness, should unite it to Himself for man's salvation.
On the contrary, It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was the whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Romans 1:20): "For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might of God--"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . ."
(From http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm)
After reading Thomas' summary of some of Damascene's teaching (he is called John of Damascus in English) I was so greatly encouraged in faith, hope, and love of God.
Notice that God is Good, Wise, Just, and Powerful.
| | |
| The Last Plague (11.1-12.36)
a. Death of the Firstborn (11.1-10)
• It was the most severe of the ten plagues/signs from God. Both personally (the loss of the children) and theologically (the eldest son of the king/Pharaoh was considered a god by the ancient Egyptians).
• Salvation from slavery and deliverance from Egypt.
• Redemption and salvation from sin and death (especially shown in the plague).
b. Passover (12.1-36; see Numbers 9)
• Chronology of the Events:
- The Exodus took place in the month of Abib, which would later be called Nisan (March/April our time). After the Exodus, Abib was considered to be the first month of the year (earlier it was considered the seventh month of the year).
- On the tenth day, each household selected a lamb for sacrifice. It was to be kept for four days (possibly because of the darkness plague).
- On the fourteenth of Abib the animal was slain at twilight and eaten.
- At midnight the Lord struck the firstborn of Egypt and the Egyptians swiftly sent the Israelites out of the land.
- The Feast of Unleavened Bread (which we will talk about later), then, lasted from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Abib.
• Meaning of the Passover Celebration:
- Commemorated the birth of the nation of Israel. (Changed the calendar because of this.)
- The Passover was both to be a remembrance deliverance from Egypt and salvation from the angel of death (the angel of death “passed over” their houses and their firstborn were safe).
- Bitter herbs were to remind Israel of the bitter days in Egypt.
- Unleavened bread was to remind them of the sudden deliverance (just as Christians are to be ready at all times for Christ Jesus’ return).
- It is fitting that Jesus was slain during the days of the Passover Feast. The NT shows that Jesus is the true sacrificial lamb who will take away the sins of the people. Belief in Jesus gives us eternal life, which means that we don’t have to worry about death. As the Passover lamb of the OT made it possible for the Israelites to be free from slavery, so Jesus frees us from sin. As the Passover made it possible for the Israelites to become a new nation, so Jesus allows Christians to live in God’s “kingdom”, rather than that of the devil. As the Passover was an occasion for justice, so Jesus promises to bring justice to all who suffer wrongly and to all those who do evil. Jesus’ blood makes us sinless and so we don’t have to fear the Last Judgment. As the Passover opened a whole new world to the Israelites, so Jesus says that he will make all things new.
c. Instructions for the Festivals (12.1-20)
• Passover Instructions (12.1-13):
- A male yearling lamb without blemish (remember that Jesus is without sin) was slain, its blood put on their doorposts (as Jesus’ blood was on the cross, which stretches out in all directions).
- After properly cooked (by fire), it was eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
- None of the bones of the lamb were to be broken (12.46) (note that Jesus’ bones were saved form being broken; see John 19.36 )
- Anything not eaten was to be destroyed with fire by morning.
- Those eating the meal were to be dressed for travel and ready at any moment to leave (as with Christians waiting for Christ’s return. See Matthew 24.36-44). Unleavened bread would be symbolic for purity.
- Some of these instructions were meant only for the original Passover and were not followed later, during their festival times:
1. Select the lamb on the tenth day (no longer had to worry about the plague of darkness).
2. Applying the blood to the doorposts (no longer had to worry about the angel of death).
3. Eating the meal in haste (they no longer had to leave anywhere in a hurry, but could meditate on and remember the importance of the meal).
4. The lambs would be slaughtered not in the individual households, but at the temple.
5. The sacrificial aspect of the festival became impossible after 70 AD, because the temple was destroyed. The feast of Unleavened Bread then became the important festival for remembering the Passover.
• Instructions for the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (12.14-20)
- These instructions were not given to the people to be carried out on the night of the first Passover, but to be observed later.
- After the Passover feast (starting on 15 Abib) the people were to go without leaven in their food for seven days.
- The first and seventh days of the feast were to be special days where people were required to cease from all unnecessary work and gather in a holy assembly.
d. Carrying Out the Instructions (12.21-28)
• Blood on the doorposts (12.21-23)
- The only way that the Israelites could avert (turn away) the destroying angel was to put the blood of the lamb on their doorposts
- Their obedience was evidence of their faith and trust in God.
• Statue for Future Generations (12.24-27)
- The purpose of the continuing the celebration of the Passover is to remind God’s people of his gracious acts of deliverance. The children were supposed to ask the parents why they celebrated the meal, then the parents would tell of God’s grace and love specifically shown during the historic occasion of the Passover.
- Unfortunately, in Israel’s history, the people did not celebrate the Passover consistently and so they missed the chance to remember God’s goodness to them.
• The Passover Celebrated (12.28)
- The people did all that the Lord commanded them (12.28).
• Death Angel (12.29-30)
- The Lord sent his “destroyer” (12.23) to those houses not marked by the blood of the lamb.
- Justice was served. As Egypt had killed the son’s of the Israelites and oppressed God’s people, so now the Egyptian’s first born sons were killed and Egypt suffered God’s punishment.
- See Proverbs 1.10-19.
• The Departure (12.31-36)
- The Israelites find favor in the sight of some of the Egyptians and the Egyptians give the Israelites gold, silver, and clothing.
- The Egyptians begged the Israelites to leave as fast as they could, for they were afraid to die too.
- Read genesis 15,12-16. This was all foretold by God to Abraham many years before.
New Testament Texts
We have already seen that the authors of the New Testament understood the deep connection between God’s gracious deliverance of the Israelites in the Passover and Jesus’ gracious deliverance of those who believe in him from sin.
• Jesus himself reinterprets the importance of the Passover by showing that he is the sacrifice. He instituted the Lord’s Supper at his last Passover with his disciples and he said that it was for remembering his body (the bread) and blood (the wine). “For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26.28) Jesus saw that he himself was the true Passover sacrifice, not just for the Israelites, but for all who would believe in him.
• “The next day [John] saw Jesus coming towards him and declared, ‘here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’” (John 1.29)
• “Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened [pure]. For our Passover lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.” (1 Corinthians 5.6-7)
• We are ransomed by Christ’s blood, “like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” (1 Peter 1.19)
• “[Christi Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 1.2; 2.12; 4.9-12)
• “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth.” (Revelation 5.9-10; also see Rev. 1.5-6)
Implications (What Passover means for us)
It is good to study how God works in history, so that we can know what he is like. We can also learn where our traditions come from.
As the True Passover Lamb, Jesus saves people from their sins if they believe in Him. To help us remember Jesus’ grace in our lives, Jesus gave us the Lord’s Supper. We must take the Lord’s Supper seriously and use it as an opportunity to give thanks to him for all he has done for us.
However, being saved does not mean that we can do whatever we want. Saint Paul says that, if Jesus is the Passover Lamb, we must be like the unleavened bread, meaning that we must be pure, separate from doing evil such as lying, being prideful, etc. If Jesus’ death has cleansed us from sins and delivered us from slavery, he is making us into a new kingdom that will reflect his goodness. Therefore, we must do good, be good, and show love and mercy. Since such goodness was shown to us, we must show goodness and love to others (1 John 4.9-12).
*Most of the information here has come from The Pentateuch as Narrative by John H. Sailhamer. 1992, Zondervan. | | |
| A Defense of the “Human-ness” of Christianity
Preamble: Over the years I have had three encounters that have presented me with the trouble of the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition. I had not been previously prepared for a proper answer of this question. I believe that I am now.
My first encounter with the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition was when a friend of mine told me that he could not believe that the Bible is the word of God because it is too human, as if humans being involved in the process of writing it fouled it up.
My second encounter was more challenging and much more enlightening. My college course about the Trinity forced me to seriously look at how the doctrine of the Trinity came about, what inspired it, and why its current formulation has prevailed.
My third encounter with the idea of the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition came more recently, as I was preparing for an interview with Bart Ehrman and reading his Jesus Interrupted. It seems to me that Ehrman left the faith largely due because of the problem of the “human-ness” of the Bible, especially its clumsy transmission from the original letters and documents to its current form. Struggling to find a more authentic solution, one more true to reality than Ehrman’s brought many of my thoughts together. This essay is an attempt to bring together all of my thoughts on the problem of the “human-ness” of the Christian tradition.
Over the past few years I have gradually come to understand that theology is a scientific discipline in many ways. The big difference between theology and a science such as physics or math is that the main data being worked with is a matter of supernatural revelation. Though God has given humans the capacity to do math and physics, and the data is given and is observed (and in every way it was created by God, and therefore supernaturally), the data of the un-theological sciences can be discerned naturally, without extra help.
The same cannot be said of theology. In theology, most of the tools people have to work with are natural (reason), but the data that theologians handle comes from supernatural revelation. For instance, people would have never been able to figure out that God is Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without having been introduced to this idea by Jesus, the Son. Also, the extent of God’s grace would not be evident.
Despite the “given-ness” of supernatural revelation, people still have to interpret the data. For instance, through an incredible encounter with Jesus, wherein the Apostles found themselves worshiping Jesus as they did God (which would have been a terribly troubling experience for a first-century, monotheistic Jew, especially one the likes of St. Paul) and so they had to come to a new realization of who God is. Then, they begin worshiping the Holy Spirit in a similar way. All of a sudden, within the first century of Christianity, we find that the main rite of the church, baptism, is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as though all three are to be worshiped.
As the gospel spread, it had to come to grips with how to explain this “three-ness” of God to others. The Jews thought it was blasphemy to preach that Jesus could be worshipped as God. The pagans had many gods already. Some thought that Jesus was a lesser God. Others thought that Jesus was the good God, while the God of the Old Testament was the evil God.
So, over the centuries, many theologians came up with theories of how to explain the “three-ness” of God in a way that was both true to the data of revelation (i.e. the worship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit) and logical.
Most Christians probably do not know how messy and long the process of describing the “Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity” was. Politics, philosophy, culture, and 350+ years all held their place in the debate.
This messiness can be troubling. Many Christians believe that the Trinity is clearly shown in the New Testament, but this is simply not true. It is clear to us because it has been shown to us, without any (or very few) conflicting ideas. The truth is that the New Testament data of the three-ness of God can be understood in many ways. However, after studying the history and some of the main texts, it becomes clear that the “Orthodox” party provided the best explanation of the three-ness of God.
However, what is one to do with “the humanness of it all”? Restated, the question is this: The discovery of the doctrine of the Trinity was messy, full of controversy and politics, and God did not intervene in the process in any overt-miraculous way, so how human is religion? And should the humanness of religion be troubling?
Seen in another light, the doctrine of the Trinity can be compared to scientific realization of the Earth’s place in the solar system. At first, the Earth was flat, then it was round; first the Earth was the center of the solar system, then it was in the middle. Each of the changes in understanding of the solar system came as a result of observation of planets, experiences, mathematical equations, politics (especially in the case of Galileo), better instruments, and other data and factors.
Similarly, whereas God’s unity was first believed to be singular, through experience of the worship of Jesus Christ (understood empirically), and by the use of philosophical categories and terms, God’s unity has come to be understood (and I think properly) as a kind of three-ness.
Another expression of my basic question has been developed by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman was a Christian (and this is my opinion, he would say that he stopped being a Christian much later) until the question of the intertwining of the human and the divine came to his attention during his study of the New Testament. Ehrman learned that the history of the New Testament texts was very messy, including tampering, fraud. In fact, Ehrman learned that the texts that have come down to us are most likely not the same words that the original authors wrote, and that even the original authors of the New Testament disagree on many points. Ehrman’s question to those who stake so much on the Bible is this: How can we trust a book that humans – sinful as we are – have tampered with or have been involved with? Why didn’t God just write the Bible and be done with it? Perhaps, if there is a God, he didn’t care much for teaching the truth clearly or perhaps God did not write or inspire the Bible in any way, and the Bible is purely human.
These are questions that must be asked. There seem to be two approaches to Western religion (I do not know enough about Eastern religions to comment on them): The Jewish and Christian understanding of religion has always been an intertwining of human and divine action, a type of drama in time. Fundamentally, this can be seen in the Bible when God created humans in his likeness, not meant to be the same as God in every manner, but not made to be wholly different. Also, the Bible can be understood as something of a dramatic history book (though it is much more than that). The main precepts of the Jewish and Christian religions stay the same over time, but the accidents, the particulars change frequently.
Contrasted to the Judeo-Christian drama, Islam presents a whole book that has been given straight from God (interestingly, Mormons lean this way too, in their understanding of their sacred tests), never to be altered or even spoken in a different language. The Koran is not to be understood as a dramatic history, but as God’s word for all time.
It seems to me that the Judeo-Christian approach is more true to reality. Both the unchanging and the changing are important in the Bible. The basic precepts remain, while the ways that they are lived out vary from culture to culture and person to person. This is also how wisdom and prudence are shown in every day life. We know that we should be kind to our spouses, but sometimes kindness is expressed through shared tears and sometimes it means telling them something they would rather not hear. The Koran (and the Book of Mormon), in its very nature, to me, does not show this same kind of prudent wisdom, nor does it show a true respect for culture.
But can we trust the Bible or church doctrine such as the doctrine of the Trinity when it is so human? Perhaps a basic understanding of God would be helpful here. If there is a God (and I believe there is), then he gave humans the ability to be joyful, he made them social, he gave them truth, and goodness. These can be discerned without the use of the Bible. If God created man to be this way, then he must appreciate the finer things in life such as joy, community, etc. Therefore, it seems safe to say that God probably is not aloof, because an aloof human is an unpleasant human. It is unlikely that God made humans to be fulfilled and yet he is an uncaring, disinterested Being.
Due to the very will of God, we have been created to be similar to Him in some ways and different in other ways. (Of course, God does not need to eat like we do, but the joy we have in eating good food surely is not missed by Him.) This means that, right from the first human, it was God’s intent to intertwine the human-divine relationship; to make the divine somewhat accessible to humans.
Now, it is a matter of debate how strong the human-divine connection is, but it is true that, if you believe that Something or Someone created humans, and that everything that exists does not exist purely by chance, that there has always been some kind of connection, some sort of touch between humans and God. This means that the humanness of the Biblical texts, and the doctrines of the church do not call into question the validity of the Christian faith. In fact, this seems to me to be a validation of their realness, in that they mirror creation and the way that things are.
It would come as no surprise to theologians such as St. Augustine or St. Thomas that the humanness of the Christian religion should be on the intellectual level (i.e. working out the best understanding of the Trinity, or interpreting History in the light of Divine activity such as in the Bible). Augustine, Thomas, many others, and I would say that the intellect presents the strongest connection in the human-divine relationship. They said that the intellect was the highest part of man (this doesn’t mean that the will or emotions or basic motor skills are not important, just that our intellect should be master over them…lest we become controlled by will or appetite like animals). Augustine and Thomas argued that the highest part in man – the intellect – was largely what God was talking about when he said that he made man according to his image in the book of Genesis.
It may seem strange to end with the thoughts of a pagan philosopher, but perhaps this will display the universality of this divine-human connection. Though Aristotle still thought of God as something of a deistic Divine Mind (after all, he did not have supernatural revelation as Jews and Christians have), he still was able to grasp for divinity:
“So if the intellect is divine compared with man, the life of the intellect must be divine compared with the life of a human being. And we ought not to listen to those who warn us that ‘man should think the thoughts of man’, or ‘mortal thoughts fit mortal minds’; but we ought, so far as in us lies, to put on immortality, and do all that we can to live in conformity with the highest that is in us; for even if it is small in bulk, in power and preciousness it far excels all the rest.” (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, p. 272)
---------
“Since, then, men weary us with asking such questions, let us unfold to them, as we are able, whatever wisdom God's gift has bestowed upon our weakness on this subject; neither let us go on our way with consuming envy. Should we say that we are not accustomed to think about such things, it would not be true; yet if we acknowledge that such subjects commonly dwell in our thoughts, carried away as we are by the love of investigating the truth, then they require of us, by the law of charity, to make known to them what we have herein been able to find out. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect (for, if the Apostle Paul, how much more must I, who lie far beneath his feet, count myself not to have apprehended!); but, according to my measure, if I forget those things that are behind, and reach forth unto those things which are before, and press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling, I am requested to disclose so much of the road as I have already passed, and the point to which I have reached, whence the course yet remains to bring me to the end. And those make the request, whom a generous charity compels me to serve. Needs must too, and God will grant that, in supplying them with matter to read, I shall profit myself also; and that, in seeking to reply to their inquiries, I shall myself likewise find that for which I was inquiring. Accordingly I have undertaken the task, by the bidding and help of the Lord my God, not so much of discoursing with authority respecting things I know already, as of learning those things by piously discoursing of them.” (Saint Augustine, De Trinitate, 1.8) | | |
|
