Is Tolkien an ethical dualist/Manichaean/Gnostic? No, but Martin is most probably a hard monist

"I admire Tolkien greatly. His books had enormous influence on me. And the trope that he sort of established—the idea of the Dark Lord and his Evil Minions—in the hands of lesser writers over the years and decades has not served the genre well. It has been beaten to death. The battle of good and evil is a great subject for any book and certainly for a fantasy book, but I think ultimately the battle between good and evil is weighed within the individual human heart and not necessarily between an army of people dressed in white and an army of people dressed in black. When I look at the world, I see that most real living breathing human beings are grey." ~ George R. R. Martin (for Martin's more extended assertions, see here and here).

So, one of the things that Martin's words imply is that J.R.R. Tolkien is too dualistic: evil all on one side, and good all on the other side. Tolkien would be a sort of ethical dualist, or a Manichean or a Gnostic or some kind.

But then you think about Tolkien's saga, and you see that things are not as Martin puts them. 

Six nations of men join Sauron
in the War of the Ring.
And let's not forget Gríma Wormtongue.
[Picture from
Wikipedia, War of the Ring]

• The seven kings of men give up and join Sauron quite soon, after receiving the rings
• The virtuous king Isildur refuses to destroy the Ring once on Mount Doom.
• The totally normal Hobbit Smeagle kills his best friend for the Ring.
• Saruman, sent on the earth to fight Sauron, joins Sauron. 
• The hero of Minas Thirit, Boromir, almost steals the Ring from Frodo. 
• Galadriel, the most powerful and good elf in the middle earth, is powerfully tempted by the ring. 
• Countless men from the south and east join Sauron. 
• Pirates (men) join Sauron. 
• Gondor's ruling steward, Denethor, a person from a glorious family, willfully gives up to hopelessness and madness. 
• The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is won ultimately because Aragorn cunningly enlists The Army of the Dead, a stinky group of once traitors and now undead and undying soldiers and scoundrels who mercenarily accept to fight for him merely because Aragorn, as Isildur's heir, promises to free them from their curse. 
• At the end of his journey, the hero of the entire LOTR book, Frodo, gives up to the power of the Ring. 
• Gandalf is sometimes quite rude. 

The Men (as well as the elves, the Dwarves and the Hobbits) of Tolkien's world, including its heroes, are complicated beings who fight against inner temptations and against the evil of a dangerous and violent world. But maybe Martin has read a different Tolkien. 😊

Then, I do not think Martin's books (Games of Thrones, of which I have read the first two before giving up to boredom) see "humans as grey." I think his books reflect the fact that the author sees men as black as they can get. The best characters in his saga are despicable individuals. Sure, mankind is spiritually depraved in my view. I agree that "ultimately the battle between good and evil is weighed within the individual human heart," but I do not see any of this in Martin's GoT. Both in real history and in Tolkien's world there is also redemption and virtue. There is not a hint of such things in GoT. All is, not grey, but pitch black. In the universe of Martin's soap opera of murders, betrayals, and wars (with several sprinkles of sex and dragons to attract more people) there is no goal nor purpose but one: to repeat ad nauseam that human beings are dark creatures that live only for power (alternatively, pleasure) and survival, and that is the end of the story and the bottom truth of reality. Therefore, if Tolkien is a dualist (and he is not), Martin is certainly a hard monist. Martin seems to have a specific worldview at the bases of his GoT stories, and, even though I do not know what this worldview exactly is, it generally looks like a sort of hard monism with a monolithic view of man, history, and things in general. In this sense, I think Tolkien's writings are way more "realistic" (and exceedingly more edifying) than Martin's.

Malebranche VS Werewolves

Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715).

Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) really tried to make his The
Search for Truth as comprehensive as possible by covering all the topics that needed to be discussed. And I think is rather uncontroversial that among these main philosophical problems, werewolves have a quite preeminent place!

While I was quickly skipping through this volume, selecting the passages I was interested in from this rigorous summa of Malebranche's philosophy and epistemology, I was surprised to find a chapter titled "People Who Imagine Themselves to be Sorcerers and Werewolves." Although I read it with interest and I found it rather entertaining, my first thought was: "Why in the world he, a rationalist philosopher, needed to give a lengthy refutation of these folkloristic stories?" 

Then, after further and less superficial consideration, I realised that, firstly, I was surprised because, nowaday, it is (almost?) universally believed that werewolves are only fictional creatures, but apparently that was not the case during Malebranche's days. Secondly, I was entertained because, even if the French philosopher discusses here things that today we intuitively connect with novels and movies, he was still able to communicate through his treatment some of the main traits of his philosophy. Malebranche describes these beliefs as mere superstitions produced by man's imagination (or, at most, clinical cases in need of medical treatment), as opposed to the enquiry of reason which focuses primarily not on sensations and emotions but rather on the intelligible ideas that the universal reason (the Logos, for Malebranche, incarnated in Jesus Christ) communicates to men in general through rational enquiries and to some men in particular through special revelation. So, after reading the passage and reflecting upon it, maybe it is fair to say that Malebranche's chapter witnesses not against the seriousness of his long book, but, on the contrary, in favour of its comprehensiveness and attention to the issues that surrounded him at his times (although, I am sure he won't mind if I still consider his words quite entertaining). Finally, and needles to say, I do not endorse many of the ideas present in the book in question.

The quote below is the section I am talking about. It is from an old English translation published in 1700. There is also a new English translation of this work, which I hyperlinked above, and that I was too lazy to transcribe here, preferring a quicker copy and past from the old translation. But the English is exquisitely refined, so hope you enjoy it! 

The strangest effect of the force of imagination, is the immoderate fear of the apparition of spirits, witchcraft, spells, and charms, lycanthropes or wolf-men, and generally of whatever is supposed to depend on the power of the devil. There is nothing more terrible, or that frightens the mind more, and makes deeper impressions in the brain, than the idea of an invisible power, intent upon doing us mischief, and to which we can make no resistance. Whatever discourses raise that Idea, are attended to with dread and curiosity. Now men affecting all that's extraordinary, take a whimsical delight in relating witches surprising and prodigious stories, of the power and malice of witches, both to the fearing others and themfelves... 

Men in speaking engrave in our brain such impressions as they have themselves. When they are deep they speak in a way that makes a deep impression upon others: for they never speak, but they make them like themselves in some thing or other. Children in their mother's womb, have only the perceptions of their mothers; and when brought into the world, imagine little more than what their parents are the cause of; even the wisest men take their measures, rather from the Imagination of others, that is, from opinion and custom, than from the rules of reason... 

The apprehension of wolf-men, or of men who imagine themselves transformed into wolves-men, is a fancy no less ridiculous. A man by an extraordinary sally of imagination, falls into a form of madness, that makes him fancy he grows a wolf every night. This disorder of his mind disposes him to the doing all the actions that wolves either do, or he has heard of them. He leaps then out of his house at midnight, roams along the streets, falls upon some child he meets with, bites, tears, and miserably misuses it. The stupid and superstitious people imagine this fanatic is really turned wolf; because the wretch believes it himself, and has whispered it to some persons, who cannot conceal the secret. 

Were it an easy thing to form in the brain such impressions, as persuade men they are transformed into wolves; and could they run along the Streets and make all the havoc those wretched wolf-men do, without an entire subversion of their brain (as 'tis an easy matter for a man to go to the witches-sabbath, in his bed, and without waking ) these notable stories of men metamorphosed into wolves, would have no less effed than those that are told of the rendezvous of witches; and we should have as many wolfmen as we have wizards. But the persuasion of being changed into a wolf, supposes a subversion of brain much harder to be effected than that disorder of one, who only thought he went to the midnight-sabbath, that is, of one, who fancied he saw in the night what was not and who, when he waked, could not distinguish his dreams from the thoughts he had in the day-time. 

The main reason why we cannot take our dreams for realities is, the Incoherence we find in our dreams, with the things we have done, when awake: for hereby we discover they are only dreams... 

But the imagination must be highly distempered before a man can fancy himself a cock, a cat, a wolf, or an ox; which is the reason the thing is no commoner; though these disorders of mind sometimes happen either through God's punitive justice, as in the cafe of Nebuchodonosor, related in Scripture, or by a natural overflowing of melancholy in the brain, whereof many instances are to be met with in the books of physicians. 

 ~ Nicolas Malebranche, Treatise Concerning the Search After Truth, Book 2, Part 3, Chapter 6.

🐺 🐕 🐺

©

Few Thoughts in Occasion of my NEW BOOK

One of the main sources of anxiety for a scholar is the necessity to publish! You have to publish! Publish! Publish! Publish! 

While working on material to publish in academic journals, I decided to publish the thesis that I produced for my Master of Research. I decided to do that with a publisher that is very good at keeping the prices as low as possible and, more importantly, very efficient in making the publication easily accessible in as many parts of the world as possible (namely, Resource Publication, an imprint of Wipf and Stock). I published it with the title Luther's Augustinian Theology of the Cross, and with the subtitle The Augustinianism of Martin Luther's Heidelberg Disputation and the Origins of Modern Philosophy of Religion.

It was a rather strange feeling when I finally got the printed book in my hands. On the one hand, when I looked at the cover and I skipped quickly through the pages, the booked appeared to me like a dear son (forgive the exaggeration) for whose growth I laboured. On the other hand, after innumerable hours of work to finalise the manuscript, the content of the book was so familiar to me that I stopped reading only after a couple of lines. I could not read it anymore!

Jokes apart, I am glad and thankful for the final result, and I hope that my little contribution may benefit the readers.

Regarding the book, for the UK it is available on Amazon. 

For the USA, it can be purchased on the publisher website or on Amazon (if you want to use Amazon, check the Amazon website for your specific European [for example, Italy] non-European country),

Also available on E-Book Kindle format.

The book is also available on Wordery and BookDepository with free worldwide delivery.

For many reasons, I have not posted in a while. This is my first post since February. But I plan to start again posting theological and philosophical stuff. The fact is that the life of a PhD student is so filled! I wonder how those other scholars do it... just joking. 😇 

©

Subordinationism (2): Anselm

I know, he is looking in the wrong direction...

I'm late in this series! One can never fully know how life can get busy: reading, writing, tutoring, marking, travelling (to meet a special friend ) etc.

Anyway, the next theologian I am going to briefly mention in this series (which is taking me way too much time) is Anselm of Canterbury. In Italy (where I am from), he is usually called Anselm of Aosta, where he was from. I used to be quite pedantic about specifying this, but after years abroad I do not really mind anymore. This said, let us turn our attention to something that we can learn about the equality of the three persons of the Trinity from Anselm of Aosta...... did I say Aosta?

We will focus on De Processione Spiritu Sancti (The Procession of the Holy Spirit), a beautiful treatise based on a lecture Anselm gave during the council of Bari in 1098. Pope Urban II called the council in order to convince the bishops from Puglia and Sicilia who followed the eastern though on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Urban well thought to call his best trinitarian champion for this.

We will see here what Anselm has to say about the equality on the three persons of the Trinity. While reading him, please bear in mind the claim of today's subordinationists according to which "differences in roles and authority between the members of the Trinity are thus completely consistent with equal importance, personhood, and deity" (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, 459. Emphasis added). The main (extremely serious) problems are the two emphasised concepts, i.e., difference in "authority" and it supposed harmony with equality of "importance." I think the above claim is a logically absurd escaping device, as I have tried to briefly show in my previous post. But let us turn to Anselm, now. 

"The Father is not earlier or later than the Son, or greater or lesser; and the one is God neither more nor less than is the other ... the Son so exists from the Father that He is in every respect the same thing as the Father and is one and the same God as the Father. Thus, just as the sole and simple God cannot be greater or lesser than Himself, nor earlier or later than Himself, and just as He has no diversity within Himself, so the Son is neither earlier nor later, neither greater nor lesser, than is the Father. Nor does the Son have in Himself anything different from the Father; rather, just as the Son has it from the Father to exist perfectly, so He has it from the Father to be equal and similar to the Father in every respect—indeed, to be the very same thing [as is the Father]. Hence, just as although the Son exists from the Father, the Son is no less God than is the Father, so although the Son has from the Father the fact that the Holy Spirit exists from Him, the Holy Spirit exists no less from the Son than from the Father. For insofar as the Son is one and the same God as the Father—i.e., insofar as the Son is God—He is not distinct from the Father and does not have any dissimilarity. For the Father is not one God and the Son another God, nor are they dissimilarly that which they are; rather, the one is distinct from the other insofar as the one is the Father and the other is the Son. And just as the Son is not a God other than the Father, so with respect to the fact that the Son is God He does not have anything from any other than from Himself. Now, when we say that God exists from God and that the Son exists from the Father, we construe this to mean not that one God exists from another God but that the same God exists from the same God—even though we say 'The one exists from the other,' i.e., that the Son exists from the Father. For (as was said earlier) just as in accordance with the name signifying oneness God receives no diversity, so in accordance with the names signifying that God exists from God, necessarily He admits of plurality ... Just as God is not greater or lesser than Himself: so in the case of the three (viz., the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) there is not anything greater or lesser; and no one of them is what He is any more or less than is another of them, even though it is true that God exists from God by proceeding and by being begotten." - Anselm of Canterbury, The Procession of the Holy Spirit, 14. Emphasis added.

Of course, Anselm does not believe that the three persons are absolutely and under every respect the same. In fact, he seems to distinguish them according to classical orthodoxy (see, among many places, paragraphs 14 to 16 of The Procession). I let the reader read the rest of Anselm's work which, although not perfect and rather brief, is a very interesting part of the centennial debate about God's triunity. 

Next blog post: Thomas Aquinas! And I hope to make it longer than this one.

©

Subordinationism (1): Augustine facepalms at it. [2]

Wow! It has been a while since my last blog post on these series. Anyway, here I am.

My friend Sam (on the right) a second before he almost broke my

face by (accidentally) pushing me against the wall. He was trying to explain

me partialism. But orthodoxy prevailed, for which I am very thankful.
[Photo: Ed Bos]

In my second post dedicated to Augustine's criticism of Subordinationism, I will try to answer to a timely question that my friend Sam asked: "How would we directly apply this [Augustine's words] to subordinationism, if someone denies that subordination does not make one less 'great' than another (which I guess they typically do)?" This is a difficult question to answer for historical and therefore also theological reasons: the kind of subordinationism Augustine condemned is different from today's subordinationism. Keith E. Johnson says that "Augustine does not explore the speculative question of whether any analogy might exist between the Son’s filial mode of being eternally 'from the Father' and his obedience to the Father in his state of humiliation." However and more importantly, he also says that "there is no evidence that Augustine believed that the hypostatic distinction between the Father and the Son is constituted by eternal 'authority' (on the part of the Father) and eternal 'submission' (on the part of the Son). To the contrary, this element of EFS is incompatible with his account of trinitarian agency." There are several passages of Augustine's On the Trinity where we can read about this incompatibility.

But first, I would like to address the question mentioned above: what about someone saying that subordination does not make one less "great" than another? Well, to be very blunt, I think this is a very poor escaping device. Once we admit, as for instance Wayne Grudem does, that the Father has more authority than the other three persons, this necessarily implies that the other two persons are inferior to the Father. I will attempt to comment a couple of quotes by Grudem in order to show this (thanks to Rachel for pointing at them. I do not have time to read Grudem or Ware myself). 

"If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and, consequently, we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally 'Father' and the Son is not eternally 'Son.' This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 1994), 251.

The unorthodoxy of this rather unclear paragraph is revealed if we consider other places among Grudem's writings.

"Between the members of the Trinity there has been equality in importance, personhood, and deity throughout all eternity. But there have also been differences in roles between the members of the Trinity. God the Father has always been the Father and has always related to the Son as a Father relates to his Son. Though all three members of the Trinity are equal in power and in all other attributes, the Father has a greater authority. He has a leadership role among all the members of the Trinity that the Son and Holy Spirit do not have. In creation, the Father speaks and initiates, but the work of creation is carried out through the Son and sustained by the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Hebr. 1:2). In redemption, the Father sends the Son into the world and the Son comes and is obedient to the Father and dies to pay for our sins (Luke 22:42; Phil. 2:6-8). After the Son has ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit comes to equip and empower the church (John 16:7; Acts 1:8; 2:1-36). The Father did not come to die for our sins, nor did the Holy Spirit. The Father was not poured out on the church at Pentecost in new covenant power, nor was the Son. Each member of the Trinity has distinct roles or functions. Differences in roles and authority between the members of the Trinity are thus completely consistent with equal importance, personhood, and deity." - Grudem, Systematic Theology, 459. Emphasis added.

I am afraid Grudem and I use two different sets of logical rules. Grudem assumes that different roles or missions in the Trinity imply subordination between them, a subordination that is mainly characterised by a greater authority possessed by the Father. In the specific quotes mentioned above, he merely arrests this, without giving any argument to support his claim. In fact, a difference in missions does not logically entail a difference in authority. Grudem has to explain why he thinks this is the case and, at least in the section I quoted, he does not do that (although, I think I can reasonably assume he tries to do that elsewhere).  

In my opinion, the sections in Italic are radically problematic. According to the classical (and Biblical) view of God, He is one, He has no parts, and He is His attributes. Grudem himself seems to embrace this vital theological principle (see Bible Doctrine. Essential Teaching of the Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1999, 81-82; Christian Beliefs: Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 2005, 36).

Firstly, if God is one in essence and attributes, I deeply struggle to understand how He can be so while one person of the divine Trinity (the Father) has more authority than the other two. True, "authority" is not included in the classical classification of God's attributes. Still, it is something that pertains to God. Therefore, if the Father has more authority than the Son and the Spirit, I enormously struggle to see how God is united according to the classical and orthodox sense, and I wonder whether Grudem's words entail a modified version of partialism.

Secondly, "authority" is certainly a positive thing to have. For sure, in man's earthly life authority may come with all sorts of trials and responsibilities. But this is not the case with the most blessed triune God. Moreover, common sense tells us that a person with more authority is more important that a person without it. Now, if this is true, how can Grudem claim that the Father who, according to him, has more authority than the Son and the Spirit, has the same importance than the Son and the Spirit? He has more authority, but he is equal in importance. This does not make much sense at all to me. To prevent a possible objection, I do not think that earthly examples would help. I guess Grudem would mention the example of a husband who has more authority than his wife and the children, but he is not more important than them. However, I think God's situation is significantly different (David J. Engelsma rightly believes that the godly families of the earth and the church family are the only vestigia trinitatis in creatura [vestiges/traces of the Trinity in creation] we may think of because they share in themselves the same Holy Spirit that the Father and the Son breath to each other. However, he would never dare to think nor he does think that God is ontologically similar to the vestigia). Human authority is always limited at least in one sense (and usually even more than one sense), while divine authority is all-encompassing and absolute, embracing the natural and moral order. Therefore, if the Father's divine all-encompassing authority is greater than the Son's and Spirit's divine all-encompassing authority, it seems to me that this implies that, after all, the Son's and Spirit's authority are not so all-encompassing. If you agree with this conclusion, I let you decide what heresy Grudem's words may lead to.

In case you are wondering or even jumping to conclusions,
the lady in the frame is Augustine's beloved mother, Monica.
[Art: Ron Hill. Used with permission.]

I hope this answers Sam's question at least partially. I realise that my arguments are not fully formulated and, certainly, they need to be refined. I am now going to quote Augustine who explains better what I have tried to say. He shows that, because of the unity and simplicity of God, if the Father is not substantially equal to the Son in everything, then the Son is not really equal to the Father in anything.

"Whence then is the Father greater? For if greater, He is greater by greatness; but whereas the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than He who begot Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness, whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is He equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing to be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which is less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal in power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is less wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains, therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in all. But Scripture proclaims, that 'He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' Therefore any adversary of the truth whatever, provided he feels bound by authority, must needs confess that the Son is equal with God in each one thing whatsoever. Let him choose that which he will; from it he will be shown, that He is equal in all things which are said of His substance." ~ On the Trinity, 6.3.5. Emphasis added.

I think Grudem's view necessarily implies all sorts of damaging difficulties. Furthermore, it seems to me that Grudem applies temporal categories to the atemporal, eternal, and immutable God. Grudem has a very bad philosophical theology, and, as I said in the past, I think Augustine's and Thomas Aquinas' trinitarian philosophical theologies may help him to clarify his confusion. I am not going to substantiate my claim because I do not want to make this blog post too long (and I do not even have the time). 

I conclude by offering several lengthy quotes from Augustine's On the Trinity. I have sometimes italicised the most relevant section which I think are connected somewhat to what I have said above. However, it is important to read the emphasised parts in their context. 

In the next blog post, I will move on to Anselm and what he can tell us about the topic in question.

Stay tuned. Stay orthodox.

~ ~ ~

 - The importance of a clear understanding of the two nature of Christ (human and divine). The importance to distinguish when the Scripture is referring to the divine nature or to the human nature.

"Wherefore, having mastered this rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God, that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the form of God, in which He is equal to the Father, and what to the form of a servant which He took, in which He is less than the Father; we shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary and mutually repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For both the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to the Father, because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown: but according to the form of a servant He is less than the Father, because He Himself has said, 'My Father is greater than I;' and He is less than Himself, because it is said of Him, He emptied Himself; and He is less than the Holy Spirit, because He Himself says, 'Whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven Him.' And in the Spirit too He wrought miracles, saying: 'But if I with the Spirit of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God has come upon you.' And in Isaiah He says—in the lesson which He Himself read in the synagogue, and showed without a scruple of doubt to be fulfilled concerning Himself—'The Spirit of the Lord God,' He says, 'is upon me: because He has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives,' etc.: for the doing of which things He therefore declares Himself to be 'sent,' because the Spirit of God is upon Him. According to the form of God, all things were made by Him; according to the form of a servant, He was Himself made of a woman, made under the law. According to the form of God, He and the Father are one; according to the form of a servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. According to the form of God, 'As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself;' according to the form of a servant, His 'soul is sorrowful even unto death;' and, 'O my Father,' He says, 'if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' According to the form of God, 'He is the True God, and eternal life;' according to the form of a servant, 'He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.' According to the form of God, all things that the Father has are His, and 'All mine,' He says, 'are Yours, and Yours are mine;' according to the form of a servant, the doctrine is not His own, but His that sent Him." ~ 1.11.22-23.

- Therefore, the only authority that the Father has over the Son is over the man Son, not over the divine Son.

"Not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion as a man." The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in "fashion." For in the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father; but in the form of God, in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He is the Word, "by whom all things are made;" but in the form of a servant He was 'made of a woman, made under the law,' to redeem them that were under the law.' In like manner, in the form of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man. For if the Father alone had made man without the Son, it would not have been written, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature." ~ 1.7.14.

- Two meditations on the equality of the persons of the Trinity.

"One man is not as much as three men together; and two men are something more than one man: and in equal statues, three together amount to more of gold than each singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two. But in God it is not so; for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone; but these three substances or persons, if they must be so called, together are equal to each singly: which the natural man does not comprehend. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since phantasms or as it were images of bodies flit about in his mind. And until he be purged from this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be worthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. And when he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separate from Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is the only God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take it without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or better than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever else each is singly called in relation to either of the others." ~ 7.6.11-12.

"The Word of God, then, the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore, as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know. Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begot the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in the highest sense, 'Yea, yea; nay, nay.' And therefore this Word is truly truth, since whatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also in itself and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word. And this Word can never have anything false, because it is unchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For 'the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.' Through power He cannot do this; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth cannot be false. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself, knows all things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the Son as though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all those things that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz. in Himself, as things which are born of those which the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as those of which they are born, which the Son Himself knows in Himself. The Father then, and the Son know mutually; but the one by begetting, the other by being born. And each of them sees simultaneously all things that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their essence: not by parts or singly, as though by alternately looking from this side to that, and from that side to this, and again from this or that object to this or that object, so as not to be able to see some things without at the same time not seeing others; but, as I said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there is not one that He does not always see." ~ 15.14.23.

©

IVP Young Philosopher of Religion 2016 & Tons of Books!

Hello, everyone!

To God alone be the glory. My essay ("Is Any Version of the Doctrine of the Trinity Logically Consistent?") won the InterVarsity Press Young Philosopher of Religion Prize 2016 1st prize. In addition to being declared IVP Young Philosopher of Religion 2016, the prize included £ 250 to spend in a selection of IVP books. Here is the list of the books I have chosen.

God Has Spoken, by Gerald Bray.
Shapers of Christian Orthodoxy, by Bradley G. Green.
A Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy, by Francis A Schaeffer.
Christian Apologetics, by Douglas Groothius.
The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas, by Paul Copan & Kenneth D. Litwak.
Why good arguments often fail: Making a More Persuasive Case for Christ, by James W. Sire.
Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?, by James W. Sire.
The Doctrine of God, by Gerald Bray.
The Holy Spirit, by Sinclair B. Ferguson.
Embracing the Trinity, by Fred Sanders.
God's lesser glory: A Critique of Open Theism, by Bruce A. Ware.
Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present, by John W. Cooper.
We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, by G. K. Beale.
Awe, by Paul David Tripp.
Crazy Busy, by Kevin DeYoung.

Image credit: BuzzFeed books.

I am fully committed to that renowned school of thought according to which owning books is (almost) as pleasant, beneficial, and important as reading them. In fact, I have piles of books that are still waiting to be read. In addition to this, I have piles of other books in my wishing list that are waiting to be waiting to be read. And so on, ad infinitum. This is to say that this nerdy commitment of mine makes this prize even more enjoyable.

It is an exciting achievement, and I am very happy to have written and studied for that article. Independent of winning, which was an added bonus, I very much enjoyed studying for and writing the essay. The article should be put online in the next future, I am not sure when. I hope and pray that the Lord may guide me to use this encouraging result and its prize (as well as all the other tools He has lent me) for the glory of His name and the good of His kingdom.

"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes ~ 12:12-14.

©

My MA THESIS will be a BOOK & Few thoughts on Identity

Luther and Augustine chilling out.
 [Artist: Ron Hill. Used with permission.]

From 2013 to 2015, I had the privilege to study for a "Master - Research and Thesis" in Philosophy the continuity between Augustine's and Martin Luther's soteriologies. Its title was Luther's Augustinian Philosophy of the Cross and the Origins of Modern Philosophy of Religion. Please, take few moments to read a brief summary of my thesis.

Martin Luther’s theology of the cross as presented in one of his most representative works, the Heidelberg Disputation, was intended by its author to be a faithful exposition and development of Augustine’s theology of absolute grace: "these theological paradoxes ... have been deduced well or poorly from St. Paul, the especially chosen vessel and instrument of Christ, and also from St. Augustine, his most trustworthy interpreter" (Luther, Preface to Heidelberg Disputation. Emphasis added). This claim of Luther is often dismissed by a significant part of the academic world as a misunderstanding of Augustine’s soteriology. Through the discussion of both Augustine’s and Luther’s teaching on the issues of free will, good works, righteousness and the cross, in the first part of this work I have demonstrated the Augustinian nature of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, and, consequently, of the theology of the cross that this document expounds. This close comparative reading of several of the most important works of Luther and Augustine will be instrumental for the second part of this thesis, which is dedicated to the discussion of a philosophical thesis that I have deduced from Luther’s Augustinian philosophy of the cross. 

On the basis of the demonstration of the authoritative Augustinian origin of Luther’s theology of the cross, in the second section I have expounded Luther’s philosophical thesis. According to this thesis, no theology or philosophy which gives pre-eminence to the ethical presuppositions of man’s reason has at its foundation a proper understanding of the cross and its implied theology of absolute grace, and therefore every such theology or philosophy is necessarily Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in its nature. In order to prove this philosophical claim, I have analysed the philosophies of religion of Immanuel Kant and G. W. Leibniz, focusing on their respective theological anthropologies. These two influential thinkers, according to their respective methodologies, ascribe a foundational role to reason with respect to religion and theology. In this regard, I have shown that Kant’s and Leibniz’s religions are Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian in nature respectively, thus proving Luther’s thesis concerning the antithetical nature of the philosophy of the cross.

Very recently, I have signed a contract with Resources Publications in order to publish my thesis as a book. I think this is the best way to offer my work to the public. Publishing my chapters as separate articles would have taken a lot of time and a lot of work, and I cannot afford either of the two. Moreover, this publisher is dedicated to keeping the book price as low as possible, differently from other more academically esteemed publishers who very often offer prohibitive prices for their new publications.  

If you are wondering how exactly I gained a MA - Research and Thesis in philosophy by studying Augustine's and Luther's theologies (soteriologies), well ... you will have to buy the book to find out, possibly in multiple copies! 😉 Anyway, I have written this work in a comprehensible style, and I humbly think that all those even slightly interested in theology and philosophy will find the book enjoyable and instructing, or at least this is my hope (even though I do not claim that one by reading it should get excited as the guy in the video). 

The book should be ready by next year. That is a pleasant "coincidence," considering that next year is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation! I am very glad to offer my little contribution in celebrating this great event.

I am excited about this project, and I consider it a good encouragement to keep studying and writing, possibly for some academic journal in the near future. However, I am not my achievements, nor I am my failures. The fact that I am a young philosopher and scholar does not ultimately say who I am. In and of myself, I am a wretched sinner. However, by grace alone through faith alone (Eph. 2:8), Christ tells me who I am: I am a child of God (John 1:12), reconciled to God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:1-5), a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), chosen to be holy and blameless before God (Eph. 1:4), his workmanship (Eph. 2:10), loved by God (1 Tess. 1:4), made complete through the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour (1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 12:9; Col. 2:10).  Who I am, my identity, is in Christ, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20). In failure and success, in joy and sorrow, in prosperity and poverty, in health and in sickness, in life and in death, this is what I am. And this is who you are, believer in Christ, who are reading these words.

Finally, as usual, all the glory goes to the Triune God. I hope this project may bring glory to Him. As Hilary of Poitiers once said, “I am aware that I owe this to God as the chief duty of my life, that my every word and sense may speak of Him” (On the Trinity, 1.37).

I hope to continue my short series on the Trinity as soon as possible.

Stay tuned. Stay in Christ.
©