Felagund
9mo ago
A 126 page legal analysis of section 3 of amendment 14 of the constitution was released yesterday, arguing that Donald Trump, among others, is ineligible for public office, including the presidency. The authors are conservative, active in the Federalist society.
For reference, the relevant part of the constitution is
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Among the arguments made were that it is legally self-executing—that is, it applies, like the 35 year old minimum age, without an explicit system to handle it to be set up by congress. Further, they think that people at almost every step along the process, from state officials deciding who goes on the ballots, to those capable of bringing an Amendment 25 complaint have a duty to ensure that this provision is fulfilled.
In reference to Trump, they argued that the events on and surrounding January 6th intending to overturn the election would constitute "insurrection or rebellion" as understood at the time of the passing of the amendment.
I can't see this not being important, but I'm not sure how exactly it'll play out—we could get court cases, possibly going up to the supreme court (no idea how that would play out). We may see state officials refuse to put Trump on the ballot. I expect this to lead to a substantial increase in support for Trump if this is seen as illegitimate, as it undoubtedly will be. At the same time, if this happens during the primary elections, and Trump is not even on the ballot in some states, it might make it significantly easier for another candidate to become the Republican nominee, unless the national Republican party interferes with it.
Note on the link: the pdf isn't opening for me right now and the wayback machine isn't helping. It was fine earlier, not sure what the issue is.
Apparently, a lab in china has created a virus with a 100% kill rate in humanized mice. Combined with the fact that there's a decent chance that COVID was a lab leak, this sort of thing is extremely dangerous to be doing.
I'm not sure how best to make it so that people are not incentivized to do things like this, but ceasing to fund this variety of research (it looks like the US ended one program that was pushing this sort of thing last year), and instating some sort of legal liability on those who do this, and especially if they dispose of it badly, probably seem like good decisions.
Extremely dangerous diseases are among the top few things in being both disastrous to humanity (unlike climate change) and also relatively likely (unlike a massive asteroid hitting earth). Development of them is also something that is not excessively difficult to do. This is probably the closest thing we have so far to Bostrom's black ball metaphor. People joke about Yudkowskian airstrikes on data centers; would airstrikes on labs be similarly warranted? More seriously, though, there should be far more effort put into preventing this sort of thing than there currently is.
Bostrom's concerns should probably be something more important to be aware of. The ideal is just to not develop technology in specific fields to the point that killing millions is a cheap and easy thing to do. Of course, the tradeoff is totalitarianism, a terror of its own.
EDIT: Some of the comments have argued, relatively convincingly, that this particular news story was overblown and misleading.
Felagund
9mo ago
Sure, I'll try my hand.
Let's start with the existence of God. What's seemed the strongest argument to me is just the question, why is there something rather than nothing?
Why does anything exist? What caused the big bang? The only answer that doesn't lead to an infinite regress, so far as I can tell, is that something must necessarily exist. The main candidates for this that I've heard of are a God of some form, or a Tegmark IV multiverse—the extreme of mathematical platonism, where everything possible exists.
(What about just things happening utterly randomly and causelessly? I'd be really worried about that breaking induction—why doesn't that happen again. To be clear, I'm not talking about the constrained randomness of quantum mechanics. What about a loop or an infinite regress? I'd think we can just collect all the terms and ask if that has a cause.)
The first hypothesis seems more likely than the second, because it seems to better explain why I'd find myself in an orderly world. There are many more ways to disorder something than to order them—e.g. there's only one world where the laws of physics continue as usual, but a much greater number where they broke down 3 seconds ago. I'd also be worried about whether things like Boltzmann brains could end up being common enough to harm our epistemology—not in itself a measure of likelihood, but one hurting pretty severely the ability to do epistemology, since again, the law of induction becomes pretty broken. I'm also unsure whether consciousness harms the ability encapsulate everything mathematically, which the Tegmark hypothesis would seem to require.
Let's say there's some a pretty good chance there's some necessarily existent thing out there. What sort of thing might it be? One perfect in every way seems like one of the relatively more likely possibilities, though it might be hard to say what's a perfection. Not sure how to do anything more exact here, but a pretty decent a priori probability is enough to matter, I'd think.
Okay, that's all towards some form of theism. What about Christianity in particular? The largest obstacle, I think, to most people is that miracles seem really unlikely. This is mitigated to a pretty substantial extent if you think that a god exists. Once there's a mechanism to account for miracles existing, that seems to raise the probability a good bit. If you will, it's no longer something beyond some unbreakable laws of physics, since it's something allowed under the true laws of physics that aren't usually in play. (If you still find it hard to believe that this sort of thing can happen, do you also treat the simulation hypothesis as absurd—at least, if it thinks that there could be intervention once in a while.) But in any case, some documentary evidence and some accompanying historical evidence seem rather sparse to believe in a resurrection from the dead. I think the accompanying teachings of the christian scriptures significantly raise the reasonableness of thinking that it took place, since it places it in a context where this is at least something not improbably, where this is the way to accomplish some aims. This is especially the case since descriptions of what took place were written hundreds of years beforehand—see Isaiah 52:13 through to the end of Isaiah 53. The gospels and epistles are also better than average for ancient historical texts in some other respects—they're written not too long after the death of Jesus, within the lifetime of those who knew him when he was alive. Paul, at one point, refers to 500 people who witnessed Christ after his death.
Let's say that all that argumentation fails. There still seem to be reasons that it might be a sensible thing to adhere to, even if you think it's relatively unlikely. Pascal's wager is formidable, for one. Ethics or purpose seem a good bit easier to come by, which, by no means necessary, do mean that those worlds might be ones that you should concern yourself with more.
Felagund
9mo ago
simply because the earlier amendments require things like trials and forbid self incrimination.
They argue that if it conflicts with other portions of the constitution, it satisfies or supersedes them. I think they still think there are processes for dealing with these things and challenging actions of this sort, it just doesn't have to start with a conviction.
I can’t imagine that Trump or his supporters aren’t going to fight pretty hard against anyone refusing to put Trump on the ballot.
Certainly, as they should.
It’s definitely against the spirit of free elections to refuse to put a declared candidate who meets the qualifications in state law on the ballot.
Sure. But it might be what the constitution requires, if they authors are right on this. Keep in mind also that the constitution is "the supreme law of the land."
Without a conviction, and one that’s specifically mentioned in the constitution as disqualification for office, they’d have a very strong case.
This is another basis for disqualification from office.
Felagund
12d ago
South Africa's Election
Since the 1994 election, the ANC (African National Congress) has been in power, and been running South Africa into the ground. Unemployment is sky-high, crime is rampant, power outages are now common (and usually scheduled), by the name of "load shedding", corruption is ubiquitous.
For the first time, in the election occurring one month from now, the ANC risks losing power. But this may not be a good thing, as more radical groups will be eager to form a coalition.
Some background on racial history may be needed.
There are four racial categories used by the government for people in South Africa:
-
White people are of European descent, of course. There are two main populations: people of British ancestry, who more frequently speak English, and Afrikaners, who are descended mostly but not entirely from a mix of Dutch, German, and French ancestry, and speak Afrikaans, a language descended from Dutch. White South Africans have a distinct group identity. They don't think of themselves as European imperialists, or something. Afrikaners in particular see the Great Trek when they traveled inland after the coming of the British as important ethnic history.
Currently, white people make up about 8% of the South African population. This is the largest population of European descent anywhere in Africa. Demographically, they are relatively older and have lower fertility rates, so expect this percentage to shrink. Per wikipedia's data, they make up about 5% of those in the 2011 census who were under 15.
Also of note is that white South Africans are disproportionately wealthy. South Africa has one of the highest levels of inequality in the world. Some portion of this is due to legacy from Apartheid, as whites were privileged economically and lived in regions closer to economic activity, by statute. And, of course, European institutions were better set up to lead to economic prosperity.
(To prevent economic competition with black workers was actually one of the driving factors behind the establishment of Apartheid.)
-
Unlike in the US, where colored is taken to be a slur of sorts, in South Africa, coloured is a distinct racial classifier. Coloured people are mixed race, descended from a variety of groups. They are the most ethnically and genetically diverse ethnic group on earth. Among the genetic influences are: the Khoekhoe pastoralists that once lived in western South Africa prior to the arrival of the Europeans, white European ancestry, ancestry from the black Bantu groups, both from eastern South Africa and from slaves imported from elsewhere in Africa, and east and south asian ancestry, especially Malaysians. This population is not homogeneous; different places may have different ratios. Coloured people primarily speak Afrikaans, and make up a large portion of the population in the Northern and Western Cape, the two westernmost provinces. They make up about 8% of the population.
-
Black refers to the portion of people who have ancestry primarily from the Bantu ethnic groups of Africa. South Africa has many such groups—of the 11 official languages, 8 are Bantu. The largest and most important Bantu populations are the Xhosa and the Zulu peoples, who together are about half of the black population. (The Zulu have existed in their current form for surprisingly little time: the Zulu empire was built in the early 1800s, when the small Zulu clan, under Shaka, violently conquered and incorporated all their neighbors, before being conquered by Britain decades later.) About 81% of South Africa is black.
-
And Asians, who make up about 2% of the population.
I'm not really entirely familiar to what extent more fine-grained ethnic distinctions matter to group identity and decision-making, as I don't live in South Africa.
Some Relevant History
Apartheid (pronounced uh-par-tate, not -tide) is infamous, of course. Running up until 1994, the Afrikaner National Party was in power, and had regulations keeping racial separation and government-backed privilege of whites in place. Among the key causes in its formation was white Afrikaners wishing not to compete for employment with black people in the early 20th century.
1994, with the end of Apartheid and the election of Nelson Mandela was a key moment. South Africa managed to transition relatively peacefully and democratically, as these things go, though not without incident.
The ANC, or African National Congress, was formed under Apartheid. It was communist (the Soviets trained them), and participated in violence. Nelson Mandela, though a peacemaker late in life, was much less of one earlier. And his wife, Winnie Mandela, was far more violent: she was known for necklacing, that is, drenching tires in gasoline, putting them around the necks of victims, and setting it on fire. But nevertheless, the transition in the 1990s was generally peaceful, with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and so forth. Since then, the ANC has remained in power. The ANC remains economically left-leaning. It has implement several racial programs, including Black Economic Empowerment, a form of affirmative action, which pushes black ownership and management, especially, among companies. (You may think that this would lead to whites struggling to find work, but this seems not to be the case; white unemployment is far lower than the national average, though still higher than in the US). The ANC has struggled with high levels of corruption.
Under the ANC, South Africa has struggled. Among the more visible parts of this is the electricity situation. Eskom, the state utility apparatus, has had pervasive issues with corruption. Contributing further to this is issues with crime: stealing electricity (that is, illegally hooking up lines to the power grid, to get free power) is common in the slums, increasing the load on the system, and people have been known to steal the copper from the power infrastructure in order to sell it.
Further, much of South Africa is doing poorly economically more broadly. The unemployment rate is somewhere around 32%, which is the highest in the world, slums exist, roads are often poorly maintained, and overall things aren't great. There has been some inflation of the rand (their currency), though certainly nowhere near hyper-inflation levels.
Crime rates are high in South Africa. Several South African Cities are listed as among the cities with highest murder rates in the world. Of course, the same could be said of the US cities, and it requires that you have a government capable enough of tracking and releasing those statistics even to show up, so that may not be the best measure. Nevertheless, crime rates are still high by any standard. People have gates with bars in front of their doors, and often fences around their property, at least, among the well-to-do. Many live in gated communities, with private security. There is four times as much private security as police officers.
All this said, South Africa is still among the most prosperous African countries, so there is illegal immigration.
Since 1994, South Africa has had four presidents, all of the ANC. First, and most famous, Nelson Mandela. Second, was Thabo Mbeki. Under both of these people, corruption was common, but it was under the third, and most controversial, Jacob Zuma (president 2007-2017), that it became the most extensive and well known.
While most of those in leadership in the ANC were Xhosa, Jacob Zuma is Zulu, which has made him fairly popular with much of the Zulu populace. He has been known for sexual license, for more rampant and open corruption, most notably, with the India-born Gupta brothers, and pushed for left-wing economic populism and racial grievance.
Since 2017, Cyril Ramaphosa has been in power. While some were hopeful that he would be better than Zuma, South Africa has not done especially well. Controversy has continued with Zuma, with him spending some time in jail, before being released early.
The ANC is currently polling at around 40% nationally, under 50% for the first time since 1994. This makes this election a little unstable, as some coalition will have to be formed.
Enough of history of South Africa and the ANC, now to the opposition parties.
Opposition Parties and the Election
The largest such party is the Democratic Alliance (DA). The DA has long held power in the Western Cape province, where there are fewer Black Africans, and has also managed to govern some cities in the province of Gauteng, where the largest city (Johannesburg) is, and one of South Africa's three capitals. Otherwise, though, it has been the largest opposition party.
The DA is generally considered to be much more competent. The Western Cape has been doing the least badly of all the provinces. The DA is fairly centrist, economically, and opposes affirmative action and the radical redistribution programs suggested by more extreme elements within South African politics. Unfortunately, it also has something of a reputation of being the "white people's party." Its base is certainly not entirely white, as it has been getting around 20% of the vote, of late, which is more than double the entire white population, but that is not entirely unfounded. The leadership is more white, at least, and white people are disproportionately likely to vote DA. It's also relatively popular among the Coloured community. But this isn't good for getting elected. Helen Zille, the leader of the DA from 2009 to 2019, also had the scandal of saying that colonization was a net good for South Africa, which, while maybe true, is probably something you should try to avoid saying when you're a minority party trying to hold together a coalition of like-minded people. The DA would like to have more power less centralized, and more at the provincial level, presumably so that they can get to manage more of the western cape and be less hamstrung by the national government.
The EFF (Economic freedom fighters) was formed in 2013, when Julius Malema and his friends broke off from the ANC. The EFF is very far left wing: they advocate for confiscating land and wealth from white people. If you saw online the discourse about the "Kill the boer!" chants, these were those people. Malema has said that he is not calling for white people, for now. (Yes, the "for now" was part of what he said.) They are communist in ideology, like the ANC. Malema has advocated for aid to Hamas. They wish to (quoting wikipedia here), "expropriate White-owned farmland, nationalise the mining and banking sectors, double welfare grants and the minimum wage, and end the proposed toll system for highways." (Remember, South Africa is at 30% unemployment, and economically relatively stagnant.)
It would be bad if the EFF ended up in power. Because in this upcoming election, the ANC is likely to fall belower 50%, the DA has been worrying about a "doomsday coalition" between the ANC and the EFF.
The EFF has drawn most of its voting from young black men. It received about 11% of the vote in 2019, and was feared to be polling at maybe 17% of the population for this upcoming election, up until a few months ago, but is now back down to around 10%.
A few months ago, Jacob Zuma announced the formation of the MK, (uMkhonto we Sizwe), named after the old paramilitary wing of the ANC. Zuma has wished to be eligible, which is constitutionally questionable because of a 2021 conviction. Nevertheless, he still has had courts rule in his favor, though the process is ongoing.
The EFF and MK are fairly aligned, and seem to be willing to cooperate after the election. The MK supports such things as "expropriating all land without compensation and transferring ownership to the people under state and traditional leadership custodianship," change to a more African-based legal system, replacing the constitution, making college (including through post-graduate) free and compulsory, and providing permanent jobs to everyone capable and willing.
MK is most popular among Zuma's base, so it is doing best in KwaZulu Natal, the Zulu homeland. It has been polling overall at about 10%, taking votes primarily from the ANC and EFF.
The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) is affiliated with the Zulu monarchy. Historically, they've done well with Zulus, though that was less the case when Zuma headed the ANC. They support power being transferred to provincial governments rather than the national government, and don't seem crazy. They are polling at only 5% or so.
ActionSA, my vague sense is, like the DA, but more black, and is polling at maybe 3% or so. They left the DA in 2020.
The VF+ (Freedom Front plus) are right leaning, and most popular with Afrikaners. They are in favor of the rights of minority groups, such as Afrikaners and Coloureds, and are against affirmative action, and in favor of free markets and small government. They are in favor of Cape Independence. I think they may have something of a reputation of right-wing racist extremists, because they're Afrikaners disproportionately, and Apartheid was a thing. This perception is funny, because they are policy-wise one of the parties least in favor of racial discrimination. I think they're currently my personal favorite, but I haven't looked excessively deep. They're only polling at 2% or so.
There are more parties.
Of course, all the parties are also gesturing at how Their One Plan Will Work to fix the electricity situation, reduce crime, lead to more jobs, etc.
The DA has organized a Multi-Party Charter to work against the ANC, EFF, and MK, including all the other parties listed above. I haven't yet worked out what exactly that's supposed to accomplish.
It is still unclear what coalition will be formed, and what policies that will result in. I could imagine the EFF or MK being in a ruling coalition could lead to many whites seeking to leave the country.
Provinces
A few provinces are also up in the air. The Western Cape, governed by the DA for the last 15 years, looks like there is a chance that it loses control of the province, or at least has to enter into coalition. This would be bad, as the Western Cape is the province doing least badly. The Referendum Party was recently formed, and is running in the Cape, in the hopes that the DA will need them to enter into coalition to run the province, in order to hold a referendum for cape independence, to get the Western Cape to secede from South Africa. The VF+ also supports cape independence. There were polls not long ago indicating that it is also relatively popular with the people of the cape, with at least a referendum agreed to be worthwhile by the majority. If any such thing happened, it would be strongly disliked by most of the country. The referendum party and VF+ support it, under the right of self-determination, and in order to stop South Africa from dragging down the Western Cape. The Western Cape is the only province that is not majority black, which means that many think cape independence is racist. Of course, even if a referendum occurs, and passes, which are both not especially likely, it's still probably unlikely South Africa just lets them go, and international politics isn't going to want to help the white-coded people by the imposition of pressure.
KwaZulu-Natal, the Zulu homeland, is also uncertain. The MK is doing well, but the ANC, DA, and IFP will all also be relevant.
Gauteng, the most populated and most urban province, containing Johannesburg, Pretoria, Soweto, etc. could also end up governed by a coalition other than the ANC. It was barely won by the ANC in 2019, so it will probably need to be some coalition after this election, but who knows the constituents.
All the others should be taken by the ANC, I imagine.
I guess I'll have to report back later (no idea how long coalitions will take to sort out) how that all turns out. It's looking like we will have a situation where the ANC, DA & co., and MK+EFF will each have enough of a block that any two of them would be able to coalition, but none on their own. I'm not sure what will be most likely to form from that.
If anything radical happens, like the Western Cape seceding, or South Africa Zimbabweing itself, that'll be sure to have an effect on the discourse around the country. (And of course, more importantly, on the people themselves.)
Felagund
2mo ago
That's probably the main thing in view (well, the Mosaic law as a whole; not merely the ceremonial component), but that doesn't defeat the protestant point.
Here's my reading: Verse 3:19-20: Paul asserts that the law gives knowledge of sin, that it's to reveal guilt, that it acquits no one. We're all guilty, and the law makes us know it. [note: guilt not exclusive to Jews, as it refers to the "whole world," and it describes the law as essentially revelatory of guilt, not creator of guilt. So in view is also being guilty, apart from the mosaic law]
3:21-22: But righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is a thing, not through the law. [Conclusion: righteousness must exist distinctly from the mosaic law]
3:23-25: Righteousness is as a gift from Jesus; we're all inadequate otherwise. Received by faith. [Unfortunately, no definition of faith given.]
3:25-26: I don't have a clear enough picture of what precisely Paul is doing here.
3:27-28: So we can't boast. [Due, presumably, to 3:24-25]. I don't have a clear enough view of the semantic scope of law at the time, such that he speaks of a law of faith.
3:29-31: So gentiles eligible too. Upholding of the law. (Makes it clear that by "law of works" he did have in view the Mosaic law)
4:1-3: Repetition that works tied to boasting. Then, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness." [note that while the επιστευσεν has some range of meaning, I'm pretty sure it's used of the one trusting/believing/whatever as the subject, and the one trusted in etc. as the object. This would be evidence against @coffee_enjoyer's theory, assuming this is connected to the earlier instances of faith/pistis. Abraham is a potent subject, as in him lies the origins of the Jewish people.]
4:4 Whatever's happening, it can't be something in such a way that a reward is earned.
4:5: And there we have it, it is in fact connected to righteousness in faith. In general, we trust (rather than be trustworthy->we are counted righteous.)
4:6-8: And our being righteous is comparable to David's being forgiven. [Reading the psalm that this is taken from, it does not look like this is talking about Mosaic ceremonies]
4:9-12: In general, saved by faith, the particular Jewish moral code (esp. circumcision) not such that it is necessary for salvation, nor is it sufficient.
4:13-15: Faith and the law treated as contrary principles of our being counted righteous.
4:16: Faith tied to it being grace-based
4:18-22: Definitely reads like it's talking of faith more as consisting in Abraham's trust than his fidelity.
4:23-24: And so this is analogous to us.
I think Romans 3 is largely inconclusive as to whether the protestant or non-protestant reading is favored, and may even lean catholic, but when Romans 4 is included, it seems definitely to favor the protestant position. Specifically, verses 1-8 and 18-24 read like Paul is not operating under a "saved by fidelity" system.
If I were not protestant, I would read "the law" in this as talking about discrete, external actions. Whereas, faith would be an internal thing, faithfulness.
But this seems inadequate to me, at least in light of other scripture. In the passage, I've pointed out that this is more difficult to reconcile with the 4:1-8 and 18-24. More broadly, Jesus summarizes the scriptures by describing the greatest commandment as something that per this analysis, would fall into faith; but it is clearly a requirement of the law, being both its summary and a specific commandment in it. With that conceded, any analysis of the law could not treat it as solely describing discrete external acts. The impossibility of following the law is probnbly also supportive of an internal component.
Felagund
9mo ago
Fair point about the first half, although I'm somewhat less confident on what the supreme court's takes would be—I think several, at least, like to consider themselves impartial, so won't do things merely out of a sense of personal loyalty.
As to the second, I don't see how that's the case? Isn't this clearly a case of the constitution disqualifying people? You can argue that it doesn't apply to the current case, or that it requires more than what the authors say, but you can't just say that the Constitution doesn't impose ineligibility for committing those acts after swearing an oath.
Felagund
29d ago
I think one of the better arguments against geoengineering is that I don't trust the geoengineers to remain aligned with what works out best, but will likely end up with internal incentives which could possibly lead to a dramatically messed up climate. You could easily imagine people spending too much to cool the earth, if the incentives were such that that were high-status or otherwise rewarded behavior.
That said, it's probably worth attempting anyway, if we're going to be trying to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (assuming the article here is wrong and that's a thing), as it's so much cheaper. Just, it'll require care in how it's set up.
Felagund
2mo ago
I'm very hesitant to break out Paul verse by verse and ascribe an individual meaning to each line.
I know there's nothing special about verses, I was just using them to go through the text in detail. The text contains detail; you can't just ignore that (but of course, the overall scope and arguments are also vital).
The first covenant that God made with Abraham never promised eternal life, theosis, etc. to those who followed it. It did lead to Salvation - out of the Covenant came Jesus - but it does not grant salvation. When people failed to follow the first covenant, they weren't failing to achieve their own salvation. Instead they were merely demonstrating that humankind is weak and sinful.
I'm assuming you're treating the covenant referred to here as roughly the same as the Mosaic one? That one definitely does promise life: "the one who does these things shall live by them," which Paul quotes in Galatians.
As to faith, etc: I didn't really address your position, mostly just coffee_enjoyer's, before. Let's get to yours.
In your exegesis of Romans 4, it seems to me that you are generalizing things that Abraham did as part of his forming a covenant with God in Genesis 15, into general moral action.
As Paul does, in verses 23-25, and elsewhere. If you think there's a meaningful difference, point out where, and we can work from there.
I disagree that Romans 4:13 contrasts Faith and the law as opposing each other, but rather Faith preceded the covenant.
Perhaps you may not think that Romans 4:13 does so, but I don't see how you could read 4:14 as not presenting a contrast/opposition of sorts. Read in context.
In Romans 4:18-25, Paul does generalize to the gentiles - because a huge part of his letter to the Romans is to argue that the gentiles do not need to join the old covenant to also join the new. A Christian's faith in Jesus is like Abraham's faith in God's promise - they both start a covenant. He is saying that Gentiles don't need to follow the old covenant to be justified because the old covenant never justified anyone. Unlike the new covenant, the old covenant never promised justification.
I think I've shown sufficiently that it does promise life, at least, above. Yes, I agree that obligations upon gentiles are a part of what's going on here. But they are not the primary object in focus. Rather, it's how the (yes, primarily jewish) law relates to our righteousness before God in general, and in so doing he sets it up as dependent upon faith, where faith is understood in a sense of trusting, rather than on something lawlike.
No, Paul's point is not that in both a covenant is begun. Never does he refer to the formation of the covenant as such. Further, that doesn't comport with the meaning of the passage, as the point (of some parts) is precisely that the gentiles don't need to be circumcised, whereas what you are saying would make the argument fail: they'd begin not needing to be circumcised, but then they'd need to get circumcised after (plausibly).
I also think we might not have the same terminology when we talk about Righteousness, Salvation, Justification. Sometimes Catholics and Protestants disagree about how much we are disagreeing because we just don't use the same words to talk about the same things. To be clear about the terminology I am using here are some definitions:
I am well aware that there are terminological differences.
The Protestant interpretations are closer to the Pauline ones, though sometimes more technical.
But okay, let's assume that the Catholic use of those terms, as defined here, is the same as the Pauline ones, for now, and see where things break down.
First: righteousness. You say:
Righteousness - Correct behavior. Jesus imparts (not imputes) righteousness to us.
In this passage, righteousness is counted to Abraham (seen repeatedly, should be uncontroversial). The righteousness counted here cannot be merely understood to be an instance of correct behavior. Rather, he's being counted righteous more holistically—as a whole person, as this is understood to constitute his righteousness in general. This faith makes Abraham righteous, not merely righteous in respect of his faith. This can be seen in the way that this is treated in the passage as the source of righteousness in general, in how the promise is attached, and in the previous context of the legal penalties, where it was talking about the relation of the law as a whole to a person, not the effect of any singular provision. Further, while this doesn't explicitly talk about imputed righteousness in the particular sense of Christ's work (at least, no more clearly than "received by the faith in 3:25), it is clearly talking about imputation of some variety ("it was counted to him as righteousness") and in verses 6-8, it talks about righteousness by means of the non-imputation of sin, basically.
Salvation - Actually getting to Heaven. Not the same thing as Justification.
Sure, though I'd also be willing to use that to refer to the enter process holistically, or in other important steps.
Justification - A formative process in which Christians are made righteous over the course of their entire lives. It is a gift from God, unearned, provided by Jesus' death on the cross to all who accept that He is Lord. This is something that can be lost or stalled and then picked up again. It is comparable to being born. It is unearned gift, but there are certain things you can do that hasten your (spiritual or physical) death.
Yeah, sorry, that's just not what Paul's talking about here. Romans 4:2-3 connects justification to being counted righteous. This whole process is about how Abraham was justified, not his becoming righteous with this as one step of a broader whole (note: an aorist in 4:2, meaning a simple past action. This means Abraham believing probably acts as a discrete instance of justification, not one step in a broader process of justification). Further, the focus of this passage is on righteousness as reckoned by God, both as seen in the quotation, and in the opposition of righteousness to wrath, not as talking about our being made righteous. The law is presented as inadequate because it works condemnation, not for the reason of it failing to produce any good works.
Protestants rather understand the term in this passage to be following its legal usage (especially that used in the septuagint): to be talking about acquital or vindication, and this explains the passage far more potently.
Protestants often define justification as "To be declared righteousness," in a one time event. This dramatically changes how we read any Bible verse with the word "Justification" in it. Instead, Catholics would use the word "Salvation" in places where Protestants commonly use "Justification."
The word has varied usage, but being counted righteous works well in this passage.
In the Catholic view…
I am aware.
I've made an effort here, but if I remember correctly, Chemnitz' examination of the council of Trent, in the section on justification, does a pretty good job of showing why the protestant understanding of justification is correct, and the catholic one fails, and he does this in such a way that this is not merely a terminological dispute.
Felagund
2mo ago
Do you believe that Jews who followed the Law went to Heaven without Jesus's death, and in fact would have made it to Heaven without Jesus' death?
Not at all. The law promised life were it kept. But no one keeps the law. For other similar quotes, see Deuteronomy 7:12, or 13:18, among others.
It's not saying the law provides eternal life.
It's possible that I was misreading Galatians 3. But I'm not sure of that. Do you have reason to think the English idiom ("live by") carries over (I just checked: the greek prepositions used in the phrases translated "live by" are εκ (from) and εν (in), for faith and the law, respecitively, so I think at least the first doesn't seem like it's analogous to the English usage you describe, though it's the second that matters. The Hebrew it's based on, it looks like translators seem to be doing it more per what I was suggesting.
This doesn't sound like sole fide.
Yes, because you don't understand the protestant law/gospel distinction, which Romans fits into fairly easily. Paul's talking in Romans 2 about justification by the law, then in Romans 3-4, he talks about our inability to keep it and how we are justified instead.
I agree with what you say of Romans 2 subsequently.
Your reading of Romans 4:1-5
This seemed plausible generally. The place where you'd have the greatest difficulty in just those 5 verses is the opposition to it being as a repayment or due at the end of your selection there.
Your reading of Romans 6-12
I'll note that you don't bring up the David quote here at all (verses 6-8). But I think it's pretty important, and shows that the righteousness talked about here is probably not an inherent righteousness.
Abraham was able to achieve one canonically righteous action (his faith in God's promise) before being circumcised.
I don't think this is compelling. The passage seems to argue for a state of righteousness, not merely a single righteous action. This can be seen a little in the passage (like, it fits well with the reference to the blessedness described in the psalm, as connected in verse 9), but also elsewhere, as the overall topic's closer to how we can be righteous, not how can we perform a single righteous action.
Further, arguing that the gentiles would be able to perform one canonically righteous action is anadequate to what Paul is trying to do.
I'll agree with your reading of 4:13-21.
Your reading of 22-25
But the righteousness of faith is adequate for our righteousness, not merely the beginning of our righteousness.
It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect. An aorist could mean that the action took years.
Correct. But it does mean (at least, in the case of a finite verb, as here) that it's being viewed as a single action. It's saying Abraham was justified by faith, not that he was being justified, or began a process of justification, or something.
I'd brought this up in response to the differing definitions of justification, to argue that justify here was not a processy thing that took place over a whole life—rather, when Abraham believed God, it was credited to him as righteousness. See also how in 5:1 there's an aorist participle (note: aorists don't have quite the same meaning in particples vs finite verbs), where it's talking about us having been justified by faith, we have peace with God. I suppose you'd have to read this as saying that we have been justified by faith, and this, being the first step, puts us at peace with God, but we will still be justified more.
Just to check—you don't think that Abraham was justified solely by faith, right?
All four volumes are $180, do you know which volume or page number you're thinking of?
Oh, yes, sorry, I didn't think; I don't mean to impose any burden of buying anything. It's volume 1, pages 457-544 in the edition I have before me. If you can read Latin, it's all available free online, of course.
McGrath
I am aware that what the Reformers were teaching was not to be found in the medieval consensus, nor (I think) in those like Wycliffe or Hus that are often pointed to.
I agree that the teaching was virtually unknown throughout much of church history. The reformers cited almost exclusively Bernard of Clairvaux, if they wanted someone to back them up on this teaching, if I remember correctly. (Though I'd have to look back and see how compatible it is with the Theologia Germanica that Luther republished).
It's not weird to me that something like this was lost early in the church; this was also pretty true of the anti-Pelagian things that Augustine wrote, that are now widely accepted. McGrath, in the same work, describes the patristic teaching on justification as "inchoate."
Funny you bring up Clement, though.
To quote the same letter (32:4):
And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified of ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety, or works that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.
Huh.
So evidently, those two things must go together in some way.
I submit to you that the passage that you cited is not talking about justification in the relevant sense (check the context) while this one is. The passage you cited can be read in exactly the same ways that protestants read James.
But I think the passage of Clement I cited is even more clearly in line with the protestants in terms of the opposition to it being inherent righteousness than Paul is, as it mentions piety among the things by which we are not justified.
Felagund
11mo ago
I don't think South Africa is a perfect example. I can't tell whether your South Africa % is too high or too low, depending on whether you are including the Coloured population, which is of mixed ancestry.
In any case, my impression is that South Africa has been in a pretty dramatic decline, that I don't think is due to the mere percentage ancestry. Zuma's presidency was, as far as I understand, pretty terrible and corrupt, and the same party remains in power. People leave the country. Affirmative action is in place for employment.
At this point, they're having routine power outages, when that wasn't a thing in the past.
And, of course, they have the highest unemployment rate in the world.
Not exactly a fair measure.
Felagund
29d ago
I can't comment on most of this, except the following:
This makes it all the more peculiar that nobody has been able to experimentally demonstrate and therefore verify the greenhouse effect.
Wouldn't the existence of Venus be pretty definitive proof that such a thing is possible?
Felagund
2mo ago
I just learned her real identity a few days ago after following some threads from the guy doxxing eigenrobot, realized I'd already heard of her father separately, and I think now my reaction to whenever I hear her mentioned, after whatever the newest escapade is, is just going to be feeling horrified that raising a child can turn out that badly.
Felagund
11mo ago
Instead of just looking at passing, there's also the factor of hormones. Due to this, they start to actually have attributes of the other sex in ways that they previously did not, and that are not just makeup and outward aesthetic changes. Of course, that's still limited, and so they remain hard to categorize.
But imagine we had some perfect technology that could fully and perfectly, change someone's sex, down to a cellular level, etc. In that case, we should recognize them as being the opposite sex than they had, I would think. Current treatments are currently very far short of that, while still being something in that direction, which is one reason why there's all this disagreement over what we should do.
Felagund
2mo ago
Are you still doing these, @Soriek? Yours were always great.
Anyway, among the recent news that I've seen was that Milei was able to cut Argentina's spending across the board by passing what amounts to a continuing resolution unilaterally, without needing to consult the legislature, to the point that the budget is now balanced. The reason why this is a cut is because of inflation—if you pay people the same number, but it's now worth half as much, then you're effectively paying less (and since the taxes scale, it works out).
I'm not sure how this affects things politically, but having the option of this seems to avoid some of the problems of government shutdowns that we hav. in the US. I hadn't considered that continuing resolutions could act as a way to constrain spending, whel inflation is so high, as I thought of them rather as a part of the current, problematic US system.
Felagund
4mo ago
I think that you're right, and that a progressive would never talk about things like this, but I do think he makes some points, and I'd really appreciate it if you could explain how you interpret them, or think that someone on the left might interpret them, instead of merely saying that if we spent five minutes it would be plain. Because, to me, it's not plain.
Here's what I see:
According to the progressive viewpoint, we're supposed to believe that the correlation between IQ scores and life outcomes is some sort of coincidence.
You're right, this is a strawman. Most people recognize that IQ tests are to some extent valid. Progressives would say something more that variation between IQ scores and life outcomes between groups are both due to the differences in how they are treated. (E.g. structural racism.)
We're supposed to believe that IQ tests are somehow biased against blacks and in favor of whites, and just sort of ignore how people from India and China score.
I'm pretty sure this is a thing that is not infrequently believed. Look at all the talk of racist tests. Do I think everyone believes this? Certainly not, Asians have a reputation for being smart in the general population, I think. But I'm pretty sure that this is true of some people, and it is not uncommon to think that there is no IQ difference between groups.
We're supposed to believe that tech companies are thick with a form of white racism that loves those Indians and Chinese but hates blacks and Hispanics.
I don't know that I've actually seen any explicit account of why Indians and Chinese do well, but it certainly does seem like if you want to stick solely to a "systemic racism" explanation (which, to be fair, it is by no means certain that a progressive will do), it would seem like you have to do something like this to explain the disparity: if disparities are always and everywhere due to racism, well, here is a disparity. In actuality, I expect most would think something like what I said before—that people think that Asians are smart, or have tiger moms driving them to success, which is, of course, far more accurate than that it's due to racism.
We're supposed to believe that the differences in development between Asia and Africa are total historical happenstance.
I don't think most progressives think about this much. I'm sure some think it's related to the extent to which they were subjugated by colonial powers and fallout from that.
We're supposed to look at the great black uplift project that has spent fifty or sixty years accomplishing practically nothing concrete, and just nod along with those progressives when they assure us that this failure has absolutely nothing to do with those pesky IQ scores.
I think that you're right that progressives would never talk like this, insofar as they would never mention that latter point, but his point stands: eliminating disparities has been a failure, and so it seems silly not to at least consider that the disparities might not be entirely environmental.
We're supposed to avoid noticing that "structural racism" only really seems to keep those low-IQ races down.
Yeah, this does seem like a mis-modeling of how the left think it happens, and you are right that this was a failure for him to model the other side. The left would see both failure and lower IQ scores as a consequence of racism, not as some great unknown.
But I think the overall picture is fairly clear. If you want to deny differences between groups, saying that they are due to racial dynamics in culture, I think something not too far from what @somedude is portraying his opponents as thinking seems like it needs to be believed. Yes, I don't think it's very plausible. But I think a lot of the reason that this sort of thing doesn't come up, but is implicitly believed, is because it's prevented from being considered, and a great many people have an aversion to addressing things like this, because they implicitly think it is a bad (as in, morally) thing to have these sorts of views.
Frankly, I long had the same impulse, and am certainly not convinced that every HBD poster here is a paragon of virtue.
But I don't actually know what you yourself think, @guesswho, and I will have a far better time understanding what your view of all these matters is if you tell me, instead of asking us all to imagine our own version of your views (or that of the typical person on the other side). I would rather learn than fight strawmen. This place is a little of an echo chamber, sadly; a breaking of the monotony would be lovely.
Felagund
9mo ago
Have you considered the possibility that this is sincere? That is, that he genuinely doesn't hold or like his past views?
Now every time someone attempts to discredit him by posting the huffpost article, someone else can post this in response, which'll take off some of the bite.
This seems like the right play to me.
Felagund
11mo ago
I think the setting may be more important to Lord of the Rings than it is to Romeo and Juliet, maybe?
Felagund
2mo ago
Trying to nail you down here, if someone followed the law perfectly absent Jesus' death on the cross, however impossible that in itself might be, would that person have made it to Heaven?
Tentatively, I'll say no, but only because of Adam's sin being imputed to them, and ignoring that, they would go to heaven.
If so, I think I understand Protestant's objections to Catholic's veneration of Mary better.
I think the objections to Mary are more just outflows of the general principles against idolatry—I think we're both opposed to praying to, making images to, etc. of other deities. Given these actionsg as well as the emphasis on and devotion to Mary in general (That ratio in the rosary? Seriously?), that's seen by protestants as problematic.
But do Protestants believe His death redeems us because He was sinless (and His divinity was required for Him to be sinless, but it was the sinlessness itself that made redemption possible?)
We think that he had to be divine because that's required to have a sacrifice of adequate worth, to pay for us all. His sinlessness was of course also necessary, but that doesn't require divinity—we'll all be sinless post-death.
I think James was pretty clear:…
Okay, that fits with what I thought you'd think. The problem I have with that is that Paul seems to think that, given that we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God, which seems a little weird if there's more justification to go, and what there is so far is inadequate.
I think you are incorrect about Abraham becoming justified instantaneously by faith, whatever tenses you might find in Paul.
Yeah, sorry about bringing up tenses. But I do think that Abraham must have been justified instantaneously by faith: it's treating it as something self-contained, that it was counted as righteousness, for believing God. Further, 5:1 states that having been justified by faith (that is, as something having happened in the past), we have peace with God.
I see three possible ways to reconcile James with Paul and Clement with Clement:
Not quite any of those. I'll go through the issues I see with each of these, and present what I think is correct.
One proposal is that the difference is a matter of timing: while Paul is speaking about the initial reception of justifying grace apart from works, James is talking about the verdict of final justification at the last day, for which works as evidence of faith are essential.
Paul is not talking about the initial reception of justifying grace. His concern and overall frame throughout much of Romans is how we are accepted before God. In this passage, that's what he's talking about, not an initial thing—our being accepted and at peace with God as a whole. It is saying that we have peace with God upon having justifying faith, and is saying that circumcision is not needed generally, not just that it's not needed after salvation. I don't think that's reading James right oither, but showing that would take more effort than I'm ready to engage in at this moment.
Another possibility is that the difference is the kind of works under discussion: while Paul denies that the Torah’s observances can be made a requirement for justification, it is less clear that the good works prescribed by James are also a target of Paul’s objections
This can't be Paul's point, or Romans 4:6-8 would make no sense in the argument. Further, other passages make it clear that we're talking about the old covenantal law as a whole, not merely the ceremonial parts.
A third possibility focuses on the nature of faith, which may be more notional in James (a faith such as the demons can have, cf. Jas 2:19), while Paul’s use of the term is more relational and entails fidelity as well (cf. ‘the obedience of faith’ in Rom 1:5, 16:26).
This isn't quite right. The faith described in Romans is explained what it consists in—trust—in the latter portion of Romans 4, and this is also seen in the use of the verb, not just the noun, as the verb is clear that it's believing, not being trustworthy, where the noun would not be.
What then do I think instead? The third point is not far off, especially in its account of James' faith, while Paul's includes trust.
There's also the additional factor of justification differing in meaning from place to place. In the case of Paul, he's using it to talk about our justification before God in the passager we've seen, and James probably as justification before the community of believers. (In both of these cases, but I don't think everywhere in the new testament—I don't remember—they are using it to talk about those being accepted/counted as righteous in a court-like setting.)
Does that make sense?
Felagund
2mo ago
South Africa was also from within, at least in part. The ANC won their elections.
(Though they may lose this next one, which leads to the scary possibility of a coalition with the EFF of "kill the boer" fame, who in the near term, profess only to want to take their wealth.)
Felagund
6d ago
This might run out, with devastating effect, some day.
If people lose confidence in the US dollar, suddenly they'll try to get rid of it, leading to an increase in domestic supply and dramatic inflation, and foreign goods in general will be much more expensive.
Felagund
2mo ago
You keep saying there's very little diversity. What counts as little? What's your scale? What would be enough diversity, and why that threshold?
There's very obviously enough that we can plainly notice it for some traits, and you haven't acknowledged this.
Felagund
2mo ago
Ah, I wasn't aware of the other variation of Romans 5:1.
Are you still referring specifically to Romans 4:2? Is the Aorist in 4:2 or 4:3?
I was referring to aorist in 4:2, but wasn't arguing from 4:2 alone, interpreting 4:3 to be talking about Abraham's justification by faith.
Perhaps that's more of the key to what I've been saying.
Logically speaking, it seems like 4:3 is an explanation of 4:2—this is saying something about where Abraham's justification actually consists in.
I think my point cared more about features of the argument than the tenses, just tenses were slightly easier to gesture at.
So let's try not addressing that, and looking at it argumentatively instead.
In Paul's usage in this passage, justification refers to the same thing as what is seen in 4:3: counting as righteous. This does not necessarily involve imputation of another's righteousness (though I think it does here), but is just saying that when Paul says "justify" in at least some of the places in Romans 3-4, what he means is be accepted as righteous.
This is clear from the broader context: Romans 3: talking about the guilt of all (See especially v. 19-20. Note that this is not dependent upon it being the Mosaic law given Romans 2 among other passages.) This is where the law is pointed out to have failed: in that it administers blame. Romans 1-2 touch on the same themes: judgment and our acceptance before God. Given Romans 5:1, it seems like most of Romans 4 is talking about justification by faith. But Romans 4 is talking about being counted as righteous. Romans 4:3 seems to be giving a reason for why Abraham cannot be justified by works with respect to God, as described in Romans 4:2.
Then, the talk of being counted righteous by faith, described in Romans 4, seems like a singular event (or at least, due to a singular event), not lifelong.
This can be seen in the references to Abraham being counted as righteous before circumcision. In verses 6-8, it discusses the forgiveness of sins, which in verse 9 it connects to Abraham's righteousness (and of course, this is also connected by the lead-in). This is not something gradual.
You are correct that this doesn't show anything instantaneous (to be clear, the tenses don't either), but it does seem to show that Paul considers Abraham to have been justified before being circumcised, and this because "his faith was counted as righteousness," and so it's then reasonable to conclude that having righteousness counted to you in whatever sense Paul is talking about here suffices to show that one has been justified.
The "having been justified" in 5:1 reads like this can also be applied to us, that we can speak of our having been justified in the past.
Yes, I get that some of this goes beyond treating the passage as an unorganized list of propositions and thinks he has purposes behind what he's saying; I think that's warranted and the proper way to read scripture.
(and I'm not sure but I don't think you do either.)
I don't speak it, but I can read ancient greek at an acceptable level, depending on what your standards for acceptance are.
I'd posted a while back about how Wizards of the Coast was making Aragorn black in the soon-to-be released Lord of the Rings Magic set.
Since then most of the new cards have been released.
There were several more race swaps—see, for example Theóden, along with many other Rohirrim, was made black, but not Éomer. If they had made them all black, this would have been closer to my original suggestion—that they change races, if they really must, do so in ways that make sense in the world. But they did not do that for some reason, and keeping Éomer white makes no sense, if you're changing the rest of the Rohirrim.
Nevertheless, I was surprised at how good the set was, if you ignore the race changes in the art, for fans of Lord of the Rings. They referenced all sorts of relatively obscure things, had cards that had thematic abilities, (for an especially fun example, see how Merry+his blade or Eowyn can defeat the Witch King, who is ordinarily rather invulnerable), or just had fun flavor text quoting from the book, or nice art. And was faithful to the lore in another respect where Rings of Power was not, although I don't remember such a character actually existing…
Ignoring the race issue, I was very impressed overall. I think it's interesting that they were willing to put so much effort into it, while at the same time having unnecessary race changes. I suppose it's not entirely the same people making the various decisions. But I had read it as first as "we don't care that much about Lord of the Rings," which now seems to be false. They must have cared both about signaling leftist politics and about making a good product, and so this was the result.
I might be willing to overlook the problems, because Tolkien is dearer to my heart.
More options
Context Copy link