@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

2 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC 

				
User ID: 359


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OracleOutlook


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 359


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 1, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


My sister in laws kids still end up in one on one meetings with their priest and so on.




If this is true, it needs to be reported to the parish's safety coordinator (assuming she's in the US.)  The only circumstances where that should be happening is during confession, and now the standard for children is to have confession in a place that is visible from the outside (like through a window or in an unblocked corner of the church) or completely physically separated, like an old-style confession booth.  Now, the sister-in-law might be bringing her children to a normal (adult) confession time, but if there are no specifically-labeled confession times for children, it is within her right to schedule a child-safety-compliant confession for her kids.


"If there is a need for a confidential discussion or training session with a minor, it should occur in a location that is in view of other persons, and the minor should have first and immediate access to the exit."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 31, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It supports the narrative that most Israelis can just "go back where they came from."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But for every person like me, there's someone living at their parent's house (parental support), that their parents own (home ownership), with a long term girlfriend. There isn't a material difference between them and the requirements you list. The things keeping them from having kids are attitude and perception.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


To some extent this is just what being settled in a place looks like, though.




My parents moved into the state when I was 4. Six years later, they moved into a new-build neighborhood. My mom talked up the opportunity with friends and a couple of her friends also moved into the same neighborhood. I. Those six years in between, she had made friends with dozens of families, just by exchanging phone numbers with other moms at the playground, meeting their friends, arranging play dates, going out to coffee, etc.


My experience with cities, apartments, and dorms is the physical proximity creates emotional distance. People don't even look each other in the eye, let alone learn each other's names.  It's too intimate by default, so people take steps to create boundaries.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I loved growing up in the suburbs. I knew everyone on my culdesac. We were a ten minute drive from various friends of my mother who had children around my age. We went to church activities every week, sports, library events, etc. We weren't bored or bereft of social interaction.


In NYC I feel like being friendly puts a target on your back. But it might just be that I was socialized for one type of friendly, and don't recognize other forms.


I recently moved to a suberb outside a small city in a flyover state. I was quickly invited to attend a Welcome New People catered dinner at my new church, where we were paired with another family who checks up on us all the time. I am constantly invited to more parish activities, including a program that just pairs families with similar aged kids to meet up at least once a month to do whatever they want.


The nearest coffee shop has a consignment store with crafts made by local patrons. There's a festival every week in the downtown. I know most people on my street.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm confused about your list of needed things.  I don't know anyone who grew up with all of them. Looking at just my family tree I have:


    

  • 

    One set of grandparents had their first son on a US Base in West Germany. Moved back to the US to a part of the country far away from other family, bought a house in the suburbs, and had five kids all told. (Missing: house at first baby, labor support)
    

    • 

  • 

    Other pair of grandparents had moved from Ireland, didn't have any relatives to help. Had 12 kids on a single policeman's salary. (I'm not sure when they bought their first house, but they were missing labor support.)
    

    • 



-My parents had me and my brother in a one bedroom condo, about a five hour drive from my father's parents. My parents both worked at the time and I was in daycare. After my brother's birth they moved to a lower cost of living state and bought a house. My father had a job lined up, my mother did not. She transitioned into a Stay at Home role, which ended up being mostly permanent. Three kids total, but my mom was 33 when she married so she did her best. (Missing: house at first baby, family support.)


-My husband and I rented a two bedroom in a quadplex when we had our first. We couldn't afford daycare in the region, nor could we afford for one of us to stay home. We worked split shifts that first year so we could watch our daughter. He started working at 5 AM, I worked from 1:30 PM to 10. We were far away from either of our families. Eventually we saved up, had promotions, rented a house, had three more kids with an au pair to watch them, and bought a house in a lower cost of living state.


Getting married is a common thread, but having a house or a nearby family caretaker is not as essential as you stated. My experience has taught me it's mostly a matter of wanting a child. I don't know anyone my age who wants a single child half as much as my husband and I wanted a big family.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The Motte: A Working Glossary
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think when rightists say they want to ban Critical Race Theory, they have in mind someone like Ibram X Kendi, and to stop public school teachers from teaching his books to kids. Which is very reasonable! He's a lunatic! But he doesn't self-describe as a Critical Race Theorist, so if you banned it, he would just shrug and keep on doing what he's doing.




Let's compare to another controversial topic: Common Core Curriculum.  If a Governor ran on withdrawing from Common Core in their state, they might accurately state "Common Core is taught in our state's schools."  This doesn't mean that any particular teacher is passing out copies of the Common Core standard and telling students to turn to page 68.  The candidate means that the schools are teaching through the lens of Common Core, with the goal of teaching the topics preferred by the common core, skipping over topics that are not covered.


When someone on the right says they want to ban Critical Race Theory, they aren't trying to imply that teachers are going into obscure legal theory.  Instead, a more charitable way to understand them is that they do not want Public Schools teaching through the lens of Critical Theory (particularly as it pertains to race.)


When looking at the specific bans that have passed through state legislatures, I haven't seen "Critical Race Theory."  Instead, I see bans on teaching any single race is worse than another or uniquely bad for the ills of the world.  For example, the Indiana SB 386 states:




A school corporation or qualified school shall not compel or promote, as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, a person to adopt, affirm, adhere to, or profess an idea that:






(1) a person or group of people of one (1) age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin are inherently superior or inferior to a person or group of people of another age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin;






(2) a person or group of people should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin of the person or group of people; or






(3) a person or group of people of one (1) age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat another person or group of people equally and without regard to age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Off topic, but how are you leaning on the DIS fight?  Do you think Trian would be an improvement?  Is Blackwell Capital even a contender?


A lot of people see it as a fight against woke Disney, or unaffordable Disneyland, or whatever their current complaint is, but I don't think that's a priority for anyone in the fight.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 22, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
https://search.marginalia.nu/




This is an independent DIY search engine that focuses on non-commercial content, and attempts to show you sites you perhaps weren't aware of in favor of the sort of sites you probably already knew existed.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


conditions that affect women differently.




This makes me hopeful that it will go into hypertension/heart disease/etc stuff.  As a woman, I really don't want women's health care to be Birth Control and nothing else.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, I am in favor of more palliative care options and honest counseling.  But the question isn't whether you would let the child die but rather would you let the parents kill the child?  Maybe the distinction is meaningless to your ethical system, but it is not to many people's ethical systems.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Let's say a child was missed in screening and was born alive with Trisomy 18.  Is it ok to kill the child then and there?


If the argument jeroboam is making is that after the first trimester the child is old enough to resemble what we value in a human, and therefore should have a basic right to life, then why would the presence of a disease change that?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 17, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
https://www.exfatloss.com/p/show-me-the-bcaa-studies


This whole substack would probably be interesting for you, but this article in particular argues pretty hard for high fat/low muscle protein (but maybe more gelatin/collagen than normal.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think I'll say that his faith was counted as righteousness at both times, and was justified throughout




I think this agrees with the Catholic perspective.  Abraham received initial justification through faith, and multiple acts counted as righteousness.


I wouldn't argue that Paul is arguing for this specifically in Psalm 32, but are you aware that Catholics believe that we receive initial justification at Baptism (an act of faith that makes us adoptive siblings of Jesus Christ) and that at this initial justification all prior sins are forgiven?


Paraphrasing verses 2-9:


2 - Abraham wasn't especially just by himself.


3 - Abraham's belief in God is a righteous act.


4 - Wages as a due - ties back to verse 2, Abraham wasn't getting just wages because he wasn't justified by his own abilities.


5 - Ties back to verse 3, Faith in God is righteous. (side note, in Hebrew poetry it is common to have two repetitive stanzas, back and forth, with slight differences to distinguish between.  I'm not saying Paul is writing poetry here, but he seems to have a similar rhythm. I highly recommend reading Robert Altar's The Art of Biblical Poetry if you haven't already.)


6 - David said that God can credit righteousness apart from works of the law.


7 - Blessed are they whose lawless acts have been forgiven and whose sins have been hidden away.


8 - Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count.




I think our differences in our readings of this passage might be smaller than I thought




Are you aware that (some) Lutheran leaders and (some) Catholic leaders got together, hashed out our differences and realized we mostly agree on Justification?


I think where the difference is going to stay is the imputation vs infusion.  Catholics believe God's word is efficacious, He can neither deceive nor be deceived.  (Numbers 23:19: God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?)


From our perspective, imputed righteousness seems like God both deceiving and being deceived.  But does Romans 4 really argue for imputation?


In context, versus 5-8 quote the first verses of Psalm 32.  Traditionally, quoting the first verse of a Psalm means to draw someone's attention to the whole psalm.  Hence, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


What is the rest of Psalm 32?




When I kept silent,
my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
For day and night
your hand was heavy on me;
my strength was sapped
as in the heat of summer.






Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, “I will confess
my transgressions to the Lord.”






And you forgave
the guilt of my sin.
Therefore let all the faithful pray to you
while you may be found;
surely the rising of the mighty waters
will not reach them.
You are my hiding place;
you will protect me from trouble
and surround me with songs of deliverance:






I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go;
I will counsel you with my loving eye on you.
Do not be like the horse or the mule,
which have no understanding
but must be controlled by bit and bridle
or they will not come to you.






Many are the woes of the wicked,
but the Lord’s unfailing love
surrounds the one who trusts in him
Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous;
sing, all you who are upright in heart!




Or basically - Guilt, repentance, confession, forgiveness.  Paul isn't referencing a passive forgiveness of sins after an initial justification of faith, but rather another act of righteousness that lead to forgiveness.   This one is interesting because Paul isn't referencing an act of faith, it's an act of repentance.


It is commonly believed that Psalm 32 is in reference to 2 Samuel 12.  What Paul was likely emphasizing is that the forgiveness of David's sins took place outside the law. 2 Samuel 12:13,  "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan replied, 'The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.'"  There's no Levitical sacrifices, no Yom Kippur.  Just an honest confession and sorrow for sin.


This "counting" as righteousness word is going to require a word study.  The word for "counting" here is elogisthe and logizetai.  So where else is the word used in the New Testament?




For I consider [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Romans 8:18).




Paul later uses the word in this letter (and others) to describe earnest acts of the mind:  considering and regarding.  It's not reference to a modern financial accounting system.  Another couple strong examples:




When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason [elogizomen] like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).






Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell [logizesthe] on these things (Phillippians 4:8)




It it is not a word used to show some outside force providing a title that is the opposite of the real object. In each of these cases, the subject is thinking about reality.


Applying that to this passage, God truly is considering, reasoning, regarding Abraham as doing something righteous when Abraham performs his act of faith.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 15, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My husband bought a matching set of a wedding band and an engagement ring.  He was trying to plan a "will you marry me" thing, but I accidentally called him my fiance at one point, and in response he gave me the engagement ring unceremoniously.  He held onto the wedding band until the wedding itself, where rings are exchanged in the ceremony.


My engagement ring has a sapphire centered, with several small diamonds and sapphires studding the band of the engagement ring and the wedding band.


Before the wedding, around when I went dress shopping, I bought a wedding band to give my husband.  It is a simple band, with no engravings or settings, that matches the band of my rings.


We're both conservative, but counter-cultural.  We didn't follow the script from movies, TV shows, or internet advice columns.  But we also talked about marriage and starting a family for a long time before our official engagement.  We knew what the other thought was important about the engagement process and what we didn't care about at all.


But in the normal course of events:


3 rings total.  The man gives the woman a ring with a large stone during the engagement.  Then at the altar, the man and the woman exchange simple rings.  It is possible and recommended for the man to buy a set upfront if he's confident the woman will agree to the engagement.


The man "pops the question" on a date.  Usually a more fancy date than usual.


Diamonds on a gold band are still favored.  Find out ahead of time if your Girl Friend has any aesthetic or ethical reasons that they do not like diamonds.  You can go necklace shopping for her birthday, for example, and see how she reacts to the suggestion to get a diamond necklace.  Sapphire is a very good alternative, about as durable as a diamond for all practical purposes and come in some nice colors.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I know anecdotes aren't data but there are two people I know:


    

  1. 

    A software developer at my company was on a performance plan for poor quality of work and poor communication with others.  Also, the thing he excelled at and the reason he was hired, web development, was no longer a thing our company needed, so he was stuck doing something he wasn't interested in.  People throughout the organization constantly complained that the tools he built were terrible.  His bosses were discussing firing him for years and were about to pull the trigger.
    

    Then he transitioned, divorced his wife, left his kids behind, and told everyone he was a woman.  Suddenly she was untouchable for six months.  No one dared criticize her or her work for a while.  Then eventually the effect wore off and she was fired about a year after transitioning.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    Someone who transitioned as a teen who then worked odd jobs but had poor attendance due to the side effects of her medication.  At one point she was my kids babysitter, but she would have to leave the baby alone for 30 minutes at a time while she processed her bowel movements.  After she left us, she went to work for a major tech company as a game tester, where she was let go a month later due to poor attendance.
    

    3. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 11, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Given that the public terms of the ceasefire Hamas rejected was predicated on 1) Proof of life for the remaining hostages and 2) releasing the hostages, that is the plain reading of the tweet.  Hamas was unable or unwilling to provide proof of life for any of the remaining hostages.


If Hamas agreed to release the hostages, then there would have been a ceasefire for at least six weeks, possibly forever.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Romans 4:3 doesn't say Abraham was justified as a one time thing, it just says that Abraham believed God and this was counted as righteousness.  I really don't think you can apply the definiteness of the aorist in 4:2 to the sentiment of 4:3.  For example, if I said, "If I was an elephant I would always remember everything. I remember my kid's birthday." I'm saying: I do forget things, I'm not an elephant, but I do remember my kid's birthday.  One thing (my kid's birthday) can be tallied into the list of things I remember, but I don't remember everything on account of me not being an elephant. Abraham is not justified (in a single action) an account of him being perfect in himself, but he did do an action that is counted as righteous/just.


If Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 justified him entirely, why didn't his act of faith in Genesis 12:4 do so?  For as Hebrew's 11:8 says, "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go."  So Abraham obeyed God by faith, did not get justified as a single one time action, he believed God later on and was justified then and for always?  What was the distinction?




justification refers to the same thing as what is seen in 4:3: counting as righteous




I understand that the words Justification and Righteousness are the same root words in the Greek, just translated into English in whatever word is most intelligible.  But just like I used the same word "remember" in both sentences in the Elephant example, someone might use the same word ironically in two different sentences to contrast the two (always remember in the first sentence, simple remember in the second, like aorist justify in the first verse, not-aorist righteous in the second.)


Regarding verses 6-8, of course Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins after repentance.  But having sins forgiven does not itself make someone righteous forever afterwards.


For example, Paul is quoting Psalm 32.  In Psalm 32, David is repenting of the sins he committed in 2 Samuel 11, murder and adultery. But before David sinned, God called David, "a man after his own heart."  So we have a just man, who sins, then repents and is forgiven.


Verse 9 connects the forgiveness of sins with Abraham's state of Circumcision.  Abraham was able to have one righteous action while uncircumcised.  "The faith of Abraham was counted as righteousness."




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.




Yes, I agree that we shouldn't treat the passage as an unorganized list of propositions.  That was my position from the first comment.  The purpose of the whole letter is that Abraham is our father in faith and Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to participate in faith and receive Justification from Jesus.


You are trying to read between the lines to come up with a meaning that this passage does not readily appear to have. You are arguing that justification is a one time deal by applying the tense of one sentence to the tense of the subsequent and tying different verses together from different parts of the letter.


St. Paul is refuting the Judaizers, who believed that the Law, an impersonal entity, had the power to give life. The Judiazers were wrong.  As Galations 3:21 says, "if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law." (Another verse that supports that the Torah was insufficient to provide salvation by itself.)


The Judaizers in Rome believed rather that one need only obey the law externally, which would obligate God to repay them with eternal life, as an employer pays a worker his wage (Romans 4:4). Arguing against this, St. Paul teaches us we must approach God on a personal level, with faith and sincere contrition for our sins.  God will, in turn, graciously forgive us (Psalm 32), infuse us with supernatural virtues, and credit them to our account as righteousness.


Faith is the foundation and the root of all justification. Without faith, no works will justify.  However, this does not preclude the possibility that God might reckon the believer's faith to him as righteousness again at some other point in his life.  Just looking at Abraham we see justification in Genesis 12:4, Genesis 15:6, Genesis 22.  There are other virtues, such as Hope and Charity, which God might credit to a believer's account as well, after that first act of justification through Faith has been accomplished.


Do you believe that the intention of Paul in these verses was to argue against a group of people who believed Justification was a continuous process? Or was Paul's intention in these verses to argue against a group of people who believed Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to participate in the sacrifice of Jesus?  I think you would acknowledge the latter, but say that the words Paul is using implies that he believes Justification was a one-time event.  If that is the case, I think I'm reading the purpose of the passage as a whole.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Paul seems to think that, given that we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God




I think you are referencing Romans 5:1 for this.  "Justified therefore through faith, let us keep peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have got by faith access to that grace in which we stand, and let us exult in the hope of the glory of God."


It seems to be saying, with our initial justification caused by faith (in opposite to circumcision) let us act properly and keep peace with God through the grace Jesus has gained for us.


But looking around, it looks like the "Let us" translation is based on some Greek manuscripts, while other Greek manuscripts do not have it as an exhortations.  The Vulgate has "iustificati igitur ex fide pacem habeamus ad Deum per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum," which sounds more like an exhortation.   Could this be the root of our confusion?  The subjunctive seems to be attested to earlier in manuscripts, but both are widespread in the early Church. The official Roman translation used Let Us, and that undoubtedly influenced theology for millennia.


In the absence of knowing what Paul actually wrote here, may I suggest that we both avoid using Romans 5:1 to argue for or against our positions?




But I do think that Abraham must have been justified instantaneously by faith:




Are you still referring specifically to Romans 4:2?  Is the Aorist in 4:2 or 4:3?  Because Romans 4:2 says, "If Abraham was justified because of his actions, he has reason for glorying; but not before God, since what does the scripture say?"  Paul is saying that Abraham was Not justified because he had some innate awesomeness.  It doesn't really matter what tense was used when Paul is ironically saying that something Didn't happen that way.


I disagree that the language Paul uses makes the claim that Abraham was justified in a single instant, and this seems to be the basis of your arguments against the Faith/Works explanations that I hold.


Short of us both being ancient Greek scholars I don't know how much more productive our conversation can become.  We can both start to appeal to authority, but I think our fundamental difference lies in the specificity of a language that I don't speak (and I'm not sure but I don't think you do either.)  Which is disappointing, because I usually mock those who think that the Bible is impossible to understand because it's been a game of telephone/translated too many times.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
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?


If so, I think I understand Protestant's objections to Catholic's veneration of Mary better.  Catholics believe Jesus' death on the cross redeems us because Jesus is God.  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?)




Just to check—you don't think that Abraham was justified solely by faith, right?




I think James was pretty clear:


"Was not Abraham our father justified by his actions, when he offered up Isaac, his son, on the sacrificial altar? You see that his faith worked with his actions and through his actions his faith was made a thing complete, and so the scripture was fulfilled which says: Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness in him, and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by his acts and not by faith alone."


But the binding of Isaac happened well after Abraham's circumcision, after Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.  I think you are incorrect about Abraham becoming justified instantaneously by faith, whatever tenses you might find in Paul.


Yes, Paul seems to disagree with James, and Clement with Clement.  But we know that all must go together.  Somehow these quotes and concepts didn't seem contradictory to the early Church. No Catholic today would claim that we are justified of ourselves or that we are justified absent an act of divine condescension.


I see three possible ways to reconcile James with Paul and Clement with Clement: (and I'm borrowing from Matthew J. Thomas here)


    

  1. 

    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.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    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
    

    3. 

  3. 

    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).
    

    4. 



I think all three possibilities are compatible with the Catholic view.  Which of these would be compatible with your view?  If none, what is your view?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


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.




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?  I never heard that position before, but Paul's quote in Galatians does not support it. Galatians 3:11-12: "Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”"  The full quote is clear, the law is based on "living by" i.e. performing actions.  It's not saying the law provides eternal life.


(I'm going to start using the Lattrimore translation, because I'm noticing a lot of theological language smuggled in when I switch between NRSV and NIV.  Lattrimore was a secular Greek translator who is most famous for his excellent translation of the Iliad.  He did become Episcopalian towards the end of his life, but this conversion was after he translated the New Testament.  I think we're both trying to figure out the words as Paul wrote them, and short of studying Greek this is the best resource I can get.)


Let's go back to Romans.  Paul starts Romans off with discussion of Pagan wickedness.  Then he broadens it to discuss everyone's (even Jewish) sinfulness.




Romans 2:6-8: Through your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up for yourself anger on the day of anger and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will give to each according to his actions: to those who, through steadfastness in doing good, strive for glory and honor and incorruptibility, he will give everlasting life




This doesn't sound like sole fide.


Then we have Romans 2:12-15 "For those who sinned outside the law will also perish outside the law: and those who sinned while within the law will be judged according to the law. For it is not those who listen to the law who are righteous in the sight of God, but it is those who do what is in the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what is in the law, they, without having the law, are their own law; and they display the work of the law engraved on their hearts;"


So from the beginning, Paul is referencing the Law as referred to Torah observance.  Gentiles "do not have the Law", but "display the work of the law engraved on their hearts."  Paul seems really concerned with telling Roman Jews that Gentiles are able to do good without being Jewish.  Because they are Gentiles they aren't participating in the nation-building or ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law, but rather the natural law or the moral law.


Throughout this, Paul is admonishing the Jewish people in Rome to not boast.  They are just as sinful as the Gentile populace.


Now we move to Romans 4.  So that I am not accused of ignoring any detail, I will go through section by section and explain how it makes perfect sense from a Catholic view:




1-5: What then shall we say of Abraham, our forefather in the way of the flesh? If Abraham was justified because of his actions, he has reason for glorying; but not before God, since what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness in him. For one who does something, repayment is counted not as grace but as his due; but for one who does nothing, but believes in him who justifies the impious man, his faith is counted as righteousness.




Abraham is the patriarch, the father of the Jewish people.  Abraham cannot boast because he had no power in himself to justify himself. Instead, God reaches out to Abraham and (despite some shakiness on Abraham's part) Abraham responds with faith.  It is Abraham's response that counts as righteousness.  Abraham believing God would give him descendants was a good/just/righteous action - it counts as righteous.  It doesn't count as neutral or evil.


God singling Abraham out is a huge grace that Abraham received.  Abraham did not deserve God's offer of a covenant.  It is Abraham's faith in God that was considered the righteous action.




6-12 So David also says of the blessedness of the man whom God counts as righteous, apart from his actions: Blessed are they whose lawless acts have been forgiven and whose sins have been hidden away. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count. Now, is this blessedness for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised? Since we say the faith of Abraham was counted as righteousness. How then was it counted? In his circumcised or uncircumcised state? It was when he was not yet circumcised, but still uncircumcised. And he received the mark of circumcision, the seal upon the righteousness of that faith he had when he was still uncircumcised; to be the father of all those who are believers through their uncircumcised state so that righteousness could be counted for them, and also to be the father of the circumcised for those who not only have been circumcised but also walk in his footsteps through the faith, which our father Abraham had when he was still uncircumcised.




Abraham was able to achieve one canonically righteous action (his faith in God's promise) before being circumcised.  Therefore, the uncircumcised Gentiles can also consider Abraham their Father in Faith (see that this is contrasted to verse 1, Abraham as the forefather in the way of the flesh.)  And the circumcised are also supposed to walk in faith just like Abraham.




13-15 For the promise to Abraham, or his seed, that he should be the inheritor of the world, was not on account of the law, but of the righteousness of his faith. For if the inheritors are those who belong to the law, then the faith is made void and the promise is gone; for the law causes anger, but where there is no law there is no lawbreaking.




God told Abraham that the his descendants would inherit before the Torah existed.  Abraham's faith was righteous (not imputed righteousness, but unqualified righteous.)  It cannot be that only those who follow the Law of Moses will inherit the world, because the law by itself does not justify.  "The law causes anger." This ties back to Chapter 3 verse 20: "since through the law comes consciousness of sin."  The law only reveals human weakness.  No one was ever going to follow the Torah all the way to Heaven.




16-21 Thus (it is) because of faith, and thus by grace, that the promise should hold good for all his seed; not only for him who has the law but for him who has the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all, as it is written: I have made you the father of many nations. It held good in the sight of God, in whom he believed, the God who puts life into the dead and summons into existence the things that do not exist. He against hope believed in the hope that he would become the father of many nations according to what had been said, that is: Thus shall your seed be. And Abraham, without weakening in his faith, knew that his own body was that of a dead man, since he was about a hundred years old, and he knew the dead state of Sarah’s womb, but he was not distracted with unbelief in God’s promise but was strengthened in his belief, giving glory to God and assured that God was able to do as he had promised.




Description of Abraham's act of faith. Restatement that faith is a gift, an unearned grace. Restatement that Abraham is the father of all those who have faith as well as the father of Jews in flesh.  There is a little bit of a comparison between God bringing life from Abraham and Sarah's dead bodies and God bringing spiritual life from the spiritually dead Gentiles, but Paul doesn't really elaborate there.




22-25 Thus it was that faith counted as righteousness in him. But it was not written for him alone that it was so counted for him, but also for us for whom it is to be counted, for us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was betrayed for our sins and raised up again for our justification.




Abraham's faith was righteous.  God made sure that this passage was included in Genesis so Paul could win this argument with the Romans that the uncircumcised can be saved.  I see very clearly the Catholic view of God sending grace, Abraham accepting the grace, and then that action of accepting the grace counting as righteousness.




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.




Abraham was dead when Paul wrote his letter, so whether he was justified or not would have happened in the past, not as something ongoing.   But 4:2 is an ironic negation - Abraham wasn't justified because of his action. Also, the aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. 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.  But however long it took, it's over now because Abraham is dead.




Chemnitz' examination of the council of Trent




All four volumes are $180, do you know which volume or page number you're thinking of?


Alister McGrath is a reputable Evangelical historian.  His book on the history of justification - Iustitia Dei - is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject.  McGrath writes, "[If] the nature of justification is to be defended, it is therefore necessary to investigate the possible existence of 'forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification...' [This approach] fail in relation to the specific question of the nature of justification and justifying righteousness... A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where not had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before.  The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."


One of the foremost Evangelical scholars on the topic could not find a historical belief in Forensic Justification or the imputed righteousness of Christ.  I know that many Protestants believe in a great apostasy.  But I
personally expect that those who lived closest to Paul's time and spoke Greek in the same cultural context would best understand what Paul's message is.  And no one in the Patristic age read Romans and thought, "Forensic Justification."


For example, St. Clement of Rome who was bishop of Rome from 88 AD to 99 AD wrote, "Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works and not our words."  (1 Clement 30) This is someone who lived in Rome and likely read the first edition of the letter Paul wrote.  This is someone who knew Peter and Paul - Paul references Clement in Philippians 4:3.  If Paul was arguing sole fide, why was Luther the first one to understand it?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm very hesitant to break out Paul verse by verse and ascribe an individual meaning to each line.  Chapters and verses were only delineated many hundreds of years after Paul wrote. He also does not come from the same tradition of writing that we developed, where we write our thesis front and center, then write our supporting evidence, then follow with a conclusion.  This can make it hard to understand what the point of any given passage is.


With that said, my reading of Romans chapters three and four would be: 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.


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.  I disagree that Romans 4:13 contrasts Faith and the law as opposing each other, but rather Faith preceded the covenant.  If you reread Genesis 15 you will see that Paul's referring to it in a very orderly fashion. First you have him quote Genesis 15:6 ("Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.")  Then right after that verse in Genesis, God forms the covenant ("On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.")


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 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:


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.


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."


Salvation - Actually getting to Heaven.  Not the same thing as Justification.


Righteousness - Correct behavior.  Jesus imparts (not imputes) righteousness to us.


In the Catholic view, faith is an unmerited gift from God.  Without God providing the grace of faith, there is no human effort that will grant a person faith.  Faith leads to Justification, in which Christians become righteous over the course of their lives.  At the end of our lives, we reach Salvation through this process of Justification, which we did nothing to earn but do need to participate in lest we lose it anyways.


This is a good video that examines the differences (an similarities) between what Catholics and Protestants believe on Justification.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In context, isn't "works" the ceremonial Law of Moses?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Aquinas seems to believe that angels can perform psychokinesis to produce physical effects.  They can use psychokinesis to make sound waves, alter light, apply force, etc.


He lived in a world where everyone agreed that the mental and spiritual affected the physical on a daily basis.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Why do you think that is not what Western science will discover to be the case?




I'm not a Cartesian Dualist, so I don't have a horse in the race.  But to test your hypothesis we would need to see if a non-mental physical substance can interact with ESP particles or if only living minds interact with ESP particles.  If you lobotomize someone and remove the ESP sensory organ, do ESP particles still hit it?  Or do ESP particles only hit sensory organs attached to a thinking mind?


There are some ways that Quantum Mechanics gets phrased that I wonder if it is touching on this mental issue, but sometimes it just seems to be sloppy phrasing by researchers.