Summary of text [comment] page 70

[If the model of the nested form carries any lesson it is this:

Independent entities are rarely simple actualities.

Actualities occur in nested forms. They emerge from possibility. They are put into some normal context.

Plus, the actuality may be an intersection. Two actualities combine into one.

If grace and nature are actualities, then what would be their intersection?

Would it be ‘the person’?]

Summary of text [comment] page 70

Schoonenberg noted that neither grace nor nature exist as independent entities, only the person does.

[The person lives in states of grace or self-destruction. However, the person is more than this.

Do nested forms model the concept of person as an ‘individual in community’?

Indeed, they do.]

Summary of text [comment] page 70

Schoonenberg wrote that sin is the opposite of love. Sin, in its fullness, is a loss of the life of grace, hence it excludes supernatural love. The unity of nature [disposition] and grace [person, conscience] also means that sin excludes human natural love.

Natural love always welcomes the offer of grace and is assumed into supernatural love.

[How to appreciate this? Perhaps the intersection of recognition and participation affords the model.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 69 through 71

Thus, Schoonenberg concluded section 1 (Sin Itself as Punishment), of chapter 2, (The Sequels of Sin).

[Perhaps, self-destruction starts with the way the person recognizes “herself”. Yet, this process trains one’s nature as well.

Or maybe self-destruction starts with a change in human habits and dispositions. Then, this change alters conscience.

Both conscience and dispositions are required for ‘the state of grace’ as well as ‘the state of self-destruction’.

Both conscience and dispositions belong to the realm of possibility. They are often hard to distinguish. They may be distinct but they are inseparable. The realm of possibility is monadic.

Consequently, it is no surprise that, after Schoonenberg emphasized the influence of grace on the person, he immediately turned to a discussion of one particular effect of sin on our nature: the inability to love.]

[Art becomes important.

Art depicts the intersection in a way that any attempt at measurement cannot.

Roads cross at an intersection.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 69 through 71

[With the intersection of recognition and participation, one sees how ‘grace can manifest itself in the realm of actuality’. ‘The state of grace’ and ‘the state of self-destruction’ occur in a field of contradictions. Within this field, God may directly act. So may Satan.

However, the act cannot be measured.

Any instrument of measurement automatically introduces an alternate normal context that imposes on the actuality at hand.

It is impossible to measure how grace or self-destruction act.

Yet, it is not difficult to see the theodrama (that Schoonenberg describes) plays out.]

[The idol substitutes for God, but it cannot fully exclude the Father and the Son.

If the idol could exclude God, the tension between recognition and participation would collapse and the person would become demonic. Some call it ‘possession’.

In this example, God’s action merely heightens the drunk’s awareness of ‘how the booze has messed ‘him’ up and how awful ‘his’ body feels’.

“What,” the drunk may ask “himself”, “am I doing to myself?”

This question contradicts the recognition of his idol.

Furthermore, this question undermines the exclusivity of the normal context contextualizing the single actuality of recognition and participation.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 69 through 71

[The vertical axis comes into play as ‘self-destruction manifests itself in the realm of actuality’.

‘The state of self-destruction’ is contextualized by a divine object_3V. This idol substitutes for God. ‘Getting drunk’ is this person’s way of ‘getting in touch with his idol’.   The phrase, ‘drowning one’s sorrows’, points to ‘his’ conscience, his potential for ‘knowing with the idol’.]