06/22/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2AA

[Look how the word ‘free’ has turned on the wheel of a changing symbolic order.

What happened to the ‘free eros’ acclaimed in the 1960s?

The word ‘free’ no longer implies ‘independence, responsibility, personhood, and grace’. It suggests ‘without cost to the user’.

‘Free eros’ became sex without commitment.

‘Free agape’ fared no different. ‘Free healthcare’ exemplifies ‘free agape’.

The original meaning underlying the word ‘freedom’ gave the slogans ‘free love’ (eros) and ‘free healthcare’ (agape) a real (though diminishing) association to independence, responsibility, personhood and grace.

Now, 50 years later, Schoonenberg’s assertions ring true.

‘Free love’ sounds like ‘the procreative acts of animals, without the procreation, of course.’

‘Free healthcare’ sounds like ‘standing in line to redeem a government coupon’.]

06/20/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2Y

Summary of text [comment] page 72

Sin renders of us unable to love God and unable to love our fellow “man”.

If the person proclaims “his” love, it is not real.

One cannot appeal to the so-called fact, that some sinners (people who have lost grace) may nevertheless really love.

[Here, ‘love’ should be called agape as opposed to eros.

The above summary appears to confound the two.

Can a person incapable of agape fall into eros?

Here is a question that post-religious (enlightenment) rhetoricians would love to exploit. So let me pass it by.

According to Schoonenberg, natural agape cannot be real agape.

‘Agape is real’ when one’s conscience is oriented towards God.]

06/16/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2W

Summary of text [comment] page 72

[The second is the intersection showing the tension between ‘I recognize myself’ and ‘human nature is to participate in divine nature’.

Let me suppose that ‘love’ is ‘agape’.

Suppose the single actuality is ‘the state of brotherly love’. One would imagine this state to be a state of grace.

But, consider 1 John 4:20. If anyone says, ‘I love God’, yet hates his brother, he is a liar. He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

In this case, the axis of recognition is visible. The person proclaims “his” recognition of “his” love for God.

The axis of participation is more hidden. The person (secretly) hates “his” brother.

What is the theological twist in 1 John 4:20?

Observe. The divine object is a lie.]

06/14/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2U-2

[What has the person not seen?

Perhaps, “she” has not seen the situation-level nested form. “She” has not seen how “her” divine nature situates “her” feelings of attraction. “She” becomes smaller. In modern terms, “she” objectifies “herself”. “Her” carnal expectations situates “her” feelings of attraction.

“She” does not sense “her” self-destruction.]

06/9/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2S

Summary of text [comment] page 72

Schoonenberg quoted 1 John 4:20. If anyone says, “I love God”, yet hates his brother, he is a liar. He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Is ‘love for what we see’ intrinsic to ‘the love for what we do not see’? When we love our fellow human in his deepest reality, we love him, implicitly or explicitly, in God.