11/9/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CZ

[Yet second model reflects the third. This model suggests that the person cannot truly recognize “himself” except as an image of God. The Holy Spirit mediates this recognition.

Through the normal context of the Holy Spirit, I can recognize myself.

If the person does not recognize “himself” in this fashion, which is the fashion that we evolved to see ourselves, then another self-recognition occurs:

I recognize myself according to the designs of a normal context that is finite, that is, an idol.

I idolize the design through which ‘I recognize myself’.

This model offers a postmodern scholastic avenue for appreciating Schoonenberg’s text.]

11/7/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CX

[Models? Let me look at models again.

Model three is of the One Triune God.

God includes all three categories of existence: thirdness, secondness, and firstness.

In my version of the model, God Recognizes Himself.

‘God is One’ is the Possibility of Recognition. The realm of possibility is monadic. There is only one.

Actuality is dyadic. God is Father and Son. God is the One Who Recognizes and the One Who Is Recognized. Both belong in the realm of actuality. The realm of actuality is dyadic.

Finally, a third person who is categorically different, the Holy Spirit3, brings the Father2 and the Son2 into relation with ‘the Possibility of Recognition1’. Normal contexts are triadic.]

11/4/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CW

Summary of text [comment] page 76

Sin renders us powerless. Sin puts man into bondage.

Yet, it does not destroy our human nature. It does not destroy our freedom.

Like grace, sin influences our nature [dispositions] in so far as it is at the disposal of the person as the seat of freedom [consciencespecified].

11/3/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CV

[At some point, admitting the consequences (of our short-sighted normal contexts) seems both natural (and grace-filled).

At some point, training the dispositions (to avoid short-sighted attractions or repulsions) seems natural (and grace-filled).

Schoonenberg claimed that the divine ordination can be seen in nature itself. He did not add the caveat that must be added today:

Natural vision requires grace.]

11/1/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CT

[Only by taking the perspective of the divine can we honestly assess good and evil.

Only by taking the perspective of the divine object can we honestly assess whether we are gaining grace or self-destruction.

The normal context that holds the single actuality of the intersection reflects some perspective.

But, that perspective cannot be articulated. It is in the Zeitgeist. The Scriptures are typically not excluded in the Zeitgeist. Sometimes they are.

The divine ordination calls us to thinkdivine.]

10/31/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CS-4

[This is a model, telling how a limiting and coercive normal context may sustain a contradiction-filled intersection in order to benefit from the conflict. The detractors are blamed for ‘the failure of the sovereign religion’s thoughts and actions’.

However, once the detractors (thinkdivine and consciencefree) are intimidated into silence, and the projection of thinkanti-object and conscienceanti-object onto innocents is obvious to all, then the inherent contradictions between the self-dealing moral system and its idolatrous actions become more and more undeniable.]

10/28/16

Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CS-3

[The content-level nested form depicted in these two blogs is:

‘Sovereign self-empowerment3a’ brings the actuality that ‘programs of the Progressive religion are good’ and ‘the rational observations of detractors is bad’2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in the feelings of the citizens (such as the feeling of entitlement or disbelief) and of the authorities (such as feelings of strength and superiority)1a.

The above actuality is ‘an intersection of human intention and human action’.

The vertical nested form (of human intention) is:

ThinkProgressive3V brings the intentions of the bureaucratic elites2V into relation with the potential of the Progressive’s self-anointed conscience1V.

The alternates (of thinkdivine and consciencefree) are placed under suspicion and threat.

The horizontal nested form (of human action) is:

Explaining away the consequences3H brings the bureaucratic actions of welfare programs2H into relation with the potential of dispositions to trade freedom & responsibility for material benefits1H.]