Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XI
[Theologians struggled to clearly articulate how heretical distortions were wrong. In the process, they constructed the ideas that Schoonenberg retells in his book ‘Man and Sin’.]
07/22/19
07/19/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XH
[Throughout history, Christian believers wrestled with heresies that focused on certain relational elements while ignoring the other elements. These heresies distorted the big picture.
Impressions that something was lacking were confirmed by subsequent events.
For example, many heresies often have a way of making some people look better and others look less.
Subsequent events confirm these impressions.]
07/18/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XG
[Heresies tend to separate one element in these nested forms from other elements.
In doing so, they misrepresent the relationality that is inherent in virtue, grace, Christian liberty and other theological terms.]
07/17/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XF
[A good example is found in my work:
Comments on Wayne Proudfoot’s Book (1986) Religious Experience
Dr. Proudfoot (writing in the 1980s) eagerly takes Schleiermacher (writing in the 1800s) to task. In order to demonstrate cause and effect in the religious experience, Proudfoot inadvertently selects a few elements out of a three-level interscope. He neglects all other elements.
Of course, if I selected any two elements in the nine-element matrix, I could declare that one element caused the other (provided that the seven other elements remained constant). This is not false. However, this would be deceptive. My selection would neglect all the other elements in the interscope.
Dr. Proudfoot was awarded a book award from the American Academy for Religion for his efforts.]
07/16/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XE
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
[Each of these models exhibits a simple relational structure.
The relational structure illustrates how difficult discussions of various topics, such as freedom, can be.
Imagine a thinker focusing on one structural element to the exclusion of other elements.
This is especially easy to imagine when the one thinker is trying to show how another thinker is wrong.]
07/15/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XD
[Some of the intersections have an alternating (either/or) or dual (and) vertical or horizontal axis. Some have an either/or single actuality.]
07/12/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XC
[Intersections contain two co-oppositions.
Four co-opposed termini intersect in actuality, forming a key image in Jungian psychology: the mandala.]
07/11/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XB
[I proposed three intersecting nested forms so far:
- The message underlying the word ‘religion’
- The tension between ‘me recognizing myself as created in the image of God’ and ‘my human nature is to participate in divine nature’
- The thought experiment where ‘I choose something’
The last two derive from two-level intersections.]
07/10/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XA
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
[The intersecting nested form stimulates social construction.
A single actuality is produced by the intersection of two nested forms, one vertical (tending to be more visible, yet immaterial) and one horizontal (tending to be more hidden, yet material).]
07/9/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 WZ
[I proposed 2 two-level interscopes so far:
- The psychology of the person created in the image of God
- The thought experiment where ‘I choose something’
The concept of co-oppositions first appears with this model.]