Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XN
[Modernism packs every idea into ‘this versus that’.]
07/29/19
07/26/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XM
[Moderns only recognize the logic of non-contradiction (the logic of secondness).
Moderns recognied a multitude of oppositions, such as the opposition between responsibility and freedom and the opposition between words and bondage.
But, these are not oppositions. They are co-oppositions.]
07/25/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XL
Summary of text [comment] pages 86 and 87
[Christian theologians are often on target.
Yet, they will never satisfy the Modern world.
Why?
Moderns recognize only one category, secondness, as valid.
The realm of actuality corresponds to the category of secondness.]
07/24/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XK
[The Scriptures were invaluable in providing a basis for a specialized theological language. This language probes the realm of possibility.
Theologians search Scripture for meaning, presence and message.
They aim to articulate how each heresy distorts generative, life-giving, relations.]
07/23/19
Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.3 XJ
[Theologians relied on Scripture in ‘their struggles to articulate how heretical distortions were wrong’. The Biblical scriptures are an excellent foundation because they witness relations. They do not name them or analyze them. Scriptures tell relation-filled stories. They present images, advice, poetry, and more. These evoke relational structures.]
07/22/19
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’.]
07/19/19
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.]