Sunday, April 22, 2018

Lessons from St. Justin Martyr


My article “The Unapologetic Apologist: Five Lessons from St. Justin Martyr” appears today at Catholic World Report.

You can find links to my other CWR articles here.
Posted by at

33 comments:

  1. KielApril 22, 2018 at 7:53 PM

    Humbling. Thank you!

    I'm keenly aware of the sheer scale of intellectual muscle needed. I can't imagine the average parishioner as interested as I think I am in following truth where it leads, even when they're actually interested in finding an answer for an issue or question they're facing. On top of this, when interest is sufficient, they land in parts of the catechism, for example, that are ultimately read of out context, obscured by technical terminology or more. Basically, Truth has an accessibility problem.

    And, apparently, happy 50th birthday for earlier in April! Thanks Ed for your work -- it bootstraps me and helps make philosophical and theological content more accessible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ivan KnezovićApril 23, 2018 at 1:58 AM

    Excellent article, desperately needed today .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jason PalladinoApril 23, 2018 at 6:42 AM

    Just read your article on Justin Martyr. As I read it, I regret to say that find myself more like the modern Christian who fits in the world quite comfortably, and less like the early Christian who was a contradiction to the world. I pray that God will fill today’s Christians with the Holy Spirit so that they too (like the early Christians) may go out and save souls for Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousApril 23, 2018 at 9:55 AM

    Not sure if my comment went through earlier:

    Feser or whoever else, how would you respond to a skeptic who said that maybe the Apostles acted irrationally and died for a lie knowing Christ didn’t actually rise from the dead? The skeptic might say it’s unlikely but possible for someone to act that irrational. Secondly, what certainty does our faith give us moral vs absolute?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deus Primus EstApril 24, 2018 at 4:20 PM

      Anonymous,

      To your first question, my answer would be that it's perfectly possible for that to have happened, but the probability is so incredibly low we can essentially reject it out of hand. It actually makes the enormously rapid spread of Christianity after Christ's death *more* mysterious; maybe the Apostles were ready to go to death for love of the mere memory of their dear Lord, but it's simply preposterous to hold that essentially the line "I knew a extraordinary man once who was really inspiring. Come follow me and you too can die for him" would have converted any of the Jews or pagans. Seriously, the Apostles and later followers of Christ had nothing to gain, materially, by so doing. It would amount to the greatest hoax ever - requiring greater faith to believe - that by sheer credulity Christianity became the world's largest religion, with rivers of blood as its base fuel. Also, the sceptic is going to have to do more work. He has to give some solid reasons or evidence for holding that particular interpretation; its mere possibility is wholly insufficient.

      Can you clarify your second question? I'm not sure what you mean.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 24, 2018 at 7:17 PM

      So the second question has to do with what the exact nature of certainty faith gives us and it epistemology. So, we have moral certainty that 911 happened and the two twin towers were destroyed or we have moral certainty that WWII happened or that such and such a criminal is guilty. Absolute certainty admits no possibility of error while moral certainty excludes all likely possibility of error. So for instance most would say we are morally certain millions of Jews were killed by Nazis but others would dispute that fact. Moral certainty is a continuum of extremely high probability.
      Absolute certainty is what we have in first principles. Nothing comes from nothing and so on. Or 2+2=4. We would also have absolute certainty if we knew God revealed X because He told us. But if we were merely told by fallible witnesses that God revealed X, can we know infallibly or with absolute certainty that He revealed X? Furthermore, I’m not that interested in ontology here but in empistomolgy. So it’s not enough for some witness to be infallible or right and tell me Fod revealed X, I need to know that he is in order to know God revealed X unless of course God tells me directly in some way.

      Delete
    3. UnknownApril 25, 2018 at 12:00 PM

      Please read Fides et Ratio, John Paul II's 1998 encyclical. Just Google it.

      Delete
    4. TonyApril 26, 2018 at 5:20 AM

      The plausibility of the thesis that the apostles preached a known lie is far, far lower than the plausibility that God intervened in human affairs to save men from sin.

      It's not just that apostles died for preaching Jesus crucified, which people would rarely do when they know it's a lie. It's deeper than that. They didn't just DIE for Jesus, they LIVED for Jesus: they lived years (in some cases, decades) of poverty, homelessness, persecution, and threat of death. They didn't (personally) gain ANYTHING worth living for, for the "lie" they were promoting. No riches, no (general) honors, no harems of women. People don't keep on slogging through year after year of poverty, public shaming, celibacy, and persecution for a known lie.

      But it's deeper than that: even if some person somewhere might be found who can live a lie like that, they can be seen to be nutso in some way or other. It takes derangement to be willing to do this, and that derangement shows up in OTHER parts of their lives. And there's no evidence of it in the apostles' lives. They didn't just live, they lived holy, upright, and wholesome lives. Their preaching matched their personal actions, and their personal actions were not deranged, they were sound, wholesome, healthy, well-ordered.

      And it goes beyond that: you might imagine (if you were a very imaginative fellow who could believe six impossible things before breakfast) that one person might be found who manages to live an upright, sound, wholesome, holy life while preaching a known lie about Christ crucified and gaining NOTHING thereby. You won't get a group of 11 men - generally lower class muscles workers - to unanimously stick to that lie even after decades of separation, and have ALL of them persist in it during persecution, torture, and death. Some of them would have cracked. It defies plausibility that some more or less random (if Christ was not God, the group was random) group of men would do this with complete unanimity: that their preaching would be and remain one constant message, that their lives would present a constant exclamation point to the message, without any of them breaking ranks and either changing the message or their way of living.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousApril 26, 2018 at 11:34 AM

      That’s all good and well Tony. It really is, in truth. But that establishes moral certainty. Does faith go beyond that or does faith end with a detective/historical/scientific like certainty or does faith give you absolute certainty? I ask because a standard answer, which I believe, says we believe X because God has revealed X and He cannot lie. But if you go through your reasoning, we get we believe X because very credible witness Y says God revealed X.

      Also, Dorta, do you have a specific passage in mind? I’ll try to read when I ha e time but it is pretty long.

      Delete
    6. TonyApril 26, 2018 at 1:27 PM

      Anon, you are using "believe" in different senses above. If we are more careful with the term, some of the problems will be solved.

      If we borrow Josef Pieper's use of the word, "belief" is restricted to a narrow subset of "things one accepts". First, it is not what one "knows", because when one knows, one has adequate rational justification for the truth, and for certainty in the holding of it. One holds it without reservation because of the rational justification which is an adequate grounds for certainty.

      With opinion, one perceives that one's grounds are INadequate rational justification for certainty, and therefore one holds it with reservation. (There are many levels of adherence to opinion, because there are many different levels of justification that fall short of "certainty". Most of our historical "knowledge" is actually more like "very probable opinion", so probable that it would be foolish to ignore it. But still falls short of "certainty".)

      Belief is acceptance and adherence without reservation (as if with certainty), but where there is NOT adequate rational justification for knowledge and thus certainty. On the natural plane (having nothing to do with religion) we exercise the activity of belief when we place our whole trust in our spouse: you cannot mathematically prove that trust-without-reservation is rationally justified, but you do it anyway.

      What the apostles gave to the first century listeners was adequate justification for very probable opinion that they were telling the truth, that they (the apostles) had seen Christ risen from the dead. So probable it would be foolish to discount it. (By the way, in my account above, I left out the additional testimony, the miracles they performed as proofs of their claims. It is a traditional position that miracles plus suffering plus a holy life lived for decades without personal gain makes for a VERY compelling case.) Acceptance of this very probable position as very probable is not the act of faith. It is a preliminary to the act of faith.

      Faith comes AFTER hearing the apostles and the credible reasons for accepting their testimony as true: it is a movement of the soul to adhere to the revealed God, caused not by rational evidence, but by the grace of God moving one to accept. Thus the act is one of belief - an acceptance with assurance greater than the assurance provided by rational justification. This act of faith has as its primary object belief in / adherence to God himself, but as a secondary object of belief in what the apostles said about God, including that "God revealed himself to us in Jesus, as well as through the prophets..."

      Thus when we say "I believe X", say, "that Christ healed the sick," I don't believe it because the apostles were highly credible witnesses to the thesis - that would provide highly credible opinion. I believe it because I have faith in God, who revealed himself in Jesus and through the prophets and entrusted that revelation to the apostles, who taught that Jesus healed the sick. The act of believe is primarily in God and thereby in those human agents He chose to spread His word reliably. Faith exceeds natural reason, it doesn't overturn it.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousApril 27, 2018 at 7:25 AM

      Thx Tony. So, what you say is a coherent account of faith, but I’m interested to see some of the logical conclusions of it. So, would it be fair then to say that a believer cannot be certain that he has faith? He does not have certain knowledge of the truth of Christianity but does not doubt because he is moved by God’s grace. Yet, he would only have a very probable opinion that he does in fact have faith. I’m Catholic so I believe the same thing in regards to being in a state of grace. However, I have seen Catholic theologians say how the truths of the faith are more certain than even first principles or mathematical truths. I think Feser has said he will write a book on the motives of credibility for the Catholic faith. I hopes he adresses what exactly faith is in regards to certainty and knowledge.

      Delete
  5. SobieskiApril 23, 2018 at 10:19 AM

    God bless you and your family, Dr. Feser. Long live Christ the King!

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousApril 23, 2018 at 10:58 AM

    Dr. Feser is there an English translation of St Justin Martyr's writings that you would recommend?

    ReplyDelete
  7. ThursdayApril 23, 2018 at 1:37 PM

    Just to note, the very early Christian fathers, including Justin Martyr, who are alleged to have preached eternal damnation merely repeat the Biblical language on this topic. Thus, they can't be used as evidence that the Bible teaches eternal damnation. Everything stands or falls on how you interpret the Biblical text, and in itself, the Greek word aeonios, which is the main term in dispute, is considerably more ambiguous than many would allow. (See the David Bentley Hart's explanation at the end of his new translation, starting on p. 537.)

    Now, I don't necessarily think that aeonios definitively does not mean everlasting in duration, and there may be other reasons for interpreting it that way, especially if you are a Catholic. But there isn't really a knock down argument either way from the Biblical language in itself, and that means that you can't use the early fathers who merely repeat that same Biblical language to tell you how to interpret it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 23, 2018 at 4:06 PM

      Really?....Mathew 25:46

      46 Et ibunt hi in supplicium æternum: iusti autem in vitam æternam.

      46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

      The same word is used in the Greek for the duration of time for both those going to heaven and hell. It’s really hard to say that eternal has two different meanings in the same sentence and in the same context between two supposing but parallel groups of people. I quote the Latin because I know it and have it in an app while the Greek I only have a hard cover inter linear translation. The only way I could see a legitimate way interpret eternal here as a finite period of time is to do it for both words....which would mean heaven isn’t actual life everlasting.... which would be counterintuitive to say the least. And that’s assuming aeonios is an ambiguous term both at that time period in general and biblically speaking.

      Delete
    2. ThursdayApril 25, 2018 at 3:53 PM

      Going off memory, Hart translates something like "some to the chastisement of the Age (to come) and some to the life of the Age (to come)" So, in Hart, both instances of "aeonios" are translated the same way.

      Given Hart's interpretation, you cannot establish the everlasting nature of salvation in the age to come from this text, but his interpretation certainly does not exclude the everlasting nature of salvation in the life to come either. You just can't use this text to establish that either way.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousApril 25, 2018 at 4:41 PM

      Well, aenios is the strongest word meaning eternal, right? It’s kind of like if I repeatedly say heaven is forever, but someone always says forever can just mean a very long time. So does Hart actually think heaven maybe be finite? I’m surprised you are biting the bullet.

      Delete
    4. ThursdayApril 25, 2018 at 5:50 PM

      Well, aenios is the strongest word meaning eternal, right?

      Actually, this is false. You should read Hart's discussion at the reference above (page number included).

      Delete
    5. TonyApril 26, 2018 at 5:39 AM

      As I understand it, Hart's objective in his translation was not specifically to get at the most perfect translation of the meaning of the original (human) authors. Part of his purpose was to raise eyebrows, to make people stop and say "what was that?" To force second and third approaches to the passages. He knowingly created surprising or controversial results specifically for the surprise and controversy, so that people would make the effort to come at the passages with a fresh eye and ear.

      This purpose is not bad purpose as such. But it does render any given choice of his suspect in its specific content. You must constantly ask yourself "did he interject more doubt here than the text actually warrants? Did his word choice reflect more the ACTUAL meaning of the writer, or reflect more a desire to surprise?"

      There is an underlying theological issue lying behind his approach to translating. It has to do with one's understanding of the nature of Scripture itself (not just this or that book, and this or that translation, but of the very nature of divine revelation into human books.) And also has to do with the nature of the ability of the Fathers of the Church to hand on what they received from the apostles. If one's sense of "what Scripture is" allows for so much doubt about the meaning of scriptural passages that we cannot ever be sure what ANY passage "actually means", this casts a theological shadow of no small size. If the meaning of the Fathers of the Church - in interpreting passages - in voluminous and repeated discussions across many authors and centuries cannot be taken at face value as saying "what we have ALWAYS understood them to say", this casts a similarly extensive theological shadow. The shadow bears a very strong resemblance to modernism.

      Delete
    6. ThursdayApril 26, 2018 at 11:42 AM

      I find this last to be a whole lot of squid ink. It just happens that this particular word in the NT is somewhat ambiguous. That doesn't mean that most other parts of the NT are similarly ambiguous. The floodgates will not open.

      Delete
    7. TonyApril 26, 2018 at 12:55 PM

      I don't have any problem with the position that the word in Greek is, on its own, ambiguous. I just don't think that means that the passages are necessarily unresolvable to one meaning. Take the English word "run". If I say "I will run to the store on foot for some medicine because my car isn't running but my nose is running", the fact that the word "run" is capable of 3 different meanings doesn't mean that any of the three instances is ambiguous in that sentence. If someone were to come along later and say "gee, it is possible that the first instance of "run" could mean 'moving faster than a walk,' or it could mean 'flowing' because the word "run" is ambiguous that way", that would be sheer obfuscation.

      If in SOME of the biblical passages it is certain or nearly certain that the Scriptures are saying that hell is forever, and if the Fathers of the Church uniformly - to the extent that they took a position way or another - understood the passages in which aenios was used to mean forever, then insisting on the bare possibility of other meanings to the word _alone_ is a bit of obfuscation. That some Fathers didn't take a position on it is not germane to what position the Fathers as a whole DID take. (Like with the DP: if 5 Fathers said nothing at all on the subject, and 10 Fathers said something, the non-mention by the 5 does not hold any bearing on "what the Fathers said" about it.) It is my understanding that the Fathers who stated an express position took the passages using aenios to mean forever. But I could be wrong, so feel free to correct that.

      Delete
    8. ThursdayApril 26, 2018 at 8:30 PM

      If in SOME of the biblical passages it is certain or nearly certain that the Scriptures are saying that hell is forever

      No such passages exist.

      if the Fathers of the Church uniformly - to the extent that they took a position way or another - understood the passages in which aenios was used to mean forever

      The earliest fathers, such as Justin, merely repeat the Biblical language and so cannot be used to interpret the Biblical language. The later Greek fathers were divided.

      Delete
    9. TonyApril 28, 2018 at 6:34 AM

      The earliest fathers, such as Justin, merely repeat the Biblical language and so cannot be used to interpret the Biblical language.

      That's fine.

      The later Greek fathers were divided.

      Can you provide some cites for this? That would be very valuable.

      Delete
    10. ThursdayApril 28, 2018 at 6:30 PM

      Origen and Nyssa are the best known advocates of universal salvation. Chrysostom would be an example of someone who advocated for an eternal hell.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousMay 5, 2018 at 3:07 AM

      Origen was a heretic, and his doctrine of Apokatastasis (the salvation of everything, even of the fallen, evil spirits) has been rejected by the Church over and over.
      We should stick with what the Church teaches. Pius X condemned the notion that the Church, even by infallible promulgation of a dogma, cannot understand the proper meaning of a Biblical text. This means: What the Church tells us the Bible is saying, the Bible is saying. If we do not follow this reasoning, we are not Catholic anymore, and certainly not Christian, too.

      Delete
    12. TonyMay 6, 2018 at 11:50 AM

      Anon, this is very good. Thank you.

      The problem (so far as it is a problem) is that those who wish to claim a variant interpretation can point to the fact that the Church hardly every dogmatically states what a certain passage means, and while the Church through the ages may give much weight to one reading through the consensus of many bishops, many theologians, etc, this is (a) difficult to determine historically, and (b) capable of variation in degree, so that some positions may seem to be "very" firmly supported, others "well supported", and still others "somewhat supported" depending on how firmly you read into the language of this or that bishop or Father or Doctor describing how it is held. Excepting out the few passages, it is hard to say "what the Church teaches" definitively about most of the Bible. Leaves a LOT of room for claiming "well, that teaching is only the "most common opinion", not the only acceptable position. Then you get into a historical debate on the weight of these or those ambiguous comments by Fathers and Doctors.

      Delete
  8. ThursdayApril 23, 2018 at 1:44 PM

    BTW, though I think that the Biblical language admits of ambiguity, I don't think the universal salvationists have given an adequate account of how change is possible for beings that are either immaterial or whose immaterial component can continue to exist. And, if they deny that immaterial beings or the immaterial component of a being can exist on their own, there goes their case for the immortality of the soul. So, I think the philosophical case for eternal punishment is quite strong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ThursdayApril 23, 2018 at 1:54 PM

    In the dispute between Feser and Bessette with David Bentley Hart over the death penalty, Hart did manage to score a few glancing blows against Feser and Bessette's interpretation of the Fathers. Of course, Hart was far from delivering the knock out blow from the Fathers that he thought he did (mainly, because no such definitive argument from the Fathers exists), but F and B's handling of the Fathers (not their specialty) was not the strongest part of their book. Live and learn, though, especially if this stuff on hell is going to end up in a book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JaimeApril 24, 2018 at 7:08 AM

      " F and B's handling of the Fathers (not their specialty) was not the strongest part of their book."

      Bla bla bla. Now, what if you attack the actual arguments instead of attacking Feser and Bassett's credentials as if they are using an argument from their own authority

      Delete
    2. ThursdayApril 25, 2018 at 3:42 PM

      I have made specific criticisms in earlier Hart/Feser death penalty threads. Assuming you actually care about the issues, you can look them up there. Otherwise carry on.

      Delete
    3. TonyApril 26, 2018 at 5:48 AM

      I too thought that Hart scored some glancing blows on F & B's handling of the Fathers. When I started reading some of the passages myself - extended passages and their wider contexts, and reading more and more passages and sifted them, I revised my estimate. I think that F & B did a good deal better than Hart gives them credit for. I have not (so far) come up with one place where F & B were clearly wrong and Hart (as in direct opposition) clearly right.

      Delete
  10. TheIllusionistApril 24, 2018 at 11:55 AM

    Excellent piece. I think a reinterpretation and rereading of the Church Fathers is much needed in the rationalism vs fideism debate. One point though. You write:

    "Now, whereas the pagans had too many gods, the trouble with modern secular Westerners is that they don’t recognize even the one true God."

    I think that the analogy is perfectly reasonable. We live in a world with many gods. That's what relativism is all about. When Oprah plugs New Age crap, Buddhism and Christianity in the same hour you're looking at paganism that is very similar to the first and second century paganism.

    Paganism, at its essence, is the religion of the Many. And that's what multicultural postmodernism is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousApril 25, 2018 at 5:44 PM

    Sorry to go OT, but I thought Ed had a new book coming out in May or June. I just checked at Amazon and couldn't find anything. Was I wrong about that?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)