Wednesday, December 4, 2024

Full interview on Pints with Aquinas

My recent three-hour interview with Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas is now available in its entirety at YouTube.  The discussion is wide-ranging, covering the current state of the Catholic Church, papal history, contemporary U.S. politics, atheism and theism, the sexual revolution and its transformation of the Western world, philosophical skepticism, artificial intelligence, integralism, and much else.

Posted by at

159 comments:

  1. Mike M.December 5, 2024 at 9:13 AM

    Dr. Feser,
    I know you often prefer written content because it allows for a more thorough exploration of a point or line of inquiry. However, I believe there's a significant need for voices like yours to articulate classical answers to many modern non-problems (e.g., the is-ought dilemma, mind-body debates).
    I first discovered your work years ago through this blog, and it ultimately led me back to the Church. If there's an opportunity for you to address these topics—whether in long-form conversations, or videos highlighting something philosophically interesting in pop-culture—I think it would be incredibly impactful. You had some great blogs in the past about Philip K. Dick's stories that indirectly engage with aspects of the philosophy of mind or identity, while highlighting classical traditions' responses to such pop-cultural philosophical questions, would fill a unique niche.
    As far as I can tell, no one is addressing these topics on YouTube at all or certainly in this way. If they are, I haven't been able to find them—and I know how invaluable your insights have been in my life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul D. Van PeltDecember 5, 2024 at 11:15 AM

    Let me begin, If I may, with the pints-with-aquinas tag: What? I suppose this is more colloqial on the arrow of time? Monks have been characterized as imbibers, whether in jest, or as illustration of fact.
    Insofar as philosophy and religion are treated, more-or-less equally, I suppose it does not matter much. Contextual reality says it does not. Which is winning in academia-religion, or philosophy? Seems to me, all else equal,they are equally irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. NormDecember 6, 2024 at 11:00 AM

    The conversation got quite deep at times especially while touching upon suffering . I don't know if anyone has ever mentioned this to you Prof, but there's a profundity to your mannerisms and the way you articulate yourself while speaking that one might not pick up in your writing even though you are using the exact same words. I could listen to you speak about anything for hours.

    Speaking for myself, when I read a more combative article of yours, I often get the impression of vocal aggression but I realised, it's just my imagination or the way I would imagine myself saying those things especially since I tend to agree with you often.

    I'd like to add some reflections on suffering.

    1.) It seems to me that we should always keep in mind that God only permits suffering in order to derive some good from it. And like Prof mentions in his response to Sterba

    "Thomists, like most other theists, hold that omnipotence does not include the power to do the logically impossible. And they would also hold that the particular goods that God draws out of the evil that exists would not otherwise be logically possible."

    2.
    Sometimes, w.r.t to this good God derives,God might permit our suffering as an individual in order to derive a common good rather then an individual good that only the individual who suffers exclusively enjoys, Everyone including the individual who suffers might be able to take part in this good. This wouldn't be unjust because ultimately as human beings we exist for the sake of the common good. You cannot complain at being the one to suffer.

    3. The good that God derives need not be an "outweighing" good. It might be, but need not necessarily be. God is not obligated to give us the best goods that he could give us, so even if he permits us to undergo unjust suffering, this would be for the sake of some good but not necessarily some "greater good". God could have given us even greater goods without that suffering and that could have gone on infinitely. We could always ask then why did he choose this World with suffering since he could have given us something greater without it. Affirming that God must derive a "greater" good commits one to holding that God has to derive the best possible world and that is incoherent. The way to avoid this is to maintain that God doesn't have to bring about a greater good

    Some Thomistic Philosophers like Taylor Patrick O Neil would actually affirm that this world indeed is the best possible world. But I don't think that coherent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormDecember 6, 2024 at 8:16 PM

      Would you disagree with any of the points above Prof ?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 6, 2024 at 8:20 PM

      You make God seem like a giant puppeteer.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 7, 2024 at 5:59 AM

      Hey Norm, I’m not the professor but I’ll share my thoughts. I looked up S.T I.2.iii where St. Thomas addresses this question about bringing good out of evil and was surprised he never says “greater good” but just that some good comes out of it! However, I’d have to speculate that this good would have to be greater in order to be a good thing. For example, I don’t think 10 people starving for the sake of 3 people being fed really shows the omnipotence of God, and could be matched even by evil rulers like those of communism. The fact alone that God turns evil into good is a defeat of evil and the devil, which is something I rejoice in and see as very good. I find in my own walk with God, He often uses my suffering to reveal goods that are greater and I genuinely never feel like I’m getting a “second best” good. I think the souls of the faithfully departed from impoverished countries are rejoicing and saying the same things in heaven.

      That was point 3, but for point 2 I’ll just add that in God’s omnipotence, He can raise goods for every individual as readily as He does for a society. I find the problem of evil difficult to explain for this reason: God is able to do so many things at once that the human mind isn’t able to comprehend it, let alone argue about it. Every suffering person is accounted for personally as well as society as a whole, and so many aspects of that individual’s life can be affected at the same time by one act of suffering that it’s truly baffling. Anyway I hope you find this helpful. God bless.

      Delete
    4. NormDecember 7, 2024 at 10:12 PM

      Hello Anon 2

      I welcome and I am happy to engage with all comments irrespective of whether it's Prof or not. And you have provided a very detailed response. I am grateful for your engagement.

      In response to the scenario you posit, I would like to say that my view is a combination of point 2 and point 3, as in, if God permitted the suffering of 10 people in order to benefit 3 people, in someway or the other this would conduce to the common good because God acts with respect to the whole of creation, so in that sense everyone would benefit from it. The common good is ultimately a way in which God manifests his own goodness. It would be possible for those other 10 people to freely take part in this good or they might fail to do so and that itself might be permitted by God for some good.We will be able to see how everything fits in the next life.

      Now, another point with respect to your example is that as I said at the beginning of the post, we have to keep in mind that the particular goods God derives from those evils are logically dependent on those evils. I don't think the goods that the communists are able to obtain were only possible if they allowed that evil. There are no goods that would only be possible if one permitted communism.

      You seem to identify "greater" good with numerical greatness. I grant that this is one legitimate way of comparison.
      So based on that you might respond to my point that since God acted with respect to the common good where everyone benefits, he was indeed bringing about a greater good.

      But I think that it's not the only way of measuring greatness and I think that conceptualising it numerically may be inadequate at times.

      I think that people might think of the goods qualitatively as well. For example Aquinas says the patience of the martyrs is only possible if God permitted the torments of tyrants. Now is this patience qualitatively a greater good compared to the integrity of body and mind that the martyr may have lost in the torments. Perhaps, One could argue it's a spiritual good etc. I am not sure. Does the good necessarily have to be qualitatively greater or greater in other respects though? Can't it just be a good that God derives from a evil that wouldn't have been possible without permitting that evil.

      You can think of more simple examples . Mercy comes to mind. Mercy is good ofcourse. And Mercy isn't possible without being wronged by a fellow human being in someway. But say, God forbid ,you are wronged in an extremely terrible way, you might still be merciful and that would be a good which wouldn't have been possible without you being wronged. God might say, Through you, I wanted to show that human mercy is possible even for the worst of evils and that would be good but would that necessarily be "greater" then what you lost in the suffering.

      As I mentioned above, it could lead to incoherence. Suppose we grant that God permitted some suffering of yours to derive some greater good. But God could have given you some other good that is even more greater and not dependent on that suffering, so why didn't he ? You might respond, there must be some greater good with regards to that as well, but then where would you draw the line ?

      I am very delighted that God has in fact decided to bring about greater goods in your life. Nothing I said contradicts that.

      In fact Aquinas says that there is "nothing that prevents God from bringing about an even greater good from the evils he permits" but notice the language is very precise. God can and one might say often does bring about "greater" goods from the evils and suffering that he permits but he is not obligated to do so. He permits them for some good but not necessarily a "greater" good.

      The same point of obligation applies to the remarks you made about 2.

      God Bless You as well.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 9, 2024 at 1:16 PM

      Thanks for engaging my reply Norm! I wonder what an example of a good that is logically tied to evil but is of lesser value than said evil would be. I wonder if the logical entailment always means that the good is of greater value. For example, when Sauron is defeated, isn’t the good that comes of it precisely the overcoming of that exact amount of evil? Isn’t the martyrs death an act of loving God to at least the same degree that you are suffering for Him?

      Delete
    6. NemoDecember 9, 2024 at 1:48 PM

      Norm,

      You wrote, "Affirming that God must derive a "greater" good commits one to holding that God has to derive the best possible world and that is incoherent. The way to avoid this is to maintain that God doesn't have to bring about a greater good"

      I'm not sure what in your view is "incoherent", so just chiming in for clarification.

      I'm reminded of the Euthypho dilemma: Is something good because it is done by God, or is it done by God because it is good? Is there a standard of good and evil apart from God, by which we can judge His actions? (Incidentally, universalists like David Bentley Hart essentially argue that unless the Christian God confirms to their standard of good, He is not God).

      I agree that God doesn't have to bring about a greater good from evil, in the sense that He is not bound by necessity, but He does so because of His liberality and love. Even human parents are not bound by necessity to give their children what is best, but they do out of love.

      That's also why I tend to believe that the world God has created is the best possible world, but its goodness has not been realized in us, nor experienced by us, to the fullest extent possible, because we are finite beings created from nothing and it takes time and space for the Goodness of God to bee revealed to us and in us. As it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived— the things God has prepared for those who love him"

      Delete
    7. NormDecember 9, 2024 at 8:57 PM

      Hi Nemo

      I welcome your engagement and Thank you for it.

      Well, If you agree that God doesn't have to bring about a "greater" good then we are probably on the same page.

      To grant your request for clarification, I would ask you to just think about any situation or suffering in which God might bring about a greater good that was logically dependent on that suffering. Now.....that particular greater good is logically dependent on that suffering, but I think it's possible that God in his omnipotence could have granted you a good that is greater then that particular greater good but doesn't require suffering.

      God in his omnipotence can bring about all sorts of goods, goods that we are aware about, goods that we aren't aware about , goods of varying degrees.

      So if God could have given you an even greater good that doesn't require suffering, why doesn't he ? If you reply, again, that it's because God had some even greater good in mind. And then I would reply again that he could have brought about an even greater good that didn't require suffering. So we can keep ok going and back forth in this way but it will never end because God is omnipotent and infinite.

      That's why I said incoherent. So I think that God always permits evil for some good, but it need not necessarily be greater.

      Do you see the point ?

      Ofcourse, God might in fact bring about some "greater" good from the evils that he permits, but the point is that he is not obligated to.

      Anon 2

      You make some interesting points. I guess I would just point out that equality isn't the same as being greater. So even if one could make the point that the good has to be equivalent to the suffering, that is different from saying that it has to be greater.

      Aa regards to your question of a good that is derived that lesser then the suffering, well often in these discussion one hears that Courage is a good that wouldn't have been possible without permitting that we be in danger.
      Now courage is a good ofcourse but is it necessarily a good that is greater then the sense of security that we have lost. I am not saying it's a definitive example, it always struck me as a lesser good.

      Nevertheless, I don't have to show that there is in fact a good that is lesser.

      As I said, God might well have brought about greater goods from all the evils that he permitted , My claim is merely that he didn't have to.

      I guess in order to refute that you would have to deal with the argument I wrote above in response to Nemo.

      Delete
    8. NemoDecember 9, 2024 at 10:53 PM

      Norm,

      You wrote, "So if God could have given you an even greater good that doesn't require suffering, why doesn't he ?"

      From an Augustinian perspective, no good is logically dependent on evil, as evil is a deprivation or departure from good. In that sense, suffering in and of itself is not evil, though it may result from evil. Suffering also results from our mortal nature, as God alone possesses impassability. In other words, it is impossible to eliminate all suffering of mutable and mortal beings. Perhaps this is also partly why the Son of God suffered when he lived on earth, and set an example for all, but the Christian hope is that suffering will cease when creation is clothed with immortality and glory. As Paul wrote, "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."

      Delete
    9. NormDecember 10, 2024 at 1:06 AM

      Nemo

      Well what I meant was as I said above, to quote Prof

      "Thomists, like most other theists, hold that omnipotence does not include the power to do the logically impossible. And they would also hold that the particular goods that God draws out of the evil that exists would not otherwise be logically possible."

      Well when we talk about suffering , it's true our material nature is naturally susceptible to decay etc.

      The sufferings we face though is often due to moral evil though.

      Now God can by special grace eliminate physical suffering and also make the world such that we always chose the right thing.

      In fact everytime you sinned God could have made it such that you made the right choice, as he is the very source of us being free in the first place.

      So I don't think suffering was inevitable.

      Delete
    10. NemoDecember 10, 2024 at 12:44 PM

      Norm,

      "the particular goods that God draws out of the evil that exists would not otherwise be logically possible.""

      I take this to mean that the goods that God draws out of suffering would not be possible otherwise. But you're saying that it is possible to have these particular goods without suffering.
      Do I understand you correctly?

      Either way, I'll offer some arguments or reflection on why it might be impossible.

      First, in the previous post, I've argued that it is impossible to eliminate physical suffering because we're mutable and mortal beings. I'll elaborate a bit on this point: We have to grow through physical changes throughout our lives, and changes entail suffering in one way or another, because change means that something in/of us ceases to exist and is replaced with something else. This process begins with birth -- the only time in life when the baby is suffering in pain and crying at the top of their lungs, but the parents and everybody around are smiling. (Jesus likened birth pang to the Crucifixion, the prime example of God deriving good from suffering)

      Second, you wrote that God can make the world such that we always chose the right thing.

      The free will argument, which I think is still the most coherent response to the argument from evil, is that it is impossible to have free choice of will without allowing the wrong choice. For starters, we tend to chose what is "right" in our own eyes, which is not necessarily "right" with God. So in order to always choose the "right", we'll have to grow through a learning process, both to gain knowledge and experience of the things we are to chose between, and to learn the will of God for us, and subject the human will to the divine will, which entails self-denial, i.e. suffering. I suppose God could make all the "right" choices for us, but then it wouldn't be us doing the living.

      Delete
    11. NormDecember 11, 2024 at 10:32 AM

      Hello Nemo

      "I take this to mean that the goods that God draws out of suffering would not be possible otherwise. But you're saying that it is possible to have these particular goods without suffering.

      Do I understand you correctly?"

      No. There's a misunderstanding.

      Those particular goods are not possible without that particular suffering.

      For example, I beleive that the patience of martyrs requires that God permit us to suffer. For the sake of argument, let's grant that patience of the martyrs is a "greater" good.

      This particular greater good is dependent on suffering.

      Now what I am saying is that there could be "other" goods which are greater than the patience of martyrs that are not dependent on suffering.

      So if you are going to say that God has to derive some "greater" good, you would have to answer the question of why did God choose to bring about the greater good which depended on suffering when he could have presumably granted you some other good that is not dependent on suffering and greater then the former good mentioned above.

      The way to resolve this in my opinion is to say that God permits evil to bring about some good . But this good need not necessarily be "greater".

      At the same time I think that God has in fact brought about lots of "greater" goods from the evils he has permitted but he didn't have to. The fact that God wasn't obligated to can help us to have a greater appreciation when he actually does so

      P.S
      Would be nice if you could share some thoughts on this though Prof :)

      Delete
    12. NemoDecember 11, 2024 at 9:05 PM

      Norm,

      I think you're conflating two different issues:
      1. What type of good, if any, is possible for human beings without suffering?
      2. Is the good that God brings about through suffering necessarily greater than the one that might be lost through it?

      If the good that God brings about through suffering is less than the one that is lost, there would be a deprivation of good in us, which is by definition evil. Since God cannot be the Author of evil, the good that is derived from suffering must be greater. It cannot be merely equal either, for then the suffering would serve no purpose.

      Now returning to your question, "if God could have given you an even greater good that doesn't require suffering, why doesn't he ?"

      I would answer He has and still does. But perhaps more to the point, though there are many good and great gifts, ultimately, there is only one Good. If you agree that some good is impossible without suffering, then it is indeed impossible to attain to the one ultimate God without suffering.

      Delete
    13. NormDecember 12, 2024 at 9:17 AM

      Nemo

      The way I see it, the good that God brings about from s person's suffering is either for the individual or the common good.

      Now if God brings about a lesser good with respect to the individual or person, it would still serve a purpose within the common or overall good, In that respect one might say it is "greater".

      But then again there are so many other ways in which God could have chosen to manifest himself with respect to the common good.

      So there could have still been a more greater good.

      I wonder what you mean when you say that it is impossible to attain God without suffering.

      I do believe that the patience of martyrs is impossible without suffering but I don't think that it was absolutely necessary in order for us to attain God.

      I do think that in a different world it could have been possible for us go attain God without suffering.

      Delete
    14. NemoDecember 12, 2024 at 2:05 PM

      Norm,

      Now if God brings about a lesser good with respect to the individual or person, it would still serve a purpose within the common or overall good

      I don't think God ever trades, for lack of a better word, an individual good in order to bring about a common good, this would suggest limitation on His part, as though He were limited in the supply of goodness.

      Jesus sacrificed Himself, one man died for all, but as in individual, though He endured unimaginable suffering, He hasn't lost any good that rightly belongs to his person, while at the same time bringing the Good to all. And He says that if anyone endures suffering or loss for His Kingdom, that person would receive manifold in return both in this life and the one to come.

      You wrote, "I wonder what you mean when you say that it is impossible to attain God without suffering."

      For starters, if the virtue of patience is impossible without suffering, in other words, if we never suffer, we will lack the virtue of patience, and all other virtues that are impossible without suffering, then it cannot be said that we attain God, while we fall short in so many aspects.

      You might say we can attain to God to some extent without suffering, as vegetative life is still life to some extent. Which brings us back to my first question, "What type of good, if any, is possible for human beings without suffering?"

      Delete
    15. AnonymousDecember 12, 2024 at 4:51 PM

      Why do people keep beating this dead horse? The truth is that God is infinitely blessed and infinitely good in the sense that all good derives from him.

      All created things are utterly contingent- for anything God may realize in the world, there are an infinity of other ways God could have realized it.

      Also God is infinitely blessed in that no defect or evil can harm his majesty, he does nothing out of necessity and lacks nothing.
      There is no analogous sense in which he desires or wishes to accomplish things because he is infinitely happy in himself.

      The only reason people believe that this whole problem of evil needs explanation is they believe they can ask God for what they need and he very often does not respond as we would hope.

      As soon as you remember that "we are dust" (Ps. 103:14), the problem disappears. The problems of us people are so trivial in such a vast world, and the world is no more than an ephemeron in the face of being itself. Why would we expect anything except the ultimate vanity of our petty little desires and anxieties?

      Delete
    16. NormDecember 12, 2024 at 7:53 PM

      Nemo

      Suffering by nature involves the lack of some good. Christ did lose the physical integrity that wss proper to his humanity.

      I don't think it would show that God was limited, rather it would just reflect some other good that God chose to bring about, unless you hold that God is obligated to bring about the good of the individual. And keep in mind that the individual would also be able to participate in that common good that God draws out.

      The Scholastic tradition has always held that, God could have saved those who are eventually damned if he wanted to, he could have given them the grace to not sin. But he permits them to be damned, And one of the biggest mysteries is why he permits this person to be damned amd saves that person. One thing we could say is that it's definitely not for the good of the damned person so it must be for the overall good.

      As to the second question, God could give us a special grace that prevents us from falling into moral and physical suffering and he could have also directly given us the beatific vision. Suffering was by no means necessary.

      Delete
    17. NemoDecember 13, 2024 at 12:05 AM

      Norm,.

      I realize that we're looking at things from different perspectives, and have been talking past each other, and going in circles. So I'll stop, but thanks for the thought-provoking discussion.

      Delete
    18. NemoDecember 13, 2024 at 9:43 AM

      Norm,

      You wrote, "The Scholastic tradition has always held that, God could have saved those who are eventually damned if he wanted to"

      I freely admit that I'm ignorant of Scholastic tradition, but there must be a better way to formulate it than how you put it here. It is like saying: If you see someone drowning, and you know how to swim, so you could save them if you want to, but you don't because you're not obligated to do so.

      (I'm no Universalist, but I'm beginning to see why they find this type of argument repugnant.)

      God could give us a special grace that prevents us from falling into moral and physical suffering and he could have also directly given us the beatific vision. Suffering was by no means necessary.

      That sounds like hand-waiving. I grant that worlds in which rational beings can receive beatific vision without suffering are possible, but it hasn't been established that those beings can be "us". To use an analogy, there are many other planets beside the Earth, and other galaxies besides the Milky Way, but they don't have the type of physical condition that make life possible on Earth.

      So instead of speculating about other possible worlds which may or may not suit us, I'm asking, given what we know about nature and man, what type of good, if any, is possible for human beings without suffering.

      Delete
    19. NormDecember 13, 2024 at 11:07 AM

      Nemo

      Well, God is not part of the natural order which includes the moral order. As such God is not bound by the Pauline Principle. Evil is a lack of something that ought to be there. You can't obligate God to create more than he already has.

      As creatures indeed by nature, we are defectible, we sin , we go astray.

      But God is not responsible for our sin and the suffering that results from it.

      In the grand scheme of things in so far as God could have prevented that evil, but chose not to , we can say that God does everything with some good in mind ,in that everything will ultimately fit.

      But at the same time because God is infinite goodness, this wouldn't be the "greatest possible world". It doesn't make sense to obligate God who is of infinite goodness to bring about some "greater" good from every instance of unjust suffering he permits and this is precisely because he could always bring about something even more greater. We can only say that he has permitted the unjust suffering for the sake of the individuals good or if not the individual's sole good the common good which the individual can also participate in. The common good can be said to be greater then the good of the individual, so even if the good is less with respect to the suffering of the individual , it can still be integral to the common good which is greater.
      Yet this common good wouldn't be the "greatest" that God can achieve.

      Yes, I do think we talked past each other it times but it was indeed thought provoking.

      To tell you the truth, I am no great Scholastic myself, I only stand on the shoulders of giants like Dr Feser. In fact I initially posted the comment hoping to get a response from Dr Feser but I am grateful for your commentary because you have alerted me to various the lines of questioning I have to be ready for.

      Farewell, my friend who bares the same username as a famous anthropomorphic fish.

      Perhaps one day Dr Feser will shed light on our conversation.

      Delete
  4. NemoDecember 7, 2024 at 12:01 PM

    I watched the video in its entirety, but it’s unclear to me why belief in PSR entails some form of theism. Judging by his response, the host didn’t follow Dr. Feser’s logic either. Could someone explain the logic in simple terms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David T.December 9, 2024 at 11:53 AM

      I suppose the shortest version would be: Given the PSR, there is a reason for everything. Now everything finds its reason in itself or in another. It can't be true that everything finds its reason in another as this would entail an infinite regress. So there must be something that is its own sufficient reason, i.e. that accounts for itself. That is another name for God.

      Delete
    2. NemoDecember 9, 2024 at 11:06 PM

      "So there must be something that is its own sufficient reason,"

      I think that's also why some philosophers (including Aristotle, if I remember correctly) believe the universe has always existed (viz. it is its own reason). As Lucretius put it, "Nothing Comes from Nothing". But I don't see how it necessarily leads to theism though.

      Delete
    3. David T.December 10, 2024 at 4:38 AM

      Aristotle reasoned to the Uncaused Cause. Thomas Aquinas extended this reasoning to the one existent that is Being Itself, i.e. the "I AM WHO AM" from the Bible. Theism

      Delete
    4. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 5:58 AM

      Nemo,

      We argue from the fact that the things in the universe have their reason from another, and thus the universe itself can't be its own sufficient reason, no matter how you conceive of the universe. Whatever is it's own reason must be distinct from the universe.

      This really doesn't have anything to do with the universe always existing. The universe could have always existed, but it would still need a sufficient reason.

      Aristotle didn't really approach things in terms of the PSR, but even so, Aristotle still argued that even an eternal universe required an unmoved mover.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 8:30 AM

      If you want the full version of the argument, Feser spells it out in great detail in Five Proofs for the Existence of God. It's 30-something points long I think, though I can't find my copy of the book at the moment. It's one of my favorite arguments, behind the argument from motion.

      Delete
    6. NemoDecember 10, 2024 at 11:18 AM

      Anonymous,
      For the sake of discussion, could you please attach a username/handle to your message, so I can tell you apart from the other Anonymouses, and know who I'm responding to?

      You wrote, " We argue from the fact that the things in the universe have their reason from another, and thus the universe itself can't be its own sufficient reason,"

      As long as you grant that something must have reason in itself, one can argue, as Lucretius did, that some things in the universe have their reason in themselves, and they have always existed, and other things in the universe are derived from these.

      You wrote, " Aristotle still argued that even an eternal universe required an unmoved mover."

      If I understand it correctly, Aristotle is arguing that motion requires a reason, and to avoid infinite regress, there must be an Unmoved Mover. So this would be the "argument from motion" alluded to in another post.

      A counter argument could be that motion doesn't require a reason, and that motion is in the nature of things that have always existed in the universe.

      I think what I'm trying to figure out is this : What sort of thing, if any, can have its reason in itself?

      Delete
    7. TonyDecember 11, 2024 at 9:30 PM

      As long as you grant that something must have reason in itself, one can argue, as Lucretius did, that some things in the universe have their reason in themselves, and they have always existed, and other things in the universe are derived from these.

      You can hypothesize that there might be something in the universe that provides its own reason or explanation. What you can't do is point to some actual thing that we see "oh, yes, THAT has its reason in itself." And when you hypothesize, then you have to go further than just the bare hypothesis, you have to try to spell out what such a thing - IN the universe - looks like in being its own explanation. That's when you run into a problem: anything that is in the universe is going to run into problems for being its own explanation. Just for example: for anything that has parts, it's parts have to be together in order for it to be, and it cannot be itself the explanation for why its parts are together, if they can be NOT together. But that's not the only problem to overcome. Eventually, you (rightly) conclude that the sorts of things that can be in the universe, by that fact, can't be the sorts of things that could be their own explanation.

      Perhaps you might make headway by instead claiming that it is the universe itself, altogether that is its own explanation. But this too fails - as one can see from the failed arguments of those like Lawrence Krause on a universe "from nothing". Within the natural kinds of causal activity of all the things we see and deduce, there can't be a kind of causal operation that can account for the whole universe including being the grounds for those causal operations that we deduce. (Or at least this: we would be simply hypothesizing some new causal mode of operating - one that we have no basis for OTHER than that we need it to be self-explanatory - because none that we have deduced do that.) And it doesn't suffice to declare the definition of "the universe" is "everything that is" and therefore must include God (if there is a God), because then you run into an equivocation on "is" and "exists".

      Delete
    8. NemoDecember 12, 2024 at 3:16 PM

      Tony,

      You wrote, You can hypothesize that there might be something in the universe that provides its own reason or explanation."

      No, I'm not the one hypothesizing. The burden of proof is on PSR proponents to show that something beyond the universe provides that which nothing within the universe can, but is nevertheless required.

      Delete
    9. TonyDecember 12, 2024 at 5:21 PM

      The burden of proof is on PSR proponents to show that something beyond the universe provides that which nothing within the universe can,

      Perhaps, but it's a different point than the one you made with

      one can argue, as Lucretius did, that some things in the universe have their reason in themselves

      You can object to the PSR itself, and say that it needs justification. But that's not what you urged that Lucretius did. Above, David T started with PSR as a premise and argued from that point. If you want to object to the premise, fine, do that, and you needn't beat around the bush by offering weak hand-waving about there being unnameable stuff in the universe that is self-explanatory.

      I am not sure that PSR can be established to the satisfaction of anyone who has been indoctrinated in the modern philosophic mess to reject the very idea of truths which are self-evident. Given the possibility of self-evident principles, PSR can be argued by analogy, fittingness, and coherence, but such arguments won't satisfy those who reject the very possibility of self-evident principles. But I suspect that the reverse side of that coin (rejection of PSR) would be that there are brute facts, which (unlike the normal stuff we run into) not only don't have something else account for them, they also don't account for themselves either, i.e. that nothing accounts for them. And if scientism-types object to a "god of the gaps", they should be even more opposed to a demon of the gaps, i.e. that the gaps (and things) have no account at all: there isn't a scientist in the world who, in setting about a new investigation, first asks "is this phenomenon something that has a cause?"

      Delete
    10. NemoDecember 13, 2024 at 12:31 AM

      Tony,

      I accept the premise that everything has a reason, but again I don't see how it entails theism. If you are unable or unwilling to explain the logic, that is OK, but don't assert it is self-evident, because it isn't.

      As I said before, I'm wondering what sort of thing, if any, can have its reason in itself. To put my question differently, why should the infinite regress stop at something beyond the universe, and not something within it?

      Delete
    11. TonyDecember 14, 2024 at 9:32 PM

      Nemo, I confess I don't understand your problem, but I suspect that perhaps it's because you haven't really explained it. You started with

      I think that's also why some philosophers (including Aristotle, if I remember correctly) believe the universe has always existed (viz. it is its own reason).

      But "it has always existed" just isn't the same thing as "it explains itself" - those aren't identical characteristics. Aristotle famously thought that the universe always existed AND that there needed to be a first mover, anyway - not first in TIME, but a first in principle. Some 19th and 20th century physicists thought "the universe has always been here" meant not "it explains itself" but rather "it doesn't NEED an explanation".

      Then you claimed

      As long as you grant that something must have reason in itself, one can argue, as Lucretius did, that some things in the universe have their reason in themselves,

      I didn't remember Lucretius making his point in this fashion (that some things have their reason in themselves) but let's assume that's what he said. My point was that he was wrong, none of the things IN the universe (that we have run across, anyway) are of such a character that "they explain themselves". To reiterate: things made up of parts cannot possibly fit the bill. Things like forces in action rely (say, gravity) rely on other realities that are substrate or coordinate to the forces in act - and while we are only just beginning to hypothesize how that all might work, we haven't yet managed a hypothesis that cashes out as "and that set-up explains itself." When hapless physicists like Lawrence Krause claim such a result, even atheist philosophers smack their foreheads in dismay at the puerile mistakes.

      Then you took a different tack:

      The burden of proof is on PSR proponents to show that something beyond the universe provides that which nothing within the universe can, but is nevertheless required.

      David T's argument, starting FROM the premise of PSR, argues to a God without discussing "in the universe" or "not in the universe" at all. Maybe I misunderstood your complaint as being with his starting premise as PSR without having proven it, because (so far as I see it) objecting on the basis that "you didn't prove that the ultimate explanans that explains itself is not in the universe" is an irrelevancy: he didn't say anything AT ALL about where God is, just that he is.

      Now you say

      I accept the premise that everything has a reason, but again I don't see how it entails theism.

      That's what his argument argues to. Can you say where the argument goes in error?

      Let me nutshell the argument: PSR implies (through steps) that there is a something that needs no extraneous explanation because it explains itself. Because of implications that flow from "it explains itself", we call that thing God. Note that I have skipped over steps in two places to make a summary, this is not a demonstrative argument. It is true that "such a God cannot be part of the universe of created beings" can be shown from the two points summarized, but it hasn't yet been made when merely arriving at "and this we call God".

      Delete
    12. NemoDecember 15, 2024 at 1:26 PM

      Tony,

      You wrote, "there is a something that needs no extraneous explanation because it explains itself. Because of implications that flow from "it explains itself", we call that thing God."

      If I understand you correctly, God is by definition "a something that explains itself", and I'm assuming this something is also unique, ,and cannot be classed with things that are "self-explanatory". IF that is the case, then I don't understand what "explains itself" means, (Ironically, "explains itself' is not self-explanatory.)

      Just to give you some idea where I"m coming from, that is, to explain myself: I'm a theist (if it isn't obvious by now), and I brought up Lucretius, not because I agree with him, but because I think PSR is one of the theories concerning the origin of the universe, to which Lucretius offers an alternative. It seems fair to pose the question why should one prefer PSR to the alternatives? The burden of proof is on the PSR proponents.

      Delete
    13. NemoDecember 17, 2024 at 7:59 AM

      @Nemo

      I'am a little late, but i reply for i love your texts.

      "IF that is the case, then I don't understand what "explains itself" means, (Ironically, "explains itself' is not self-explanatory.)"

      IF the principle of sufficient reason(PSR) holds, for any being that exists its existence is in principle capable of a explanation. The PSR essencially affirms that reality is at its core intelligible*, a inteligent being could in principle understand why any being exists, there is no place or creature that one could say "there is no explanation to be done here". I sure you recognize this as the scientist mindset since Thales at least.

      Now, any being we see is dependent on other beings to be. I would not exist if my parents were never together and this body of mine would not be there If not for a series of conditions that sustain it.

      What cosmological arguments with the PSR like in St. Thomas, Scotus, Aviccena and Leibniz versions do is to argue that in the end the existence of this whole chain of dependent beings, or even one being, can only be explained by a being that by its nature is not dependent on anything else, but everything else depends.

      This is stage 1 of most cosmological arguments, were we end with a being that is the explanation of why this cosmos exists. Stage 2 is were one argue that this being needs to have the characteristics that we recognize as God-worthy.

      Also, its being a while since i read Lucretius. But He did argue quite convincingly for the PSR. His conclusion was that the atoms were eternal, for i don't remember dealing with modality.

      *a proposition that you sure accept

      Delete
    14. NemoDecember 18, 2024 at 12:01 AM

      @Alter Nemo,

      Miguel, is that you?

      Delete
    15. TalmidDecember 19, 2024 at 8:13 PM

      @True Nemo

      It was me XD
      Sorry, it seems i had a brain fart. Pretty sure i was doing something else while writing.

      Delete
    16. TonyDecember 19, 2024 at 10:29 PM

      If I understand you correctly, God is by definition "a something that explains itself",

      I don't think I would put it that way. The ancient pagan religions had many things they called "god", and in some cases god X was the father of god Y, so to them the term "god" didn't mean "a something that explains itself." Probably, they meant by the term something more like "an intelligent being who is more powerful than humans, who pays attention to humans, and whose powers can be wielded for me or against me, so it matters how I interact with him.

      It is due to the vast success of the monotheistic religions (taking some 2,500 or more years to make that success) that at least in the West, "God" came to mean something more specific than "any intelligent being by nature more powerful than humans". In particular, because of Judaism and Christianity, in the West "God" came to mean something more distinctive, with characteristics like all good, omnipotent, omniscient... But at the beginning of Judaism it was partially obscure that the God they worshiped had these characteristics. And it wasn't until later philosophers and theologians worked out the implications that it became more clear that the God implied by the Old and New Testaments was of such a character that he wasn't merely the first being who created the rest, he sits apart as "being" in a manner different from the beingness of all dependent being, i.e. everything else: his being (and goodness, and power, and...) is not "in" him on account of anything else, not even time or void or whatever. It is in him by nature.

      In further reflecting on that condition, they took God's answer to Moses, "I am who am" to mean something deep about his nature: he is the sole one of whom it can be said that it is of his very nature to be, since everything else has existence solely because He chose to make it be, their existence is contingent, but his is necessary. From these reflections, it is apparent that no other being could be placed alongside God and be classed with Him as "a god", (and Aquinas proves there can only be one necessary being), so the the expression "God" became a unique designator, for the absolute greatest, the sole one whose nature is to be.

      Does his nature entail that "he is his own explanation". Well, it won't be manifest to everyone that it is. For example, it helps to have made your own in recognizing Aristotle and Aquinas's point that goodness is being in some respect, and evil is a lack of being that ought to be there. And to be a cause is, in some fashion to act on something in the way of an actuality added or modified (either accidental or substantial). On a parallel note, Aquinas points out that God's existence would be a self-evident truth, if only we could see God's nature through-and-through - he says it is "self-evident to the wise". But in the long run, when examining what it means to "account for" something, and "dependence", it eventually becomes clear that only something fundamentally and absolutely independent can be the ultimate explanans that explains everything else. That alone isn't what makes it also "explain itself": rather, (I suggest) it is the ultimate in "beingness" that does so: God's own nature entails all being - all kinds of what is good and can be - everything that could be needed to explain anything at all, and everything. The transcendent unity of being and goodness means that a being that has all being has all causal power and enfolds all explanatory power. His nature as beingness in totality doesn't "explain himself" in the way of "causing himself" circularity, it does so in the way of a point-source that is perfect, perfectly intelligible in itself, and because his nature includes all beingness, it covers all kinds of causal and explanatory power.

      I am not explaining at all well, 'cause I am not Aquinas.

      Delete
    17. TonyDecember 19, 2024 at 10:45 PM

      but because I think PSR is one of the theories concerning the origin of the universe,

      I think that it would be easy to make a mistake in thinking that a metaphysical question could be solved by an assumption that would be part of natural philosophy. Even if Lucretius were right to suppose that atoms are eternal, it would remain the case that their motion needs an account separate from the atoms; furthermore, his analysis did nothing to account for the reality of higher-order things (dogs, humans, etc) other than to assume them away as mere mirage applied to "atoms". Furthermore, his account simply brute forces the differences between atom types as having no reason or account. (Even modern physicists, when they got to the point of identifying 12 kinds of "elementary" particles, had the modesty to admit that such a situation called for an explanation, one not found simply in the 12 types as such.) Ultimately, any root theory of "everything" that posits an unexplainable, unintelligible foundational set of "stuff" undermines the very idea of accounting for everything else. Only a PSR avoids that difficulty.

      Delete
    18. NemoDecember 20, 2024 at 3:27 PM

      Tony,

      You wrote, "Aquinas points out that God's existence would be a self-evident truth, if only we could see God's nature through-and-through"

      Though I'm not a Thomist, I certainly agree with that. (See my blogposts on "self-evident truth" here and here).

      But again your'e preaching to the choir, I'm not asking for an explanation of the Thomist or Judeo-Christian conception of God, I'm asking for an explanation of the logic that proves there is such a being from the principle of PSR, that is, from premises that can be accepted by both sides of the debate, theists and atheists. If you need to rely on metaphysical assumptions not accepted by the other side to make your case, you're likely begging the question.

      Delete
    19. bmillerDecember 21, 2024 at 7:19 AM

      Here is a link explaining The Third Way of St Thomas (ie possible vs necessary beings):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUfkFewZzGg

      Here is a link to the Summa Contra Gentiles that is referred to in the video:

      https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles1.htm

      Hope this helps.

      It's not exactly the same as the one Leibniz used.

      Delete
    20. TonyDecember 22, 2024 at 12:12 PM

      I'm asking for an explanation of the logic that proves there is such a being from the principle of PSR, that is, from premises that can be accepted by both sides of the debate, theists and atheists. If you need to rely on metaphysical assumptions not accepted by the other side to make your case, you're likely begging the question.

      I couldn't figure out whether, in the comments above this, you were really working from a position with "PSR is an accepted premise" or "PSR is not an accepted premise". Different comments seemed from different perspectives.

      I think the original response from David T is an argument on the basis of PSR as an accepted premise. It relies on a simple application of the PSR: for every thing that needs an explanation (i.e. "for every thing", because PSR says everything needs an explanation), the explanation is either something else, or not. The argument then proceeds to a conclusion that there must be a something whose explanation is NOT found in something else. If you think the argument for this fails, can you be more explicit about where it fails? He then goes beyond "there is a something whose account is not found in another" to assert "this something we call God". It is true that he does not support this claim by an argument, he just asserts it. By and large, few people are comfortable with accepting that "there is a something which is its own sufficient explanation" without identifying that something as either being either some permanent, forever being in the universe, or "the universe as a whole", or God. I believe that strict arguments can be educed to disprove either something permanent in the universe, or the universe as a whole, actually meet the qualification of wholly accounting for itself, but neither David nor I attempted to give such a strict proof - my initial comments were merely to make a plausible case for that.

      It would take additional arguments to establish that "the something that is its own account" ALSO has the characteristics of being intelligent, loving, good, omniscient, and omnipotent (as well as unique, the ONLY self-explanatory thing). And then additional arguments that this being is one and the same as the being that was adored by Noah, Abraham, David, etc. It is relatively easy to proceed to the arguments that the self-explanatory being has those characteristics when you grasp the basis for its being a self-explanatory thing, resting on its nature as being, absolute.

      Delete
    21. NemoDecember 23, 2024 at 9:24 AM

      Tony,

      I realize I've made the mistake of using the word "PSR" to refer to two different things in different contexts. Let me remedy that:

      I accept the premise that everything has a reason (PSR), but I don't think the conclusion "there is a god" necessarily follows, viz. I don't see how PSR entails theism (PSR-Th for short from now on).

      neither David nor I attempted to give such a strict proof - my initial comments were merely to make a plausible case for that.

      If you're saying theism is plausible given PSR, I would agree, but that's not PSR-Th.

      More on "explanation" later.

      Delete
    22. TonyDecember 23, 2024 at 7:00 PM

      If you're saying theism is plausible given PSR, I would agree, but that's not PSR-Th.

      That's perfectly fine.

      I accept the premise that everything has a reason (PSR), but I don't think the conclusion "there is a god" necessarily follows,

      Right, but the question is whether you accept the middle step that David educed, i.e. that there is a something that is its own account / explanation ? He had an argument for that. It's from that step that theists would move to the final step "that's what we call God."

      Have you considered what kind of thing would successfully rest as its own explanation? The problem is that nothing in the universe that we can see, or deduce, can fit that requirement. Something that not only doesn't have a distinct cause, but more that is of such a nature that it cannot even be conceived to have a cause. (And other attributes of similar condition.)

      Delete
    23. NemoDecember 24, 2024 at 2:32 AM

      Tony wrote, " everything needs an explanation, the explanation is either something else, or not."

      There are four types of explanations for a thing, corresponding to Aristotle's four causes:
      1. What it is made of (material cause)
      2. What it is (formal cause)
      3. How it comes to being (efficient cause)
      4. Why it comes to being (final cause)

      The first two causes, form and matter ,are not "something else", because they are in the thing itself, and they don't require something else as their cause, but everything in the universe are derived from them, and the Unmoved Mover as the efficient (and the final) cause, if I understand Aristotle correctly.

      The argument then proceeds to a conclusion that there must be a something whose explanation is NOT found in something else

      As I noted above, there are more than one such things, and you'll need to prove that the four types of causes somehow converge into a "point-source", in order to argue for PSR-Th.

      Delete
    24. NemoDecember 24, 2024 at 10:47 AM

      Talmid wrote, The PSR essentially affirms that reality is at its core intelligible, a intelligent being could in principle understand why any being exists, "

      This leads to the question about the nature of intelligence, another topic discussed briefly in the video which I don't quite follow.

      Lucretius also argued that intelligence is a product of material process, similar to how music is a product of musical instruments. In that regard, he seems representative of the materialist view of mind/intelligence.

      I don't know the nature of mind well enough to understand, let alone articulate, whether and how human intelligence differs fundamentally from artificial intelligence.

      Delete
    25. AnonymousDecember 24, 2024 at 3:50 PM

      I accept the premise that everything has a reason (PSR), but I don't think the conclusion "there is a god" necessarily follows,

      Au contraire: if a thing is a dog, and its matter is the matter of a dog, but the same matter could have been (in the past) the matter of a rabbit, then there must still be an account for which this matter IS the matter of this dog, and not the matter of a rabbit or some other thing. Similarly, if the formal cause of a dog is the substantial form that expresses the essence of dog, as present in this matter, then there must still be an account of why / when / how it is that the substantial form became the form of this matter. Yes, which you identified as agent and final cause. But the point is that for a material being that has the possibility of not-being, it is impossible for matter and formal cause (the "intrinsic" principles) to wholly account for it.

      The Unmoved Mover is indeed an extrinsic cause of the dog, so the dog's form and matter are not "sufficient" to supply the (whole) account required under PSR. And it looks like everything else in the universe sits in the same condition. So, the only thing in view so far that might possibly be not in need of an explanation extrinsic from itself is the Unmoved Mover. St. Thomas's additional proofs (after #1) also prove the Uncaused Cause, the Necessary Being, the maximum in the hierarchy of being, and the ultimate of intelligent agents (acting on that hierarchy), provide a basis for understanding the God that answers to all these provides his own explanation, in full.

      Delete
    26. NemoDecember 25, 2024 at 1:15 PM

      Anonymous,

      Again, I ask this of all "Anomymouses", if you wish to carry on a conversation with me, please attach a username to your messages, so I can tell you apart from the others. In my experience, it is very awkward, if not impossible, to have a productive conversation with "Anonymous".

      But the point is that for a material being that has the possibility of not-being, it is impossible for matter and formal cause (the "intrinsic" principles) to wholly account for it.

      I never said form and matter are sufficient causes of a thing, but that they are necessary, as well as distinct from the efficient cause, which is the Unmoved Mover. In other words, the Unmoved Mover of itself is not a sufficient cause of anything, if I understand Aristotle correctly.

      Delete
    27. NemoDecember 25, 2024 at 1:29 PM

      bmiller wrote, "Here is a link explaining The Third Way of St Thomas (ie possible vs necessary beings):

      Thanks for the link. It is a short video, but I see a rabbit hole opening up. :) If you (or anyone else) want to explain the logic presented in the video in your/their own words, I'd be happy to respond (and offer a critique, if I have any), otherwise, I'll leave it alone.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousDecember 8, 2024 at 2:04 PM

    Maybe I've misunderstood Dr Feser or Catholic teaching or both but wouldn't the official Catholic position on praying to the saints be as much in conflict with Scripture as opposition to the death penalty? If it is forbidden to contact the dead and if the saints are dead then praying to the saints is forbidden. Nowhere in scripture does any person of God seek to pray to or contact the dead and where ever it is mentioned it is condemned and in fact we read, 'Why seek the dead on behalf of the living? A people should seek their God'. Therefore, RC is falsified.

    Stephen Glasse



    Reply

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael CopasDecember 9, 2024 at 4:54 AM

      Stephen,

      You haven't considered another logical possibility. You have misunderstood Scripture itself. Regretfully a historically and theologically inept book on this point has been recently published by Gavin Ortlund and it is regretfully having a broad influence on his shallow in history audience.

      As Scripture teaches, you are not to summon the dead to speak to you to provide you information. Necromancy is like witchcraft and sorcery and is condemned and there are two problems with it as it is practiced by Saul. First, by use of the Witch of Endor he was actually utilizing witchcraft. This is inherently evil. Second, he compounded the evil of using witchcraft by treating it as a means of getting information from one of God's servants, the prophet Samuel. If God willed to provide information to Saul about his success in a war, he would in fact raise up a prophet to speak to Saul and certainly wouldn't will for Saul to practice witchcraft to get information about the future. Saul was treating the information as most important even if he obtained it through something that was inherently evil. So there you have it, don't practice witchcraft to get information about the future.

      Only low resolution Evangelicalism could confuse itself into thinking that practicing witchcraft to get information about the future is the same thing as petitioning the Saints to bring your requests to God. Since that is the state of things, I will explain the (rather obvious) difference. First, perhaps you are not aware that the Catholic and Orthodox practice of petitioning saints, does not involve witchcraft. It is regretful, but to the confused the obvious needs to be stated. Second, Catholics are not summoning Saints to come to them to give them information. They are bringing their own concerns to the Saints and asking them to present those concerns to God. "Well can't we just go to God directly?" (the knee jerk Protestant refrain). Can you? Yes. Will this be as effective as the prayers of the Saints? No. Why? Because it is the prayers of the righteous that availeth much (James 5:16) and you are a sinner to who is (even if materially) in a state of schism and heresy attacking Christ's body, his Church as though they practice witchcraft.

      And to the next knee jerk response: "well that just applies to the living as the verse I quoted states." That is absolutely right. It applies to those who are alive. Now we come to the main question. Are those who have died in Christ alive or dead? Are they or are they not alive with our Lord such that they can petition him?

      Righteousness is the criteria for both the private and the final judgement and the bosom of Abraham is the place of the righteous and it is clear from Scripture that such folks are conscious and can in fact offer prayers to God. As they are righteous, those prayers availeth much. More below.

      Delete
    2. Michael CopasDecember 9, 2024 at 5:06 AM

      Stephen (continued),

      In the Old Testament, there was however a difference in the state of the dead. Sheol was divided between the righteous and the unrighteous, but without the grace that came through Christ, it was not possible to be united to God in heaven (Importantly here there is a realm here distinct from both heaven and gehenna, but that is another conversation). For this reason, Christ "descended into hell" as the Apostle's Creed teaches (referring merely to the place of the dead and not the place of eternal punishment. The translation should probably be different in the english Apostle's creed.) Why would Christ do this? Well to preach the Gospel to the righteous dead as 1 Peter 4:6 teaches that the Gospel is preached to the dead and the creed tells us who did the preaching. There you have it, Scripture and Tradition working together as an organic unity.

      Now evangelicals lack such tradition. Their "tradition" is about as old as hipster preachers with torn jeans. Or you might take the path of Gavin and try to make it sound more official with phrases like "Classical Protestantism" which is no different that "classical nestorianism" or "classical Pelagianism" or "Classical Arianism" or "Classical Donatism". All heresies and schisms regardless of whatever nice little term or phrase you shroud the heresy or schism with. More below.

      Delete
    3. Michael CopasDecember 9, 2024 at 5:24 AM

      Stephen (continued),

      Along with the problem of having Protestant teaching condemned at an ecumenical council just like every other heresy named above, is that the Protestant lacks any tradition linking it to Apostolic Christianity and this is part and parcel of the heresy/schism. This was the same problem that the Gnostics had in the 2nd century and the Apostolic link of Ireneaus to Polycarp who was in turn a disciple of John was the very thing that confirmed Irenaeus in his dispute with the Gnostics over which Gospels were the real deal (I could say alot more on this point).

      The connection of such matters to this question pertains to the existence of a Tradition that was part of the means of correctly interpreting Scripture. How do we know that we are not interpreting Scripture heretically? Well the Church has always determined such matters with reference to Church Councils. If we need to determine which interpretation of Scripture is correct, we don't run into our closet and we certainly don't listen to whatever the guy in torn jeans happens to dream up. No, we ask what the ecumenical councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit have said (as the council in Acts 15 was under the guidance of the Spirit--"it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit"). So, many elements surrounding your question have been addressed by an ecumenical council, Nicea 2.

      Such councils in turn consider Tradition. On this point, the veneration of saints is as ancient as the reverence shown for the burial sites of the Maccabean martyrs. This is ancient Judaism which precedes Christianity. The early Christian practice is in continuity with this (we can talk more about this--in great detail--if you like). None of these folks read Scripture the way that you and Gavin do. They did object to cultic sacrifices to anyone but God, but they saw the deaths of martyrs as something precious in the site of God (Ps. 116:15). They believed that there own petitions could be answered through affiliation with the sacrificial offerings of these holy ones. So they honored them and memorialized them as part of their devotion to God. There you have it. We have now moved out of the realm of skin deep evangelicalism into the depths of Scripture, Tradition, and real Christian history.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousDecember 9, 2024 at 7:07 AM

      The saints are living members of the body of Christ, and they are asked to pray for us to God as described in the book of Revelation where they offer incense. Contacting the dead in the ways your thinking and describing, through mediums, is morally wrong because this is an act of trying to go around God and become more God-like in your own knowledge etc. so it’s not at all comparable to the death penalty teaching.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 6:05 AM

      The scriptural prohibition against contacting the dead is about trying to get information from the dead. That is about necromancy.

      Praying to saints isn't doing that. We aren't trying to get information from the saints at all.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousDecember 9, 2024 at 7:35 AM

    In the interview Prof Feser mentions, I think, scriptures about 'false teachers' and 'tares sown amongst the wheat'. Nevertheless, in the parable the 'wheat' still exists and grows up with the tares until harvest.
    'Yet I will leave 7000 in Israel all the knees who have not bowed the knee to Baal'.

    *Making the ASSUMPTION for the sake of the argument* that prayers to the saints fall under the umbrella of 'contacting the dead' is it possible that such a doctrine could be believed and practiced by Catholics for many centuries (over a millennia?) and from the Popes all the way down to the 'unlettered masses' yet Roman Catholicism not be falsified? Could Christ allow that which accepting the assumption above is effectively 'occultism' to spread and flourish throughout His Church throughout all nations and cultures? An 'occultism' that takes away from the glory of Himself and the Father? If the answer is, No - which I think it plausibly is - the only question that remains is, Why are prayers to the saints not under the umbrella of 'contacting' or 'communication' with the dead? Typical responses like 'the saints are not really dead' or 'what about God's decision to have Moses and Elijah appear in a vision to Jesus and His disciples' leave a lot to be desired.
    Assuming that we accept that a church that is leavened the whole way through with occultism cannot be THE true church of Christ we must conclude the Body of Christ is the assembly of true believers throughout all denominations individual members of which are following Christ faithfully to greater or lesser extent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KevinDecember 10, 2024 at 2:04 AM

      Stephen,

      Not a Catholic here, but I think your premise is off the mark. Looking at Deut 18:10-11, notice the things grouped together - sacrifice to other gods, fortune telling, witchcraft, summoning spirits, etc. These are all examples of seeking power outside of God. The Catholic practice of asking the saints to pray for them is simply not related, though still a flawed theological position.

      You are correct that the true church is the church which is the body of Christ, which consists of those who have accepted the free gift that Christ died for their sins and God raised him for their justification.

      Delete
    2. Michael CopasDecember 10, 2024 at 9:24 AM

      Stephen,

      I have more response to offer under this tread as well, but I think I will give you a moment to soak in all the requisite corrections you have received under this post including corrections from more sober Protestants.

      Delete
    3. NemoDecember 10, 2024 at 1:16 PM

      Since falsification of Catholicism is a topic discussed at some length in the video, I suppose it is open season on RC, at least it is not off-topic. In my experience, this type of Catholic-Protestant discussion is usually an exercise in futility. Nevertheless, I'll try to learn something if I can....

      I'm not Roman Catholic, and I'm not familiar with any teaching (Catholic or Protestant) regarding "contacting the spirits". So just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with it? Why is it ok to obtain information, or seek power from people, or make prayer requests to them, but not spirits?

      Delete
    4. Michael CopasDecember 11, 2024 at 11:25 AM

      Nemo,

      Thanks for the question. In the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the teaching of the Church Fathers, the material world is only part of reality. There are also immaterial beings that include angels, demons, and the dead whose spirits/souls have separated from their bodies (As an aside to prevent zealous Old Testament nerds from hyperventilating, there is both continuity and development within the Old Testament on each of these points; Every teaching of the Old or New Testament is not stated in its fullness in the Pentateuch.).

      Some of these beings are malevolent. One of the constant critiques of idolatry among the Church Fathers was that idolatry was ultimately directed to and put you in contact with demons. As worship is due to God alone, idolatry is the highest offense you could commit because you are not giving to God what you owe to Him as a matter of justice. You are not treating Him as God and are treating something else as a higher good or as an equally high good, whereas He is the highest good. For that reason, the prohibition against idolatry is first among the commandments.

      Inherent to God being the highest good is that there is no good that does not come from Him. He is the source of all good. All good things we have come from him and require that we give to Him thanks for all that we have. This fits with Divine Simplicity wherein God does not merely have goodness as a quality, He is goodness itself. In seeking what is good, we are actually seeking Him as the source of all good and the highest good.

      Because He is the source of the being of all created things--which are in their natures good, God also knows all beings as he is in causal relation with all beings. This includes the future. Because God is not bound by time, he sees all beings as at a glance. God can share this knowledge as he did with the Prophets, but the knowledge of the future is His properly speaking.

      To seek that knowledge as though it might be obtained from anyone other than God or his prophets is to treat someone or thing as though it knows what only God knows. While Saul was seeking the knowledge from God's prophet, he was doing it in a way that was wrong in two ways. First, he was practicing witchcraft which was forbidden. Second, in this way, he was treating Samuel as the ultimate source of knowledge about the future and disregarding commandments from God. In this way, obtaining the knowledge was most important regardless of whether he offended God in obtaining it (The irrationilty of this is that you aren't going to obtain what you can get from God alone by offending Him). This is distinct from prayers to the Saints in several ways (more below).

      Delete
    5. Michael CopasDecember 11, 2024 at 11:52 AM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Michael CopasDecember 11, 2024 at 3:47 PM

      Nemo (continued),

      So in summarizing what was said above before moving on to prayers to the Saints, treating anything as God that is not God is an offense against God that violates the first commandment. Seeking information that God alone knows in a way that offends God is both sinful and stupid.

      Prayers to the Saints is distinct from the witchcraft practiced by Saul as it doesn't involve a medium and you aren't seeking from them what God alone can give (knowledge about the future). Instead, you are asking them to give what they can give: their own prayers to God. Prayer in the classical sense is understood as petitioning someone. This could be a petition to a king ("Pardon me, I pray thee"). It is in this sense that Catholics address the Saints with petitions asking them to offer their own prayers to God. As those that follow God show their love for him by their obedience (Jesus said "If you love me you will keep my commands"), the New Testament also teaches that the prayers of the righteous accomplishes much. Put simply God hears those who hear Him (shema in Hebrew means to hear, but also to hear with the mind to obey). For this reason, those that are close to God through their holiness (i.e. their obedience) have the favor of God and he will grant to them what he may not grant to those of us who do a worse job listening to Him and obeying.

      Delete
    7. NemoDecember 12, 2024 at 4:13 PM

      Michael Copas,

      Thank you for taking the time to respond, though I don't think you addressed my question. Let me rephrase to make it clearer.

      Is there something inherently wrong with contacting the spirit? If not, why is witchcraft forbidden?

      Regarding knowledge of the future, I'm assuming it is OK to consult the weather report. Can people consult a spirit about the same thing?

      Delete
    8. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 7:42 AM

      Nemo,

      Thank you for the questions. There are three ways to answer your question. The first two you may find less satisfying than the third, but they are coherent and important. The first answer is that there are some things that are forbidden by God and it is not entirely clear to some or most or perhaps even all of us why they are forbidden. This is suspicious to the skeptic, but it is not inherently unreasonable. Parents consistently forbid things that their children may or may not understand. Even if the parent knows that something is a bad idea and the child doesn't, the child should still listen to the parent putting confidence in both their goodwill and their good judgment. The same is true of commandments that are given by God (recognizing that God is the one giving them is of course the hitch for the skeptic and we could talk more about that if you like).

      Second, the inherent wrongness of summoning the dead could be understood simply in terms of the disobedience of the act. This relates to the analogy in the first point. Precisely as an act of disobedience to God, something is inherently wrong. As it is generally wrong for children to disobey their parents because of their far greater wisdom and their good will for their children, so it is always and everywhere wrong to disobey God between of His perfect wisdom and the perfect goodness of His will.

      It may also be helpful here to note that the wrong of disobedience can be thought about in two ways. First, it can be thought of as it harms the one disobeying (This is just about the only thing we tend to think about). Secondly, however, it can be thought about in terms of the offense committed against the one disobeyed. In this way, there is a real harm to the honor that is due to the person to whom we owe obedience. Not giving that obedience is an injustice against the one to whom it is owed.

      Returning to the question of the inherent wrong of summoning a dead spirit via witchcraft, the third answer is that witchcraft is wrong because it seeks a connection with the demonic which both harms the ones creating this connection and offends God. Demons are not out for either our salvation or God's honor; they intend to subvert both. For that reason witchcraft is wrong. The reason that the connection is sought in the case of summoning the dead is that the demon serves as a means through which summon the spirit of the dead and to interact with it. Because of the mode of speaking with the dead, it is not always clear whether you are speaking with the dead or merely with a demon.

      Once again this is distinct from petitioning the saints which is permitted by the Church precisely becuase they are in heaven with God and as they participate in the beatific vision, their knowledge of us is found in their vision of God. As we offer petitions to them, there is no medium necessary. Unlike figures from the Old Testament or those that are in hell, they have access to those who are connected to God through their own more intimate connection to God. When we ask for their prayers, they are aware of those requests through God's own knowledge of the requests. However, they are able to make such petitions to God in a more effective way because they love God more perfectly and are closer to Him. I would be happy to add more as I have time if you have other questions.

      Delete
    9. BrandonDecember 14, 2024 at 8:07 AM

      Thank you for taking the time to respond, though I don't think you addressed my question.

      No, he completely addressed your question; he stated the ground on which it is regarded as forbidden (its being identified as such in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Church Fathers), gave an interpretation of what was meant to fall under the prohibition that identified several reasons for the prohibition (it is extremely dangerous because some spirits are malevolent, it is often associated with the sin of idolatry, it puts spirits in a role exclusive to God and mediums in a role exclusive to those authorized by God), and explained why these don't apply in the case of prayers to the saints. If this is not the kind of answer for which you are looking, you are going to have to ask better questions.

      Delete
    10. NemoDecember 14, 2024 at 12:44 PM

      Brandon wrote, " If this is not the kind of answer for which you are looking, you are going to have to ask better questions."

      Good advice. I'll keep trying. :)

      Michael Copas,

      Is the following a fair, though perhaps oversimplified, summary of your position?
      1. Contacting the spirits in and of itself is not inherently wrong.
      2. Contacting the spirits via mediums is not necessarily wrong either, if it is possible to do so without involving the demons.
      3. Witchcraft is wrong and forbidden, because it uses medium that involves demons, which are fallen spirits.


      Delete
    11. bmillerDecember 15, 2024 at 9:56 AM

      Nemo,

      It seems to me that you are not getting the answers you are seeking because you are phrasing it as a question about what the Catholic Church teaches generally rather than why you would want to contact inhuman spirits or deceased humans. For what purpose would you want to do that?

      You mentioned one might seek information about the future like a weather report. Why would you think inhuman spirits or deceased humans could make better predictions than your local meteorologist?

      Although Michael and Brandon have already covered much of this, here are a number of questions and answers that cover general concerns of this topic:
      https://jimmyakin.com/praying-to-the-saints

      Delete
    12. NemoDecember 15, 2024 at 12:02 PM

      bmiller,

      You wrote, "you are phrasing it as a question about what the Catholic Church teaches generally "

      Yes, my question is what the Catholic (or Protest or Eastern Orthodox) Churches teach in general about "contacting the spirits". I'm not asking about praying to the saints (not yet at least), though the latter falls into the general category of the former.

      I want to get a sense of the general criteria of right and wrong that the churches adopt with regard to "contacting the spirit". Once it's clear what the general criteria are, we/I can apply them consistently to all the specific cases in practice if the situation arises.

      You mentioned one might seek information about the future like a weather report.

      I asked about seeking knowledge of the future from the spirits, not because I think it is possible or desirable, but because it was given as an example of forbidden behaviour, and I want to get some clarification on the criteria used to determine that it is wrong.

      I hope the above gives you an idea where I'm coming from. If not, at least I tried. :)

      Delete
    13. bmillerDecember 16, 2024 at 6:08 AM

      Nemo,

      OK.

      This is what St Thomas Aquinas says about divination:
      https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3095.htm

      Does this help?

      Delete
    14. Michael CopasDecember 16, 2024 at 6:30 AM

      Nemo,

      Regarding your specific question:

      1. This could be stated more specifically, but yes you can speak to members of the triumphant Church in heaven just as you can speak to the members of the Church militant to request their prayers. This has some relation to the 2nd point.

      2. 1 does not require a a spiritist/fortune teller/palm reader and the use of such mediums always opens someone to the demonic. Only evil spirits participate in what is forbidden by God. Prayers to the Saints does involve angels as they are presented in Revelation as bringing prayers before God. To do this is to speak to those that are oriented to God fundamentally and to ask them to pray for us.

      3. Yes.

      Hope this helps.

      Delete
    15. NemoDecember 17, 2024 at 11:43 PM

      biller,

      You wrote, "This is what St Thomas Aquinas says about divination:
      https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3095.htm"

      Yes, that is more along the lines of what I'm asking. Thank you for making the effort to understand my question and address it directly.

      The Summa article on divination explains Aquinas' epistemology in passing, which I find interesting.

      Reading it also reminded me of one reason why people would want to contact the spirit of the departed --to converse with the great minds of history, examine their ideas and learn from them. If it is possible to contact the spirit of the dead, one would have an advantage over Socrates, who had to die to converse with Homer and other virtuous Greeks...

      Delete
    16. bmillerDecember 18, 2024 at 10:24 AM

      Nemo,

      Glad I could help.

      Delete
    17. NemoDecember 19, 2024 at 10:51 AM

      I haven't read the Summa, though it is on my (long) list of books to read. An online friend of mine who has read it told me that Aquinas answered questions he never thought of asking. I wonder what he has written about the state of the deceased, specifically to what extent they can be contacted by the living, if it is at all possible.

      Another question (just out of curiosity): What is the relation between Aquinas' ideas and Catholic Church teachings, does he speak for the Church?

      Delete
    18. bmillerDecember 19, 2024 at 8:04 PM

      Nemo,

      St Thomas is considered a Doctor of the Church. That doesn't mean he "speaks for the Church" in a dogmatic way.

      The ST was written for Catholic students that had already passed courses heavy in Aristotelian philosophy and so were already familiar with how some of the arguments were structured and made sense. Reading some of Mortimer Adler's works can help here or Dr Feser's Aquinas.

      Also you can find the Summa Contra Gentiles online which doesn't assume the reader is a Catholic and covers many of the same topics.

      You can google your question. Something like:

      Summa Theologica, communication with the deceased.

      Or tweak the question to zoom in.

      Delete
    19. NemoDecember 22, 2024 at 2:11 PM

      bmiller,

      My apology for mistyping you username in a previous post.

      I've read the majority of Aristotle's works, including Metaphysics, but none of Aquinas. (Truth be told, I don't want to dive again into the giant rabbit hole that is (Thomist) metaphysics, not yet at least)

      I thought there might be an (online) searchable index of all the topics covered by Aquinas, which people can look up for a quick reference, like how you provided the reference for divination. But it looks like there is no such thing.

      Interestingly, ChatGPT provided a fair summary of Aquinas' conception of the state of the soul after death, but nothing that I don't already know, and it doesn't answer the specific questions I'm curious about.

      Delete
    20. bmillerDecember 23, 2024 at 8:55 AM

      Nemo,

      I used Google search to locate that particular section of the ST. You may be able to zero in closer to what you're looking for by using some of the advanced features of the search engine. You can find those advanced features by googling...which I'm sure is obvious to you.

      Delete
  7. AnonymousDecember 9, 2024 at 9:29 AM

    Michael Copas

    I haven't read Mr Ortlund's book though I have ordered it for Christmas weeks ago. My opinions are my own.

    Deut 18:11 'seek for the dead'. 'seek' occurs only 3 times it would seem (inc Prov 11:27 and Isaiah 16:5 '[Messiah] will SEEK justice' and another form occurs in gen 25:22 for example, 'she went to inquire of the LORD' so its quite general. It just means to seek, inquire, communicate with. 'the dead' is used in Judges 16:30 of the Philistines and in Ruth 2:20 of Hebrews and, disturbingly for your position, in Ps 115:17 and Isaiah 8:19. It just means those who have died! The saints have died and humans are forbidden to seek them or inquire of them.

    Here's a question: assuming prayers to the saints DID fall under umbrella of Deuteronomy would you agree that it would make Catholicism untenable as THE true expression of Christianity?

    Even if your interpretation of 1 Peter 4:6 was valid (and there are problems with Ps 115:17 and Romans 6:7) it wouldn't support Christians on earth seeking out dead saints. the Son of God has prerogatives that we don't.
    (To state the obvious I'm not attacking individual Catholics many of whom I'm sure are good Christians but I'm just dealing with an issue raised by Dr Feser on Youtube)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael CopasDecember 10, 2024 at 2:54 AM

      Stephen,

      "Seek occurs only 3 times." Oh. Okay. Did you know that the letter "t" follows the letter "s" in the alphabet? As long was we are making irrelevant points, I thought I would throw this one in.

      "It just means." Oh. Wow. We have the authoritative pronouncement of a guy named Stephen commenting on a blog regarding what some Hebrew term means. I guess it is all settled. You do read Hebrew right?

      "so it is quite general." Yes, like the word "the" is "quite general". You have picked out one word and ignored the context and as you might have heard, "A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." That is so catchy it almost sounds like an evangelical put it together. I wonder: why don't you observe it?

      What you think ignoring the context of the passage in question and randomly selecting words that allow you to focus on OTHER passages will accomplish is beyond my imagination. If you are set on affirming foregone conclusions, just say "I really fancy thinking about things this way" rather than pretending like you are offering a close reading of any of the passages in question. Drive by exegesis does little other than confirm the heretic in his heresies.

      "Dead...means those who have died." You sir are profound. I dare say you would give Yogi Berra a run for his money in your profundity.

      "Here's a question..." Thank you for that question. Deuteronomy like the rest of the Pentateuch contains provisions that have been abrogated. For example, Jesus abrogated the food laws associated with cleanliness in Mark 7:19. So being in Deuteronomy doesn't automatically mean that the laws extend beyond Israel to Christians. However, it is clear that some laws do. For example the 10 commandments were received by early Christians as always and everywhere binding. It is never right to murder steal or commit adultery and doing such things will send you to hell. For this reason, Jesus was asked by the rich young ruler what he must do to be saved and he responded: "you know the commandments." He then listed the commandments against adultery, theft, murder, etc. These were required for eternal life for the rich young ruler. After all as Hebrews teaches Christ is the source of eternal salvation for those who OBEY HIM (Heb 5:9). So contrary to the heresies of Protestants, obedience is necessary for salvation and adherence to the 10 commandments is necessary. (Or maybe you want to appeal to some random words in those passages to make up some more nonsense? Resist it...fight the urge.)

      Witchcraft like idolatry is a serious sin against the first commandment, so yes it is everywhere and always forbidden. Asking those whose are in the presence of God--as we see in Revelation as noted in another comment--to present your requests to God, however, is not witchcraft. It is to recognize as the early Christians did (you know those that preceded Luther by more than a millenia) that martyrs can actually serve as patrons before the King of Kings. Having spilled their blood for Christ, they are righteous and in his presence and their prayers availeth much.

      Delete
    2. Michael CopasDecember 10, 2024 at 3:01 AM

      "The son of God has perogatives that we don't". So let me get this straight. "Seeking the dead" is a sinful disobedience to Scripture. And you wish to make the blasphemous claim that Christ, who was obedient in all things, who always does what pleases the Father (Jn. 8:29), committed this sinful disobedience? Maybe you might take 2 or 3 seconds more to think through what you are saying before you write next time?

      "I am not attacking individual Catholics many of whom I'm sure are good Christians.." Oh how nice of you. Good Christians who practice the equivalent of witchcraft every week as they join in invoking the Saints. You can keep your banal, patronizing nonsense to yourself along with your heretical, blasphemous, unthought through opinions on what the Scriptures do and do not teach.

      Delete
    3. KevinDecember 11, 2024 at 8:31 AM

      So contrary to the heresies of Protestants, obedience is necessary for salvation and adherence to the 10 commandments is necessary.

      You are extremely combative, so I would ask this question of other Catholics here - do you agree with what I quoted here, that following the 10 commandments is required for a Christian's salvation?

      Delete
    4. Michael CopasDecember 11, 2024 at 3:53 PM

      Kevin,

      You do realize this comes from the words of Jesus in response to the question "what must I do to be saved?" His response: "you know the commandments". Likewise from Hebrews: "Christ is the source of eternal salvation for those who obey Him." So you are asking the Catholics here if they agree with the teachings of the the Son of God who founded the Catholic Church as it is taught in Sacred Scripture?

      Regarding combativeness, read Jerome against Helvidius or Augustine against Julian. Or you might simply read the prophets if you think there is something inherently wrong with combatting serious error or sin.

      Delete
    5. KevinDecember 12, 2024 at 12:48 PM

      You do realize this comes from the words of Jesus in response to the question "what must I do to be saved?"

      Yes, I'm well aware of what Jesus said to the rich man. What was he going to tell him, to trust that Jesus died for his sins and that God raised him for the rich man's justification?

      Paul is very clear that the mystery of the cross - not that Christ would die and be raised, but what the death, burial, and resurrection meant for all the world and not just Israel - was a mystery hidden in God, and that Jesus would not have been crucified had this mystery been known. So even if Jesus had wanted to tell the rich man to be chill for a while longer and then trust the gospel three days after the crucifixion, he wouldn't have per the Father's will.

      Paul is also very clear about what the cross meant to the law, the same law Jesus told the rich man to keep. No doubt you disagree, and I would normally be happy to engage, but I doubt Prof. Feser wants a full-blown doctrinal debate in his comments. So I will leave it off there - you can have the last word - but this is why I asked if following the ten commandments for salvation is the official Catholic position. My Google search was ambiguous on the matter, but it goes against the teachings of Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. I would advise anyone to read Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians for starters, and see how the law is applied to Gentiles and the church which is the body of Christ.

      Regarding being combative, I have no problem with bluntly calling out error. Jesus wasn't exactly diplomatic with the Pharisees. But when people start saying things like "So, if you want to talk in detail about a particular text, what in the hell other than a shit eating grin makes you think you have an authority in reading it that is greater than Christ's Church?", that's going beyond the level of discourse that I have ever found to be productive, or interesting.

      Thanks for the response. Last word is yours.

      Delete
    6. bmillerDecember 13, 2024 at 6:18 PM

      Kevin,

      I've found this site is a good source for those looking to find what the Catholic Church teaches. This article discusses your inquiry:

      https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/goldilocks-and-the-law-of-moses

      Delete
    7. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 6:49 AM

      Kevin,

      Thank you for your comment and the charitable correction. I have had three research papers that needed to be completed at exactly the time that this thread came up and I work full time with five kids so my workload is heavy. Regardless of this, you are right that the profanity in that quote was unnecessary and that the critically important point made by the question could have been made without it. Without the Church guided by the Spirit, Stephen lacks the means of determining which interpretations of Scripture are heretical and which are orthodox. Simple enough but without the force of the provocative question and its juxtaposition.

      Regarding your question about the necessity of the 10 commandments, a distinction is critically important to correctly read Paul and the Gospels. Christ abrogated the dietary laws and adherence to such laws is not necessary for salvation. Likewise, God gave his spirit to Cornelius in Acts without him being circumcised and this helps early Christians to recognize that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. Even after the resurrection, Peter was keeping kosher as reflected in the vision he had in Acts. What was not settled was whether Gentiles God-fearers had to convert completely to Judaism via circumcision and adherence to dietary laws to be saved. Acts 15:1 tells us the source of the dispute that some were saying "You must be circumcised according to the custom of Moses to be saved." The Church in a council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit said "no, they don't need to be circumcised" even though the Judaizers that Paul opposed did say this (he refers to them as mutilators of the flesh in Phillipians). This is critically important for his speaking about "works of the law" which do not justify. Until the discovery of 4QMMT at Qumran, this phrase lacked any other parallel in antiquity. With the discovery of 4QMMT it became clear that it was a parallel to laws associated with cultic purity (the phrase begins and ends 4QMMT which is entirely about issues of cultic purity). Cultic purity included oblations before meals, not touching corpses, but also things like eating with gentiles who were themselves ritually unclean. For this reason, table fellowship was a key issue in Galatians with Peter pulling away from his fellow Christians when men from Jerusalem came. Clearly he thought they wouldn't approve of him sharing table fellowship with gentiles because it would bring about impurity. Cultic purity was important to participate in the Temple cultus. Paul's message is that purity associated with the temple is not necessary for salvation. The reason for this is that Christ in his sacrifice on the cross established a new cultic order through which purity comes about through an internal cleansing. Peter associates this cleansing of conscience with baptism and Paul says in Romans 6 that Baptism justifies from sin (The English translations often don't reflect the Greek wherin the relevant verb dikaio is rendered purified or something along those lines; purified is the right idea as justification is an internal purification but the translation doesn't help the reader to see the connection between justification, purification, and Baptism).

      Delete
    8. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 7:03 AM

      Kevin (continued),

      What Paul opposed in denying that we are justified out of the works of the law was that we are justified (made just; more on this later) out of works associated with cultic purity. These works do not bring about the internal purity that is brought about by Christ. This internal purification is through the Holy Spirit coming to indwell within us. This was prophesied in Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel in terms of writing the law on our hearts. In the Old Testament, God's people had hearts of stone and God takes away their hearts of stone and gives them hearts of flesh just as he promised he would. The law in the old covenant was written on stone, but in the new covenent it is written on the human heart. The reference to writing the law on stone is of course a reference to the tablets of the 10 commandments. So in the new covenant, we will be made sensitive to God's commandments (again not the dietary laws which were abrogated but the 10 commandments were not). This keeping of the 10 commandments is an act of love for God. Christ said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." As I also noted, Hebrews teaches that "Christ is the source of eternal salvation for those who obey Him." So obedience is necessary, but we must also recognize against Pelagianism that obedience is made possible by grace. We receive grace and the grace makes possible the obedience. If we turn away from that grace we fall under the condemnation of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God as warned by Paul against those who practice the deeds of the flesh. For this reason, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling as Paul teaches.

      Central to all of this is the love of God that it poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given to us. It is this love that makes our faith work (faith working through love as in Gal.5). This love that is greater than faith to move mountains motivates our obedience and comes from the Holy Spirit as God Himself is Love (1 John). For that reason, we are judged according to our works as Paul, Revelation, Proverbs, and the Psalms teach. By obeying we show our love for God and by this love poured into our hearts through His grace we are saved.

      This was the teaching of Trent against Luther's teaching of faith alone. Luther explicitly denied the role of love in salvation which is why he also denied the role of works as reflecting love of God and as the criteria of the final judgement. For this reason he also said of the epistle of James "Away with James" and called it "an epistle of straw". It was against this that the council of Trent taught that love is essential for salvation.

      I hope this helps and wish you a very happy advent and a blesse Christmas.

      Delete
    9. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 7:06 AM

      Kevin,

      One other thing. You might read Matthew Thomas' Paul's 'Works of the Law' in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception. It is excellent and confirms the reading of the works of the law that is reflected in 4QMMT among the Apostolic Fathers and other 2nd century Church Fathers.

      Delete
    10. KevinDecember 14, 2024 at 10:57 AM

      Thank you for your response. I will think on your words and read what you and bmiller have suggested. Merry Christmas!

      Delete
  8. Michael CopasDecember 9, 2024 at 2:39 PM

    Stephen,

    Dr. Feser raised the issues of prayers to the saints on his interview? No, that was an issue YOU raised because it conflicted with how you read Scripture. There are lots of ways those that adhere to heresy interpret Scripture in heretical ways. Arius was not reading the funny papers when he arrived at the heretical position "there was when the Son was not"; he was reading the book of Proverbs. Likewise, Pelagius had verses for his heresies, Nestorius for his, Calvin for his and Luther for his. And you are no different. You imagine for some really strange reason that having a lexicon in hand makes whatever you posit authoritative. Any Joe off the street can learn the Greek alphabet and pronounce what they find in the NT or the LXX; that doesn't ensure that they avoid interpreting Scripture heretically.

    Any Tom, Dick or Stanley that can read and has a bible within Protesetantism thinks that this makes him some kind of authority on what Scripture teaches. If you have met one Protestant you have met them all. A high level of confidence in teaching that opposes what Christians for centuries believed for more than a millenia before Luther was even a twinkle in his mommy and daddy's eye. That high level of confidence is consistently coupled with a high level of ignorance. "I stand on the word of God" you all yell at each other and at Christ's Church as you posit warmed over heresies and ignorant opinions. So, if you want to talk in detail about a particular text, what in the hell other than a shit eating grin makes you think you have an authority in reading it that is greater than Christ's Church?

    If you want an academic magisterium, your in luck. I read Hebrew, Greek and Latin and am doing doctoral work that includes doctoral level work in each of these languages. Or you could just pretend like you and your lexicon are sufficient for anything more than your flimsy, non authoritative, historically uninformed, tendentious opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 3:53 PM

      Michael Copas, There are many learned Protestants and atheists who also read Greek, Latin and Hebrew (and unlike you, they already have one or more doctorates), and who would regard your opinion about "Christ's Church" as being "historically uninformed, non-authorative, and tendentious." I left out "flimsy" because (also unlike you) they would know how to write without being repetitive and hyperbolic.

      Delete
    2. Michael CopasDecember 11, 2024 at 9:27 AM

      Stephen,

      The problem is that I am not talking to one of those folks. I am talking to someone who hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about and yet wants to select Protestants with Phds as his favorite theologians without having the competence to assess the accuracy of their work. That is the point. If you appeal to an "academic magisterium" selecting your favorite Protestant, it is merely ad hoc. You aren't in a position to assess their academic work. More importantly you are not in a position to judge Christ's Church.

      Just as an example, you pick some bible from Mardel's. How do you know it is a good translation of Scripture? You don't (just as you can't be confident that by your lonesome you will avoid heresy in your interpretation). Instead, you put child like faith in what you are told. How do you know that those who tell you which translation is accurate are well informed? Again, you don't. That is the point. You might look at publications, but this would reflect that you are unaware that drivel is published in academic publications all the time. You might look at degrees, but there are folks with the same degrees that reach the opposite conclusion and you are not in a position to assess the differences. In a word, you are forced to rely on someone's testimony and you select that testimony in an ad hoc fashion.

      My point is not that you should put child like faith in an academic magisterium. That is the very thing I am denying. Instead, like all Christians throughout history you should profess the creed with faith in Christ's "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church".

      Delete
    3. Michael CopasDecember 11, 2024 at 9:32 AM

      Stephen,

      Just to hold your feet to the fire: would you mind pointing to a single scholar that would state that one of the points that I made is historically uninformed, non-authoritative, tendentious, or flimsy and tell me precisely how they would support such a claim. If you are not full of the proverbial malarkey, I am all ears and ready for you to instruct me.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousDecember 11, 2024 at 2:07 PM

      You are confused, Michael. The post on Dec. 10 at 3:53 is from me, Anonymous, not Stephen. Your pedantic ranting and cursing are clouding your mind. You have personal issues you need to resolve. But I will answer you nonetheless.
      So, you want to know " a single scholar" who would disagree with you about your claim that the Catholic Church is the church Christ founded? Are you serious?
      Well, we could start with Dr. William Lane Craig, "The White Knight of Christianity," who has debated scholars who deny that truth of the Resurrection.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
      He has written countless books and journal articles about about theology. He's a devout Protestant. He rejects your belief about the Catholic Church, even though he has appeared together with Bishop Barron
      https://catholicreview.org/evening-william-lane-craig/
      So does the Evangelical theologian Dr. Craig Keener, who has written multi-vol commentaries on Acts and the Gospel of John.
      https://asburyseminary.edu/faculty/craig-keener/
      So does Dr. Dale Allison who is Prof of New Testament at Princeton University.
      https://ptsem.edu/faculty/dale-c-allison-jr/
      The three scholars I listed above are Christians. Dr Bart Ehrman, Prof of New Testament at Univ of North Carolina, is not a Christian, but he is a well-recognized N.T scholar.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
      There are many more, who are far better educated than you, if only you would clean out your ears and rid yourself of your malarkey.

      Delete
    5. Michael CopasDecember 12, 2024 at 9:35 AM

      Okay "anonymous". Without the courtesy (and courage) of attaching your name to your comment, it is not at all clear that Stephen is not now merely defending himself as though there were another person in the world interested in defending the silly suggestion that prayers to the Saints should be equated with summoning the dead via witchcraft. Maybe Stephen does have another anonymous champ out there who would like to defend such ridiculous nonsense. Perhaps I am even speaking to Gavin Ortlund who might be interested in defending himself. Instead of feigning the courage of defending those in need of defense, why not have the courage to actually attach your name to your comment?

      That aside, Gavin or Stephen or whoever you are (name please), I never made the suggestion that no Protestant would deny that the Catholic Church is Christ's Church. I asked for substantiation of the claim that any of the scholars that you mentioned would equate prayers to the Saints with utilizing witchcraft to summon the dead for information. Apparently you haven't been paying attention, but that is what this interaction with Stephen has been about.

      I studied at Wheaton and am aware that evangelicals don't think that the Catholic Church is Christ's true Church. I am also keenly aware that they don't have anything remotely resembling sound or valid arguments for this. Appeal to learned modern commentators and their publications lists is not a defeator for that claim. Like many Catholic readers of Scripture, I have admiration for both Keener and Allison who also have great appreciation for the academic work of the Catholic scholar Brant Pitre. None of that is a defeater for Catholicism which is the point I was discussing with Stephen as he concluded his initial comment ("therefore, RC is falsified"). So, yes I have Keener's massive commentary on Acts (at least 3 of the 4 volumes) and yes I have Allison's 3 volume commentary on Matthew (2 of 3) with the great W.D. Davies (you should read their treatment of Peter as the Rock as well as the treatment of R.T. France in NICOT) and his wonderful book on typology in Matthew and have great admiration for these treatments, but none of this refutes Catholicism or establishes Protestantism (the point under discussion). So if you would like to establish a new argument in this thread as a defeater for Catholicism or you would like to point to a scholar who argues that prayers to the Saints is the same as what Saul is doing, be my guest. The latter (reputable scholars that would argue that prayers to the Saints is the same as what Saul is doing) is what I have asked for and what you have given is little more than smoke and mirrors that amounts to "there are lots of smart people who are not Catholic". Granted. That was not the point under discussion.

      Delete
    6. Michael CopasDecember 12, 2024 at 10:36 AM

      Gavin or Stephen or whoever,

      I should also add that Ehrman's treatment on textual criticism with Oxford which continues the work of Metzger is excellent. It is the standard on this topic which was utilized in the Exegesis program at Wheaton when Beale was there. Likewise, I have great admiration for Craig in his defense of the Resurrection and his entertaining and compelling refutation of atheists. So we have something in common in our admiration for these folks, but that common admiration was not relevant to my discussion with Stephen. What would be relevant is if any of these folks argued that Saul's use of witchcraft to summon the dead was the same thing as praying to the Saints. So rather than providing a reading list (much of which I have already read. Have you?), why not give me a specific reference or quote relevant to the topic under discussion? If you can, I cordially invite you to do so. If you cannot, I cordially invite you to shut thine pie hole.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousDecember 12, 2024 at 1:29 PM

      Michael Copas

      you seem very angry and flustered. I can't think why. I asked a simple question which you neglected to answer though there was a lot to go through in your responses. I'll ask it again: assuming prayers to the saints DID fall under the prohibition of Deuteronomy would you regard that as a disproof of Catholicism? Or would you say, 'No, because contacting the dead was only very wrong for Israel' or 'contacting the dead was very wrong for Israel and is very wrong for the Church but it's not equivalent to the Pope speaking heresy ex cathedra'?

      You've misunderstood several points but i'm not here to take offense so I'll just address your point about Dr Feser not mentioning prayers to the saints on the Youtube video. You're right BUT I never said he did! rather I was responding to Dr Feser's assertion that he would regard RC as falsified IF the Pope spoke heresy ex cathedra. I think he gave the example of the Pope saying, 'Jesus is not Divine'. So I'm simply raising the question, 'If prayers to the saints falls under prohibition of Deuteronomy would that not falsify RC?' Could Christ allow what amounts to occultism to flourish for multiple centuries in the one true church across all nations? Dismissing the scope of Hebrew words in scripture is not productive.

      Stephen Glasse

      Delete
    8. AnonymousDecember 12, 2024 at 1:54 PM

      Michael, I have posted here for almost 12 years, always as Anonymous. I have emailed Dr. Feser a few times using my real name. We both personally know some Thomistic scholars and biographers.

      Wheaton is a very fine Evangelical college. Dr. Norman Geisler, an Evangelical philosopher, studied there. He was a Thomist, but he remained a Protestant.

      You are correct than no scholar would equate praying to saints as witchcraft. But it seemed that in your comments you were equating "Christ's church" with being the Roman Catholic Church, which is a core belief of the RCC. But as you admitted, many distinguished Protestant theologians, who know the exegesis of Mt. 16-18 and the history of Early Christianity, do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true church. I do know that Dr. Scott Hahn, a Protestant N.T scholar, did convert to the RCC. I read his commentary on Romans in the CCSS. I have perused the massive commentary on Mathew by Davies and Allison. The same for R.T France. I have read their exegesis of Peter the Rock, but they remained Protestants. I personally like the commentary on Mathew by Charles Quarles. Published in 2023, about 1000 pages long.
      https://www.amazon.com/Matthew-Evangelical-Biblical-Theology-Commentary/dp/1683596587

      That debate will be a point of endless contention. Pitre and Bergsma are trying to finish their Catholic Commentary on the New Testament in 2026 per Bergsma's email to me when I contrasted his Murmurings Against Moses with the Oxford Handbook of the Pentateuch by Baden and Stackert, which takes a radically different view than his on the Pentateuch.

      You may not think Edward Siecienski's book on the papacy is a defeater of Catholicism, but he makes a good case against the RCC's claims about the origin of the papacy. You can actually read many of the pages on the Amazon website if you click on the image of the book.
      https://www.amazon.com/Papacy-Orthodox-Sources-Historical-Theology/dp/0190245255

      Delete
    9. Michael CopasDecember 12, 2024 at 5:52 PM

      Anonymous,

      "We both personally know some Thomistic scholars and biographers."

      I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

      "He was a Thomist, but he remained a Protestant."

      He wrote a book on Thomas that was endorsed by Ralph Mcinerny so he understood the philosophical aspects of Aquinas' thought and adhered to much of it. But there is quite a bit more to Thomas and Thomism than the real distinction and the analogy of Being. That Geisler remained a Protestant shows precisely nothing. Lots of folks that publish attain some familiarity with Catholic figures and remain Protestant, but that doesn't show that they were following the truth in doing so. So, whatever comfort it brings you that Norman Geisler remained Protestant is empty. A whole slew of his students from Southern have become Catholic because they found, just as I did at Wheaton, that those that reject Catholicism have precisely zero reasonable basis for doing so (Read Evangelical Exodus). Protestants consistently reject Catholicism based on their misunderstanding of ancient Christianity and a readings of Scripture that originated in the 1500s or with earlier heresies. So finding comfort in the fact that there are Protestants that publish broadly or know Aquinas is silly.

      "it seemed that in your comments you were equating "Christ's church" with being the Roman Catholic Church, which is a core belief of the RCC."

      It seems that way because I was doing so. What else would I equate it with? Heresies that were invented in the 1500s? I realize now that this is the point you wanted to talk about and this is the point that you claim learned Protestant's reject. While I don't deny that they reject that the Catholic Church is the body of Christ, founded by Him and his true Church and Bride (after all they aren't Catholic now are they?), I do deny that they have good reason to deny this. I also doubted above that you could find reputable scholars that would make the sort of equations between summoning the dead via witchcraft and praying to the Saints (by doing this they would show themselves incompetent). That was the principle point of the conversation with Stephen and if you are going to but into that conversation it seems to me that you should follow the actual conversation.

      The other point that I was making about an academic magisterium is being illustrated in my conversation with you. You take comfort in the fact that there are learned Protestants just as the atheist might take comfort in the fact that there are learned atheists and the Muslim might take comfort in the fact that there are learned Muslims. This sort of approach does nothing but confirm you in believing just about any prominent error from Hinduism to Taoism to Manicheism or Gnosticism or Lutheranism or Calvinism. Folks like Hahn or Bergsma or Feser are intelligent folks who converted from Protestantism and Atheism partly because they were able to recognize good arguments, but more because they were willing to sincerely inquire. I consistently find that those that I know who do this become Catholic eventually. Others that I know have told me quite simply "I WON"T become Catholic". It is not because they have good reason to think that it is not true. If they had reasons or concerns or hesitations, we could talk through those. It is just that they are unwilling. Many that I know that have become Catholic (myself included) have done so at a high social and even economic cost. Yet they did so because they recognized that it was true and did not take a "well there are smart folks on both sides of all things so who knows" mindset. That sort of indifference is not good for anybody.

      Delete
    10. Michael CopasDecember 12, 2024 at 6:29 PM

      Anonymous,

      "That debate will be a point of endless contention."

      This seems to me to reflect your "who knows" mindset on these issues. Just because heresies have staying power doesn't mean that they are not heresies. Do you realize that Manicheism was around for a millenia after Mani (200s) and was combatted by scholastics in the 1200s (and John of Damascus in the 700s)? Any false teaching can stay around for a long time and that doesn't mean that the topic can't ever be settled (i.e. known to be false by those who are sincerely asking). I recognize also that people can be sincere and confused, but that is also part of my point. The objections to Catholicism when sincere are always based on some confusion or--often glaring--error in judgement (as with our friend Stephen in his equation of praying to the Saints with summoning the dead through witchcraft for information).

      The great scholars you have mentioned are not striking or brilliant in their opposition to Catholicism. If they made such opposition a focus of their work, they would only do so by means of error. Because they don't focus their intellectual energy on such pursuits, they are able instead to make massive contributions to learning and none of those authentic contributions are defeaters for Catholicism. Instead they support or synthesize with Catholicism. So for example Keener has supported the historicity the Gospels in his Christobiography by providing a compelling case that the Gospels are closest to Greco Roman Biographies in genre, William Lane Craig has defended the resurrection (as Wright and Habermas have done), and Allison has played an important role in reintroducing typology into readings of the Gospels. In all of this, they are brilliant but that brilliance is in supporting the very thing that the Catholic Faith teaches and not in opposing what it teaches. So having a bunch of Protestants whose brilliance proves what the Catholic Church teaches shouldn't comfort you in your Protestantism.

      When I was at Wheaton, I had a bewildered professor of a systematic theology course relay a conversation he had with a friend in the wake of the conversion of Rusty Reno (the editor of First Things). He told his friend, "Did you hear that Rusty Reno poped?" The friend responded, "I know! Why is everyone Poping!"

      One thing that is common to such conversions is a conviction that the truth can be found. Augustine was convinced for a time by Academic skepticism that the truth could not be known. He had to overcome this to develop the conviction that the Truth about God could be known. Hearing the faith preached by Bishop Ambrose no doubt helped with this, but he also had to overcome the bad arguments that supported his skeptical mindset (his arguments against skepticism are found in his work "Against the Academics"). I suggest that along with caring about the truth, Protestants need to believe that the truth about these issues can be found if they sincerely seek it. If you take that mindset and look into the questions sincerely, they will lead to you Catholicism.

      Delete
    11. Michael CopasDecember 12, 2024 at 7:15 PM

      Stephen,

      I don't doubt that you are clueless why I might be angry about your equating the Catholic liturgy with necromancy. You seem glibly oblivious to the nature of the claims you are making and I believe you when suggest that it is done in sincere naivety. However, a grown man should not make childish and unreflective claims that involve accusing someone you are talking to of the equivalent of summoning the dead via witchcraft in the practice of his faith and then be surprised that he might have a strong reaction to such claims particularly when they are inane and baseless (and what you are attacking is the faith of Christ's Church for which He died).

      Regarding your scenario, this is similar to someone asking: If the resurrection didn't happen, would Christianity still be true? I have objections to even entertaining such things ex suppositio for reasons that have been explained by Tony, but more than this, there are complexities with your question. The first is that, unlike the case of the resurrection, this is a matter of the correct interpretation of the text. While I have translated the Pentateuch from both the Hebrew of the MT and the Greek of the LXX and it is obvious to me that the passage is not condemning prayers to the Saints, it seems you want me to entertain the idea that this is precisely what the passage is saying we shouldn't do. For me to get on board with this would require that the passage stated something different than it does or that Catholic practice were different than it is. I am familiar with both Catholic practice and teaching and I am very familiar with the text in question and what is condemned in the text is simply not what Catholicism practices. So you are asking me to assume that the text says what it doesn't or that the Catholic Church does what it doesn't and then consider if the Catholic Church and Scripture be compatible. Well obviously the answer to this is "no" but then they wouldn't be the Catholic Church or Scripture were there a conflict between the two. You see the Catholic's Faith that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church can't be separated from the Catholic Faith in Scripture or in God who guides the Church through His Holy Spirit. Like the Church Fahters who were Catholics before us, Catholics today profess faith in the Church as they profess faith in the blessed Trinity.

      Answered in another way, let's say there were another commandment beyond the 10 commandments and it said "don't do X" and every thing else in Scripture were exactly the same, then X would simply be another aspect of Natural Law and would be universally binding and for that reason the Church in her liturgy or teaching would never embrace X.

      Delete
    12. AnonymousDecember 13, 2024 at 8:18 AM

      Michael Copas

      You write,

      "So you are asking me to assume that the text says what it doesn't or that the Catholic Church does what it doesn't and then consider if the Catholic Church and Scripture be compatible. Well obviously the answer to this is "no" "

      and

      "the church in her liturgy or teaching would never embrace X"


      OK. So you seem to be saying that IF praying to dead saints was included in the prohibition of Deuteronomy 18:10-11 it would in some sense falsify Catholicism. Now, if we look at the text it forbids ‘one who calls to the dead’. The word ‘up’ (in the NAS) is ‘el’ and simply means ‘to’:

      ‘The Hebrew preposition "אֵל" (el) is used to indicate direction, movement, or relation. It often signifies motion toward a place, person, or thing, and can also denote a figurative direction, such as turning one's attention or focus toward something. In the context of prayer or worship, it can imply directing one's heart or mind toward God’.

      The word ‘calls’ is used repeatedly of ‘seeking’ or ‘praying to' God! See Gen 25:22; Ex 18:15; Deut 4:29; 12:5; 1 Kings 22:8; 2 Kings 3:11; 2 chron 34:3; Job 5:8; Psalm 9:10; 34:4 as well as to false gods e.g. baal-zebub 2 Kings 1:2.

      So the text forbids 'calling to the dead' or ‘seeking the dead’ and there’s nothing in the context that limits it to ‘professional mediums’ or ‘spiritists’ or to 'unredeemed dead'. It simply rules out practices like burning children, divination, spells, and talking to the dead.
      That would seem quite clearly to condemn ‘seeking dead saints’ especially when in scripture there are NO prayers to the dead AND we are asked, 'why seek the dead on behalf of the living?'

      By the way WE ARE ON A PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHER’S WEBSITE. It’s somewhat silly to get upset because someone challenges your worldview or opinions when you’ve chosen to come on here. Can you save Catholicism from the charge of occultism without a priori commitment to truth of Catholicism?

      Stephen Glasse

      Delete
    13. AnonymousDecember 13, 2024 at 1:53 PM

      Well, Michael, I mentioned that Dr. Feser and I have some mutual acquaintances and that Geisler attended Wheaton (which I said was a very fine college) as an aside comment and an attempt to be friendly, but I see you are still testy and irritable. Why? This is not a cage match. You really need to relax. You mentioned Augustine, who was a wily debater. The biggest influence on his conversion was his saintly mother Monica, whom he thanked in his Confessions. Your attitude just turns people off. Dr. Feser is enormously erudite and can be very polemical, but he isn't rancorous and doesn't have your personal animus.

      Praying to the dead is not witchcraft. That was Stephen's comment. Macabees II encourages those prayers, even though that book isn't in Protestant Bibles. So you deny that learned scholars have good reasons not to believe the RCC was the one true church? I cannot speak for all those scholars I named, as well as probably the entire faculties of Protestant seminaries and secular schools of divinity like Harvard and Yale, but I believe they are people of integrity and if they were truly convinced as you seem to be, they would convert, as Scott Hahn did. That the brilliance of the scholars I mentioned proves the truth of Catholicism is only wishful thinking on your part. I am not a Protestant. I stopped practicing my Catholic faith a long time ago. You mentioned Bart Ehrman. Yes, he was a student of Metzger, but as you know, he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus, despite his debates with Craig and Bauckham. Did you ever read online that book on the papacy I linked? I will give it you again:
      https://www.amazon.com/Papacy-Orthodox-Sources-Historical-Theology/dp/0190245255

      I have have read many books on philosophy, theology, and biblical studies and I have personally or by email engaged many brilliant scholars on both sides of these issues. You are not in their league, not just because you lack their credentials, but you also lack their civility.



      Delete
    14. AnonymousDecember 13, 2024 at 2:04 PM

      I disagree with you, Stephen, about witchcraft and praying to the saints, but our friend Michael does not know we are on a PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHERS WEBSITE, and because of some deep-seated personal issues, cannot argue or debate without being upset. He needs to watch videos of Bill Craig debating and how he remains calm. I doubt if it would help him though.

      Delete
    15. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 3:53 AM

      My dearest anonymous friend,

      I now understand. You make small talk because you want a friend. Well completing a phd with another career that feeds our five children and caring for those five children leaves me little time to be chummy with some guy who is lacks the courage to put his name behind his insults. You mentioned that you have commented anonymously for 12 years which means little more than you have lacked the courage to attach your name to your words for 12 years.

      Why don't you be friends with Stephen? He seems to have lots of time on his hands. Then you could tell him all about the latest e-mail you sent to some academic or some Dominican you know and he could read to you about some Hebrew preposition from BDAG. I think you would be two peas in a pod.

      Me on the other hand you would find droll. I am interested in mundane things like the Truth and find that there is little basis for friendship with those that either don't care about the truth or those that don't think it can be found. Augustine warned Evodius in Against the Academics that they could have no friendship if Evodius was convinced that the truth could not be found. I am old fashioned and take the same tack.

      The downside to this is that you won't have another academic that you can bug with your e-mails. The upside is that I won't have to be bugged by e-mails that do little more than give an apostate grounds for boasting about an exchange he had with an academic on a blog.

      Delete
    16. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 4:57 AM

      Stephen,

      Wow. I am so glad you explained all that. Now that Catholics have had some guy on a blog named Stephen pull out his lexicon all is clear. Now we can know that the world has been waiting for the year 2024 for Stephen to explain why the ancient practice of petitioning the Saints is actually the equivalent of witchcraft. Catholics everywhere take note. Stephen and his lexicon have spoken.

      You realize that you are proposing to see in this passage what NO ONE saw in it in at least the first 1500 years of Christianity. No Church Father or scholastic read this passage and thought, "this prohibits prayers to the Saints." Likewise, you won't find any major modern commentator Catholic OR Protestant that would read this passage the way you are reading it. So you actually think you understand this text correctly and that neither any Church Father nor any Scholastic nor any prominent biblical scholar today understands it correctly? This suggestion is laughably foolish and your obliviousness to the implications of your claims is indeed exasperating.

      "OK. So you seem to be saying that IF praying to dead saints was included in the prohibition of Deuteronomy 18:10-11 it would in some sense falsify Catholicism."

      No, that is what you wanted me to say so that you could pull out your lexicon and through some gymnastics act as though the text says something it doesn't. As with Scripture, you found in my words whatever you wanted to find. You focused on what you wanted to and read it in the way you wanted to. So for example you did not quote: " You see the Catholic's Faith that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church can't be separated from the Catholic Faith in Scripture or in God who guides the Church through His Holy Spirit. Like the Church Fathers who were Catholics before us, Catholics today profess faith in the Church as they profess faith in the blessed Trinity." The Catholic Church would never teach that you should commit idolatry or in any way violate natural law. My comment "but then they wouldn't be the Catholic Church or Scripture were there a conflict between the two" was meant to suggest that this is a LOGICAL impossibility based on what Scripture is and what the Catholic Church is. Just as you are not waiting around for someone to find the bones of Jesus to falsify the resurrection, I am not biting my nails about the universal Church binding the faithful in heresy.

      On the matter of your exegesis, if speaking to the dead were inherently immoral, Christ in preaching the Gospel to the dead would be doing what is immoral. As I said that is blasphemous.

      Along with this, I explained that some who are dead after the resurrection of Christ are spiritually alive with Him in heaven and Catholics do not summon them for information via witchcraft. The phrase about seeking the dead refers to such acts and you ignore the context and read the phrase as broadly as possible so that you can maintain foregone conclusions.

      Delete
    17. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 4:57 AM

      Stephen (continued),


      I addressed your exegetical habits of making completely random exegetical comments followed by non-sequitors. As I have answered your single question, why don't you actually go back and read every criticism I offered and try to respond to every single one. Just give it a try.

      You might also read an academic article on parallelomania (this word is in the title of the article but I can't remember the full title). Finding parallels with random words in a passage to alter the meaning of the passage in question is not a valid mode of exegesis. That is what you are doing and it is intellectually sloppy. I regret to report that a lack of intellectual depth is the very thing that evangelicals are noted for as seen in Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (viz. that there is no evangelical mind). It is not that they are not capable of it. It is just that something within evangelicalism itself tends to work against it. Again, this doesn't mean that it isn't possible; it just means that it is uncommon and requires swimming against certain currents that are inherent to evangelicalism (the anti-intellectualism and the lack of Tradition were both noted by Noll).

      I would simply encourage you to read the Church Fathers broadly without commentary on them and to see how THEY read Scripture and how they argued for their positions. I wish you the best.

      Delete
    18. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 5:09 AM

      My anonymous friend,

      I also want to thank you for your criticisms. They are a help and I am sincerely grateful for them. I wish you the very best and hope you have a Merry Christmas.

      Delete
    19. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 5:15 AM

      "Can you save Catholicism from the charge of occultism without a priori commitment to truth of Catholicism?"

      From the charge? Well no one can prevent baseless charges from being flung around by folks that don't have a clue what they are talking about. However, I can and have shown that folks such as you don't have a clue what you are talking about. In light of that fact, shoot your nerf gun at the fortress of the Catholic Faith all you want.

      Delete
    20. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 5:17 AM

      "By the way WE ARE ON A PROFESSIONAL PHILOSOPHER’S WEBSITE."

      Right. For that reason, you might want to actually learn how to construct demonstrative arguments and might learn a bit about exegesis before commenting here. D.A. Carson's exegetical fallacies would be a good place for you to start.

      Delete
    21. Michael CopasDecember 14, 2024 at 5:23 AM

      "I believe they are people of integrity"

      I am sure many of them are. Not sure how that is relevant as I never denied this.

      "That the brilliance of the scholars I mentioned proves the truth of Catholicism is only wishful thinking on your part."

      I think you need to read what I wrote again. They prove what the Catholic faith teaches (the Resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the Gospels, and the value of typology). I did not say that they prove what *distinguishes Catholicism from Protestantism*. I did however point out that they do not prove or even argue for what distinguishes Protestantism from Catholicism.

      Delete
    22. AnonymousDecember 14, 2024 at 12:42 PM

      My dear friend Michael,
      You are still nasty and vituperative, but you seem to have softened towards the end. You have a lot going on inside you. Maybe you can seek some counselling at Wheaton. It seems that the strain of family work and school is too much for you. No, I was not looking to be your friend, this is cyberspace after all. I was seeking an amicable exchange of views like Russell and Copleston had on the BBC in their 1948 debate. And yes, I did correspond with Copleston in 1986 and years late met him when I was in London. By then, he wasn't quite as dogmatic in his views about Thomistic metaphysics and certain church teachings.
      I remain anonymous for personal and professional reasons (that has nothing to do with courage; I could use a fake gmail account and you wouldn't know the difference) but I do see that continues to trouble you. I think life itself troubles you, but again, maybe counselling can help you.
      You earlier mentioned the Evangelical Exodus. That was 9 students leaving Southern, which was founded by Norman Geisler. who I mentioned earlier. He appreciated Thomistic philosophy, but remained a Protestant, as did D.A. Carson.
      Some evangelicals are becoming Catholic, but primarily because they share similar views on abortion and homosexuality. You cannot compare the Manichean heresy with Protestantism. Protestantism cleaved Christendom as Warren G. Carroll said in Vol. 5 of his history, and it has never recovered.

      I spent four years at Spring Hill College when the theology dept was staffed by Jesuits. Then three years in graduate study at Loyola U in Chicago, when the theology dept was staffed by Jesuits. And yeah, that's where Geisler went too. It was actually after all that study, that I began to doubt all that I had been taught, as have many former Catholics, including quite a few Jesuits with whom I remained in contact. I will say that Jesuit training was invaluable for the practice of law.

      The claims of the RCC may seem irrefutable to you, but not to many others, who are certainly aware of them, but remain either Protestant or atheists. I mentioned Craig and his dialogue with Bishop Barron. But you and I are certainly not going to settle anything here. And for the third time you should read that link I gave you about the with its criticisms of the origin of the RCC.

      You mentioned the Church fathers to Stephen. The Protestants refer to them as well for justification of their beliefs.

      For someone who is supposedly struggling with the burden of work, school and family, you are spending an inordinate amount of time on this website, writing a lot, but saying very little of substance.

      The academics are not bugged by my emails; they enjoy them. Bergsma told me after our emails he would "kick on the afterburners with Pitre" to finish their book.

      So, two hours after you didn't want to be bugged by my emails (you were up too late, Michael. I am not emailing you. You are reading my posts on this website. If they bug you, don't read them.), you wish me Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas to you as well.
      Anon.













      Delete
    23. ficino4mlDecember 15, 2024 at 9:37 AM

      @Anonymous who wrote this: "Copleston ... [b]y then ... wasn't quite as dogmatic in his views about Thomistic metaphysics and certain church teachings."

      Fascinating. Can you report the changes that Copleston's views about those domains had undergone by the mid-80s?

      Delete
    24. AnonymousDecember 15, 2024 at 3:55 PM

      What he told me is also in his autobiography, "Memoirs." He was less certain about proving the existence of God through philosophical arguments. He also was inclined to believe in universal salvation. He believed there was a heaven but not a hell.
      He saidthat,during a talk he gave. But when someone in audience said both are mentioned in the Bible, he replied, "Well, that's right. " He was a life-long friend of A.J. Ayer, the atheist philosopher.


      Delete
    25. AnonymousDecember 15, 2024 at 4:09 PM

      I'm using my cellphone and hit publish too soon. During a talk Copleston gave, someone asked if he believed in heaven and hell. He replied he believed in heaven but not hell. But when told by the questioner that both places were mentioned in the Bible, he said, "Well yes, you're right about that. "Life experiences had changed him somewhat. He was proud to have served God, the Catholic Church and the Jesuits.

      Delete
    26. Michael CopasDecember 16, 2024 at 4:53 AM

      Anonymous Boomer Cat Lady, PA,

      Well I spoke with my shrink and he made it clear that I am definitely speaking with lonely woman. You boomers love armchair psychology. The penchant for armchair psychoanalysis is one of the weird distinctives of your generation. You read a couple of pop psychology books and then imagine yourself to have the ability to diagnosis someone with psychosis over the internet. The passive agressiveness while objecting to more honest agression ("not a cage fight") gives you away as a women. Repeatedly telling someone that you don't know that they need counseling as a response to arguments and rhetorically forceful questions is of course effiminate and a passive agressive facade. As we talk I think that facade is coming down rather nicely. I don't know your name but I can just call you Madame cat lady or something like that.

      This weird penchant for psychoanalysis regretfully had an impact on how you boomers read religious literature and understood religious people. For example Bruegman's obsession with pathos among the Prophets in the Prophetic Imagination was purely naturalistic and did not consider the fact that the OT prophets were angry about sin because they actually loved God, cared about Truth, and were filled with God's Spirit. Such folks give psychological explanations of the Prophets because they lack faith. They hold to a weird syncretism between naturalism and facets of faith (ones that don't make a classical secular liberal like you too uncomfortable) and, surprise surprise, since faith doesn't actually sit well with naturalism they give up on faith just like you did.

      Then every time someone gets angry at heresy or attacks on Christ's Church, you resort to your amateur psychology. Its as predictable as it is sad and pathetic. So now that I know you are a woman, I think I will withdraw the charge of cowardice. Instead, it seems to me that you are lonely. Its disturbing when you try to psychoanalyze someone with a happy and healthy family and they return the favor isn't it? Maybe that should be a lesson to avoid this sort of thing in the future?

      Delete
    27. Michael CopasDecember 16, 2024 at 4:54 AM

      Madame Cat Lady the Boomer, PA (continued)

      I am never too busy to help someone that has authentic questions about the faith as my answers elsewhere in this post attest. I am also not too busy for any of the spiritual works of mercy like "rebuking a sinnner". You repeatedly telling someone you don't know that they need counseling is not merely impolite (that could be excused), it is sinful. And caring about and defending the truth isn't reflective of psychosis as you naturalists assume. Rebuking the sinner is, as I have said, one of the seven spiritual works of mercy because it gives people occasion to repent of their sins. Perhaps you might revisit the faith of your youth and consider how the ways in which it wasn't authentically represented to you by some of your teachers and try to rekindle authentic faith. Reading Edward Feser, Bergsma, Hahn, and Pitre are great ways to do this.

      Regarding my "softening towards the end". It is apparent that you don't understand me as well as I understand you Madame Cat Lady. However, I will come to the aid of a damsel in intellectual distress.


      I am never too busy to help someone that has authentic questions about the faith as my answers elsewhere in this post attest. I am also not too busy for any of the spiritual works of mercy like "rebuking a sinnner". You repeatedly telling someone you don't know that they need counseling is not merely impolite (that could be excused), it is sinful. And caring about and defending the truth isn't reflective of psychosis as you naturalists assume. Rebuking the sinner is, as I have said, one of the seven spiritual works of mercy because it gives people occasion to repent of their sins. Perhaps you might revisit the faith of your youth and consider how the ways in which it wasn't authentically represented to you by some of your teachers and try to rekindle authentic faith. Reading Edward Feser, Bergsma, Hahn, and Pitre are great ways to do this.

      Regarding my "softening towards the end". It is apparent that you don't understand me as well as I understand you Madame Cat Lady. However, I will come to the aid of a damsel in intellectual distress. St. Dominic used to love going to places to preach where he was insulted. When I first heard this I found it remarkably difficult to understanding. Why would someone enjoy being ridiculed? Over time I began to understand that it was a key distinctive of his humility. Even if what was spoken against him were untrue--as what you have spoken against me is untrue--it still provided him occasion to find some fault with himself. It gave him some occasion to grow in perfection. His openness to this is what you seem to think of as "softness" and it also fits perfectly well with his willingness to faithfully refute the heresies of his time forcefully (what you call "cage fighting"). The fitting together of such things in a single soul are incomprehensible to naturalists like you who have abandoned their faith. However, they cohere together perfectly and are perfectly intelligible to people of faith--or even those that are reasonable--who recognize that truth exists, that it can be known, and that it is worth defending.

      Delete
    28. Michael CopasDecember 16, 2024 at 5:03 AM

      Madame Cat Lady the Psychoanalyzing Boomer, PA,

      Now regarding your lonliness, I won't say much because contrary to your suspicions I am not cruel (you did need some correction over your psychoanalyzing penchant, but no more will be said about that after this post unless you want to try that cute little trick again). I will just say as I said to someone else here that lost a family member and was lonely that I am glad you are here. I appreciate your compassionate inclination to defend someone that you thought was being mistreated. I recognize that justified, vehement anger over heresy is unintelligible to you precisely because you have lost your faith along the way. I suspect that recovering that faith would also be an aid in lonliness. Christmas is a wonderful time to recover and rekindle that faith. Once again, Merry Christmas to you.

      PS. I am not at Wheaton currently. I am doing a Phd at a Catholic Institution. I will leave it to you which Catholic Institution has such remarkable counselors as to help me to surmise so much about you through your posts (hint, hint: the psychoanalysis did not take a counselor).

      Delete
    29. Michael CopasDecember 16, 2024 at 5:15 AM

      "You mentioned the Church fathers to Stephen. The Protestants refer to them as well for justification of their beliefs."

      Yes they refer to them, they just don't understand them and consistently misrepresent them or read them in a shallow manner.

      "For someone who is supposedly struggling with the burden of work, school and family, you are spending an inordinate amount of time on this website, writing a lot, but saying very little of substance."

      The semester is over Madame and although I spent a happy and full Sunday with family yesterday, I am back at my writing and have more discretionary time to devote to the spiritual works of mercy noted in my posts above. Lucky you.

      "So, two hours after you didn't want to be bugged by my emails (you were up too late, Michael. I am not emailing you. You are reading my posts on this website. If they bug you, don't read them.), you wish me Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas to you as well."

      Up early. I am on the eastern time zone and it posts on Pacific time when I write (Dr. Feser's time zone). When I have time to write, you don't bug me at all. In fact, I find the occasion to come to your intellectual aid a delight.

      Delete
    30. Michael CopasDecember 16, 2024 at 5:40 AM

      "But when told by the questioner that both places were mentioned in the Bible, he said, "Well yes, you're right about that. "Life experiences had changed him somewhat. He was proud to have served God, the Catholic Church and the Jesuits."

      The problem is that in denying that the existence of God is rationally demonstrable, he was neither serving God nor the Church (nor the Jesuits as they are they were envisioned by their founder). He knew the teachings of Vatican I and if he doubted that God could be known via reason, he was abandoning the Church which gave those teachings and the God whose Holy Spirit guides ecumenical councils.

      Delete
    31. bmillerDecember 16, 2024 at 7:01 AM

      It seems Fr Copelston did entertain doubts (like most believers) but was able to distinguish them from real difficulties in his faith.

      https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/jesuit-and-his-faith-part-ii-992

      Regarding hell.

      Copleston on the afterlife and the reality of Hell: "The ideas of Heaven and Hell are complementary... if the one idea expresses revelation, so does the other. The orthodox Christian can be expected to accept both; and I do accept them.... Possession of freedom implies that a human being can accept or reject God.... I do not see how one can exclude the possibility of a human being persisting in his or her choice against God and so remaining in a state of alienation from God. Given this possibility, Hell would be more something chosen by the human being in question, than simply imposed by a ruthless judge."

      The quote is attributed to his autobiography.

      Delete
    32. Michael CopasDecember 16, 2024 at 7:31 AM

      To the Dear Madame Anonymous, PA,

      You have mentioned Edward Siecienski's book several times and this seems to be a deep concern to you. To allay those concerns, I have this in my library, but I have not yet read it. I look forward to doing so when I have the time to give it a close read.

      Delete
    33. Any mouseDecember 16, 2024 at 7:35 AM

      I remain anonymous for personal and professional reasons (that has nothing to do with courage; I could use a fake gmail account and you wouldn't know the difference)

      It is not necessary even to go through the bother of setting up a fake gmail account to have a "name" for the limited sake of this exchange here. You can click on the "Anonymous" button above, and simply select any old fake name, such as "Fake name" and go by that here. It takes less than 10 seconds. And would set you apart from the other anonymous posters. Including from me. It seems like a matter of simple politeness in conversation to be separable from other conversants.

      Delete
    34. AnonymousDecember 16, 2024 at 1:55 PM

      No, Michael, I am a he, not a she. You remain deeply disturbed. There is nothing further to be said. You will have to get the attention you crave elsewhere.

      Delete
    35. AnonymousDecember 16, 2024 at 2:46 PM

      Bmiller. The EWTN link is from p.212 of Copleston book Memoirs. After "ruthless judge," Copleston says "this line of thought is open to a number of weighty objections, and I am inclined to what seemed to be Robinson's interpretation."
      J.A.T Robinson believed in Universal Salvation, and that is how Copleston was inclined.

      Delete
    36. bmillerDecember 17, 2024 at 7:32 AM

      Thanks Anonymous.

      I'll look up what Robinson wrote now. But since Copleston seemed unsure of what Robinson's interpretation was I doubt I'll do much better. Also sounds like he was unsure of even his own inclination or I assume he would have used the word conviction.

      Did Copleston believe in hell, but hoped no one ended up there like Hans Urs von Balthasar? I don't think that's what most people would consider universalism.

      Delete
    37. AnonymousDecember 21, 2024 at 5:06 AM

      Michael Copas (continued)

      In Deuteronomy 18 it's clear that what connects the proscribed acts is that they are religious in nature and 'egalitarian'. It's not forbidding merely consulting professional mediums or going to priests of Molech to have your child offered as a burnt offering. What is forbidden for example is for any Israelite to 'call upon' or 'seek the dead' . And that is what praying to the saints falls under. It is a seeking or a calling upon or to the dead and it's forbidden in Deuteronomy and the prophets and is never carried out by the Lord or the teacher of the Gentiles or Peter or Mary. Therefore the RC has no excuse.

      Stephen Glasse

      Delete
    38. AnonymousDecember 21, 2024 at 5:38 AM

      Michael Copas

      Just to reiterate a point that may or may not have got lost in posting : Jesus proclamation to the spirits in prison must refer to the spirits/ angels of Genesis 6 and Jude 6-7 since humans are never called "spirits" in scripture nor are humans in Tartarus but Hades/sheol and verse 22 of 1 Peter 3 confirms this interpretation of 3:20.
      Therefore the scripture again and again prohibits any conversation with the dead and the RC is in serious error. The only question is, Is that error fatal to its status as the one true church? Dr feser was brave enough to admit that the pope teaching heresy ex cathedra would falsify RC. Are you able to say, in the circumstances that the RC teaching did fall under the prohibition of Deuteronomy , whether for you that would falsify RC?

      Delete
    39. Michael CopasDecember 21, 2024 at 12:39 PM

      Stevie you are a wonder. Egalitarian acts in Deut 18 eh? I am sure you are right. Deut 18 is weighing in on the the Catholic practice of venerating the Saints using language associated with the evangelical "egalitarian"/"complementarian" debate? You have quite the imagination and if you were 7 years old your child like naivety would be almost endearing.

      Delete
    40. Michael CopasDecember 21, 2024 at 12:45 PM

      Madame Cat Lady the psychoanalyzing Boomer,

      Disengaging just when the conversation was getting good. Cat ladies sure are fickle. It's ashame as nothing passes the time better than talking with a lonely boomer cat lady on a blog.

      Delete
    41. Michael CopasDecember 21, 2024 at 1:26 PM

      Stevo Stevo,

      You keep asking questions without having the courtesy to respond to the questions and requests I have made of you. You ignore most of what is said, focus on whatever suits your fancy, and then expect responses to your questions when you have ignored most of what I have said. Your exegesis of blog comments is at about as penetrating and reasonable as your exegesis of Scripture. You ignore much and find what you want. It's what you are taught by the guy in torn jeans. Why don't you and Anonymous talk with each other. I think you would like each other. He seems to be open to all bad ideas and would point out that even the torn jeans school of exegesis has adherents.

      Delete
    42. AnonymousDecember 23, 2024 at 8:41 AM

      Michael Copas

      Your points about ignoring what you said and "egalitarianism" are unfortunately not witty unlike your comments about Hapax Legomena and chiasmus, though.
      Firstly I explicitly replied to your one significant point about the spirits in prison. Secondly, either you've totally misunderstood my point about egalitarianism OR you're misrepresenting my post. But I'll let that go. What I will take up is your sarcastic comment about Deuteronomy 18 weighing in on Catholic "veneration"(and if it's obvious to me it's going to be obvious to Dr Feser that you're *switching terminology here for rhetorical and defensive reasons*) of the saints. Was Catholic attempted *communication with DEAD saints* in Moses mind or practiced in Canaan? No, of course not. But does communication with dead saints fall under the umbrella of 'seeking the dead'? YES! Therefore the RCC is guilty of that sin and the only question is whether it is fatal to its status as the one true church

      Delete
  9. NormDecember 9, 2024 at 10:19 PM

    Since politics and culture were a part of the conversation.

    “Preachers of equality and tarantulas… are sitting in their holes, these poisonous spiders, with their backs turned on life, they speak in favor of life, but only because they wish to hurt. They wish to hurt those who now have power” Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

    Prof recently tweeted this on X, condemning the joy of people towards the killing of the United Healthcare CEO,

    Back in 2009, Dr Feser during the killing of a late term abortionist , quite controversially on the blogosphere, maintained the position that even though the killing was wrong and the perpetrator should face justice, we shouldn't be bereaved at his death.

    To quote Prof specifically, he wrote

    "As in the Dahmer case, though, the victim of this crime was himself an evil man and does not deserve our tears."

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/06/two-monsters.html

    I think Prof was entirely justified in taking this position.

    Now with regards to the current incident, I have observed two reactions, one is outright celebration of the murder as a good thing, The "Joy" of Taylor Lorenz. There us no question that this is undeniably wrong and sick. You cannot take pleasure in anty extra judicial killing and for that reason alone if not for any other reason such reactions ought to be condemned. Prof was right to condemn it.

    Now at the same time there's a reaction from what seems to be both the right and the left that is namely the position that Prof took in 2009,

    "As in the Dahmer case, though, the victim of this crime was himself an evil man and does not deserve our tears."

    I was wondering if Prof thinks that in this case such a reaction would be justified.

    Personally, I don't think the reaction is justified, It is not right to ascribe the responsibility of all the failures and wrong actions of the Insurance Company to one man alone. That would reek of plain ignorance and stupidity.

    However there does seem to be a a lot of people of ideological leanings across the board who think they have genuinely been wronged by the Health Insurance industry.

    So I would like to hear about different thoughts on these issues, because it does seem to converge with the topic of Capitalism and it's apparent drawbacks.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 10, 2024 at 6:52 AM

      People may feel wronged by the industry, but they probably aren't.

      That should be factored in to this equation of how to feel about the death of the CEO.

      Delete
    2. NormDecember 10, 2024 at 9:55 AM

      Anon

      Fair Point, people tend to have this "let's go with the flow" mentality, which often turns out to be nothing substantive.

      But in the reactions, one does come across a case where someone lost a loved one because their procedure wasn't covered etc.

      Do you think that there's a chance that there are methods employed by insurance companies to avoid covering someone's procedure when there are general indicators that it should have been covered.

      While it might be legally permitted, I do think there's a moral aspect which would obligate one to not make recourse to such actions.

      Delete
    3. Michael FDecember 10, 2024 at 6:11 PM

      Baloney!

      Delete
    4. NormDecember 12, 2024 at 7:55 PM

      Michael F

      Could you elaborate?

      Delete
    5. NormDecember 14, 2024 at 4:06 AM

      Just to clarify my comments though.

      I think that the act was ghastly and reprehensible. The perpetrator should be punished accordingly.

      The complaints about the health insurance industry are totally blown out of proportion.

      I agree with Profs comment on AOC that she is trying to prop up the concerns of a murderer.

      Delete
    6. TonyDecember 16, 2024 at 7:22 AM

      But in the reactions, one does come across a case where someone lost a loved one because their procedure wasn't covered etc.

      The reality of this situation is more complicated, by a number of factors. For instance: OK, maybe it wasn't covered by insurance, but that doesn't mean the DOCTOR couldn't have done the procedure anyway. Maybe the patient could have paid outside of insurance, or maybe someone else could have paid (charity), or maybe there was a government program, or maybe the doctor could have done it pro bono. There are an almost infinite number of maybes embedded in those, because there are an almost infinite number of someone else's that might have come forward. How is it possible to allocate the ultimate "blame"?

      Be that as it may, it is an unpalatable but also unavoidable physical and economic reality that medical care is - and always must be - a rationed resource. It is rationed economically by things like available money, by insurance, by government allocations (Medicaid), but even if those resources were all doubled overnight, that would still have an UPPER LIMIT. It is rationed physically because doctors and nurses simply cannot work 24-7, and even if they could that would still be A LIMIT. Even if they were willing to work for free (thus avoiding the immediate economic constraint) they cannot work more then all the time they physically can - and what about the poor sod who "could have been saved" if only a doctor hadn't been too tired to see him after seeing everyone else?

      Because there will ALWAYS be such poor sods who were at the end of the line and could not be helped, the mere fact that there are such cases cannot BY ITSELF be a just condemnation of "the system" nor of specific aspects of the system like insurance programs. Insurance is a vast, vast improvement over the arrangements of a mere 150 years ago, where everyone just bloody well paid from their own pocket directly for every medical service. It can't fix the limited resource problem by itself.

      Do you think that there's a chance that there are methods employed by insurance companies to avoid covering someone's procedure when there are general indicators that it should have been covered.

      Since John Grisham wrote a very plausible novel based on this premise nearly 30 years ago, yes I believe it is possible, and indeed very likely in individual cases of certain insurance companies and with respect to certain practices. It has been bandied about for a LONG time that certain companies (not even just health insurance, other companies do this) have a practice of "simply say no" the first time around, and then wait for the complaints / replies. If 10% of the customers just accept the "no" and don't complain, that's 10% of service costs saved right off the top, even if the other 90% are accepted and paid right away. And even if a company doesn't do this explicitly, there are any number of other ways of acting that have something like a comparable format just less forthrightly unjust.

      Delete
    7. NormDecember 16, 2024 at 9:16 AM

      Hi Tony

      Interesting points!

      I think that the point you made about Doctors and Nurses being overwhelmed, too tired etc is already being exemplified by systems of the UK amd Canada which have such mind boggling waiting lines that often the condition has worsened by the time they see the Doctor.

      Delete
    8. TonyDecember 19, 2024 at 9:43 PM

      I see it too in this country: ER's in large cities are often overworked, in part because they are not allowed to ration care by whether you can pay. Some poor people (and many illegal aliens) then use them as their primary care doctor - so they don't have to have a regular doctor - but that vastly abuses the ER system because it's 5 times more expensive in that venue than going to a regular doctor.

      We also have a number of practices built into the system at the other end that are almost certainly contrary to rational economics, one being how we abuse interns and residents (e.g. making them work 36 hours straight) in order to "train up" new doctors, another being how hospitals (and others) vastly inflate their "bill", only to cut it in half or third when the insurance co. points out that the bill is 3 times the contract price. Similar idiocy for medicines that cost $10,000 per dose, but you can get "copay assistance" just by asking for it: the pharmacy gouges the insurer for its portion of the $10k, and then lets you off the hook for your $2k copay. There's no question that the medical system is a mess, and Obamacare didn't fix it.

      Delete
  10. John DerosaDecember 11, 2024 at 7:00 PM

    Fantastic interview!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul D. Van PeltDecember 12, 2024 at 9:47 AM

    Insofar as I am mostly agnostic, with liberal sprinklings of philosophy, I have had a problem with the term *witchcraft* for a long time. If one revises the term, a little, throwing in a "u" and an "l", one ends up with *ritual*. There are all sorts of those, some sacred; some evil; others, innocuous or neutral.I think witches and witchery get a bad rap from mainline ecclesiastics.Self-professed witches I have known seem to agree. Narrowly speaking, witchcraft is, after all, metaphysics. It CAN be turned towards evil or good, depending on intention...not so different to Davidson's notions around what he called PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES.

    Ergo, at the risk of offending self-righteous critics: hey, people, leave them witches alone! Witchcraft is not evil, in itself...Neither is democracy---but, that is another bucket of fishhooks.

    Metaphysics is, mostly, a wild ass guess. My learned brother said that. He is right, I think...has been right, more often than me. The devil is us. God is laughing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 13, 2024 at 2:28 PM

      As Dr. Feser states in the interview, the idea that metaphysics is a mere guess would lead to the idea that we can’t know certain things like “everything has an explanation.” This means that even your own thoughts could exist without explanation and is self-undermining and impossible to affirm. Metaphysics is not spooky pseudoscience, it’s the study of the very being of reality at its deepest level. Witchcraft is not this. Witchcraft tries to gain super-human abilities (an act of establishing oneself as a kind of Demi-god, a rebellion against the natural limitations of man, and a breaking of the First Commandment) by some sort of either made-up force or by appeal to demons. It is inherently an evil action and cannot be legitimately used for good. I don’t believe your brother is on the right track with his thoughts about these things, as is possible for any individual. Cheers.

      Delete
    2. TonyDecember 13, 2024 at 8:45 PM

      Narrowly speaking, witchcraft is, after all, metaphysics.

      I think you mean "broadly speaking", i.e. that viewed in broad terms, witchcraft "is" metaphysics. But even broadly, it isn't. Witchcraft is a practice achieving ends through arcane arts and calling on non-human agents to assist; metaphysics is a field of knowledge, not practice, the study of the primarily principles of being. And while witchcraft may presuppose certain metaphysical premises, it isn't primarily a study of them. Physics, biology, metallurgy, and chess also presuppose certain metaphysical premises.

      The problem, Van, is probably that you (or your brother) have looked into philosophy from the angle of modern philosophers whose prior commitments presuppose an impossibility of definitive knowledge of anything, including first principles. These are the worst sorts to rely on for an explanation of philosophy, much less the more difficult sub-field of metaphysics. It would be a little like throwing out astronomy because you read a book on astrology and found it wanting.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousDecember 13, 2024 at 10:42 PM

      Follow your own advice and "leave them witches alone." Witchcraft is evil and the devil (Satan) is man's most ancient enemy, and a" liar and a murderer from the beginning." For your own safety and your own good, have nothing to do with Witchcraft.

      Delete
  12. Paul D. Van PeltDecember 15, 2024 at 1:46 PM

    I voted. Did no good, for me or anyone.Sorry, man's most ancient enemy is himself. My clock says we are going on 6:00 pm. That is false. It is going on 5:00. Been that way, at this time, since I was a pup

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousDecember 15, 2024 at 2:34 PM

    Dear Dr. Feser,
    Hope all is well! The idea of what would get you to believe Catholicism is false got me thinking about a concern I have had for a while. Bread seems like it is an artifact and not a substance. This would seem to mean that it cannot go under substantial change since it is not a substance to begin with. This would mean however that Transubstantion isn't possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousDecember 16, 2024 at 6:58 AM

      Bread is notionally "a mixture", but it isn't merely a simple conglomeration of the flour, water, and yeast: it is baked, and by that baking it becomes something recognizably different than a bowl of flour, water, and yeast simply speaking. One could call it a quasi-mixture that has is analogous to a substance in some ways.

      It would leave possible that the underlying substances change into the body and blood of Christ in Transubstantiation, in which the "analogous substance" remains in appearance.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousDecember 18, 2024 at 1:18 PM

      An interesting article, worth reading:

      https://philpapers.org/rec/ROTSAA-5

      Delete
  14. AnonymousDecember 21, 2024 at 4:14 AM

    Michael Copas

    You do seem to be substituting emotion, rhetoric, and human opinion for cool-headed analysis of scripture.
    The only significant counter you provided is that the immediate context as well as NT texts conflict with my opinion. But this is false since "seeking the dead" is not a hapex legomena or a technical term. Rather the Hebrew is like the English and is just a general description of what is prohibited. People are prohibited from seeking the dead. The saints are dead therefore they should not be sought. You appeal to Christ preaching to the dead but this is a contentious interpretation since 1 Peter 3 most plausibly refers to the sons of God (ie fallen angels) of Genesis 6 and Jude 6-7. This interpretation is in line with 1 Peter 3:22 whereas humans are never called "spirits". Therefore we have a general prohibition against seeking the dead supported by "why seek the dead on behalf of the living. Should not a people seek their God?" and nothing other than the traditions of men to counter. Our friend refers to Maccabees but that is not scripture and all sorts of magical pagan arts had corrupted Judaism from Babylonia and Greece etc and therefore such a text only demonstrate s that corruption. Note that Paul himself gave us a heads-up in Acts and Timothy of the coming corruption of church doctrine.

    Stephen Glasse (Happy Christmas!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael CopasDecember 21, 2024 at 12:49 PM

      Stevey,

      Hapax legomena? Steven have you been reading some exegetical books like I recommended and picked up some technical exegetical language? Good for you. Why don't you find a way to use the term chiasm or inclusio and I will be real impressed.

      Delete
    2. bmillerDecember 21, 2024 at 7:45 PM

      Stephen Glasse,

      We see in the historical record violent reactions to what were considered novel interpretations to what the Apostles taught. For instance, the scandal of Arianism was over whether Christ was of the same substance as the Father or was of a similar substance as the Father.

      If the practice of asking the saints to pray for us was a novelty and considered prohibited by scripture, there surely must have been some Early Church Father or someone somewhere who argued against the practice in writing. We see Iraneus arguing strenuously against the heresies of the Gnostics present in the time of the Apostle John.

      Who in the early historical record argued that prayers to the saints was wrong?

      Delete
    3. BillDecember 24, 2024 at 8:02 AM

      @Stephen:

      And an appeal to Christ's preaching to the dead is a clear category error. The fact that He may speak to the dead has no bearing on whether He prohibits the same from man. His sovereignty allows Him to visit the iniquities of fathers upon their children while at the same time forbidding us from doing so.

      Delete
  15. AnonymousDecember 23, 2024 at 8:15 AM

    Michael Copas

    "And I will be real impressed". Oh that made me laugh. Seriously. I had no idea from your previous posts that your wit was so on point.
    But, no I didn't read your recommendation though I already own Carson. I've known of hapex legomena since circa 1991.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousDecember 23, 2024 at 8:22 AM

    bmiller

    Well, I wouldn't bracket prayers to the saints with denials of Christ's divinity.
    The fact is though that the saints are dead and scripture outright condemns attempts to communicate with the dead. So unless one can make the case that praying to the saints is not communicating with the dead the charge against the RCC seems irresistible.
    Stephen Glasse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerDecember 23, 2024 at 11:58 AM

      Stephen Glasse,

      The fact is though that the saints are dead and scripture outright condemns attempts to communicate with the dead.

      Your own peculiar and relatively novel interpretation of scripture is what is in dispute however so no, you have established your reading as fact except in your own mind.

      You haven't contested that the Early Church Fathers strenuously rejected anything that contradicted what the Apostles taught. If, as you claim, veneration of the saints is tantamount to the sin of divination and no early Christians condemned this widespread practice what are we to conclude?

      Since the early church is clearly on record as having rejected divination while at the same time never having rejected veneration of the saints although the practice was widespread it seems manifest that your personal interpretation is at odds with what everyone in the early church thought the Apostles taught.

      These really are the facts. People then have a choice. Believe what the early followers of Christ and the Apostles believed or believe things they didn't believe. As you've seen in this blog, Catholics don't even allow that the Pope can do this.

      Delete
    2. TalmidDecember 24, 2024 at 8:48 PM

      @bmiller

      What about Matthew 22, 31-32? As i understand it, RCC doctrine argues that the dead saints are connected with God and so with the living thanks to that. The communion of saints. How dead are they if they see God face to face?

      This was not a thing before Our Lord ressurrection, so one can see why Moses was not doing it.

      Delete
    3. bmillerDecember 25, 2024 at 6:54 AM

      Hi Talmid. I think you meant to address Stephen rather than me.

      But I agree with your point. Things changed after the Ressurrection.

      Delete
  17. bmillerDecember 23, 2024 at 2:35 PM

    ChatGPT: "What exactly is the last practice Deuteronomy 18:11 forbids?":

    The last practice that Deuteronomy 18:11 forbids is "consulting the dead". This refers to attempting to communicate with the spirits of the deceased, which could involve practices such as necromancy or seeking guidance from the dead through mediums, séances, or other occult rituals.

    In the ancient context, this practice was viewed as seeking knowledge or power from sources other than God, which was considered a form of idolatry and a violation of the Israelites' covenant with God. It was part of a broader prohibition against engaging in occult or supernatural practices that were common in surrounding cultures at the time.

    AI has spoken :-)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)