“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these charity.” I Corinthians 13:12-13
As I was meditating about God’s Love and its relation to Philosophy, I was reminded of this verse and how much godly philosophical wisdom it contains. The knowledge of parts is the knowlege of particulars and material facts, of which our modern western civilization has egregiously sinned in gross over-emphasis, eclipsing any significant knowledge of universals, and even more importantly, by neglecting the knowledge of the Love of God.
In my last post I mentioned in passing that the creation of the Heavens and the Earth is the creation of the Worlds of Forms or Universals and the World of Matter or Particulars. However, the Love of God is something more than any Universal or Particular. Rather, this Love is the very nature of God Himself, and is Holy and Set-apart, and is not a part of His Creation at all. Isn’t this amazing?! His Love, which is His very nature and not part of this created order, He gives freely to any mortal human creature who repents from their sins and turns their heart wholly toward God to love Him with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength. There is nothing more valuable than this, and should be our first desire over anything else.
Greek philosophy does not include anything beyond Forms and Matter, and so could not explain or even conceive of a Holy God Who created both Realms but Who is beyond them and is completely Set-apart and Transcendent in Glory. Greek philosophy could not explain the Love of God, since it is of the very Nature of a Transcendent God beyond any Universals or Particulars. That is why the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man, because man, by his own efforts, could not attain to it or even comprehend it. Matter and Forms were created out of nothing, but the Love of God is a precious and holy Gift that comes from His very Nature, and is not created.
This also explains perfectly the pre-existence of the Trinity, because this Love is Eternal, and is always operating and abiding eternally between the Father and Son.
“Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me: for Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world.” John 17:24
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 10, 2007 at 12:48 am
The Imugi
Nice entry.
The first quote from Paul is one of my favorites; it reminds me of a similiar quotation from a different tradition:
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say that there are no stars in the heavens during the day? Because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
(-Sri Ramakrishna)
October 23, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Qwerty the cucumber
This reminds me of a seminar that a speaker from POBLO (People Of the Book Lutheran Outreach) gave about a year ago. Whereas in Christianity, John writes that “God IS love,” Islam has no such verses. The Quran does say that “Allah loves those who DO such-and-such,” but no unconditional love. Even the “simple” verse of John 3:16 is radical to them.
Also – I love the quote, Imugi!
November 3, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Qwerty the cucumber
I was browsing http://answering-islam.org/ and discovered another article on what I just said. The article was basically a word study of the word “love” in both the Bible and the Quran. Not only is there no unconditional love in the Quran, but also–whenever it says “Allah loves those who…”, it is for a work the person does. A person’s doing good deeds really gets only Allah’s good will upon him or her; it is not in that sense love for God, but instead self-seeking (“I’ll love Allah so he won’t punish me”).
As for explaining the “pre-existence of the Trinity,” Henry Morris wrote a book on apologetics, “Many Infallible Proofs,” some decades ago; it contains an excellent chapter on evidence for a TRIUNE God from natural examples! Mind-blowing!
February 8, 2008 at 6:30 pm
bartleby
“Greek philosophy does not include anything beyond Forms and Matter, and so could not explain or even conceive of a Holy God Who created both Realms but Who is beyond them and is completely Set-apart and Transcendent in Glory.”
Then you have either not read Plato’s Phaedo or you have read it badly.
Given your history of distortion and ignorance, it’s a toss-up either way.
February 8, 2008 at 8:39 pm
No Compromises
I would invite you to demonstrate particularly in Phaedo where he indicates that the deity is outside of both matter and form.
Where’s your presentation? I am eager to see your presentation to convince all of us that ontologist is wrong. Otherwise you’re just a drive by!
March 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Oneironaught
Phaedo, by Plato, written 360 B.C, predates the new testament and the “creation” of the holy trinity.
Many medieval philosophers did in fact attempt to harmonise socratic philosophy with christian theology. Augustine and Aquinas were deeply influenced by Platonism and Aristotelianism repsectively, and they remain as two of the greatest theologians of their time.
Furthermore, the greeks were preoccupied with their own philosophical investigations. Their enterprise had its own focus and direction, before Christianity existed, and occured just as the old testament had finished being written. Try not to write off ancient Greece in such a flippant way. Hyperbolic pseudo-profundities do not assert very much at all. That last claim in ontologists post is completely unsubstantiated.
I am not a believer, however Christianity is a wonderful and powerful thing, as long as it is not utilised to write off the history of philosophy as plain wrong.
Peace and love.
March 7, 2008 at 9:18 am
ontoligist
If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:26
This passage from the Master Yahshua might suggest on the surface that He has commanded His disciples to actually hate their blood relations in an absolute sense, but this is not the case at all. On the contrary, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, but especially to love our own flesh and blood. The term “hate” that is used by Yahshua in this context is only in a relative and relational sense (double meaning intended), and not in an absolute sense, otherwise we would be sinning and violating His Torah, and He does not contradict His own Torah or instruction to His disciples.
In like manner I am also using a relative comparison of Greek Dualism and Scriptural Trinism in the same parabolic or even, as you mention, hyperbolic manner just as my Master Yahshua has done here in this passage. He did not shrink from using such hyperbole to illustrate the extreme elevation of the Love of God above any human love. He did not in any way command that we should hate our relatives, but rather that we should love God so much that any human love would seem like hate in comparison. This is a common feature of Semitic narration.
Likewise, I am not dismissing Greek Dualistic Philosophy in any way, but rather I am illustrating its necessary limitations. Greek Dualism is far superior to our postmodern prevalent worldview of materialistic Monism that requires an unreasonable reductionism, and an excessive use of Ockham’s razor in an unwarranted attempt to remove formal but non-material things that by their very nature are inherently intelligible, substantial, and irreducible.
Let me emphasize that the study of Greek Dualistic Philosophy through Plato and Aristotle will always be a significant benefit for the serious student and seeker of Truth, and it has certainly been so for me. Especially in our modern and postmodern times where materialistic Monism has dominated our thinking, and such a postmodern worldview was constantly being reinforced and taught to us when we were younger. I was never introduced to the intellectual riches of Platonic Philosophy until much later in life because our postmodern culture dismisses it so much. You are correct to be so concerned about it being dismissed, and I share that concern too. I now feel that I have been intellectually robbed of this treasure in my High School and College years. I believe Philosophy should be just as much a required course as Arithmetic and Grammar are.
A Monistic worldview by its very nature does not support a logical or rational worldview, because logic is inherently DUALISTIC, and materialistic Monism assumes that all experience can be reduced to only ONE thing, Matter. Now Matter may also be considered to be random Chaos, without reason, logic or thought. Such Matter by itself being unintelligible, and is indeed random unintelligibility itself, whereas forms may be considered as pure thought and meaning.
Blessings and Shalom in your seeking for Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding.