Archive for ‘Second Blog Post’

Desiderius Erasmus is a man the textbook described as depressed all of his life, a believer in free will, author of  the book The Praise of Folly, critical of the organized church, complimentary of the simple life Jesus lived, and an observer of the world (95-97).  At first glance, Erasmus sounds just kind of sad.  He was depressed, “fond of pointing out mistakes,” and disturbed by certain things about the church, such as how bishops became rich and famous.  Erasmus appears to focus on the negative.  But, I think what this informs us about is the fall of humans.  Erasmus reasons that “anything created by humans could not be perfect.”  He also discusses in his book, The Praise of  Folly, that those who are “fools” are happier, able to live and act on their true feelings, and do not fear death.  His book implies that those who are not “fools” are unhappy, incapable of making good decisions without the pressure of religious doctrines, etc.  In other words, again Erasmus is informing us about the fall of man, the imperfections, the inconsistencies of our nature.

However, that is not all there is to Erasmus’ contribution to history.  Erasmus talks about following Jesus’ example, therefore admitting that he approves of Jesus’ simple life and thinks there is value in the way He lived and set the example.  I think by telling people to look at Jesus as an example, Erasmus is admitting that he believes there is more than the human brokenness and fallen state (95).  I think he is admitting that we can be redeemed and don’t have to continue living in a life of ignorance. His ideas are further promoted when we examine his thoughts on free will versus pre-destination.  Erasmus writes to someone who might believe in pre-destination:

“Doesn’t the reader of such passages ask: why do you [God] make conditional promises, when it depends solely on your will?  Why do you blame me, when all my works, good or bad, are accomplished by you, and I am only your tool?… Why bless me, as if I had done my duty, when everything is your achievement?  Why do you curse me, when I have merely sinned through necessity?”

What I really like about Erasmus is that he doesn’t seem to sit in this fallen idea and just wallow in it. Rather, he looks to scriptures and says, basically, “I see where God says we get to choose whether we want to do what is good or what is evil.”  In this way, I believe Erasmus teachers us about Redemption.  Through scripture, through looking at the simple life of Jesus Christ, we can change our ways.  We can choose to make decisions that are for the good.  One example of this recognition of the fall, but use of redemption is actually in Erasmus’ life.  The textbook tells us that all of his life he struggles with depression.  And yet, when the book talks about the disagreeing views of Erasmus and Martin Luther, it says that Erasmus was respectful, kind, and conciliatory throughout his debates with Martin Luther.  Martin Luther on the other hand is described as mean, disrespectful, and dogmatic.  So although his depression could have resulted in excuses for ugly behavior, Erasmus chooses redemption.  It appears to me that he chooses to reflect Christ in his responses.

Along with Mengyuan Tang’s post, I agree that free will falls into the Creation category. As Erasmus defines free will as “the power of human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that which leads into eternal salvation.” With our free will, we are deciding the path of life we want to live and that would lead us to whether we are going to be granted eternal salvation or end in hell.  As God as our creator, he is the only one that knows how we will live our life. “…human actions are predestined that “it would be dangerous to reveal such a doctrine to the multitude, for morality is dependent on consciousness of freedom.”” I think that if we were to know the paths we were going to take in life from the day we were born, we would change up our mind from either the wrong path to the right path while not living your life freely and the world would be a total different place. I believe God granted us life to of course make our own decisions and live by our own choices. I’m actually kind of back and forth with Erasmus and Luther because I do in ways feel like in this world we live in slavery. As Luther states, “In all things pertaining to salvation or damnation, man has no free will, but is captive, servant and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” As we do decide how we want to live our life, we do choose who to worship and that puts us under their control based on our decisions to end good or bad.  I do question though to why God would allow us to make some of those bad decisions and end in hell, instead of being granted the eternal salvation. As Luther states, “in other words, God only knows.”

Giovanni Pico, whose books for burned for being heretical, believed that the ideas of man should be respected in the name of understanding. The idea that a Christian point of view didn’t need to be at odds with the point of view of everyone else didn’t sit well with many in the church, but it fits one of the central ideas of restoration: Peace. Pico also thought that humans had the ability to choose to make good decisions or bad, and that ultimately rationality and intelligence would lead to good decision-making.

He further argued that different philosophical viewpoints, which seemed contradictory, would be part of one whole if they were properly understood. Giovanni Pico saw the need for peacemakers in a world made hostile for intellectuals. He fits an interpretation of the end times that doesn’t involve a bloody war and a rapture to save those few truly faithful, but rather the reconciliation of all mankind underneath the grace of God. Unlike many thinkers of his time, he doesn’t have a pessimistic view of the secular world. It’s possible that, were he alive today, he would fit in among universalist Christian scholars (those who believe that God will save or has saved everyone, including non-Christians).

In true fashion of a peacemaker himself, he analyzed opposing viewpoints in order to find common ground. Had he lived in a world needing diplomacy, he would have made a great diplomat, prepared to give ground and compromise not just in property, but in intellect. Pico displayed the kind of humility the world needs to come to peace after thousands of years of war. It’s a shame he died young instead of being confronted by the Church. Like with Christ, there are few people who could hate someone unwilling to hate them back.

Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz was a noteworthy German mathematician. His contributions to the development of psychological thought largely reflect a Creation perspective. Leibniz explored the possibilities of the unknown/unseen world that exists outside of and within the mind. He did not distinguish between living and non-living, but declared everything in the world to be living. He supports this declaration with his concept of monadology, or the separate live atoms that make up matter. Leibniz presented the idea that all monads were active and capable of thought.

Similar to Aristotle’s proposition, Leibniz believed there to be a hierarchy of the clarity of thought. God had the highest clarity and plants had the lowest. Man was second to God in clarity of thought.  Monads had a goal of increasing their clarity of thought because this manner of thinking was thought to be pleasurable. One way that monadology represents Creation is that monads had this ability to advance in the hierarchy and become actualized. Therefore monads had the ability to fulfill a purpose. Since man was made of these monads, they shared this purpose as well. So, following the question of where does man come from, Leibniz’ answer is monads and their purpose is to increase their intelligence to the point were they become actualized. Realizing one’s full potential is still a prominent concept in modern societies and is often expressed in US culture by athletes, academics, and those are mastering an art or a craft.

Leibniz also presents a Creation perspective in his understanding of the mind-body relationship in human beings. His proposition that God created a preestablished harmony explores the question of what is the universe in which we live. He also stated that the very agreement of the mind and body was designed by the nature of monads and this idea of preestablished harmony.

The debate on free will may fall into the category of Creation, because it is related to the understanding of human being and the relationship with God. It may also fit the category of New Creation, because it is also related to the redemption and salvation. St. Augustine had mentioned free will before Erasmus and Martin Luther. According to Augustine, individuals are free to choose between the way of Stan, which is sinful, and the way of God, which is good. He accepted free will and believed that people are personally responsible for their actions. However, according to Augustine, choosing to live a life free of sin doesn’t lead to eternal salvation. He argued that salvation was nothing to do with one’s action and is determined only by God’s grace.

On the basis of Augustine’s postulate, Erasmus and Luther hold two contrasting views over free will. According to Erasmus, he admitted God’s grace but he emphasized the role of human free will. Erasmus defined free will as “the power of the human will whereby man can apply to or turn away from that leads unto eternal salvation”.  In other words, with Erasmus, salvation is attained by two critical factors. One is God’s grace, and the other is human free will. That is, when God’s grace befalls, those who choose well in their lifetime will eventually enter heaven.

Contrarily, Luther denied free will. As he considered, “free will is like a beast of burden. If God rides it, it wills and goes whence God wills…if Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills. The riders themselves contend who shall have and hold it.” The will Luther thought was enslaved and had no effect on being saved. Like Augustine, he believed that people were not able to know God and attain eternal life in heaven by their endeavors. In fact, there is nothing people can do. Salvation can be provided by God’s grace alone.

Erasmus idea is in line with Renaissance humanists’ great concern with human potential, while Luther’s view insisted on God of all glory. This thought-provoking debate let people think more about human being, the relationship with God and the way of salvation.

The Renaissance was undoubtedly a time of incredible progress and movement intellectually, spiritually, and even artistically. During a point in history when so many things were moving forward, it only seems in natural progression that all major factors of life were being challenged in new ways. This onset of deep thinking and big questions gave rise to some of the most influential and important people we know today. Most of the accomplishments of the modern world centered and began in this time period. Based on knowledge, wealth, art and talent great minds refocused the priorities of many. Johannes Gutenberg, specifically, is someone that I admire and who fascinates me greatly. As a prominent believer in the Bible and the innovator of moving metal in the West, he was able to capitalize on modern printing techniques in Europe. His Bible was the first book to be extensively published and it quickly spread all throughout the world. By stimulating the literacy rate of many people, especially towards Scripture, he certainly has my respect. Since reason and skepticism were a vital part of this time, it is interesting and refreshing to me that the Bible was still something so pivotal to Gutenberg. As a devout Catholic, there are many parts of his faith that I disagree with but overall, I admire who he is and what he accomplished. He chose the Bible to be what he used his brilliant mind for and that is incredible. The method of printing he created is notable because it allowed not only for revolution in how books were made, but also for ensuring the rapid development in science, arts and, most significant to me, religion through transmission of texts.

In studying the philosophies of Averroes, I have decided to put him into the category of redemption. One of his most famous ideas is that religion and philosophy can go hand in hand. I think that this idea is a very forward thinking idea for him. They are rather different paths to get to the same truth. He also believed that souls are not eternal. All humans are at the same basic level and share one divine soul. This idea that the collective soul of all human beings in divine speaks very much into the idea of redemption. He fully believes that we can be saved, or already saved from our own terrible fate because our pure forms, souls, are divine. Destiny was another idea that he spoke into. Man’s destiny is to progress towards pure thoughts. After the fall, we are searching for meaning in our own lives. Averroes thought that “to think is to live; it is to unite with the cosmos”. I think this is a very cool idea for us as humans. We are such small creatures compared to what the entire universe contains. Averroes is so hopeful that we can unite, not only together as humans, but also into whatever is out there in the entire universe. The last idea that I think plays a large part in redemption is he thought the future held education of women and equality of the sexes. Redemption is about bringing peace and hope to a broken world and human souls. I think that this is a very interesting moment when someone predicted that there would be equality. This was not the custom at the time, and even though there would not be equality between the sexes for a very long time.

Francesco Petrarch’s writing marks the beginning of the Renaissance (pg. 94). This period of time was characterized by extreme individualism, very personalized religion, increased interest in the past and Anti-Aristotelianism (pg. 94). I believe that because of this focus on God, and religion and having such an individualized and personal relationship with God, that much of Francesco’s ideologies and beliefs fit into the category of Restoration or New Creation. It could even be argued that he fits into the category of original creation.
Petrarch states: “by actualizing the potential God has given to us, we can change the world for the better” (pg. 94). So although humans may have in the past created chaos and destruction in this world they still have a chance to fix what they have done and create a new world in which there can be peace and harmony. Petrarch believed in “freeing the human spirit from the confines of medieval traditions…” (pg.94). Again supporting the idea that although humans have messed up in the past, and spent to much time drawing away from God, they still have a chance for restoration and redemption. Petrarch also believed that “God wanted humans to use their vast capabilities, not inhibit them” (pg. 94). With this statement I believe that he supports the idea of creation. He supports the idea that God created man ultimately for good, he created man to do good things in this world and to make something of himself. Not to tear the world apart and fight against all of God’s creation. I think looking at Petrarch’s Renaissance influence is also important for understanding some of his beliefs. Because this time period so supported a personal religion, people were becoming more aware of who God could be in their lives. I believe many people at this point were repenting of their sins and looking for a relationship with a God who loves them instead of looking to be part of a church that tells them what they can and cannot do, in this way I think again Petrarch supports the idea of Restoration. I think it is interesting that Petrarch did not necessarily contribute anything new to the philosophical world, but he challenged religion and philosophy enough that it made people think a different way. It made people more aware of who they were meant to be, and who Christ created them to be, so in this way they sought restoration of their nation and of their world.

For far too long the church did the thinking for the people. In today’s culture this sounds less and less like a bad idea. What with Miley being Miley (whatever that means) and the constant demand of today’s progressing world for more shock value, to some of us who still retain more conservative ideals, the world needs a little more advice from the church. But as many thinkers during The Renaissance will tell you, even the church doing the thinking for you can be harmful. Before The Renaissance the church had a habit of telling the people what was right and what was wrong. It was very legalistic in its behaviors and standards and often committed unspeakable things in the name of God. Where am I going with this? The Renaissance challenged much of that mindset much like Desiderius Erasmus.

Erasmus challenged the day’s standards and ways of thinking. His opinion was that women should be allowed to be educated, he believed anything created by humans could not be perfect. He challenged exorcisms and alchemy on nonsense as well as beliefs in superstitions. One of the highlighted statements he constantly made was the challenge to take their life lessons from the simple life of Jesus and not rely completely on organized religion. I think it’s safe to say Erasmus would not be a fun man to go fishing with on account of all the boat rocking. With all of this said, I would most associate Erasmus with Redemption.

As humans, we have often had a knack for counting one above the other. We can put people down, and argue to be in the right. We strive to be perfect but as it says in Romans, we all fall short of the glory of God, – we all fall short of true perfection. Legalism is what God’s creation was into when Jesus came to this planet. He challenged common knowledge, challenged societal norms, saw all the flaws that were in this creation, and yet, his ultimate calling was to die for it. He died so that this imperfect creation would know redemption. Erasmus, in my opinion, saw there was a need for a change. He saw that what were considered normal ways of life were not right. Erasmus is responsible for a book entitled The Praise of Folly where he stated that fools were almost better off than the so-called wise persons because they live in accordance with their true feelings and not by superstition or doctrines. Erasmus was so critical of the excess of the Catholic church he practically raised the reformist “egg” that would later be hatched by Luther. (J. Wilson, 1994). He saw the church was doing more harm than good. So why associate him with redemption? I believe it’s safe to say he started us down the road to making faith our own. In the end, faith in Jesus is about having a relationship with him. It’s about grace and love and forgiveness. It doesn’t seem like the church, back then, was very interested in any of that. Erasmus, I believe, helped bring about a voice of conviction and change. He saw all was not well and did what he could to redeem it, did what he could to teach and share that we will not get everything right all the time. Redemption is necessary and I think Erasmus saw there was a need for that which is why he challenged.

Otherwise known as the “Jewish Plato,” Philo shared much of his reasoning.  Philo believed that the senses cannot provide knowledge and that sensory experiences can interfere with our direct understanding of and communication with God.  He believed that all knowledge and wisdom came from God, not from introspection. However he did believe that the soul should be purified and that true knowledge can be attained only with a purified and passive mind.

Because of his belief that all knowledge comes from God, I think I’m going to categorized Philo with creation. Honestly I’m really torn as to where to put him at all, I like how much he depends on God, but I don’t think it really agrees with our world today which I would classify as in the restoration stage. Today we gain to much of our knowledge from Science and our own life experiences, and in some cases from introspection. Philo’s complete dependance on God for any and all knowledge strikes me as how Eden would have been. Adam and Eve knew nothing, they didn’t study science or sit and ponder, up until the fall they relied fully on God. I wish we lived in a society that depended more on God in this way, I think it would be a more peaceful and agreeable place.