EIGHTH ARTICLE
Whether Man May Be Moral Without God?
Objection 1. The Prophet Isaiah wrote, (Isaiah 64:6) we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Within a man there is no good thing. Try as he may there is no way for a fallen man to be moral.
Objection 2. Jean-Paul Sartre argues that we need not God to be moral. Everyman is to make his own way, paint his own portrait—create his own reality. We are made in the image of God and like God we create our own worlds. Within our worlds we determine what is good and what is evil. Therefore man may be moral, but he need not God to do so.
On the contrary, St. Thomas Aquinas says, Everything is called good by reason of the similitude of the divine goodness belonging to it.
I answer that, In man’s fallen state a man may know the laws of morality though he knows not God. He may do so in the same way a scientist understands the laws of physics without knowing the Creator of those very laws. A man may work very hard to follow those laws, as many have tried, however, though a man may know the laws of morality his will is fallen and apart from the grace of God he may not perfectly conform to those laws.
Reply Obj. 1. In Isaiah God declared that no man may be moral apart from him. But since the time of Christ man no longer lives apart from God. God Himself clothed Himself in humanity. Our Creator took on man’s shame, guilt and sin and gave to man His righteousness. Therein lies the mystery of man’s goodness and morality. Certainly man may not be good in and of himself, but man does not exist in and of himself. Man may exist within God and when he does so he takes upon himself the justification of Christ.
In the justification of Christ a man is freed from the eternal consequences (for indeed there is only one eternal sin: to reject the offer of the Holy Spirit to relationship with Christ) of his sin though he may continue to sin on this earth and suffer temporal consequences for his sin (in other words though a Christian soul is not damned because of his drunkenness, neither is his body freed from hangovers).
The question must be asked: how may a man be freed from his temporal sin? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The alcoholic must be restrained from alcohol; the glutton from excessive amounts of food. Both must be restrained by use of fear or physical restraint, if necessary. After sometime they will develop the habit of virtue. In this time of binding they will find freedom in the restraint from their sin. For once this virtue is developed the place that once was occupied with sin may now be filled with love. The man who began his obedience out of a fear of God may come to obey God out of love and desire. This is our sanctification and in it lies ultimate earthly morality.
God’s will and man’s liberty are not at odds—on the contrary God made man to be free and in so far as man conforms to God’s will man becomes free. God’s Law is not a set of restrictions that keep man from liberty, but rather a roadmap by which man may attain complete freedom and happiness. The path towards this freedom begins with the restrictive fear of God that keeps us from sin and ends in eager, joyful, and loving obedience to God’s will.
Reply Obj. 2. Sartre is most certainly mistaken because morality exists not within, but apart from, man. As was discussed earlier (Article Two), morality is objective—it exists outside of man. We must not be like the modern man who seeks to manipulate morality to his desires. Rather we must be like the ancients who sought to conform their soul to reality by means of virtue, for therein lies man’s freedom.
All men will come to understand the objective nature of reality. All men in one way or another will ultimately obey God’s laws.
Consider a man walking on an icy side walk. If he disobeys the law of prudence (and walks to fast) he will quickly find himself obeying the law of gravity (as he falls to the hard ground). Though he thinks he is his own man and that he makes his own law, he cannot escape the Law of God. In the same we have the opportunity to willingly obey God’s Law in this life. If we refuse to come under this Law willingly in this life we will painfully find ourselves under a much harsher law in the life to come.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
On Morality (Seventh Article), Why God Gave Man Two Distinct Revelations?
SEVENTH ARTICLE
Why God Gave Man Two Distinct Revelations?
Objection 1. God gave man two distinct revelations (the law of Moses and the prophets and the Law of Christ and the Apostles) because God changed the law and He desired that man may know and understand these changes. In one point in time justice consisted of an eye for an eye (Exodus 21:24), but Christ revealed a new law to man when he said if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mathew 5:39). The Law of Moses was binding on man for some period of time, but with Christ man was freed from that law and a completely new law was introduced.
Objection 2. There were not two distinct revelations of God. The Old and New Testaments are one. The New Testament does not change or add anything to the revelation that preceded it.
On the contrary, St. Thomas says, (Summa Theologica, Book Two, Question 91, Article 5) The difference between laws of the Old and New Testaments is not that between an ox and a horse, but of that between a boy and a man. One is imperfect, the other perfect.
I answer that, As it is with many things, errors come in pairs. On the one hand some claim there is an absolute and complete difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, while others claim there is no difference at all. The truth lies somewhere between these erroneous extremes.
There is no difference in kind between the two revelations of God, but there is certainly a difference in degree. The old and new law both had the same end: God, but they differ in their means. The old law was based in fear and restrained the actions of man—do not kill, steal, or commit adultery, etc. While the new law directs the mind of man by means of love—we are to not call a man a fool in our hearts nor lust after a woman in our thoughts. All of this obedience is to flow naturally out of our love for God, for Christ says (John 14:23) if you love me, you will obey me.
It is natural and expected that the revelations of God should come to man in this order. Only when a man is free from his passions and sin may he be free to voluntarily love and obey God.
Reply Obj. 1. Christ said, (Mathew 5:17) do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. If God has changed the law, then the authority of the law rests on God’s power alone. But law cannot rely on power alone, for if it did the law would be arbitrary. Justice must be more than a mere changing opinion of God, for if it was it would be nothing than utter folly to praise God for his goodness and justice in conforming to the law (Fifth Article). Therefore the revelation of Christ cannot be a completely new and distinct from the revelation that God gave Moses.
Reply Obj. 2. God is not arbitrary and He would not have given man a second revelation if He had nothing new or different to say. This is a matter of common sense: if God told man all he needed to know in His first revelation He would not have given mankind another. From the fact that God gave man a second revelation we may know that there is something new or different within this revelation that man needs to know.
Why God Gave Man Two Distinct Revelations?
Objection 1. God gave man two distinct revelations (the law of Moses and the prophets and the Law of Christ and the Apostles) because God changed the law and He desired that man may know and understand these changes. In one point in time justice consisted of an eye for an eye (Exodus 21:24), but Christ revealed a new law to man when he said if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mathew 5:39). The Law of Moses was binding on man for some period of time, but with Christ man was freed from that law and a completely new law was introduced.
Objection 2. There were not two distinct revelations of God. The Old and New Testaments are one. The New Testament does not change or add anything to the revelation that preceded it.
On the contrary, St. Thomas says, (Summa Theologica, Book Two, Question 91, Article 5) The difference between laws of the Old and New Testaments is not that between an ox and a horse, but of that between a boy and a man. One is imperfect, the other perfect.
I answer that, As it is with many things, errors come in pairs. On the one hand some claim there is an absolute and complete difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, while others claim there is no difference at all. The truth lies somewhere between these erroneous extremes.
There is no difference in kind between the two revelations of God, but there is certainly a difference in degree. The old and new law both had the same end: God, but they differ in their means. The old law was based in fear and restrained the actions of man—do not kill, steal, or commit adultery, etc. While the new law directs the mind of man by means of love—we are to not call a man a fool in our hearts nor lust after a woman in our thoughts. All of this obedience is to flow naturally out of our love for God, for Christ says (John 14:23) if you love me, you will obey me.
It is natural and expected that the revelations of God should come to man in this order. Only when a man is free from his passions and sin may he be free to voluntarily love and obey God.
Reply Obj. 1. Christ said, (Mathew 5:17) do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. If God has changed the law, then the authority of the law rests on God’s power alone. But law cannot rely on power alone, for if it did the law would be arbitrary. Justice must be more than a mere changing opinion of God, for if it was it would be nothing than utter folly to praise God for his goodness and justice in conforming to the law (Fifth Article). Therefore the revelation of Christ cannot be a completely new and distinct from the revelation that God gave Moses.
Reply Obj. 2. God is not arbitrary and He would not have given man a second revelation if He had nothing new or different to say. This is a matter of common sense: if God told man all he needed to know in His first revelation He would not have given mankind another. From the fact that God gave man a second revelation we may know that there is something new or different within this revelation that man needs to know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
