Three methods of the natural knowledge of God by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: a review

The three methods of the natural knowledge of God by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite are as follows: (1) affirmation or causality, (2) negation, and (3) eminence. Firstly, affirmation or causality considers the principle of proportionate causality, which is when that which is caused must be in the causer. The causer being superior to the caused follows from the principle of proportionate causality because the causer not only has the things due to itself, it also has the caused. Creation is caused, so, that which is the causer is superior to creation. Superiority in this case is evidence for God. Secondly, negation, which is that potentiality in creations are not found in God. The denial of potentially being attributed to God is not just a special pleading denial. It is a denial of limitation. God does not have limitations, but is limitless, so limitations cannot be attributed to God. Thirdly, eminence, which is the idea that finitism found in creatures participates in the infinite God. A paradigm of eminence is like a piece of wood being limited in its burning has its burning actualized according to the fire that burns it. Now, the series of limited things being actualized by other limited things must terminate in order for there to be any existence of limited things. At the terminating point would be that which is unlimited, like God. Also, it is fitting that the unlimited would be unlimited because if the limited could not participate in the unlimited fully in its limitlessness, it could participate in analogous portions of the unlimited. When an infinite amount of limited things participate in the unlimited thing, the unlimited thing never runs out of content for the infinite amount of limited things to participate in.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

justification

  Second Council of Orange (AD 529): CANON 18 . “That grace is not preceded by merit.  Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.” Council of Trent on Justification: “but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification . For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” Efficient cause: “ a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance” Meritorious cause: “ His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Fat...
Read more