The Ultimate Philosophy: God’s Sovereignty By: Ds. Joy M. Vingno (2008, WVSU) The human quest is without end. It is characterized by human rationality deeply rooted in man’s natural limitations projecting in the insatiability and insecurity of man’s intelligence. Philosophy has become the justifying core of anything and in any systematic discipline directed toward perfection of culture and art relatively for his human satisfaction. This article is motivated by the need for social and ethical discussion in the interest of either there is a need for the Philippine religious society to change social paradigm, or for the need to preserve or strengthen what is functional to avoid social danger, confusion, and risk. It is closely related to Social Philosophy for a Filipino to pick, or get a slice of knowledge using Philosophy itself as a tool, to discover rightly if by chance he could successfully identify a course of direction for human contentment. Unfortunately, what could become a line of discipline may personally be a mastery of one, assuredly feeling to be well versed in a given discipline. But only to realize that the idea is yet far from being astounding for an idea may already have been established ahead in the infinity of minds from the ancient civilizations of the Eastern thought first, and then by the Western generosity of ideas that came later. Nothing is actually new under the sun so to speak, but everything is within the factory of the divine consciousness whichever is in the metaphysical agenda of the conscious mind or in the criteria of epistemology in the realms of philosophy. A Filipino Philosopher, therefore, has to accept the fact that nothing is to be taken absolutely an original idea. Hence, if anything is considered new, it is within the privacy of personal thought; and if it has attracted interest in the free market of ideas, openness of mind could be a mental comfort and ease so due only for contribution ready always before the grilling panel for more inquiries. What advantage or advantages pivotal and distinct to all other possibilities, are just simply part of the aestheticity of the free expressions of our rational characteristics or of the dynamism of the human mind. God’s Sovereignty God’s Sovereignty is actually beyond theology as a science. It is basically grounded on the premise of faith and of revelation. Of faith because that is the most that human intelligence can reach for anything beyond. Of revelation because that is what man can also explore for all possible axiomatic sources within the scientific arena for inquiries. Theology is simply a human epistemological tool but with an advantage or real distinction. It employs faith as the ultimate link beyond anything axiomatic capable for perfection and human satisfaction. It is within the sphere of Philosophical Human Inquiries. Paradoxically, faith is relatively dependent on Reason for it is the Ultimate means to substantiate the real essence of the subjectivity of the genuine and true faith itself. The existence of God in the theology of God’s Sovereignty is beyond the creational display of the Creator’s majesty. It is beyond any cosmological argument of Perfect Design. For Perfect Design is basically founded using deductive reasoning generally premised by human observations as the point to begin with, and likewise arriving to a logical conclusion. God’s Sovereignty as a set of human thought on the other hand, is founded on faith to start with and ending just the same on faith to reach an inductive conclusion that there is The God with All Supremacy, the Self-Existing and Revealing Holy God. Everything on display is God’s Glory and Greatness beyond human mind that “The Earth is His Footstool” and all the rest tremble of his Majesty. Let’s Visit the Eden Park in the Now Iraq (?) In the Bible the popular narrative about the issues of the original sin and the philosophical discussion about before and after the fall began. Related concepts of freewill, responsibility and predestination went through the ages in the arena of theology and philosophy without any satisfying conclusion. Among all trees and all its respective fruits are said to be edible and God said, you can EAT ALL (Eat All You Can!), EXCEPT “BUT” ONE! The Tree of Life is within and was included in the vastness of FREEDOM which God Himself authored, declared and revealed. If we take the argument that human freedom is in the concept of an unlimited human free lane from the beginning to end that was and that will never be the case. Can anyone imagine all Fruits of Trees that Adam and Eve were actually allowed to freely eat? Freedom and responsibility were both established from the beginning and was the democratic principle already settled. But the responsibility can never be ruled-out within the essence of the rule of law. Billions raised to the billionth of the Plant Kingdom God had actually told them to enjoy its abundance! In this free lane to get any fruit, man chose the only BUT ONE fruit of tree that was singled-out for the Dou not even to touch it. Right immediately from this point. Freedom is established inseparable with responsibility. This is why Freewill is not the essence of freedom. Freedom connotes responsibility but freewill is out of this world more so, in this Iraquian sad damned Adam and Eve drama. We can imagine Ma’am Loriega’s account when she was studying at Stanford University as a working student. She was telling us in order to augment her daily needs she worked part-time as a baby-sitter. The mother of the child she was caring one time told her at once, “you can exercise all what you want in care of my child EXCEPT to open the refrigerator. You are not allowed!” Responsibility is the keyword here. Freedom is inherently linked, attached with the responsibility within the unilateral response from the subject for the will to obey. I always hear people popularized by the Spiderman3 (?) movie in the segment like saying, “You have to make a choice!” But that concept of choice is actually a given thing. It is always characterized in the paradigm of or between the sets of ALTERNATIVES! Besides, the element of responsibility is subjected to the impulse of the command from ‘the source’ saying, you have to make a choice! All or any given alternatives in reality are the given objective choices. Suppose you will not choose? Is that not also a choice? Although the source here is shifted already within the subjective impulse of ‘I will not choose!’ The idea ‘to make a choice’ is basically focused within more than the urgency to ‘not to choose’. For ‘not to choose’ is out of the issue in ‘to make a choice’. Again the essence of responsibility lies only from the intension of the source. But for the sake of argument, to pick a choice is a determined action within the compelling element within the call and urgency in a given moment of time. Not to choose is still a ‘response’ from the ‘stimulus’ why one among any possibility refuses to choose. ‘To make a choice’ is actually a proof that the so-called freewill is definitely out. In fact, I dare to say that freewill does not actually exist. It is a misnomer as Gestner puts it! If Ma’am Jerlyn is given a word and told to pick a choice for her life-partner it means, she has three, or possibly four or five choices. She is definitely given within a determined set of alternatives. So, she is not free. But if she insists not to choose, she may have the compelling reason or reasons why she remains to be free. But again the question is asked, ‘free from what’? Free from all those choices but not free from her choice when she did not choose. Therefore, ‘to make a choice’ is not a guarantee of what one thinks about this so-called freewill. In the biblical setting the Old Serpent (Satan?) was also in the Park of Iraq called Eden. He said in contrast with God’s will saying, ‘did God say you will not eat of this fruit from this tree of Knowing Good and Evil? You EAT IT. For the moment you eat, referring to the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge, you will be like God knowing what is Good and what is Evil. Man then was confronted by these two forces: of God’s Will and of Serpent’s Will. It was between, ‘to eat or ‘not to eat’. The story is told that the woman took it and ate it. She gave it to her husband. The husband took it, and ate it. In the theology of God’s Sovereignty, freewill theology is knocked-out (KO) before it enters the ring of philosophy. It is a misnomer. It does not exist. It is purely imaginative and is outside rational space. When Adam and Eve were on the point of NOT eating the forbidden fruit, THEY WERE WITHIN GOD’S WILL: and in any point (one moment of time) that they ate or were eating, THEY WERE WITHIN the Will of the Serpent. But they did eat! So, WHERE THEN IS FREEWILL between ‘not to eat’ and ‘to eat’? Is there a boundary which the Dou can comfortably rest? In the whole revelation enshrined in the scriptures, man is declared to be in darkness and loved it (John 3:19). In other words, men are in darkness and are not found in the Light. It is absolutely then a judgment between Black and White status only. What and where then is the location of man before the holy God? Is there such a ‘gray area’ that man can rest on and by his ‘freewill’ later he could decide which color he wishes to jump? There is no Wowwowee game with God! Before the Law was given, Adam and Eve were enjoying the abundance of God’s natural world and his presence. After the Law was announced, the knowledge of good and evil was displayed. In an obedience to the law, Adam and Eve were inside the WILL of God. In disobedience to his law, Adam and Eve were in the WILL of the Serpent. The God’s Sovereignty Theology has this conclusion: Man has the WILL but NOT FREE. Martin Luther calls it “bondage of the will.” John Calvin calls it “depraved will.” I simply call it, Freewill-Free! No Freewill (John 6:44). Like Smoke-Free! No smoking. Let not the idea of freewill exist. It will not survive anyway within the Ultimate concept of God’s Sovereignty! More than Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian issues. I have my term Xristodelphosian view where I personally belong. God’s Sovereignty is beyond what man can formulate. Any attempt to insist that man has the ‘freewill’, it’s just like the same with Adam and Eve’s idea that you wanted to be God which is impossible. In the Sovereignty of God all things are possible. Man’s attempt ‘not to become man’ which was impossible, he became human instead. But when God became man in Xristo, I was restored to my status as “one of his brethren,” “a friend” and from my being human I have all my joys to be His own servant under HIS WILL. To be under His will, is BY FAITH in Xristo resting on God’s Sovereignty beautifully expressed in Ephesians 1:11, “In Him (Xristo) also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,” (NKJV). Where is freewill located here? Is God the Author of Evil / sin? The Apostle Paul may have the clear answer, “God forbid! Who are you to talk back to God? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” (Romans 9:9-24). The presence of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowing Good and Evil in the revealed Paradise is inclusive within the God’s Sovereignty Theology. Judgment of morality is subjected within the “command” or “law” given by God, the Ultimate Law Giver. God’s Sovereignty lies on the theology that God is above the law. He is the creator. The question of anything within the human positive law; be it human theology in the Church or on the so-called civil law by the State-God’s law is beyond. St. Augustine calls it, Eternal Law. The knowledge of evil / sin included (on the side of God) within His Sovereignty and Immunity of his Eternal plan! The response to the said LAW is within the sphere of human, MORALITY. “For without the law, there is no knowledge of sin!” The knowledge of SIN is not SIN. Even in our human limited mind, when the first law was given to Adam and Eve they knew the idea “of disobedience” or “sin” as they knew the consequences of it. “The strength of the law is sin!” that is the reason why Jesus Christ was made by God “SIN” so that by His Death, Sin may become powerless! Death is now powerless! Satan has been already defeated! Satan has no place to stand. Satan to Gods own people is an outsider. He deserves no attention. His roaring schemes are with the leaders of the world who always do evil with the ‘false teachers’ of all counterfeit religions in the world. All, therefore, who are IN CHRIST JESUS (Kristo), are within the new race. It is called the race of the Righteousness of Christ who is the second Adam. NEW CREATION is the language of the New Covenant as revealed in the Scripture! God’s chosen people are no longer from the First Adam with original Sin, but WITH CHRIST the second ADAM with the Eternal Life. It is religion that preaches DEATH! Religions master the fear of death with selfish motive and of filthy lucre. Religions pretend to be the master of destiny when Christ has PUT AN END TO IT ALREADY. Death is swallowed up to victory by Christ, of Christ and for Christ (Col. 2:1-22; Heb. 2:11-14; Rom. 5-8). To make this theology distinct to be ‘filipino’, allow me to call this Kristoism worthy as an alternative against Philippine churchianity… Conclusion This is an old issue of philosophy and theology. Elementary as it appears to any oriented person but for having the Filipino Philosophy, this I believe is an urgency and necessity to be placed on the table for discussion. Freedom as a concept is vividly described by Kristo Himself, “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” And He did! Paul has this Apostolic echo: “It is for Freedom that Jesus Christ has made us free.” Total and Absolute Freedom is actually Enslavement to Christ. (jmv)
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:39:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015