Doctoral Oral Comprehensive Examination

July 26, 2013; 1:302:1!

"uestionnaire
#$ 320 % Canon &a' on (arria)e
(s)r* +aul ,* "uison
1. Explain the nature of marriage as a sacrament and as a natural
institution.
a) Marriage is a natural institution
It goes along with the existence of man and woman. It is not
imposed but comes from the nature of man and woman: the
physical dimension and complementarities thereof.
According to G.. !"#$ %Although man is the only creature whom
God has wanted &'( )I '*+ A,E$ ne-ertheless$ man can fully
disco-er his true self in a sincere gi-ing of himself.. )ence$ there is
a polarity of E/& 0'EI'+ and E/& 1'+A2I'+ in the human
person.
2he phrase %&'( )I '*+ A,E. means that 31) e-ery human
being is an end in itself$ hence %E/& 0'EI'+.4 3") Man is in
the image of God$ and has rational faculties: the intellect and the
will. 2he faculty of the intellect refers to the capacity of man to
5now the truth. 2he will is the seat of human freedom and refers to
the capacity of man to do good.
2he phrase E/& 1'+A2I'+: Man6s freedom has to 7nd perfection
by his act of gi-ing himself to the other. %unless man gi-es himself$
he will not disco-er who he really is.. %2he highest act of man6s
freedom is to lo-e.. In marriage$ self donation means gi-ing and
accepting the other.
2he essential component of Marriage as a +atural Institution:
2he 8ause is Matrimonial 8onsent3matrimonium in 7eri)
2he E9ect is the 8on:ugal ;ond 3matrimonium in facto esse)
2he properties are 31) indissolubility4 and 3") exclusi-ity
2he Ends are: 31) the procreation and education of children
3bonum polis)4 3") the good of the spouses 3bonum con:ugii)
b) Marriage is a upernatural (eality: acrament
acrament is a sacred reality that e9ects what is signi7ed. *hat is
signi7ed is G(A8E: the presence of man6s participation in the life of
God.
As a -isible sign 3acramentum2antum)$ the acrament of Marriage
has its own matter and form.
o 2he Matter is the gi-ing and accepting of the parties as
husband and wife4
o 2he &orm is the external manifestation of consent.
o 2he 2hing igni7ed is the union of 8hrist and the 8hurch
o 2he upernatural E9ect is Grace 3(es 2antum).
2he <isible ign 3acramentum2antum) points an in-isible reality
3(es etacramentum):2his refers to the con:ugal bond in marriage
which is the union of husband and wife and the union of 8hrist and
the 8hurch.
)ence$ the -isible and the in-isible are interconnected.
In the structure of marriage as a supernatural reality$ the parties
who exchange the bond are all bapti=ed and this lead to the union
of 8hrist and the 8hurch. 2he +atural Institution itself is the
structure of the acrament.
2he 0rinciple of the acramentality of Marriage is ;aptism 38anon
1>??).
;. Explain brie@y the 8anonical Impediments to a acramental Marriage.
a. 1>AB C Age
b. 1>A#D Impotency
c. 1>A?D 0re-ious bondEligamen 3bond)
d. 1>AFD 1isparity of cult:
Example: D a catholic with a nonDbapti=ed or whose baptism is
not accepted by the 8hurch4
D Mixed Marriage 3not an impediment) A catholic with
another bapti=ed but not a catholic4
e. 2he minister needs a dispensation to administer marriage in case the
parties su9er from disparity of cult. A dispensation means relaxation of
the law.
f. 1>AGD acred 'rder
g. 1>AAD 0ublic and perpetual -ow of chastity
h. 1>AHD Abduction
i. 1>H>D 8rime
:. 1>H1D 8onsanguinity
5. 1>H"D AInity
l. 1>HBD 0ublic 0ropriety
m. 1>1"D /egal relationship
8. Explain brie@y the 1efects of Matrimonial 8onsent.
1. Explain brie@y the 8anonical &orm of Marriage.
#$ 321 Canon &a' on Consecrate- &i.e
(s)r* +aul ,* "uison
1. Explain the )ierarchical 8onstitution of the 8hurch.
". Enumerate and explain brie@y the rights and obligations of the faithful.
B. *hat are the -arious forms of (eligious /ifeJ Explain their similarities and
di9erences.
#$ 322Contextuali/e-&itur)y
(s)r* +aul ,* "uison
1. *hat are the canonical implications of the acrament of ;aptismJ
". *hat do you mean by %8ommunio in acris.J
B. Explain the nature of public liturgy as a public celebration.
#$ 336*2#heolo)yo. the $uman 0o-y
1ev* Orlan-o ,* ,n)elia, 2*#*D*
1* Explain the three 334 Ori)inal $uman Experience*
a* Ori)inal 2olitu-e
2he man is alone with God and en:oys a uniKue relationship with God.
o while God created all the other animals in the Garden :ust as he
created the man$ only the man is able to tal5 and listen to God.
God spea5s with us in a totally uniKue way. *e are di9erent from the
animals.
*e are uniKuely alone with God C we stand before God.
*e are in the presence of God. Lnli5e animals$ we relate directly with God.
*e ha-e a spirit that enables us to do this$ and by it we can 5now and
lo-e God$ the world$ and oursel-es
*e become conscious of 5nowing things and reali=e how we ha-e
de-eloped as persons.
It is uniKue to us as human beings. 2hrough this fundamental or original
experience$ we come to sense the uniKueness of human life.
*e reali=e that we are able to 5now God$ the world 3other people) and
oursel-es.
*e begin to reali=e our personal identity.
5* Ori)inal 6nity
God created woman out of man6s rib. 2hey are of the same essence$ of
the same origin. 3*hy from a ribJ)
Man reali=es that the woman has a body li5e his. 2his body while similar is
di9erent from his.
)e reali=es she is a person.
o$ the man decides to be one with the woman.
)e lea-es his former life and becomes one @esh with her. 2his is 'riginal
Lnity.
2he beauty and mystery of sexual di9erence speci7cally re-eals man and
woman6s call to communion
2he meaning of man6s original unity expresses itself as an o-ercoming of
the frontier of solitude and at the same time as an aIrmation of
e-erything in solitude that constitutes man.. 32'; H:")
'riginal unity o-ercomes man6s solitude without a woman 3and woman6s
solitude without man).
2he experience of original unity aIrms their solitude in the sense that
they di9er from the animals because their union also di9ers essentially
from that of animals.
As persons$ both man and woman ha-e selfD5nowledge and selfD
determination. 2hey are both sub:ects in the world and are conscious of
the meaning of their bodies.
Mohn 0aul spea5s not only of %double unity. but also of a %double solitude..
'nly two persons are capable of rendering to each other that biblical help.
'nly two persons are capable of lo-e.
%1ouble solitude. then is the indispensable foundation of original unity. It
is also the sure foundation of the true eKuality of man and woman.
%In this communion of persons$ the whole depth of the original solitude of
man N is perfectly ensured and$ at the same time$ this solitude is
permeated and enlarged in a mar-elous way by the gift of the other..
32'; 1A:?)
2heir uniKueness as persons is not diminished in becoming %one. with the
other. 2hrough communion man and woman li-e together$ with$ and for
each other in such a way that they redisco-er themsel-es$ aIrming all
that it means to be a person$ aIrming %e-erything in solitude that
constitutes man..
If men and women are to 7nd themsel-es$ the solitude of e-ery %he. or
%she. must lead to the communion of a human %we. through the selfD
gi-ing of one to the other.
2he original unity and reciprocal enrichment of the sexes$ therefore$ mar5s
Othe whole perspecti-e of 3man6s) history$ including the history of
sal-ation.. 32'; 1>:1)
*hat in essence is 'riginal LnityJ It consists in: a) A88E02I+G and b)
GI<I+G.
2he man disco-ers the woman and accepts her for who she is. 2he man
does not try to changer her or control her. 2he man accepts that she
complements him C that she helps him to be human.
Mohn 0aul II says this experience of unity is truly signi7cant because both
Adam and E-e gain a new sense of their own dignity. 2hey feel and
experience life in a new way. 2his radical experience of gi-ing and
accepting leads them to new life. 2hey are di9erent as a result of the
experience.
c* Ori)inal 7a8e-ness
is a symbol of freedom in communication
it is essential for the perfection of 'riginal Lnity. &or lo-e to be real$ it
must be freely gi-en and freely accepted.
o Adam and E-e were free C free from inner and outer restrictions. Adam
and E-e experienced no barriers or diIculties in their communication and
life together.
God did not create barriers to communication or diIculties for people who
are trying to form friendships. 2hose barriers come from another source C
'riginal in.
;oo5 of Genesis: %2hey were both na5ed$ and were not ashamed..: 2hey
had no inhibitions about their own bodies or the body of the other. As with
a child running around na5ed$ young children ha-e this experience in
some way. 2hey exhibit a degree of freedom 3not shame) about their
bodies.
o the experience of 'riginal +a5edness goes hand in hand with freedom$
which is a reality we ha-e doubtlessly experienced.
Pet freedom is deeper than mere choice. N &reedom means deciding to
surrender to the lo-e of another. 2hus it means choosing to be a better
person by accepting this lo-e and the choices that go with it.
&reedom 7nds its fullest expression and meaning when we ma5e of
oursel-es a gift for others.
It cannot be compared to the experience of young children who ha-e yet
to de-elop a sense of shame.
It cannot be compared also to shamelessness.
o A shameless na5edness is immodest.
o It in-ol-es a lac5 or suppression of shame when shame is rightly
called for 3Mer B:"DB)
o hame in one6s na5edness is called for when na5edness poses a
threat to the dignity of the person.
o 'riginal experience of na5edness completely lac5ed shame because
being na5ed posed no threat to the 7rst couple6s dignity.
o they saw the body as the re-elation of the person and hisEher
dignity.
'(IGI+A/ +A,E1+E
D is precisely the experience of full consciousness of the meaning and
dignity of the body.
D there is no fear of standing na5ed before the other
D both man and woman recei-e from the other the aIrmation and
acceptance they long for C which correspond perfectly with their
dignity.
'(IGI+A/ +A,E1+E A A&&I(MA2I'+ '& 2)E 0E('+
1) It testi7es to their authentic %communication. to the purity of reciprocal
selfDgi-ing.
") It signi7es the original good of the di-ine -ision.
B) It signi7es the whole simplicity and fullness of this -ision:
D shows the Opure6 -alue of man as male and female
D shows the %pure6 -alue of the body and of sex. 32'; 1B:1)
#) 2he more we ponder the meaning of original -ision of na5edness C this
%original innocence of 5nowledge. C the more the reality of sin and lust
ma5e us want to weep.
?) %2he garments of our misery. 37g lea-es C Gregory of +yssa) constantly
reminds us of the tragedy of ha-ing lost sight of what God created our
bodies to re-eal C a) spiritual mystery of our humanity4 b) mystery
of his divinity
2* (an as a su59ect in 1elation
3* (an in the -imension o. )i.t
#$ 336*3 #he (oral #heolo)y an- Christic 2pirituality o. $uman
2exuality
1ev* Orlan-o ,* ,n)elia, 2*#*D*
1. Elaborate why human sexuality is a gift and a tas5. *hy human sexuality
is a means towards holiness in life.
". *hy does contraception of the use of arti7cial birth control -iolates the
plan of God for marriage and family lifeJ
#$ 331 Eschatolo)y an- #heolo)y o. $istory
+ro.* Ernel D* :alla/a, #h*(*, +hD*
1. Discuss an- explain polemically, apolo)etically an- irenically the
.ollo'in) eschatolo)ical topics:
1*1* #he ;uestion o. eschatolo)y in philosophy
It is worth to be considered that theology by -irtue of its reasonability
is basically philosophical. )ence the coherence of thought which is basically
philosophical in nature is always at the base of theological argumentation.
2his premise is true e-en with the theological topic about eschatology. 0rior
and alongside the de-elopment of 8hristian theology is the philosophical
de-elopment of thoughts related to eschatology such as the Kuestion about
the soul$ immortality and new world order. e-eral philosophers presented
their philosophical thoughts on this sub:ect. 2hrough their thoughts we may
theori=e the perspecti-e of philosophy about eschatology.
2he di9erent philosophical thoughts generally classify life into the
physical and spiritual states. 0lato tal5s about the soul which is the spiritual
dimension of man to apprehend the Good. /eibni= spea5s of the
immortalEsoul component of man so that he is able to percei-e what is good
and :ourney towards the di-ine. ,ant tal5s about immortality which can be
reached through moral faith. Moral faith is li-ed concretely through practical
reason. 2he stoics tal5s of the existence of God immersed in the natural
order of things in the world. Amidst the cyclical reDcreation of the world$ man
regains his immortality when he is with God through oneness with nature.
2he ;uddhists tal5s about the series of spiritual rebirth of the physical being$
the highest form of rebirth is +ir-ana in which the being 7nally loses its
physical state but remains eternally spiritual and becomes one with
e-erything. 2he physical state is limited and transitory while the spiritual
state is immortal and permanent.
2he di9erent philosophical thoughts are di-ided as far as the location of
the spiritual state is concerned. 0lato accounts of the eudaimonia$ a state of
perfection that exist in the le-el of form and from which all material
existences are :ust limited manifestations thereof. 2he world of spirit is
superior and detached from the world of matter. *hile /eibni= agrees with
0lato that being is composed of matter and form but li5e Aristotle$ he
emphasi=es importance on the material form. %2here can be no form without
matter.. 2he most important in man is his physicality from where he shall
need the soul to percei-e transcendentally. 2he soulEspirit cannot exist
separate from the body in as much as the form cannot exist independent
from matter. Matter is essential$ it is from where the world of the spiritEform
is generated from. ,ant presupposes the existence of a supreme being which
is the icon of immortality. Man is called to ha-e moral faith as a way towards
immortality.
%+ot only did the philosophers re@ect on the future of the indi-idual4 they
also thought deeply on the future of the world. 32he 1octrine of the /ast
2hings).&or the stoics$ the spiritual state in enshrined in the natural order of
things. God is enshrined in nature. A component of human life is the soul.
2hrough the soul$ the human being is able to percei-e the di-ine and thereby
li-e in communion with nature. 2he ;uddhists argue of the spirit that go-erns
physical life forms and of a perfect spiritual state % the +ir-ana. that is the
ultimate end of all beings. 2he eschatological hope is expressed in terms of
the depth of the ethics and morality of the physical and rational being which
de7nes the criteria for the reunion of the physical with the spiritual state.
1*2* #he ;uestion o. eschatolo)y in reli)ion
Among the general features of religions are their theologies of
eschatology. &aith is an essential component in any religious belief. &aith is
always eschatological. )owe-er$ as far as the content of eschatology is
concerned$ di9erent religions -ary. 2his obser-ation is generally -alid in as
much as religions also -ary according to their faith. A general loo5 at the four
ma:or religions in the world may be enough to pro-e this contention.
+ir-ana is among the famous eschatological states promoted by
0u--hism. +ir-ana refers to the perfect and eternal spiritual state that
someone may reach after series of spiritual and yet physical deaths and
rebirths. 2he theology of +ir-ana assumes that all li-ing beings are spirited.
+ir-ana is the highest spiritual rebirth that a li-ing being may attain through
proper obser-ance of the teachings of ;uddha$ a human 7gure who is the
founder of ;uddhism. Lnli5e the lower forms of rebirth in which the
spiritEsoul is re-erted to a di9erent life form$ the sub:ect in the state of
+ir-ana totally loses its physicality but instead remains eternally spiritual.
$in-uism tal5s about Mos5ha or selfDreali=ation. Mos5ha happens when an
enlightened human being is freed from the cycle of lifeDandDdeath 3the
endless cycle of death and reincarnation) and comes into a state of
completeness. )e then becomes one with the ;hraman or God. ;y then has
attained the le-el of selfDreali=ation. Mos5ha is an eternal spiritual existence.
2he way to enlightenment is through prayer and consideration of the
teachings of the ;rahmans. (ohame-anism introduces the sensual
paradise. After death$ the belie-er in Islam is placed in a sensual paradise.
ensual in the sense that: the perfectness of life in this paradise is pro-ided
in the most human way of satisfying the human external senses through
-arious human means highlighting sex and other sensuous pleasures. As the
sense of satisfaction is mainly designed for the male born$ the women are
conseKuently relegated to ser-ices that satisfy the males. 2he way to be
counted in the paradise is to follow the teachings of prophet Mohamed$ the
founder of Mohamedanism.
Generally$ these three religions and all other religions as a general
obser-ation profess their beliefs that human beings are spiritedE with soul
and that the spirit sur-i-es e-en after the human experience of corporeal
death. It is through the spiritual 3rather than the material) existence that the
eschatological hope is attained. 2he :ourney of the spirit is assured because
of the faith that God exists and meets the deepest hope for eschatology. 2he
possibility of the spirit for total union with the di-ine is so much in@uenced
by the moral integrity of the person when he was still physically ali-e. 2he
moral norms are de7ned by religion. Christianity con7rms of practicing
these faith expressions as well. Amidst these similarities$ 8hristianity has its
own peculiarities. 2he God that the 8hristians recogni=e to pro-ide for
sal-ation is the same God who pro-ides at the time of creation. According to
the 8hristian faith$ the period for the reali=ation of the eschatological hope
may come not only after death but also e-en at the time when the belie-er is
still ali-e such as the case of the second coming of Mesus or the 7nal
reali=ation of the ,ingdom of God. (elated to the 8hristian theology of the
,ingdom of God$ sal-ation is a reality not only in a separate world order as in
the case of Mohamedanism but also in the midst of the world as the case
may be during the 7nal transformation of the world into God6s ,ingdom.
*hile the 8hristian religion similar to its nonD8hristian counterparts considers
the prophets and the spiritual leaders as teachers of faith and morals$ the
8hristian religion has a deeper source of its teachings: the *ord of God$ the
*ord made Man. Mesus himself is the *ord of eternal life. 2o the 8hristians$
there is no other way except through 8hrist4 there is no other truth except
8hrist himself.
1*3* #he relation o. eschatolo)y to the rest o. Christian
-o)matics 3ecclesiastical
.ormulation o. the Christian .aith4
%Eschatology is the crown and capstone of dogmatic theology4
1ogmatics is a normati-e science in which we aim at absolute$ rather than
mere historical truth. 32he 1octrine of the /ast 2hings). 2his means that the
di9erent sub:ects of 1ogmatic 2heology li5ewise concerns eschatology. 2he
webDbased article entitled the 1octrine of the /ast 2hings explains further
that 2heology itself has an eschatological dimension in as much as it
answers the Kuestion of how God is 7nally perfectly glori7ed in the wor5 of
)is hands$ and how the counsel of God is fully reali=ed. Eschatology is
anthropological: it answers the Kuestion about the meaning and purpose of
life and its 7nal destiny. Eschatology is 8hristological: it answers how the
cross became the throne of -ictory and the message of sal-ation.
Eschatology is ecclesiological: it pro-ides the 8hurch with hopes for the
transformation of the cosmos into the ,ingdom of God. &inally$ Eschatology is
pneumatological: it answers how the )oly pirit animates us to li-e the faith
and brings the world into a perfect cosmic transformation.
2* Explain an- cite the eschatolo)ical stren)th an- 'ea8nesses o.
the mo-ern treatment o. eschatolo)y
2*1* #he &i5eral ,pproach
2he 1H
th
century was mar5ed with the in@ux of scienti7c theories$
growth of natural sciences alongside critical studies of the cripture. 2he
paradigm of 5nowing the truth has shifted from metaphysical to
epistemological and historical. 2here was shift in theologi=ing from
conser-ati-e to liberal. 2he truth that was once considered absolute has
become relati-e. 2he theocentric core of the truth before has become
anthropocentric. If before$ truth was approached through faith$ in this period$
truth is approached through reason. 2he faith in particular and the theology
in general were endangered of being uprooted or percei-ed from an
erroneous perspecti-e. 2he result was li5eralism: this is an attempt to
retain the 8hristian faith while bringing the scienti7c approach to religious
matters.
In@uenced by the shift of apprehending the truth$ the historical method
was used to interpret the ;ible and understand Mesus. 2his has reduced the
emphasis in 5nowing the nature of 8hrist from the di-ine to the human
dimension. 2he liberals stressed the present character of the 5ingdom4 the
,ingdom of God is not far remo-ed either spatially or temporarily. It is
something near which humans can enter. It reigns not from without but from
within the human hearts. It is percei-ed not as an external reality but as a
realm of righteousness. 2o anyone who belie-es and li-es with the faith$ the
,ingdom has come. 2he crux of the coming of the ,ingdom has been at
hand. 2he 5ernel or core of the ,ingdom has been handed on. *hile the
liberals still belie-e that Mesus will come again in bodily form at the end of
age to establish his 5ingdom but such e-ent is merely the hus5 within which
is contained the true message$ the 5ernel.
*ith due recognition to the e9ort of this theology to sa-e the faith
from the e-ils of empiricism$ it was found lac5ing in some ways: 31) Its
interpretation of the ,ingdom as an inner and spiritual change within the
human hearts has o-erloo5ed the following: 3a) the eschatological elements
in the traditions about Mesus$ 3b) the teachings of Mesus about the ,ingdom as
an expression of an ideal social order. 3") 2he messianic ,ingdom as a
MudeaoD8hristian concept was ne-er a sub:ecti-e$ inward or spiritual realm
but was always pictured as a territory into which one enters$ a land in which
one has a share$ or as a treasure which comes down from hea-en.
/iberal theology has been able to cut an edge as it has upheld the faith
amidst progress in the 7eld of science$ politics and economics. It has
succeeded in preaching the triumph of God o-er e-il blended with the
doctrine of progress. Its challenge is to continue 8hristiani=ing the social
order as the ground of the ,ingdom rather than %an introspected eternal
now. without demeaning the signi7cance of the second coming.
2*2* ,l5ert 2ch'eit/er: Demo-erni/e- Eschatolo)y
2he theology of chweit=er is a critical de-elopment from the liberal
interpretations and reconstructions of the life of Mesus. Against the
presentation of the liberals about Mesus who had little to say about the future$
chweit=er argued that Mesus thoughts and actions were permeated by the
thoroughgoing eschatology as this culminates in his future coming. *ith this$
he coined the term %consistent eschatology.. According to him$ the future
3rather than the "
nd
coming) is contained in the original plan of sal-ation4 it is
the centrality of the Mesus ministry and eschatological preaching.
chweit=er describes the future 5ingdom as sudden in its coming.
chweit=er found many +ew 2estament references to apparently show that
1stDcentury 8hristians belie-ed literally in the imminent ful7llment of the
promise of the *orldQs ending$ within the lifetime of MesusQs original followers
3Matt. "#:"F4 /5. "1:"BM5. H:11). chweit=er also belie-ed that the future
coming is discontinuous from human history$ will be radically supernatural as
it shall be introduced through cosmic catastrophe that one should prepare by
repenting. )e noted that in the gospel of Mar5$ Mesus spea5s of a
RtribulationR$ with his coming in the clouds with great power and gloryR 3Mar5
1B:FDA).
chweiter emphasi=es that the eschatological reality is a future e-ent.
2his future can be so imminent. )e then stresses on the li-eliness of the
person6s faith$ the rootedness of life in ethics and morality. E-ery belie-er is
called to a life of spirituality. Lnfortunately$ chweiter6s eschatology is
detached from history$ it starts from the future. chweit=er6s theology is
clothed with sub:ecti-ism. )is concept of sal-ation is highly personal rather
than communitarian.
2*3* C*$* Do--: 1eali/e- Eschastolo)y
2he term %(eali=ed. as used in this theology means achie-ed$
accomplished$ done or 7nished. 2he element of time is -ery crucial in
understanding this eschatological concept: the action point of the sentence
at the time it was stated and the status of the action which was to be
deli-ered now or in relation any ad-erb of time which the sentence may
contain. 'n this premise$ 8.). 1odd accounts that there ha-e been
eschatological statements that ha-e been accomplished already. )ence$ they
are considered as reali=ed eschatology. May I cite a few examples: the
hidden rule of God that was spo5en of in the 'ld 2estament has been reali=ed
in the +ew 2estament4 if anyone is in 8hrist he is a new creation 3II 8or. ?:G).
1odd saw that the new age is here4 God has established the ,ingdom. 2he
eschatology of the 'ld 2estament has been reali=ed in the ministry of Mesus.
2he future of the 'ld 2estament prophecies has become present. Mesus has
come$ there is no more "
nd
coming.
Eschatology therefore is a matter of the present. 2he future is now4 the
future had come or begun. )ence$ there is an importance of loo5ing bac5
rather than loo5ing forward. )owe-er$ this eschatological concept fails to
consider the second coming of 8hrist. /i5ewise$ it fails to Kualify that while
the ,ingdom has already come$ it is not yet fully reali=ed. uch is an
o-erstatement of the presentD the day of the /ord has already come.
2*<* 1u-ol. 0ultmann: Existentiali/e- Eschatolo)y
Existential Eschatology of ;ultmann which focuses on the personal here and
now.
&aith must be a determined -ital act of will$ not a culling and extolling of
Rancient proofs.R
2he essence of faith transcends what can be historically 5nown.
;ultmann re:ected the historicity of the (esurrection$ but not its
spiritual signi7cance. RAn historical fact which in-ol-es a resurrection from
the dead is utterly inconcei-able$R he admitted. &or him$ the Easter e-ent is
not something that happened to the Mesus of history$ but something that
happened to the disciples$ who came to belie-e that Mesus had been
resurrected. Moreo-er$ the resurrected Mesus is indeed a li-ing presence in
the li-es of 8hristians. ;ultmannQs approach was thus not to re:ect
the mythical$ but to reinterpret it in modern terms. 2o deal with this problem$
;ultmann used the existentialist method of )eidegger$ especially the
categories of authentic -s. inauthentic life. In his -iew the R7nal :udgmentR it
is not an e-ent in history$ but an e-ent which ta5es place within the heart of
each person as he or she responds to the call of God in each existential
moment. )umans experience either )ea-en or )ell in each moment$ and
faith means radical obedience to God in the present.
2rue 8hristian freedom means following oneQs inner conscience$ rather
than conforming to oppressi-e or corrupt social order.
2*!* Jur)en (oltman: +olitici/e- Eschatolo)y
Murgen Moltmann is considered to be among the pillars of the
eschatology of hope who is a product of the post moderni=ation period. It is
worth noting how the paradigm of apprehending the truth has shifted since
period of 1H
th
century. 2he truth that was once apprehended metaphysically
becomes historical$ practical$ and relati-e. 2his epistemological de-elopment
has greatly a9ected the theology of the day. peci7cally$ here comes the
/iberal Eschatology the particulari=es on history$ the (eali=ed Eschatology of
1odds which claims that eschatology has happened at the time of the
writing$ the Existential Eschatology of ;ultman which focuses on the personal
here and now. Moltman saw that these were hopeless eschatology. )e then
presented the Eschatology of )ope.
2he Eschatology of )ope has two main di-isions: 2he promise which
tal5s about the faithful God who has made a promise in the past and
therefore will still be faithful to his promise4 the hope which pro-ides
enthusiasm so that the belie-er loo5s ahead and mo-es forward to
re-olutioni=e and transform the present to ful7ll the promise.
Moltmann considers history as a guiding principle. )e considers the
Kuality that enables history to -alidate the future most important. 8oncretely
Moltmann foresees history farther e-en than the 8ross. 2o him$ the cross of
8hrist is nothing if the parousia is not reali=ed. Mesus has promised the
parousia. 2he parousia is the center of hope because it will -alidate the
historiasalutis and the ordosalutis.
2his means that the starting point of Moltmann6s history is the future
which shall -alidate the past. Moltman would understand )ope as the
expectation of the things which &aith has belie-ed to ha-e been truly
promised by God. )e therefore understands &aith dependent on )ope.
*hat is strong about Moltmann6s theology is the :usti7cation that our
eschatology is an eschatology of hope. 8hrist6s parousia is our blessed hope.
Moltmann6s theology is also -ested with wea5nesses: &irst$ his doctrine
of re-elation is problematic. God re-eals himself in the future. 2he existence
of God is -alidated by his actions. 2his is parallel to saying that our hope
-alidates our faith. +e-ertheless Moltmann may argue that God remains to
be a faithful God truthful to his promise. Ideally$ howe-er$ it must be the
other way around i.e.$ our faith -alidates our hope. 'ur faith is certain
because it is founded on the promise of a faithful God. 'ur faith in God
produces hope. econd$ the deity of God and his messianic title is pro-en
when he returns. )ence the cross is useless when there is no parousia.
2*6* Despensationalism: 2ystemati/e- Eschatolo)y
May I present my re@ection paper about the topic. 2he
1ispensationalism is a theology of eschatology that di-ides the economy of
sal-ation into separate epochs. Amidst disagreements$ the number of
dispensations commonly agreed upon by the proponent theologians is se-en.
Generally$ the 7rst up to the 7fth dispensation co-ers the history of sal-ation
from the period of creation though out the period of the 'ld 2estament when
God is belie-ed to ha-e re-ealed his massage of sal-ation to Israel as a
nation. 2he sixth dispensation refers to the period when God sent his only
son after Israel as a nation failed to recogni=e the message. 2he sixth
dispensation refers to the period of the 8hurch otherwise 5nown by the
proponent theologians as the spiritual Israel. &inally$ the se-enth
dispensation tal5s the millennial 5ingdom when 8hrist will come again to
ful7ll the prophecy to the Mewish nation and pro-ide sal-ation to all who
belie-e. According to this theology$ the 8hurch at the present age is located
within either the sixth or the se-enth dispensation.
*hat is generally agreeable with this theology is the fact that the God
of creation is li5ewise the God of sal-ation. 2his theology li5ewise recogni=es
that Mesus is the 7nality of God6s re-elation$ and the second coming of 8hrist
is the 7nality of sal-ation. 2he 8hurch is a parenthesis in the history of
sal-ation i.e.$ it is not the beginning nor the 7nal end.
Amidst the points of agreement are somehow the points of
disagreement as well. 2he idea that God came to sa-e Israel as a nation is
not a generally acceptable theology. If this is the case then we may as5 a
Kuestion: )ad the nation Israel accepted the message$ 3a) what might ha-e
happened to the sal-ation of the rest of humanityJ$ 3b) would the &ather still
send his only sonJ 2his argument seems to assume that the coming of Mesus$
the cross and the 8hurch was not foreseen in the 'ld 2estament. 2he di-ision
of the economy of sal-ation into di9erent epochs with the coming of Mesus
only towards the end of these epochs is not a sound theology. I belie-e that
the ;iblical concept of sal-ation is 8hristocentric. 2he coming of Mesus has
been prophesi=ed already from the period of creation 3Gen. B:1?). 2he
dispensationalist concept of the 7nality of sal-ation is di-isi-e the fact that
God will redeem the nation Israel apart from the 8hurch.
I would rather belie-e that there is only one God$ one creation$ one
humanity$ and one sal-ation. 2his sal-ation is 8hristocentric. Alongside the
o9er of sal-ation is the call addressed to e-eryone that all may be one. /et
us all stand and be counted.
3* Comprehensively -iscuss the .ollo'in) principles o. eschatolo)y
accor-in) to Car-inal =alter >asper
3*1* #he Christian messa)e o. eschatolo)ical .uture
3*2* #he presence o. the eschatolo)ical no'
3*3* #he practice o. eschatolo)ical hope an- its -imension
?aith an- the ?uture: 5y Car-inal >asper
It emphasi=es the restoration of creation before the fall.
May I organi=e my presentation by pro-iding a general summary
following the outline pro-ided by ,aspers himself as follows: #he challen)e
o. the .uture4 #he Christian messa)e o. the .uture4 #he presence o.
the .uture4 +ractice o. hope an- the -imension o. hope. &inally may I
gi-e a critiKue about the structure of the theological concept of ,aspers in
this article.
At the start of the article$ ,aspers noted of the structural destruction
upon creation which is deliberately caused as a byproduct of humanity6s
erroneous options and priorities. ,aspers then presents the challenge of
restoring creation to its state before the fall. +o one else is responsible for
the restoration but the same humanity who caused for the destruction. 2he
commitment and inter-ention reKuired is from the personal to the cosmic
le-el. 2he challenge is posted realistically$ the fact that the human being is a
being of hope. )ope presupposes faith and the essence of hope is sal-ation
which is the faith achie-ed. 2he religious core of the destruction is moral
degradation4 the inter-ention therefore reKuires a moral system and a moral
institution which ,aspers refers to the 8hurch. In this context$ li-ing the faith
means ta5ing options for the determination of the future of humanity.
,aspers seems to imply that what is enshrined in the future is an image of
what has been the perfect beginning. 2his can be percei-ed through the
ascent of faith. 2he essential beauty of the paradise at the time of creation is
the core message of sal-ation.
,aspers emphasi=ed that the 8hristian message of the future is to ta5e
the most upright optionD a 8hristian option amidst the alternati-es pro-ided
by the humanists$ the ideologues and technocrats. 2he option is one that
addresses the factors$ means and ends of eschatology along the course of
history. (an must 5e 5i5lical* $e must consi-er himsel. as a 5ein) o.
hope; a hope that is .oun-e- on the .aith in :o- 'ho create- him
an- the :o- 'ho saves him; the :o- 'ho is the a5solute .uture in
as much as $e is the a5solute 5e)innin)* (an must 5e a5le to live
the .aith accor-in) to its moral -imension vis@vis the earth*
Central to the response in .aith, man must consi-er the cross 'hich
'ill help him em5race the misery cause- 5y the -estruction an- the
challen)e .or reparation an- 'hich 'ill provi-e him the reali/ation
o. $ope*
2he future is at hand$ it is present. Mesus 8hrist who is the 7nal and
de7niti-e re-elation has come and has inaugurated the ,ingdom of God
which is the 7nal and de7niti-e future of the world. 2he people need to
ac5nowledge and li-e on the basis of this confession of faith.
,aspers en:oins us to practice the message of 8hristian hope. /et us
hope critically and positi-ely. /et us discern the message of God6s lo-e
critically other than the options pro-ided by the ideologues and the
technocrats. 2hey o9er false messages of the ,ingdom. /et us 7x our faith
not to a reser-ed seat of sal-ation but to a promise 3Mn B:1F) which reKuires
our commitment for its reali=ation. 'ur faith is assured$ our e9ort will ne-er
be in -ain because beforehand God has re-ealed a promise of sal-ation.
3*<* #he presence o. the eschatolo)ical no'
)ow do we li-e with faithJ 2he humanity is challenged to li-e in the
spirit of the cardinal -irtues as the moral norm of the society. As a sacrament
of sal-ation in the world$ the 8hurch must be the message of hope. ,aspers
noted that the present 8hurch is still far from its essential identity. )ence$
the 8hurch is challenged to be renewed$ understood and accepted by the
people. It has to be a determined 8hurch.
3*!* #he Christian messa)e o. eschatolo)ical .uture
,aspers6 eschatology is theocentric. It starts from the premise that God
re-eals and man has only to respond to him in faith. Man6s hope for the
future is assured because he has a God who re-ealed to him in the past.
,aspers is opposed to other eschatological approaches such as the
cosmological and anthropocentric whose starting point is the order of the
uni-erse or the need of man to be sa-ed. Amidst the beauty of the
eschatological concept of ,aspers$ implementing his theology assumes the
prior resolution of more basic problems pre-ailing within the 8hurch such as
the dissenting theological perspecti-es among the progressi-e$ the liberal
and the conser-ati-e bloc5s.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
(o-ern #reatments o. Eschatolo)y
a* $istorical ?ace o. Eschatolo)y
May I import by re@ection paper as a way to answer this Kuestion.
)istoricity is a signi7cant feature of 8hristian religion that separates it
distinctly from other religions. 8hristianity holds on to a monotheistic faith
that presents the God of creation as li5ewise the God of sal-ation. God6s
re-elation was manifested along the course of history which culminated in
the coming of God6s only son$ Mesus 8hrist who is the 7nality of re-elation
and who at the same time was the central icon of sal-ation. God manifested
his promise of sal-ation as early as the moment of creation. 2he seed of a
woman who shall crush the serpent6s head 3Gen. B:1?) is a prophecy of
Mesus who shall bring the 7nality of sal-ation of humanity. 2he whole stretch
of the economy of sal-ation therefore is a 8hristocentirc period that started
from creation to the 7nal coming of 8hrist.
Another face of eschatological hope is the inauguration of the new
creation. 2he concept of the new creation stems from the idea that the 7rst
creation fell into sin and hence needs to be renewed. Anchored on this belief$
Mesus is considered as the 7nal redeemer who shall renew the face of the
earth. 2he renewal of the face of the earth means lea-ing away from
sinfulness and 5eeping the creation from sinful structures. Among the
highlights of the new creation shall be the a-ailment of the eternal abbath
of the /ord. 2he concept of the eternal abbath is a departure from the 'ld
2estament abbath which was found ineIcient to renew the people from
sinfulness. (elated to the eschatological hope for the new creation is the
,ingdom of God. 2he ,ingdom of God is an eschatological reality which will
come through the total transformation of the world and which shall be
ushered by the 8hurch.
*hate-er image we may assign to describe the concept of sal-ation$
the fact remains that this concept is always associated with futurity and
7nality. 2he wholesome appreciation of this reality can ne-er be detached
from the beginning of life which 8hristian religion labels as creation. In the
8hristian perspecti-e$ the eschatological hope$ therefore$ is always historical.
1e.erences:
1. Edward Adams 3">>>) 8onstructing the *orld: A tudy of 0aul6s
8osmological /anguage.
Edinburgh E)" "/S cotland: 2T28lar5 /21
2. Merry /. *alls 3Ed) 3">>A) 2he 'xford )andboo5 of Eschatology. 'xford:
'xford Lni-ersity
0ress
3. Alexander Mones 3Gen Ed) 31HFF) 2he Merusalem ;ible. 0hilippines: 0hil.
;ible ociety
4. Ancient 2heories of oul 3tanford Encyclopedia of 0hilosophy)
plato.stanford.eduEentriesEancientDsoulE 31ate (etrie-ed: 'ctober "F$
">11)
5. 2he 1octrine 'f 2he /ast 2hings
http:EEwww.biblecentre.netEtheologyEboo5sElbEstFB?.html U1>E>AE">>F
>H:BF:1# a.m.V 31ate (etrie-ed: 'ctober "F$ ">11)
6. Monism en.wi5ipedia.orgEwi5iEMonism 31ate (etrie-ed: 'ct. "F$ ">11.)
7. Gottfried *ilhelm /eibni=
http:EEwww.philosophy.leeds.ac.u5EGM(EhmpEmodulesEslHAHHEmoduleEunitHEso
ul.html31ate (etrie-ed: 'ctober "F$ ">11)
8. ,antQs 0hilosophy of (eligion 3tanford Encyclopedia of 0hilosophy)
plato.stanford.eduEentriesE5antDreligionE 31ate (etrie-ed: 'ct. "F$
">11)
9. 0rophecies of the ;uddhawww.bci.orgEprophecyD
ful7lledEbuddhasa.htm 31ate (etrie-ed:
'ct. "F$ ">11)
10. )I+1LIM : 2he worldQs third largest religionwww.religioustolerance.org
W *orld (eligions
31ate (etrie-ed: 'ct. "F$ ">11.)
11. al-ation in )induismwww.e-angelical.usEhinduism.html (Date Retrieved:
Oct. 26, 2011.)
12. )induism D
(eligion&acts www.religionfacts.comEhinduismEindex.htm(Date Retrieved:
Oct. 26, 2011.)
13. Mohammed and Mohammedanism 38A2)'/I8 E+8P8/'0E1IA):
www.newad-ent.org
31ate (etrie-ed: 'ct. "F$ ">11.)
14. Albert chweit=erhttp:EEen.wi5ipedia.orgEwi5iE (Date Retrieved: Oct. 26, 2011.)
#$ 332 Christolo)y an- 2oteriolo)y
+ro.* Ernel D* :alla/a, #h*(*, +hD*
1. 8ite and discuss the issues of 8hristological methodology.
". Apologetically and polemically discuss the ecclesiological importance of
the full humanity and di-inity of 8hrist.
B. 1iscuss the tenets of the doctrine of the two natures in one person.
#$ 33A ?aith, &an)ua)e an- 2ym5olism
+ro.* Ernel D* :alla/a, #h*(*, +hD*
1* Discuss 5rieBy the 2criptural terms .or 0i5lical .aith
2he )oly cripture is 5nown to house the written reference of the
8hristian &aith. &amous among the biblical texts concerning faith are the
)ebrew 11 which is founded on the 'ld 2estament and (omans 1:1G.
2he text in )ebrew 11:1 Only faith can uarantee the !lessins that
"e hope for# or pro$e the existence of the realities that at present remain
unseen.%pro-ides us with the de7nition of faith. &rom this text$ ;ergant and
,arris 31HAH) describe faith as %the reality of things hoped for$ the e-idence
of things unseen.. 2hey said that while &aith is personally appropriated$ it is
7rst of all an ob:ecti-e Kuality. Mo-ing on further$ ;ergant and ,arris explain
that %faith is an insight into the reality of the in-isible di-ine world. It is
related to hope$ to be sure$ but as a moti-ation that sustains hope when the
goals hoped for are not -isible.. 2he succeeding -erses tal5ed about the
examples of faith until the 7nal -erses of the chapter 3--. BHD#>) which
pro-ide us with a message that %God deferred the content of his promise
until the present time when the 8hristians respond in faith to the sa-ing wor5
of 8hrist. 3;ergant and ,arris$ 1HAH). 2his brings us to another text about
faith accounted by 0aul in (om. 1:1G which I shall explain in the succeeding
paragraph. ;efore I proceed to the 0auline concept of &aith may I pro-ide
7rst for an explanation of the de7nition and a general understanding of faith
based on the )ebrew text.
&aith is de7ned in )eb. 11:1 as an ob:ecti-e reality. It is ob:ecti-e in a
sense that it is theori=ed from experiences. 2hus$ the succeeding -erses 3--.
"DBA) are accounts about these experiences. &aith in this text 3)eb. 11:1)
refers also to a reality. 2his is a reality of the truth$ the in-isible and the
di-ine God who is faithful to the promise. Indeed$ faith and truth are
inseparable. &aith is founded in truth and leads to truth. 2ruth in this case
means the Absolute. In the 8hristian context we consider this truth as Mesus
who is the way the truth and the life 3Mn. 1#:F). 2o aid us in understanding
comprehensi-ely the text in )eb. 11:1 is another concept of faith presented
in )eb. 11:F &t is impossi!le to please 'o( "ithout faith# since anyone "ho
comes to him must !elie$e that he exists)% &aith in this text assumes the
ontological existence of God as a prereKuisite to the act of belie-ing. &aith
li5ewise pro-ides the belie-er with the means to percei-e God6s di-ine
re-elation. &aith in this text therefore is understood as both a reality$ and a
means to apprehend this reality.
Among the etymological foundations of the ;iblical faith is the )ebrew
term %)e6emin. which means to belie-e. 2his term emphasi=es on
intellectual assent such as accepting a testimony as true. Another biblical
understanding of faith is from another the )ebrew term %;atach. which
means to con7de in$ to lean upon$ or to trust. *hile the former is an appeal
to the intellect$ the later is an appeal to the heart. till$ another origin of the
term is from the )ebrew %8hasah. which means to @ee or ta5e refuge. 2his
how the text in " am. "":B is understood: %I ta5e my refuge in him my roc5$
my shield$ my horn of sal-ationN.
2hese )ebrew terms are action words which presuppose the existence
of the following: 3a) truth to be belie-ed in$ 3b) an ob:ect of con7dence$ 3c) a
place of refuge. (eligion indenti7es this ob:ecti-e truth as God.
Another famous text about faith is (om. 1:1G *ince this is "hat
re$eals the +ustice of 'o( to us, it sho"s ho" faith lea(s to faith# or as
scripture says -.he upriht man /n(s life throuh faith0.% According to the
Merome ;iblical 8ommentary 3M;8)$ the text denotes the di-ine Kuality
whereby God acKuits his people$ as a way of manifesting towards them his
gracious power through :ust :udgment. In this text$ the :ustice of God %iustitia
1ei. is a manifestation of the grace that is bestowed by God. *ith this
premise in mind$ the M;8 recalls the original application of the text to the life
promised by Pahweh to Mudah whose only power to win the battle was her
7delity to Pahweh against her 8haldean in-aders whose god was their might.
)ence$ the text states %the upright shall li-e by my faithfulness.. 2he sense
of uprightness or the %iustitia 1ei. is disclosed only in the sphere of faith.
/i5ewise$ it is bestowed by God in the form of grace. 8orrespondingly$
;ergant and ,arris 31HAH) notes about the centrality of faith through this
text: E-erything starts and ends in &aith. As )aba5u5 3":#) told his
compatriots: %the upright man will li-e by his faithfulness.. It is precisely this
human faith which ma5es it possible for God to exercise his power to the
fullest.
2he M;8 traces the etymological origin of the term 7delity as used in
this text from the )ebrew %enuma. and the Gree5 %pistis.. 2he term %pistis.
also applies to the life promised by God to Mudah as a form of temporal
deli-erance from her enemies. /i5ewise$ the M;8 obser-es other
interpretations lin5ing faith %pistis. to uprightness. )owe-er$ in relation to
the religious beliefs of the Gree5s$ 1r. ErnelGalla=a noted one limitation of
the Gree5 %pistis. the fact that the Gree5s do not usually use the word in
relation to their gods and goddesses due to their conception of their gods
and goddesses as ob:ects of fear rather than trust. )owe-er$ as applied to
8hristian religion$ pistis is a -ery rich term as it may mean life$ faith and
uprightness both in the temporal and spiritual realms. 2he application these
terms always starts from God who is the cradle of life$ faithfulness and
uprightness.
2* Explain the .ollo'in) un-er the topic: ?aith1eli)ion an- Do)ma
2*1#he hetero-oxy o. 5elievers
2he heterodoxy that egundo refers to is the general -ariation of
people according to faith such as those who belie-e in God and hence belong
to a religion and those who do not belie-e at all such as the atheists.
egundo pro-ided a critiKue of the <atican II6s 0astoral 8onstitution
'au(iumetspes section 1H. )is thoughts was generally in agreement to the
point of Gaudium et spes that the belie-ers by the degree of their belief or
disbelief in God and by the consistency of their action or inDaction to their
belief or disbelief ha-e re-ealed or concealed the authentic face of God and
religion and hence$ contributed to the spread or elimination of atheism.
Gaudiumetspes sec. 1H: )ence the belie-ers can ha-e more than a
little to do with the birth of atheism. 2o the extent that they neglect
their own training in the faith$ or teach erroneous doctrine$ or are
de7cient in their religious$ moral or social life$ the must ha-e said to
conceal rather than re-eal the authentic face of God and religion.
egundo raised four points in his criticism which are worth noting. &irst
he said that 8hristians e-en in their e9orts to propagate their faith are
responsible for the denial of God on the sociological le-el. econd$ the said
that the de7ciency of the belie-ers6 religious$ moral and social life may ha-e
became means of concealing the authentic face of God. 2hird$ he said that
the -alues culti-ated by sincere 8hristians ha-e became the reference
whether the God about which 8hristians spea5 in their actions is a false deity
or the true God. &ourth$ the 8hristians in carrying out the social side of their
religious responsibilities possess criteria in their own religious faith which will
enable them to disco-er and implement the -alues consistent with their true
God.
2he critiKue of egundo is in agreement with his theory that in the
anthropological dimension$ the order of -alues coincides with the order of
beings. peci7cally$ the -alue system of aperson is the -estiges of his God.
According to egndo$ the series of particular human witnesses certi7es
Kuality attributes about the person6s faith related to God. In this case$ the
person himself became the starting point of the faith. )ence$ the 5ind of faith
and the degree of belief therein may -ary according to the integrity of
insuIciency of human witnessing.
2o end this critiKue$ we may as5 oursel-es this Kuestion: )ow stable is
the faith that is founded on human witnessingJ 2he /ord reminds us that
when we build our house we ha-e to set it on a strong foundation 3/5. F:#AD
#H). E-en amidst the loftiness of our wisdom let us not forget to set always
the foundation of our faith in the /ord so that e-en if we go astray$ should we
decide to go bac5$ we are still assured of the way. 2he anthropological faith
must be able to process the di-ine inspiration in the human experiences.
trengthened by the 1i-ine it hopes to dialogue with ideologies.
2*2 #he :o- o. (etaphysics
egundo presented the metaphysical concept of God citing from 2racy.
)e made a critiKue of 2racy6s philosophy and concluded the section by
presenting his anthropological faith as a better option than 2racy6s
metaphysical God.
According to him$ 2racy presented the concept of religion in the
ideological sense$ i.e.$ through the realm of instruments that is ideological.
2his ideological realm is dangerous because of the absolute and sacred
o-ertones that tend to cluster around it. Alongside$ he presented his concept
of religion which is understood in the anthropological sense. /i5e his
anthropological faith$ religion to him is a speci7cation of the set of -alues. )e
li5ewise noted of the obser-ation that religion used in this sense may
become false generali=ation. 2he falsity is with reference to its pre-ailing
concept of God which has been reduced to a linguistic trap and hence led to
misunderstanding and the conseKuent spread of atheism.
egundo said that the set of -alues may li5ewise be referred to as the
fundamental trust. According to him$ religion as a fundamental trust has
uni-ersal and anthropological dimensions which is beyond the bounds of
8hristian (eligion. )e cited 2racy6s understanding of God as an ob:ecti-e
ground in reality for those limit experiences of 7nal con7dence and trust
disclosed in 8hristian language. 2his concept of God is con7ned in 8hristian
religion but which is not con7rmed in Gaudiumetspes. egundo said that only
metaphysics not e-en 8hristian theology or 8hristian experience can achie-e
full conceptual unity where the irreducible plurality exists. All de7nition of
God is metaphysical$ howe-er this metaphysical de7nition is a source of
misunderstanding and the seed of atheism. )e would rather prefer to use
2racy6s new metaphysical conception of God as an eminently social$ temporal
and related being which in a word means a /o-ing God.
Amidst all these egundo said that whate-er metaphysical de7nition of
God may not be necessary anymore in -iew of the eKually symbolic language
that has been articulated in 8hristian re-elation which egundo prefers to
call as &aith.
I thin5$ to be more comprehensi-e and wellDfounded$ faith and religion
must not be based only on the anthropological dimension as presented by
egundo. 2o be holistic$ the anthropological sphere must li5ewise be
balanced by the theocentric dimension.
2*3 #he messa)e o. Jesus as an example
2he message of Mesus aids in the transformation of the human faith
into a religious faith and articulates the speci7c -alues in the person who
accepts it. Mesus appeals of the religious faith that is not constituti-e of the
mere set of instruments. Mesus o9ered God and his di-ine will to the people
and the 5ind of faith that is demanded thereof. 2hose who opted to accept
the message are as5ed of a radical transformation 3metanoia). In the
anthropological plane$ the implication of metanoia is the total reformation of
one6s life$ a radical change of lifestyle and e-en comfort in life. Metanoia
means change of mind$ criteria and -alues. It e-en alludes to the change in
the meaningDstructure i.e.$ in faith. )ence$ the preaching of Mesus was a
summon to the religious faith in the fullest sense of the term$ the faith which
is the source of the new meaning structure.
*as this possibleJ 2he person of Mesus is the melting point of the God
and man. Mesus was both human and di-ine. It was his preaching that 7nally
lead the change that e9ects both in the sociological plane and the heart. )e
is the way$ the truth and the life 3Mn 1#:F). )e was able to synthesi=e the
anthropological and the theocentric. 2he call to metanoia is being ushered by
those who ha-e gone ahead until today.
3* 6n-er the topic, ?aith#rust1eli)ion, a)ree an- critici/e the
.ollo'in):
B.1. 0annenberg6s fundamental trust
According to 0annenberg faith is synonymous with trust. 2rust is
founded on the fundamental and basic moments of human life such as the
experiences of the person when still a small child with the signi7cant others
in his life or the structures or systems that assure his growth. 2his trust is
unconditioned as it leads the person to the undetermined$ e-en beyond the
boundaries of any 8hristian a-owal.
egundo con7rmed of some similarities with 0annenberg: 3a) &aith
and 2rust may be used synonymously$ although egundo noticed of the
comfort of 0annenberg to prefer the latter. 3b) &aith or 2rust is considered
from the anthropological rather than religious dimension. 2his &aith or 2rust
is placed 7rst in one6s parents. It is the human being who needs the
unconditionedEfundamental trust.
'n the other hand$ egundo li5ewise registered his di9erences
against 0annenberg: 3a) egundo prefers to use the term &aith rather than
2rust. )is preference will be understood through the succeeding points of
di9erence he stressed against 0annenberg. 3b) 2he ob:ect of 0annenberg6s
2rust is the %meaningDstructure which the human being has built upon
himself such as: the circumstances$ things$ persons and e-en structures or
systems that supports him to act such as -enturing into the
un5ownEundetermined. 8on-ersely$ egundo understands &aith referring to
the things or circumstances of -alue. &aith is the ob:ect or reality where the
person is lead to. )ence$ according to egundo$ the lac5 of &aith disorients
the person while the lac5 of trust may :ust cripple him.
Generally I noticed that the &aith of egundo refers to an End$
contrary to the 2rust of 0annenberg refers to the Means to an end. ;oth
philosophers understood &aith and 2rust in the anthropological or secular
perspecti-e. It is the human being who needs &aith and 2rust. In the concept
of egundo$ &aith may become the ob:ect of 2rust.
&aith as an ob:ect may refer to God$ institution or ideology.
+ormally$ &aith must ha-e only one ob:ect. %+o one can be a sla-e of two
masters. 3Mtt. F:"#). &or anyone whose ob:ect of &aith is God$ then the way
is through religion. (egardless of whate-er ob:ect of &aith anyone may opt
for$ what is essential is for the person to 5now the limits. E-en those who
opted for God are forewarned that the extreme practice of &aith or the failure
to recogni=e the one true God may e-en lead them to idolatry.
3*2* Jesus polemics a)ainst 1eli)ion
Mesus came not to abolish the law but to perfect it. )is polemic against
religion centers on the issue of obeying the religious commandments -ersus
doing good and the issue concerning the religious authority -ersus the
human criteria.
As the on sent by the &ather to reali=e the 1i-ine 0lan of al-ation$
Mesus came so appropriately to guide humanity bac5 to the path of &aith.
Mesus came at the pea5 of the age of the 'ld 2estament in which the
emphasis on uprightness as a means to sal-ation has gone out of bounds.
2he religion in the 'ld 2estament is founded on the /aw. 2he /aw of God is
supposed to be perfect$ righteous and holy. It was through the /aw that God
manifested his goodness and through which the people may li-eDout their
faithDresponses. 2he religious realm of this monotheistic faith was through
the /aw. 2he people$ howe-er$ fell short of their perception and response to
God6s plan of sal-ation. 2he faith in God which in the term of egundo was
the -alueDstructure which they had built upon themsel-es was relati-i=ed.
2he /aw which was supposed to be a means to their &aith became the center
of their li-es so that their li-es became subsumed to the /aw. *hile they still
recogni=e the 'ne 2rue God as their 7nal end$ they were howe-er found
worshiping the /aw. As such$ their religious traditions were no longer in
consonance to the 1i-ine law. Amidst the confusion which the people refused
to recogni=e$ the religious realm which was supposed to contain the &aith
from the 1i-ine has been reduced to an anthropological faith. 2he 1i-ine law
was practiced more as a human law. 'bedience to the law has been
emphasi=ed at all cost. )ence$ egundo said %Mesus attac5ed religion
because it became an ideology rather than faith: an ideology which by -irtue
of its di-ini=ed and absoluti=ed categories was particularly well eKuipped to
pass itself o9 as faith..
Mesus wanted to emphasi=e that obeying the law must considered both
ob:ecti-ely in the sense that God is the /aw and sub:ecti-ely in the sense
that obedience must be from the heart. More superior than the law is the
person and the upright li-ing of the &aith. In fact$ the problem in the
obser-ance of faith ">>> years ago is still the same problem that confronts
the 8hurch today. 2he challenge posted by Mesus to the Mudeans and
Galileans is the same challenge that is being addressed to the 8hurch today:
to purify her faith as a means to prepare for the coming of the ,ingdom.
3*3* #he .aith o. science an- reason
*ith the conKuest of humanism and the renaissance that propelled
empiricism$ science and reason became the way of 5nowledge. 2his was
against the way through faith which was the preceding approach. 2he
renaissance was prominently recogni=ed as the age of enlightenment. 2he
means to 5nowledge was science and reason and the pre-ailing -alue was
materialism. /ife became mundane rather than holy. 2he center of
5nowledge and de-elopment was no longer the church but the science
laboratories. (eligiosity and faith 3which was opposed by materialism$ and
empiricism or science T reason) was condemned as the culprit of misery and
hence tri-iali=ed and dislodged. ince then$ science and reason amidst its
manifestation of authority and dominance would always be considered as
opposed to faith and religion. 2his dominance continues until the present
age. In Europe and generally in the west being the seat of empiricism$ the
churches became a thing of the past as they are being con-erted into
museums if not totally closed.
'n the ">
th
century Muan /uis egundo came out with his philosophical
premise that faith$ science and reason are ne-er opposed to each other.
(ather he said that the unalterable opposition 3of faith with science are
reason as accounted by the empiricists) fades into complementarity.
egundo maintains that there is such an anthropoloical faith. Man is
naturally capable of theori=ing from the realm of the human$ material and
concrete experiences. 2hereby$ man is able to 5now their meanings and
de-elop concepts. uch concepts can be structured or organi=ed$ theori=ed
and be assigned with -alue statements. Man may prioriti=e them according
to their importance and -alue to life. egundo calls this the meanin1
structure. 2he meaningDstructure not only confers -alue on but also guides
the scienti7c analysis which ser-es as its necessary means of mediation. In
principle$ the meaning structure is ne-er opposed to the use of science.
+ormally$ the starting point andEor the end of man6s endea-or is the
meaningDstructure in his life. egundo claims that the method whereby man
conceptuali=es this meaningD structure is reasonable and hence no less than
scienti7c.
(eason and science as coined by the empiricists can be considered :ust
as a play of terms which ha-e been contextuali=ed to its -ested ends. 2he
philosophy of egundo pro-ides a piece of information that faith and religion
relati-e to its own ends may correspondingly ha-e its own terms.
a* 1eason an- 2el. Cali-atin) +remises
egundo :usti7es that faith which comes in the concept of meaningD
structure is selfD-alidating -isDaD-is reason. 2he meaning ser-es primarily as
a premise that determines our reason to exist. It measures or gauge reality
not in terms of what it is but in terms of what it ought to be: i.e.$ it terms of
its -alue. *ith this purpose$ the meaningDstructure stands independently. It is
not a9ected by the data it e-aluates.
'n the other hand$ egundo points out of the signi7cant moments in
our li-es wherein we punctuate on our experiences and learn from them. 'ur
cogni=ance to these moments depends on our meaningDstructure. 2hese
moments$ howe-er$ are so signi7cant so that they may e-en selfD-alidate our
meaningDstructures.
5* Examinin) #'o Current 6sa)e
egundo refers to the di9erent understanding of %ideology. as they are
used in di9erent contexts. In this case he presents two ways of
understanding the term as he has used them to explain his concept. 2hus
egundo explained:
%Ideology in the more neutral sense refers to e-erything that lies
outside the precision of the sciences$ to the suprascienti7c or the
superstructural realm. In that sense it is only logical to tal5 about a
%Marxist ideology$. e-en though one may recogni=e a %scienti7c. area
in it$ and we do hear such tal5 today. 2he second sense of the term is
clearly negati-e. It refers to all the cogniti-e mechanisms which
disguise$ excuse$ and e-en sacrali=e the existing mode of production
thus bene7ting those who pro7t from that mode of production..
Criti;ue: 2he concept of faith pro-ided by egundo is on an
anthropological or secular dimension. uch$ howe-er may be applied e-en to
the religious dimension. If e-er$ there may :ust ha-e to be a consideration of
the starting point in philosophi=ing or theologi=ing. 2he philosophy of
egundo may be -ery helpful for religion as it may aid religion to re-isit how
it has li-ed with the faith and thereby trace its reasonability in
conceptuali=ing and manifesting the faith. 8are howe-er$ must be of utmost
concern especially by considering the shift in the starting point from
anthropological to theocentric or theological. 'therwise religion may not be
able to lead the belie-ers to communion with God but rather to practice a
mere ideology.

2* #he Concept o. ?aith in +hilosophy 3$an-5oo8 o. ?aith4

a* Early :ree8 +hilosophy
2he earliest models of 5nowing the truth that e-entually lead to the
concept of faith were presented by the early Gree5 philosophers. &rom one
camp were the cluster of philosophers such as Anaximander$ )eraclitus and
0armenides who commonly tal5ed about the absolute being who is the truth
and the principle of harmony and balance. 2hey tal5ed about the essence of
transcendental perfectness which is deri-ed through ascertaining the nature
of what appears.
&rom another camp were the cluster of philosophers such as 0lato$
Aristotle and 0lutinus who tal5ed about the realm of the ideal and the real as
means of percei-ing these realities. peci7cally$ 0lato presented the concept
of the eudaimonia referring to the realm of the absolute goodness where
material existence reali=es its perfection. 2his is reached through the ascent
of the soul. &rom another perspecti-e was Aristotle who argued from the
basis of reality in the material realm which leads to the conception of the
absolute. (elated to this$ the highest state that man can attain is the
emulation of the existence of the absolute i.e.$ the unmo-ed mo-er through
contemplation. 0lutinus tal5ed about the reciprocity of the 1i-ine truth to
emanate and the human response to contemplate the di-ine. Generally$ the
concept of these three philosophers point out to a mythical faith in the
absolute to which the existence of e-ery being 7nds its perfection.
Generally$ the Gree5 philosophy considers the dri-e for wisdom to ha-e
been permeated by religious concerns. According to this philosophy$
rationality ends in the contemplation of the truth which is the ultimate
source of reality. 2he -alue of truth is primarily based on its ontological and
moral Kualities o-er the purely cogniti-e ones. An inKuiry into the truth if
faithfully carried is always religious. In -iew of the need to understand the
truth$ the human being transcends the limits of experiences and Kuestions
that in which all that is$ is ultimately found. E-erything is unitary in nature in
as much as there is only one absolute truth. 2he eKuation of God and truth
entails ma:or philosophical and theological antimonies. It is from this premise
that philosophy and theology continually lin5 with each other amidst their
struggle that both preser-es their full integrity. 2his is a case which was later
con7rmed by )egel and remains to be so until today.
*hile the philosophers of this age are common according to their
understanding of the truth$ they greatly -ary in their starting points.
8on-ersely opposed according to the starting point is 0lato who ta5es o9
from the realm of the absoluteE the transcendent$ and Aristotle who ta5es o9
from the realm of the materialE the immanent.
5* #he Christian +hilosophy o. the (i--le ,)es
2he medie-al philosophy of religion was a de-elopment of the ancient.
*hat was signi7cant during this age was its achie-ement to assign the
absolute reality with the face of God. 2he understanding and usage of the
term %religious. has e-ol-ed into a higher plane. In the ancient time
%religious. was a description gi-en to absolute reality who was mythically
belie-ed to be the source of e-erything and can be percei-ed only through
the aid of introspection. In the medie-al time$ the term religious was used to
designate the di-inity and holiness of God as the ultimate source and end of
reality. &urthermore$ the myth in ancient philosophy which came strongly in
the form of assumption arising from one6s deepest con-iction has been
recogni=ed as faith in the medie-al time.
2here were two famous philosophers and theologians of this age: t.
Augustine and t. 2homas AKuinas. ;oth of them agreed on the concept of
God as the ultimate reality$ source and end of all existence. )owe-er$
In@uenced by 0lato and Aristotle$ they -ary in their starting points.
Augustine was nurtured according to the 0latonic philosophy. )e begins
with an assumption in the existence of the transcendent absolute principle
whom he called God. 2hen$ he tal5s about faith as an essential component of
the human to understand the absolute. E-en the 8hurch of the present age
Kuotes a famous slogan from him: %belie-e that you may understand$. %My
soul is restless until it rests in 2hee o /ord.. AKuinas on the other hand was
in@uenced by the Aristotelian logic. )e starts with the %&irst 0rinciples$. these
are the articles of faith which are perceptible to the senses and which are the
direct ob:ect of (e-elation. 'f course$ re-elation is from God. 2hrough the
light of faith$ man is able to ob:ectify his experiences into religious truths.
1espite the -ariety of approaches or starting point$ what matters for
the medie-al philosophers and theologians is God6s own internal witness with
comes to us as re-ealed truths and which we recogni=e through the act of
faith. 2heir starting point is reason$ hence anthropological.
c* (o-ern +hilosophy
2he modern period started with (ene 1escartes 31?HFD1F?>) at whose
time the %God of the philosophers. was born. 1escartes argued about the
existence of God based not on faith but on pure reason. 2hrough pure reason
he was able to deduce the truth about God. 1escartes understood faith as an
ascent beyond the reasonability of the mind.
&rom the period of 1escartes$ ;aruch pino=a 31FB"D1FGG) propagated
the rationalist philosophy. According to him$ to be real is to be rational.
pino=a considered God as real in as much as his existence can be
rationali=ed. )is recourse to reason left no room for faith. 2o him God is both
the initial idea and the necessary conclusion of a consistent thought.
)owe-er he refused to accept the transcendence of God.
8ontrary to pino=a$ Gottfried *ilhelm <on /eibni= 31F#FD1G1F)
attempted to safeguard the di-ine transcendence. )e argued that God is the
principle securing cosmic harmony. )e accounted the internal coherence of
the world to the power of God. /i5e his two modern day predecessors$ he
also accounted for the existence of God through a purely rational deduction.
1escartes$ pino=a and /eibni= each in their respecti-e ways
contributed to the idea of a purely natural religion$ i.e.$ of an idea of God that
could be arri-ed at by human reason unaided by re-elation.
1a-id )ume 31G11D1GGF pic5ed up the argumentation about God
through natural religion and concluded of its inadeKuacy to pro-e God6s
existence. )e said that the experience of e-il in the world bloc5s the
reasonability of the existence of God. )ume argued from the anthropological
plane.
Gotthold Ephraim /essing 31G"HD1GA1) despite the in@uence of
rationalism of pino=a and /eibni= was li5ewise s5eptical as )ume. )e
maintained that before the tribunal of reason$ re-ealed religion based on
historical contingency could not :ustify its claim for God6s existence. )e
brought to a logical conclusion the de-elopment of thought separated from
faith. 2his li5ewise resulted to the di-orce of a reasonable religion from
experience. imilar to )ume the argumentation of /essing departed from the
anthropological dimension.
Immanuel ,ant 31G"#D1A>#) presented a philosophy that ended the
rational deductions of the existence of God. ,ant e-en tal5ed about morality
and ethics as autonomous from any transcendent foundation. 8ontrary to his
prior thoughts about morality and religion$ an obser-ation has been noted
when he placed himself in a dilemma as he later de7ned religion as the
recognition of all duties as di-ine commands. 8ritiKues would argue that ,ant
may ha-e either introduced a new element into morality whereby the moral
law becomes God6s law thus destroying the human being6s autonomy$ or
recogni=ed the remar5s extrinsic to moral law whereby religion loses its
moral impact. +e-ertheless$ ,ant has stated a problem which is of -ital
importance to the philosophy of religion. 1i9erent from )ume and /essing
,ant employed a deducti-e reasoning.
0ic5ing up from the representational concepts of re-ealed religion$
Georg *ilhelm &riedrich )egel 31GG>D1AB1) constructed his own
metaphysics. )e accepted the uniKue authority of 8hristian re-elation. Pet he
also argues that faith does not come fully into its own until it has
philosophically thought the representational content of this re-elation. )egel
seemed to mo-e similar to the thought of Augustine %&aith must see5 to
understand.. It implies howe-er$ that religion cannot fully be true in its own
right until it has to be a philosophy. )egel6s philosophical religion has to be
through a process of cogniti-e dynamism. 2his is -ery much contrary to the
8hristian understanding that faith ne-er ceases to be e-en if it may not be
understood. )egel6s case shows how diIcult it is to 5eep the relationship of
faith and religion while both preser-e their full and independent integrity.
-* 20
th
Century
In reaction to )egel$ Martin )eidegger 31AAHD1HGF) argued that the
God of metaphysics is a result of misunderstanding and should therefore be
discarded with the misunderstanding itself. )eidegger recogni=es the
existence of ;eing in the 1i-ine realm. )e referred to this as the &irst 8ause.
2he mind itself cannot comprehend this ;eing$ instead it can only
presuppose it. )e argued of the limitations of philosophy to engage with this
;eing in as much as only the religious mind may be able to engage with it.
)e said that what is reKuired of man to engage with this ;eing is a correct
relation with the latter rather than a logical mind.
,arl Maspers 31AABD1HFH) is existential in tone li5e )eidegger. )e tal5ed
about existence and Existen=. Existence refers to immanent realities while
Existen= refers to those that are transcendent. )eidegger explained that an
authentic participation in the existence must always in-ol-e the realm of the
transcendent. )e therefore assumes that any immanent reality presupposes
a transcendental -aluation. 2he transcendent de7es all categorical
ob:ecti7cations. )e also argues that the transcendent always remain hidden
as it can ne-er be ob:ecti7ed without doing -iolence against it. )e is
therefore opposed to the claims of historical re-elation about the absolute
despite his interest in the faith of the belie-er to re-elation.
Masper6s philosophical faith is one that recogni=es the radical
contingency permeating all our existence. )owe-er$ this contingency can
ne-er be particulari=ed. *hile this faith in 2ranscendence sustains us in
doubt and despair$ it may endanger us also to fall prey to nihilism and
despair.
1e.erences:
15. Alexander Mones 3Gen. Ed.) 31HFF) 2he Merusalem ;ible. 0hilippines:
0hil. ;ible ociety
1. 1ianne ;ergant$ 8A T (obert carris$ '&M 3Eds.) 31HAH) 2he 8ollege-ille
;ible 8ommentary. Minnesota: /iturgical 0ress
". ;rown$ (aymund ..$ &it=mayer$ Mospeh A. .M.$ Murphy$ (oland E. '.8arm. 3Eds.)
31HH>) 2he +ew Merome ;iblical 8ommentary. +ew Mersey: 0rintice )all
B. Mames Michael /ee 3Ed. 31HH>) )andboo5 on &aith. ;irmingham: (eligious
Education 0ress
#. Muan /uis egundo 31HA") &aith and Ideologies. /ondon: 'rbis ;oo5s
?. )andouts and +otes in II(E& 2)BBG 8lass
#$ 333 Church Doctrines an- the ?athers o. the Church
1ev* +erseus D* :on/ales, +hD
1. *hat are the Kuali7cations needed for some old ecclesiastical writers to
merit the title %8hurch.J Explain.
". *hat characteri=ed the writings of the Apostolic &athers of the 7rst three
centuriesJ
B. *hat were the concerns of the 8hurch during this particular contextJ
#. Most apologists are philosophers$ why are they called apologistsJ )ow did
their wor5s in@uence the 8anon of the criptures especially the +ew
2estament as we read todayJ
?. In the second century$ three heterodox mo-ements de-eloped within the
8hurch: MudaeoD8hristianity$ Gnosticism$ and Montanism. 1iscuss the
basic tenets of these mo-ements and their in@uence to orthodoxy of the
8hristian faith.