I put together the following some time ago, and only had it saved as a draft here on the blog. I thought I would publish it now. I actually don’t even recall who my interlocutor is anymore; maybe he’ll see this and remind me.
I shared the following passage on Facebook and X, from John Baillie, as cited by TF Torrance in his book: Theological Science.
The fact is that no true knowledge, no valid act of perceiving or thinking, can be explained by beginning from the human end—whether it be my perception of the number of peas in a particular pod or my discovery of an argument for the existence of God. In either case my cognition is valid only so far as it is determined by the reality with which I am faced.
I’ve had a “friend” on FB who more recently has become somewhat aggressive with me; like he is angry because he thinks I speak in platitudes (which he can’t understand) too much. And so, this our last exchange, just took place under my posting of the John Baillie passage. In the following I have compressed all of his comments, along with mine, as mine were responses to his. Even in compression, the spirit of what is being engaged with should be understandable, I hope. I have removed my interlocutor’s last name; his first name is Chris. He and I and will meet again in the Eschaton. Until then there is no reason to pursue anything further here. I will say though, this exchange reminded me of how the old school blogosphere used to be, on a day to day basis (I actually don’t miss that so much). Anyway, you might find this interesting. You might agree more with Chris, or with me. But I’m unsure, at least from a genuinely Christian theological vantage point, how you could agree with Chris. He is thinking from some sort of ‘pure nature’ ‘pure humanity’ notion, that fits better with the rationalism, and monism, of Enlightenment anthropology, not to mention Augustinian anthropology, as that is understood soteriologically, in regard to the massa of humanity.
Interlocutor’s Assertions
That is an absurdity since anything, whether true knowledge, or false, starts with a human end. Theologians work in solipsisms huh? And yet all that must be experienced and validated or spurned inside a human. Without that what comes of what you write? Nada. Without god there is no man. Without man there is no god to receive. Even as you write you contradict what you’ve written, since it comes from within you, a human end. It is fundamentally solipsistic. And that leads to madness imo. And still all you’ve written comes from you, a human end, which you overlook, or excuse away with abstractions of that end.. Thus the abstraction is yours, friend. The external reality is not in question. Rather, whether a human is an end or a means. I say an end since I cannot escape that end, where I meet external reality, which includes god. Every time you type you contradict yourself since you employ your human end to deny it. I feel the same regarding you. Whatever your human end is grounded in it is met in you, a human end. You assume defacto to assert dejure. And you continue to miss the obvious, which is you. Brother everytime you text you affirm my assertion. So I leave you to it. Peace to you in Christ.
My Rejoinders
Chris only for the philosopher not the theologian. Chris no, they work, in principle, with extra mental/mind independent extra nos (outside of us) objective reality, as God has given Himself for us both as the object of our knowledge, but come as a subject/personally. That’s what Baillie is referring to. Indeed, that’s the whole point of Christian theology; someOne outside of us upon who we are contingent; and Who speaks to us through Himself in the Son. The end of human knowledge, biblically construed, is knowledge of God; which the incarnation “helps” with. It’s called *dialogical theology*. So a praying theology. There is actually someOne there, outside of us who circumscribes all knowledge as He is indeed the Word who upholds all things by the Word of His power. All of reality is Christ conditioned, in other words. As David Fergusson notes “the world was made so that Christ might be born.” No, it doesn’t come from within me as an absolute subject or center in myself; it comes from within a center in Godself pro me, from within His vicarious humanity. So in that sense, I could agree that there is a human end, but archetypal humanity, not abstract as your original comment made it sound. Which again, Baillie’s thinking can be applied to. There is no such thing as an *abstract humanity* in the economy of God, only the concrete humanity of God within which we now find correspondence through the humanity of Christ for us, by the Spirit. Baillie’s passage is simply noting contra the Enlightenment turn to the subject that there is an external reality that grounds humanity; i.e. thus entailing the further notion that humanity is contingent upon God’s Word all the way down. That seems like an uncontroversial teaching. Baillie is referring to, and Torrance takes it from Baillie in his work, as a reference to a non-competitive understanding in a God-human relationship. Show me the contradiction. Or show me the money. Here’s some deeper context for the Baillie passage as TFT utilizes it in his own thinking on a knowledge of God (i.e., theological ontology vis a vis theological epistemology in an order of being to knowing and vice versa: Kataphysics. TFT’s ‘stratified knowledge of God’ and the Christian Existence). What I am noting is descriptive with prescriptive implications. You aren’t understanding, it seems, the idea or the explosive nature of what the vicarious humanity entails. So, you have accepted the Enlightenment turn to the subject anthropology. That’s not reflective a truly Christ conditioned theoanthropology, nor does it take the implications of the incarnation with the gravity it requires. You’re not getting it. You don’t want to, it seems. My human end is grounded in Christ’s end for me, as the alpha and omega of all of reality. My points are de jure, while you are taking them as de facto; which means you’re engaging in the category mistake, not me. You also seem to be suffering from a nihilistic linguistic theory wherein reality and the words used to signify that reality cannot point beyond themselves. That’s how I am using my language to refer to Christ conditionality, and its implications towards knowledge of God, and knowledge in general; insofar that all of reality is circumscribed by the Word of God. So far all you’ve done is assert that I am contradicting myself, when I have explained to you how I haven’t (ie not just by assertion). You need to show how my explanations terminate in the type of contradiction you are claiming. So far you haven’t. Just do it. I have no human end apart from Christ’s human end for me. The objective ground of humanity is Christ’s humanity. I have come to that conclusion insofar that I have the Spirit of God and can now call Jesus, Lord. My conclusion, is in echo of God’s conclusion for me in Jesus Christ. I’ve also explained how you are thinking in terms of an abstract humanity, which a genuinely Christian theology knows nothing of. This is what TFT properly identifies as the *Latin heresy*. An adroit dualism that the incarnation negates. My human end is met in Christ. He is the firstborn from the dead, in whom my life terminates and is born again in correspondence to his resurrection recreated humanity. I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. No man, you haven’t responded to one thing I have said in regard to a theological anthropology and its implications. You have only presumed upon a rationalist turn to the subject notion of humanity that you have received from the secular age. You say you want to learn, but you’re actually hyper arrogant. We part ways, I see no fruit forthcoming in the future. See you in the Eschaton.