Man's internal is that from which he is man, and by which he is distinguished from brute animals. By means of this internal he lives after death, and to eternity a man, and by means of it he can be uplifted by the Lord among the angels. This internal is the very first form from which a man becomes and is man, and by means of it the Lord is united to man. The very heaven that is nearest the Lord is composed of these human internals; but this is above even the inmost angelic heaven, and therefore these internals belong to the Lord Himself. By this means the whole human race is most present under the Lord's eyes, for there is no distance in heaven, such as appears in the sublunary world, and still less is there any distance above heaven. These internals of men have no life in themselves, but are forms recipient of the Lord's life. [AC 1999]
Swedenborg describes the human essence (internal) as known only to God. Even the celestial angels cannot view their own or others' essences. Some Swedenborgians have used the term soul (as distinct from spirit for this essence). However, I will desist from doing so since the words soul, spirit and mind are used interchangeably by Swedenborg, as Glenn as shown in his comments on The Pre-existence of Souls. I will stick to the term essence. This ineffable human essence is what makes an entity a person rather than a whale, elephant , chimpanzee or dolphin, and not the attributes of understanding and will. These human essences are ontological constructs whose being is derived from their presence under the Lord's eyes i.e. from the Lord's knowledge of them from the past eternal into the eternal future.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. [Jeremiah 1:5]
Now, these essences do not acquire the faculties of understanding and will until they reach a certain phase in their development. This acquisition is a gradual process rather than an instantaneous event. Parenthetically, understanding and will are not, in themselves, tantamount to consciousness. Understanding can be conscious, unconscious or semi-conscious. The same is true of the will. I am not aware of all of my desires all of the time, and I probably have desires that I am not yet aware of.
Even the essences of hellish beings are near the Lord.
These essences have existed from eternity past as potential persons. Even before I was conceived, I was a potential person in the Lord's view. My internal [AC 1999] was not created by my parents' decision to unite at a certain moment in time. The moment of conception was when my essence or my internal was united with a fertilized ovum. My internal is what makes me a unique, eternal being in the image of God. It does not have life in and of itself, but is the medium through which life flows from the Lord into the rest of my being: my spirit (mind), my physical body and the future spiritual body (bio-complexity) that I will be associated with.
It is known that there are two faculties of life in man, the will and the understanding... So long as man remains in the womb he does not have these two faculties; as it has been shown above that nothing whatever of will or of understanding belongs to the fetus in its formation. [DW 5]
Divine Wisdom (DW) is a posthumous work that Swedenborg did not publish himself. It is thought to be a draft of the published work Divine Love and Wisdom (DLW), which does not assert that a fetus has no will or understanding.
I think that Swedenborg, in Divine Wisdom (DW), is talking about a specific level of will and understanding that a newborn infant has but which a fetus does not have. This should not be taken to imply that all understanding and willing is subsequent to the first breath. One can discern another, albeit less developed, level of understanding within a fetus who sucks his or her thumb, kicks, moves, responds to Mozart. Note the statement above that understanding and will do not, of themselves, imply consciousness. Full consciousness does not develop until a baby is a few years old.
After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob. [Genesis 25:26]
As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, "This one came out first." But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, "So this is how you have broken out!" And he was named Perez. [Genesis 38:28-29]
As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. [Luke 1:44]
We call fetuses babies in common parlance. We do not ask a pregnant mother, "Show me the sonogram of your fetus." We say, "Show me your baby's sonogram." In my view, the common sense of common folk is more accurate in this context than the technical language of scientists or the legalese of lawyers.
In the last few paragraphs, I have endeavored to show that the Swedenborgian corpus does not necessarily imply that the fetus does not have any will or understanding (which are not equivalent to consciousness). However, this has been a digression. Whether a fetus has some form of understanding or will is not crucial to this argument. Let us step into time prior to conception.
Before we were conceived, we were potential persons in the Lord's mind. When we were conceived, we became potential persons less and actual persons more (achieved a degree of fixedness). When we were born, we became actual persons.
Are all potential persons (human essences or internals per AC 1999] actualized or are some of them lost? Did I prevent a potential person from being actualized by practicing birth control? Since I had two children when I could have had twenty, were the other eighteen lost into oblivion?
So is My word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. [Isaiah 55:11]
So is My word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. [Isaiah 55:11]
The Lord does nothing in vain. If He has created, pre-created, or imagined these human internals [AC 1999], they are not lost. There are plenty of opportunities for human/humanoid conception and birth in the physical universe where there are billions of galaxies. Swedenborg was before his times in considering the possibility intelligent alien life.
That the angels of heaven are not superior to men, but that they are their equals, and that they are therefore equally the Lord's servants, as men are, is because all the angels have been men, born in the world, and not any of them were created immediately; as may be evident from the things which are written and shown in the work on Heaven and Hell, published at London, 1758. [AR 818]
Back to the aborted or miscarried fetus. I believe one of the two possibilities are true:
- The aborted or miscarried fetus is raised in heaven as would a baby who dies an hour after birth. Think of the incubator as a metaphor. If our hospitals can have incubators, angels can have better. You can say figuratively that the aborted fetus is born out of its gestation in an 'incubator' in the spiritual world.
- The aborted or miscarried fetus is just a potential person that could not get actualized at this opportunity. There will be other genetic/memetic opportunities that match God's unique will for this potential person. This is not the false theory of reincarnation where one person becomes another person. When this potential person is finally born in the world (i.e. physical universe), he or she is a brand new person since he or she was only a potential person, albeit unique, prior to birth.
When there is a sufficient profusion of data points, one can draw a definite curve connecting them. If the data points are fewer than a critical minimum, then one can generate multiple, divergent loci all of which satisfy the data points. In the absence of a clear statement one way or the other in the Bible or in the Writings, the best hermeneutic will be consistent with canonical revelations of God's love, mercy and power. If nature (figuratively) or the abortionist do evil towards the fetus, God can frustrate their evil on behalf of the fetus, just as He turned to nought the evil designs of Joseph's brothers. He is the protector of the weak and powerless.
Although a baptized Christian and a Swedenborgian, I am not an official member of the New Church. I love the Church of the New Jerusalem centered in Bryn Athyn. I agree with everything that the New Church (Bryn Athyn) clergy teach with the exception of the doctrine that a baby that dies within the womb is gone forever. I have attempted in this post to show that this doctrine does not have a foundation in the canonical writings of Swedenborg and that it contradicts our common sense notions of God's love, power and wisdom.
Great answer. You have a very well organized mind. I think you just wrapped up all the opinions of me, the New Church, Sw., Glenn, etc. into one combined thought that actually makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI love the part where you showed that maybe even Sw. rethought it before publishing.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteI violently agree with everything that the New Church (Bryn Athyn) clergy teach with the exception of the heartless doctrine that a baby that dies within the womb is gone forever, a doctrine that does not have a foundation in the canonical writings of Swedenborg and that contradicts our common sense about God's love, power and wisdom.
If a baby that dies within the womb is not gone forever, it must be somewhere. So, where is it?
According to Swedenborg's canonical writings, there is only--as far as 'locations' are concerned-- the physical world, the spiritual world, and that which is above the spiritual world. Since the New Church clergy teach this, and you accept everything it teaches with one exception, and this is not that exception, it follows that you accept that there is only the physical world, the spiritual world, and that which is above the spiritual world. The 'ineffable human essence' which is postulated to survive the death of a baby in the womb, then, can only be said to continue in its existence in one of these three 'locations'.
It cannot be in the physical world, for the reason that the 'ineffable human essence' that has been postulated to exist has also been postulated to not have a physical existence.
Could it be in the spiritual world? If it is, then it must be in heaven, hell or the world of spirits separating heaven and hell (the three components of the spiritual world, which the New Church clergy also teach according to the canonical writings of Swedenborg).
You have previously stated that it is not, nor can it become, an angel in heaven "since they [i.e., miscarried/aborted fetuses] have not become/acquired 'a spirit' yet since that happens with the first breath." You have also said that "this is fine."
But if it is fine, that it is not a spirit in heaven because it has not yet become/acquired 'a spirit', is it not also the case that it is fine that it is not a spirit in the world of spirits or a spirit in hell for the same reason (because it has not " become/acquired 'a spirit' yet")? If it is not, has not become or has not acquired 'a spirit', how can it be said to be in the spiritual world?
If the 'ineffable human essence' continues to exist after a baby dies within the womb, and this 'ineffable human essence' is to be found neither in the physical world nor the spiritual world, then the third alternative must apply, i.e., it must be the case that it exists above the spiritual world.
But there are two objections to this.
The first objection is that the opening appeal to AC 1999 places it not above the spiritual world, but within the spiritual world, specifically within heaven--which is contrary to your prior statement that you are fine with the fact that it cannot be in heaven.
The second objection is that only the Lord God Himself is above the spiritual world. And if the 'ineffable human essence' is above the spiritual world, then it is God Himself (since only God Himself is above the spiritual world (another teaching of the New Church clergy, made in accordance with the canonical writings of Swedenborg)). But this does not seem likely, as reference is made to 'ineffable human essences', and there cannot be a plurality of 'ineffable human essences' which are God Himself, without there also being a plurality of Gods (which plurality is not a teaching of the New Church clergy).
So, I am left wondering--where do you place (so to speak) these 'ineffable human essences' after a baby dies in the womb? It isn't enough to say that they continue to exist. If they exist, they must exist somewhere. But where?
(cont.)
You say that the New Church clergy teaching that it is gone forever is 'heartless'. Yet, the above attempts to locate it according to the alternative that you offer yields no results, i.e., it is nowhere to be found.
ReplyDeleteHave I missed something? If yes, what might that something be?
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. [Jeremiah 1:5]
Is this being taken literally? If so, then I can understand why it might be thought that 'ineffable human essences' exist prior to any attempt to manifest in and through physically born people.
But what if it is not to be taken literally? Or, to put it another way, what if it has more than a literal meaning?
According to the Catholic Catechism, two senses of Scripture can be distinguished--the literal and the spiritual. The spiritual sense is subdivided in the Catechism into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. And the anagogical sense enables us to "view realities and events [in Scripture] in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland[.]"
So, what if by 'womb' is meant the precursor stage before a person is 'born again'? That is, what if it non-literally means that the Lord already knows how a person, physically born, but not yet spiritually born, will be when and after s/he is spiritually born?
Glenn
PS Let me also say that, although I may have taken exception to certain points therein, I have greatly enjoyed your response. And I was happy to find that it was not in vain that I was looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
So much fun and so enlightening to get to scroll down through these 'books' and listen to you two great minds debate Swedenborg!
ReplyDeleteRe: "It is known that there are two faculties of life in man, the will and the understanding... So long as man remains in the womb he does not have these two faculties; as it has been shown above that nothing whatever of will or of understanding belongs to the fetus in its formation. [DW 5]
ReplyDeleteDivine Wisdom (DW) is a posthumous work that Swedenborg did not publish himself. It is thought to be a draft of the published work Divine Love and Wisdom (DLW), which does not assert that a fetus has no will or understanding."
**************************
If you read DW 3 III, it clarifies the matter. He does not have the two faculties but he does have the two receptacles for the two faculties:
"5. One receptacle is for the will of the future man and the other for his understanding; and yet nothing whatever of his will or of his understanding is present in the formation."
Also says, "1. The Lord conjoins Himself to man in the womb of the mother from his first conception, and forms man."
It's too long to quote the whole thing here - I'll put it on my blog and it's also on www.theheavenlydoctrines.org.
The whole Swedenborg thought is interesting and most is off the subject of this discussion. But what I hear him saying is that a fetus has life from the Lord just like we do and has the two receptacles just like we did. Maybe Divine Wisdom is suspect and he is thinking it out and not planning to publish, but it has that typical Sw. intelligent flow to it.
Whether a fetus has some form of understanding or will is not crucial to this argument.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may not be crucial to the argument made, the argument made does lead to a conclusion which is then used to characterize the conclusion of another argument for which it-- whether a fetus has some form of understanding or will--is crucial.
So, I question whether it is fair to evaluate the conclusion of one argument by using another argument which removes from consideration, thereby deeming as unimportant, that upon which the prior argument is in part based. And I question whether the removal from consideration itself is fair where and when it has not first been shown how or why the premises of the prior argument are false, inapplicable or noncontributory to that argument's reasoning.
If the prior argument's conclusion is not inconsistent with the premises upon which it is based, and from which it is said to follow, or with which it is said not to be inconsistent, then, regardless of whether it is in and of itself true or false, the conclusion itself is valid. This is a standard, accepted rule of logic.
And one cannot simply remove from consideration the premises leading up to an argument's conclusion, and then say that that conclusion is not consistent with what is left (and therefore invalid). This would be somewhat like pulling the carpet out from under the feet of a person standing on it, and then remarking, "Look at this fellow here--he's laid out on his back, napping apparently, while we're hard at work." This remark might be humorous in the context of a slapstick comedy routine. But most people, I believe, would think it inherently unfair as a genuine assessment of the situation were there any hint of an intent that it should be taken seriously.
The Bible says that man was created in the image and likeness of God,
o And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:26-27
o In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Gen. 5:1
Swedenborg wrote this,
o Man cannot be an image of God, after His likeness, unless God is in him and is his life from the inmost. That God is in man and, from the inmost, is his life, follows from what has been shown above (n. 4-6), that God alone is life, and that men and angels are recipients of life from Him. Moreover, that God is in man and that He makes His abode with him, is known from the Word; for which reason it is customary for preachers to declare that men ought to prepare themselves to receive God, that He may enter into them, and be in their hearts, that they may be His dwelling-place. DLW 359
(cont.)
Swedenborg also wrote this...
ReplyDeleteo It is known that the human being was created in the image and after the likeness of God (Gen 1:26), but let us say what the image and the likeness of God are. God alone is love and wisdom; man was created to be a receptacle of both love and wisdom, his will to be a receptacle of divine love and his understanding a receptacle of the divine wisdom. These two receptacles, it was shown above, are in man from creation, constitute him, and are formed in everyone in the womb. Man's being an image of God thus means that he is a recipient of the divine wisdom, and his being a likeness of God means that he is a recipient of the divine love. Therefore the receptacle called the understanding is an image of God, and the receptacle called the will is a likeness of God. Since, then, man was created and formed to be a receptacle, it follows that he was created and formed that his will might receive love from God and his understanding wisdom from God. DP 328.5
...this...
o [M]an is not life, but is a recipient of life[;] it follows that the conception of a man...is not a conception of life, but only a conception of the first and purest form capable of receiving life; and to this, as to a nucleus or starting-point in the womb, are successively added substances and matters in forms adapted to the reception of life[.] DLW 6
...and this,
o [B]ecause the Lord is Divine Love and Divine Wisdom, and these two essentially are Himself, it is necessary, in order that He may abide in man and give life to man, that He should create and form in man receptacles and abodes for Himself--...one for love and [an]other for wisdom. These receptacles and abodes in man are called will and understanding--the receptacle and abode of love is called the will, and the receptacle and abode of wisdom is called the understanding. [T]hese two are the Lord's in man, and...from these two man has all his life[.] DLW 360
(cont.)
When Swedenborg says that man has all his life from the will and understanding, he means that we have our life from God through the receptacles of will and understanding, and not at all from these receptacles in and of themselves. (So, when Roger says above that it is "not the attributes of understanding and will" which make "an entity a person", he is stating the truth.) Both these receptacles, the receptacle of will and the receptacle of understanding, are formed initially in the womb by God (DP 328.5, quoted above).
ReplyDeleteBut does this--that the receptacles of will and understanding are formed initially in the womb by God--contradict the assertion made in Swedenborg's posthumous work, Divine Wisdom, that "So long as man remains in the womb he does not have these two faculties" (DW 5)?
I do not believe that it does.
I do not believe that it does, for the reason that Swedenborg immediately explains why he says (seemingly contra to what he says in his subsequent DP, it might be noted) that man in the womb has not these faculties. He says man in the womb does not have these faculties "as it has been shown above that nothing whatever of will or of understanding belongs to the fetus in its formation" (DW 5).
In other words, because nothing whatever of the will or of the understanding belongs to the fetus in the womb, the fetus in the womb has not the use of these faculties--and its not having use of the faculties means that, for all intent and purposes, it has not the faculties. The faculties do exist; they're just not yet available for use by the fetus. And what is not yet available for use is as if it does not exist for whomever or whatever might endeavor to use it.
Imagine a penniless 21-year old with a rich relative who dies. Before his (or her) death, this rich relative sets up a $1,000,000 trust fund for the penniless 21-year old. Nothing of this fund, however, is available--not a single penny may be distributed--until the 21-year old reaches the age of 30. Is it not the case, despite the fact that there is a $1,000,000 trust fund set up for this penniless 21-year old, that the 21-year old is, for all intents and purposes, still penniless?
As all analogies eventually breakdown, it may be well to point out that the 21-year old might go in search of an investor or business entity willing either to accept future distributions from the trust fund as collateral for a loan, or to purchase the right to receive future distributions from the trust fund. If the penniless 21-year old is successful in such a search, the penniless 21-year old no longer would be penniless. Ipso facto.
But the fetus in the womb, however, cannot in any way 'borrow against' or 'sell rights to' the two faculties--the two faculties remain unavailable to it for its use. And so, for all intents and purposes, i.e., with respect to what the fetus might be able to do as if of itself, they do not exist.
Now, while the hypothetical 21-year may be (or may work it out so as not to be) penniless, a real fetus is, according to Swedenborg, definitely senseless,
o That man has neither any sensitive life nor any active life, so long as the heart and the lungs do not act together, is evident from the state of the fetus or the infant in the womb... So long as man is a fetus, that is, in the womb, the lungs are closed, wherefore he has no feeling nor any action; the organs of sense are closed up[.] DLW 407
Let us now summarize some of what is above, turn to the question that titles this particular blog ("What is a person?"), then pick up from the last point (that in the womb the lungs are closed).
(cont.)
Summary: Man is created in the image and likeness of God. Man is not life, but a recipient of life. That life of which man is a recipient is from God. In order that man may receive life from God, there must something in him capable of receiving it. That in man which is capable of receiving life from God is called a receptacle. God Himself is Love and Wisdom, and Love and Wisdom from God is Life**. When man receives life from God, he receives something of God's Love and God's Wisdom. There therefore must be in man a receptacle for receiving love from God, as well as a receptacle for receiving wisdom from God. The receptacle for receiving love from God is called the will, and the receptacle for receiving wisdom from God is called the understanding. It is from God through these receptacles, that is, it is from God through the will and the understanding of man, that he has all his life.
ReplyDelete** God Himself is Divine Love and Divine Wisdom (DLW 360, quoted above); so, if man is not life (DLW 6, quoted above), and if God is in man and thus is his life (DLW 359, quoted above), then it follows that God must be Life (see also DLW 363, not quoted above--"God alone is life, and...His life is Divine Love and Divine Wisdom").
(cont.)
Question: What is a person?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to address this question in three ways. First, in the context of what Swedenborg had to say (because I am endeavoring to establish the basis of the validity of a particular conclusion said to be not inconsistent with his canonical writings). Second, by not saying anything myself, or interjecting any of my own comments, but by letting Swedenborg speak for himself (though something of myself is inevitably and necessarily present herein--Swedenborg's writings are rather voluminous, so cherry-picking is required). And third, via an inundation so as to emphasize an important point made in addressing the question.
o Man is man solely from the will and understanding, by which he is distinguished from brutes; in all other respects he is very similar to them. AC 594
o Let no one believe that man is man from his possession of a natural human face, body, brain, and organs and members; for all these are common to him with brute animals, and therefore these are what die and become a carcass. But man is man from being able to think and will as a man, and thus to receive what is Divine, that is, what is of the Lord. AC 4219
o Man is not man from the form of his body, but from his mind; and man is such as his mind is, that is, such as his understanding and will are, especially such as his will is. AC 7848
o It is known that the will and understanding are the very man, and not his form. Charity 43
o There are in man from the Lord two capacities whereby he is distinguished from beasts. One of these is the ability to understand what is true and what is good; this is called rationality, and is a capacity of his understanding. The other is an ability to do what is true and good; this is called freedom, and is a capacity of his will.... By virtue of these two capacities man is man, and is distinguished from beasts. DLW 240
o Whether you say a person or his mind it amounts to the same thing. For a person is not a person by virtue of his physical body but by virtue of his mind; and what his mind is like--that is, what his understanding and will are like, primarily what his will is like--determine what kind of person he is. AC 7848
o A human being is a human being by virtue of his mind, it being the actual mind itself that constitutes a person, and [it is] the kind of mind he has that determines what kind of a person he is. By the mind is meant a person's understanding and will, consequently his essential life. AC 5302
o Man is man from his will and understanding. CL 494
o A person is a person by virtue of his understanding and will. AC 10645.4
o When... will and understanding are mentioned the whole person should be understood, for it is by virtue of these that a person is a person. AC 10044
o That which is done with the man's knowledge proceeds from the will, and at the same time from the understanding, thus from the whole man, because man is man from these two. AC 9132
o Is not every man his own good and his own truth? And, since good is of the will, and truth of the understanding, every man is his own will and his own understanding. What else constitutes a man? Is not man, as to his essence, these two? AR 555
o "Let the conclusion be this: 'The human being is a receptacle of God, and a receptacle of God is an image of God; and as God is love itself and wisdom itself, it is of these that man is a receptacle; and in proportion as he receives, the receptacle becomes an image of God. Man is a likeness of God in that he feels within himself that the things which are of God are as his own in him; and yet with this likeness he is only so far an image of God as he acknowledges that love and wisdom or good and truth in him are not his own and hence not of himself, but are solely in God and therefore of God.'" CL 132.7
(cont.)
Now, let us pick up where we left off (with the point that in the womb the lungs are closed (DLW 407, quoted above)).
ReplyDeleteBefore we proceed, however, I think it important to call attention to what is going on here. And before calling attention to what is going on here, it first should be said what is not going on here.
Roger has advanced a position which is alternative to that which is taught by the New Church clergy. What is not going on here is an attempt to say that Roger's alternative position is wrong, incorrect or invalid. What is going on here is an attempt to show that, contrary to a claim that has been made that it is, the position taught by the New Church clergy is not inconsistent with Swedenborg's writings.
With these clarifications of what is not going on and what is going on out of the way, let us proceed.
Because in the womb the lungs are closed, so too is the understanding. That within in the context of Swedenborg's writings the former follows from the latter requires a slight explanation. We'll provide the explanation (again letting Swedenborg speak for himself), then continue on.
o The will corresponds to the heart (DLW 378) and The understanding corresponds to the lungs (DLW 382).
o From the correspondence of the heart with the will and of the lungs with the understanding, everything may be known that can be known about the will and understanding, or about love and wisdom, therefore about the soul of man. DLW 394
o [T]he [union] of love with wisdom, or of will with understanding, can be seen by the parallel that is furnished by their correspondence with the heart and lungs. What is true of these is true of love and wisdom [i.e., is also true of will and understanding], so entirely that there is no difference whatever except that one is natural and the other spiritual. DLW 402
Again, because in the womb the lungs are closed, so too is the understanding.
Because the understanding is the receptacle of wisdom from God, and it is closed, the receptacle created for the reception of wisdom from God is closed.
Because the receptacle created for the reception of wisdom from God is closed, wisdom from God cannot be received.
Because wisdom from God cannot be received, wisdom from God is not received.
Because wisdom from God is not received, there can be no basis for postulating the existence of a person, soul or spirit in the absence of reception of wisdom from God, for the reason that a person, soul or spirit is such from both the will and the understanding, i.e., from the reception of both love and wisdom from God through the will and the understanding.
Since there is no person, soul or spirit, there is nothing to survive the demise of the fetus.
Since there is nothing to survive the demise of the fetus, there isn't anything of the fetus to not be gone forever after the fetus dies in the womb.
Since there isn't anything of the fetus to not be gone forever after the fetus dies in the womb, the 'fetus' is gone forever after it dies in the womb.
Ipso facto.
(cont.)
An immediate, knee-jerk objection to this might be that it does not take into account the postulated 'ineffable human essence', or the 'ontological construct' which has been said to be equivalent to or synonymous with the 'ineffable human essence'.
ReplyDeleteBut it must be recalled that 'ineffable human essences' and 'ontological constructs' are premised pre-existing entities of Roger's alternative position, rather than premises drawn from Swedenborg's writings. And it must be remembered that the New Church clergy teaching is said to be in accordance with (i.e., not inconsistent with) premises drawn from Swedenborg's writings, rather than based on premises advanced by Roger.
It also might be noted that 'ineffable human essences' and 'ontological constructs' are not recognized by the Catechism of the Catholic Church as pre-existing things helpful to God in His creating; indeed, the CCC states that when God creates something, He does not create it out of anything pre-existing but out of nothing (a position supportive of neither Roger nor Swedenborg).
Nonetheless, however much that which the New Church clergy teach may be inconsistent with premises used by Roger (or the CCC), it is not inconsistent with the premises of Swedenborg's writings.
Again, whether what the New Church clergy teaches is true or false, and whether one accepts that teaching or not, is entirely irrelevant to the fact that that which the New Church clergy teach is not inconsistent with Swedenborg's writings.
A word about AC 1999. I believe AC 1999 was initially appealed to in an attempt to show that Swedenborg himself premised the pre-existence of 'ineffable human essences'. But an essence, ineffable or not, derives from something, and does not, indeed cannot, pre-exist that from which it is derived. (No consequent is its own antecedent).
I also believe that this attempt was made due to a two-fold combination of misreading AC 1999 and reading into it what was desired to be found, rather than based on what is actually present therein. The human internals mentioned in AC 1999 as being in heaven under the Lord's view are the internals developed by way of reception of both love and wisdom from God through the will and understanding. That is, they exist subsequent to a physical birth, rather than pre-exist a birth which has not occurred.
(cont.)
I apologize for the length of this response, and hope that it is perceived neither as being disheartening nor dismissive. It is not meant to be disheartening. And it is not meant to be dismissive. And I hope it is not received in either way.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, Roger has said above, "I love the Church of the New Jerusalem centered in Bryn Athyn." I haven't any reason to not take Roger at his word. And knowing of nothing that has been said or done which might contradict Roger's statement, I thought it might be helpful to go into some things a little more deeply and a bit more at length.
It should be known, however, that I too am not a member of the New Church, and so do not, and have not, spoken on its behalf, or on behalf of any its members, clergy or not.
It also should be known that I myself have no idea what the New Church clergy teach on the matter discussed. It has been said that they teach a particular thing, and I have accepted the statement that they do. But I do not know in fact from personal experience whether or not they do. What I do know is that that which is said to be taught by them does makes sense to me as, if not following from Swedenborg's writings, then as not being inconsistent with them.
Glenn
PS My wife and I are thinking of moving to another state. At present, there are two choices before us. But after the above, the state of non-verbality is looking particularly attractive to me. (This is tongue-in-check, i.e., an oblique way of saying that I'll be refraining from further chiming in, here or subsequently.)
You are both correct I think. Glenn did show that teaching that a fetus who dies disappears is not inconsistent with Swedenborg's writings. And Roger did show that there are a lot of reasons to not like that teaching and still be a Swedenborg fan.
ReplyDelete"Violently agree with" is what I will most take away from this because I've never heard anyone say that and it's a delightful phrase. I don't really agree with the New Church on this teaching either. And I often don't agree with Catholic teachings and I sometimes don't agree with Swedenborg (although I always love him). Come to think of it I don't even violently agree with myself very often.
I violently agree with myself however that you are both lawyers (excellent lawyers). Ipso facto.