The term "supernatural" comes from the term "supernauturalator" or "Supernature." Dionysius the Areopagite (around 500AD) began talking of God as the supernaturalator, meaning that God's higher nature was the telos toward which our "lower" natures were drawn. St.Augustine has spoken of Divine nature as "Supernature" or the higher form of nature, but that is speaking of nature in you, like human nature and divine nature.
In the beginning the issue was not a place, "the realm of the supernatural '' but the issue was the nature inside a man. Human nature, vs. divine nature. The Supernatural was divine nature that drew the human up to itself and vivified it with the power (dunimos) to live a holy life. This is the sort of thing Paul was talking about when he said "when I am weak I am strong." Or "we have this treasure in earthen vessels." The weak human nature which can't resist sin is transformed by the power of the Godly nature, through the spirit and becomes strong enough to resist sin, to be self sacrificing, to die for others ect ect.
This was the "supernatural" prior to the reformation. It was tied in with the sacraments and the mass. That's partly why the Protestants would rebel against it. Austine (late 300s early 400s) spoke of Christians not hating rocks and trees, in answer to the assertion that Christians didn't like nature. But the extension of the natural world as "nature" didn't come until later. The idea of "the natural" was at first based upon the idea of human nature, of biological life, life form life, that's what the Latin natura is about.
Prior to the reformation Christian theologians did not see the supernatural as a separate reality, an invisible realm, or a place where God dwells that we can't see. After the reformation reality was bifurcated. Now there came to be two realms, and they juxtaposed to each other. The realm of Supernature, is correlated to that of Grace, and is holy and sacred, but the early realm is "natural" and bad it's mired in sin and natural urges.
But all of that represents a degraded form of thinking after going through the mill of the Protestant Catholic split. The basic split is characterized by rationalism vs fideism. The Catholics are rationalists, because they believe God is motivated by divine purpose and wisdom, the Protestants were fideists, meaning that faith alone apart form reason because God is motivated by will and sheer acceptation, the desire to prove sovereignty above all else.
The rationalistic view offered a single harmony, a harmonious reality, governed by God's reasoned nature and orchestrated in a multifarious ways. This single reality continued a two sided nature, or a multi-facets, but it was one harmonious reality in which human nature was regenerated through divine nature. But the Protestant view left Christian theology with two waring reality, that which is removed from our empirical knowledge and that in which we live.
The true Christian view of the Supernatural doesn't see the two realms as juxtaposed but as one reality in which the natural moves toward its' ground and ends in divine nature. It is this tendency to move toward the ground and end, that produces miracles. A miracle is merely nature bending toward the higher aspect of Supernature.
But with the Protestant division between divine sovereignty, acceptation and will motivating the universe, we mistake univocity and equivvocity for nature and supernature. We think nature and supernature are not alike, they are at war, so difference marks the relationship of the two. But to make the Supernatural more available they stress some aspect of nature and put it over against the rest of nature and pretend that makes it supernatural, this is univocity, it's the same. So will and acceptation, sovereignty, God has to prove that he is in charge, these are all aspects of univocity.
It's the natural extension of this bifurcation that sets up two realms and sees nature as "everything that exists." or "all of material reality" that sets up the atheist idea that supernatural is unnecessary and doesn't exist.
17 comments:
come on soeone coment
come on someone comment
This whole idea about God having to prove His sovereignty makes God appear more like a petty dictator than the Source of all being, wisdom and love.
Joe: come on someone comment
It feels like the start of an argument, and we are waiting the end of it.
It is hard to define exactly what we mean by supernatural, but it does have a conventional meaning. I get the feeling you want to redefine the word to make your argument, something that I consider a red flag in a debate. But until we see the rest, who knows?
The history of the word is interesting, but not enough that I want to debate.
Pix
px:"It feels like the start of an argument, and we are waiting the end of it.
It is hard to define exactly what we mean by supernatural, but it does have a conventional meaning. I get the feeling you want to redefine the word to make your argument, something that I consider a red flag in a debate. But until we see the rest, who knows?
The history of the word is interesting, but not enough that I want to debate."
This is the second paragraph of the essay, how hidden is that?
"In the beginning the issue was not a place, "the realm of the supernatural '' but the issue was the nature inside a man. Human nature, vs. divine nature. The Supernatural was divine nature that drew the human up to itself and vivified it with the power (dunimos) to live a holy life. This is the sort of thing Paul was talking about when he said "when I am weak I am strong." Or "we have this treasure in earthen vessels." The weak human nature which can't resist sin is transformed by the power of the Godly nature, through the spirit and becomes strong enough to resist sin, to be self sacrificing, to die for others ect ect.'
I don't see what point you are trying to make.
Why do you find the ability 'to be self sacrificing, to die for others ect ect.' Laudable?
The point is that it was not originally part of Christian thought that there are two different realms or worlds, one of which is governed by physical laws and the other of which is miraculous. These categories were imposed later, and they have become so much a part of our thinking that not even Christians recognize that this isn't part of our theology . To look at things this way strengthens anti-theistic arguments, so we Christians should take back this mental ground.
What I hear in these arguments is that Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. There have always been claims that the divine is associated with super-nature, and that miracles are as well. Read your Catholic doctrine. That's what it says. But at the same time, they want to tell us that there is no real distinction between the natural and the supernatural. It's all just part of the world. Those categories are imposed on them by modern thinking. By blurring the distinction, they can then claim that supernatural things are just as much part of our world as anything else. The trouble with that is obvious to any unbiased observer.
Skep you have not read the early Christian writings that define super nature. That's what I am taking my view from. The term was invented by Dionisius the pseudo Areropagive. There are no church doctrine about supernature before that because that is where the term is invented, around 500AD.
That term referred to the power of God to raise our consciousness and that literally means mystical experience. Supernatralis actually mystical experience.
There is a transcendent realm beyond the material but it is not properly called Supernatural. It has come to mean that because the French philosophs made UP their own usage.
At the time you refer to, the word "supernatural", or its linguistic predecessors didn't exist. But there were a variety theological concepts that eventually developed toward an understanding of the idea of the supernatural. Among those concepts was mystical experience, and the elevation of consciousness, but that was not called "supernatural" at the time, and it was one of several different concepts that eventually merged into a general theological understanding that came to be called "supernatural". However, the most prominent of those concepts (and the actual genesis of the word, which came about in the late middle ages) was the distinction between nature and things that were regarded as beyond or above nature.
Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
you are just repeating what I said. This is what I learned in graduate school when I got my masters. The term supernatural was coined by Pseudo Dionisius, around 500 AD, it referred to mystical experience.
you say: "At the time you refer to, the word "supernatural", or its linguistic predecessors didn't exist. But there were a variety theological concepts that eventually developed toward an understanding of the idea of the supernatural. Among those concepts was mystical experience, and the elevation of consciousness, but that was not called "supernatural" at the time"
That is essentially what I said. Pseudo Dionisius coined supernatural to refer to mystical experience.
>> "The term supernatural was coined by Pseudo Dionisius, around 500 AD, it referred to mystical experience."
No. He had a concept of mystical experience as being something that we now might call supernatural. The word "supernatural" was not what he called it, because that word didn't come into being until long after he lived, as I pointed out to you. I am not repeating what you said. I cited historical information that was researched and referenced. If you think he actually coined the term, please cite the reference where he used that language.
there is one thng in your favor Skep. I should have given th whole story the Areopagite set the wheels in otion thatled to the term butit want quite taihytsame terms. Here's what google says:
"Though the phrase "supra naturam" was used since the 4th century AD, it was in the 1200s that Thomas Aquinas used the term "supernaturalis" and despite this, the term had to wait until the end of the medieval period before it became more popularly used."
I haven't seen "supra naturam" (which is two words) used, so I can't tell what they meany buy it. Prior to the 15th century it seems to be found only in certain religious texts - not part of the lexicon of any language. Aquinas uses it to mean immaterial things (divine or spiritual) that are part of nature.
https://www.medievalists.net/2011/10/the-spiritual-and-the-supernatural-according-to-thomas-aquinas/
When the word became part of spoken languages its meaning was above or beyond the natural.
etymology of the word 'supernatural':
https://www.etymonline.com/word/supernatural
I haven't seen "supra naturam" (which is two words) used, so I can't tell what they meany buy it. Prior to the 15th century it seems to be found only in certain religious texts - not part of the lexicon of any language. Aquinas uses it to mean immaterial things (divine or spiritual) that are part of nature.
https://www.medievalists.net/2011/10/the-spiritual-and-the-supernatural-according-to-thomas-aquinas/
When the word became part of spoken languages its meaning was above or beyond the natural.
etymology of the word 'supernatural':
https://www.etymonline.com/word/supernatural
from the source you quote above: "Originally "of or given by God, divine; heavenly," of revelation, etc..." That is in line with what I said. The power of God to elevate human nature. Notice it says originally it appears to be dating it before 15 century.
"Originally "of or given by God, divine; heavenly," of revelation, etc..."
Hmm. It's quite a stretch to say that definition is equivalent to mystical experience. I would agree that mystical experience may be a part of the broader understanding of what is encompassed by supernatural, even if your understanding is strictly theological.
However, when the word became part of spoken language, its definition was not strictly theological. It wasn't appropriated to be incorporated into a "a degraded form of thinking". It has a real meaning which is perfectly legitimate in a non-theological sense, and that meaning is the dominant understanding of what we are talking about when the word is used in conversation. But like any word, it can have multiple definitions. So if you want to insist that it really means "mystical experience", you will find that people don't get what you are talking about unless you go to the trouble of explaining it.
Post a Comment