Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BV

[‘Grace’ is not What the Father Recognizes.

‘Grace’ is not the Son, the Object of the Father’s Love and Recognition.

‘Grace’ is like the dynamic of their Love and Recognition. This dynamic belongs to Creation because ‘the possibility of Creation’ synchronizes with ‘the Potential of God Recognizing Himself’.

Perhaps, the theological One True Triune God may be regarded as ‘a relation outside of time (eternal and archetypal)’ even as it engenders, by belonging to the realm of actuality, ‘another relation inside of time (immanent and conditional)’.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BU

[The nested form of the Triune God serves as the third model.

This model is open to further exploration.

Grace, like love, seems to belong to the design inherent in the normal context the Holy Spirit, who brings the Father and the Son into relation.

Grace also seems to belong to the Possibility of God’s Self-Recognition.

In this model, the word ‘grace’ points to ‘the bringing of actuality from the Possibility of God Recognizing Himself according to the Designs of the Holy Spirit’.

Yet, the word ‘grace’ differs from both ‘the Possibility of God Recognizing Himself’ and ‘the Designs of the Holy Spirit’.

‘Grace’ differs from both ‘the Foundation of Love’ and ‘Love’.

Yet, belongs to both.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BS

[Grace becomes a hidden attractor under conditions of alienation, when an infrasovereign thinkgroup has gained sovereign power. In this case, the parallel vertical axes become thinkpro-object and thinkanti-object.   Thinkdivine is forcibly veiled by thinkpro-object.

Here, grace calls from the outside. Whenever one turns away from the totalitarian system, one senses the attractor, thinkdivine, not as an idea, but more like a melody.

Consciencepro-object senses the possibility of consciencefree.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BQ

[So far, I have encountered at least three models suggesting ‘what grace could be’.

Here is one model:

A dual vertical axis intersection models the meaning underlying the word ‘religion’. The single actuality of the intersection of human thought (the divided vertical axis) and human action (the horizontal axis) is ‘what is good and what is bad’. This intersection serves as one model for generating and answering questions about grace.

Grace has the character of interpellation for thinkdivine.

Self-destruction has the the character of interpellation for thinkgroup.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BP

[Yet, these blogs have not explored the implications of this insight.

Consider how the contrast between the actualities of grace and self-destruction are reflected in familiar questions about grace:]

Is grace necessary?

If so, how is it distributed?

Are some destined to receive grace?

Are some destined to never receive grace?

Schoonenberg answered that nobody is excluded a priori from grace. Even pagans receive grace.

[Does that also imply that nobody is a priori excluded from self-destruction?

In fact, one can substitute the term ‘self-destruction’ for ‘grace’ in the preceding questions.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BO

Summary of text [comment] pages 72 and 73

In contrast to the concept that every virtue becomes impossible for man living in sin, Schoonenberg located the notion of grace. In Love, the Holy Spirit, all things are possible …

[… including God Recognizing Himself.

Grace is entangled in this relation. Up to this point, I have argued that ‘the state of grace’ belongs to the realm of actuality.

In this model, ‘grace’ differs from ‘self-destruction’.

‘Grace’ and ‘self-destruction’ are labels for the single actuality in the intersection of recognition and participation.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 BN

[Oh, and speaking of Much to Do about Nothing.

Slavoj Zizek recently published a book entitled Less Than Nothing.

So far, I have barely made a dent in it.

The book starts with the ancient Greek philosopher’s views on nothing.

Zizek aims to elucidate a positive nothingness.

A void fills to the brim, even overflows, with nothing.

Oops, that sounds like American mainstream television.

Zizek is more than fun.]