A Fragment by Thomas of Aquinas (c. 1224-1274) - Four Kinds of Fear

Definition of Fear: “fear bears on two things, namely, the evil from which someone flees through fear, and whatever seems to be the source of that evil” (215).

Worldly fear: “sometimes it happens that the evil from which someone recoils is contrary to a bodily or temporal good which a person sometimes loves inordinately and recoils from having it injured or destroyed by a mere man. This is human or worldly fear and is not from the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Lord forbids such fear: do not fear those who kill the body (Matt 10:28).”

Fear of punishment: “There is a second type of fear which recoils from an evil contrary to created nature, namely, the evil of being punished, and shrinks from having this evil inflicted by a spiritual cause, namely, by God. Such fear is praiseworthy in at least one respect, namely, that it fears God. . . But insofar as such fear does not recoil from an evil opposed to one’s spiritual good, namely, sin, but only punishment, it is not praiseworthy. It has this short coming not from the Holy Spirit, but from man’s guilt.” (215-17).

Initial fear: “There is a third type of fear which recoils from evil opposed to a spiritual good, namely, from sin or separation from God, which a person fears to incur from the just vengeance of God. Thus it bears on spiritual goods, but with an eye on punishment. This is called initial fear because it is usually found in men at the beginning of the their conversion. . . . This is the fear mentioned in the Psalm: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Ps 111:10).

Chaste Fear: “The fourth type of fear has its eye entirely on spiritual things, because it fears nothing except separation from God. This is holy fear: the fear of the Lord is holy, enduring forever and ever (Ps 19:10). But just as initial fear is caused by imperfect love, so this fear is caused by perfect love: perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18).

Romans 8:14-17, Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans (Lander: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012).

A Fragment on Skepticism: Uniformity as a Linchpin

Luke 20:27-33—There came to him some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died without children. And the second and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. Afterward the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.”

In the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, the Sadducees were the most skeptical. Their understanding of the Old Testament focused on the “literal” or normal meaning of the words (cf. The Problem of Literalism: Spinoza) and prioritized the first five books as more authoritative then the rest of the Old Testament.

Their method of interpreting the Bible lead them to “deny that there is a resurrection” (Luke 20:27) and reject angels and spirits (Acts 23:8). We are informed by the Pharisee and Jewish historian Josephus (c. 37- c. 100) that they rejected the “belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades,” and the sovereignty of God (The Wars of the Jews, 2.8.14).

In our day, we would identify Christians holding these views as liberal. The Sadducees were obviously skeptical of the more fantastic claims of the Bible, and they leaned heavily towards the materialism of Epicureanism (Acts 17:18). And in this tendency, they are similar to moderate evangelicals and liberal Christians.

The Sadducees’ basic argument in their question of Jesus is something like this: it is absurd to believe in the resurrection because of the potentially silly and horrifying possibility of seven husbands squabbling over one wife. Yet the linchpin of their argument is the assumption that in the resurrection human relationships will be defined as they have been since the fall. The scenario they create is only laughable if current experience remains identical in the future.

Note how Jesus responds: “And Jesus said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:34-36).

Jesus attacks their skepticism by pointing out that in the age to come there will be a decisive break in human relationships. He finds no absolute uniformity and therefore no preposterous conflict at the resurrection. Jesus goes on in the text and corrects their wooden literalism by arguing that “the dead are raised even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush.”

Like modern skeptics the Sadducees laugh at what is taught in the Bible as absurd; yet their argument extrapolates from current circumstances to the future, and then they “prove” the Bible leads to preposterous or immoral conclusions. The Lord overcomes this by arguing from revelation against future uniformity.

Yet there are wider connotations of assuming future uniformity within Scripture: the strategy of pressing current experience into the future is linked by the Apostle Peter to assuming past uniformity in 2 Peter 3:4-6:

They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

It is here that we come to an important modern application. In our day the reigning philosophical system is Epicureanism as popularized by Charles Darwin and maintained and modified by the public consensus of scientists, academics, and the media. For modern Epicureanism or scientific materialism to have any explanatory power, it must assume the uniformity of nature.

And so they do. Absolute uniformity. An unbroken chain of physical causes started by a quantum event leads from the Big Bang to the end of the universe. A universal history is then taught in which everything is explained by physical causes alone. Anyone who believes anything else is a simpleton, fundamentalist, knuckle dragger, because it’s ridiculous to believe anything but what popular scientific consensus currently teaches.

There are two issues that need to be observed: the first is that it’s never absurd to believe God. If God is who he claims to be in the Bible, there is nothing sentimental or unreasonable in believing his testimony about the lack of uniformity in the future and in the past.

Second, natural uniformity cannot be proven by the scientific method. Or as the philosopher Anthony Flew wrote in his second edition of A Dictionary of Philosophy under the term “uniformity of nature”: “A principle used in attempts to justify induction in particular and science in general. It is usually expressed as ‘the future will resemble the past’. . .However, to be a principle on which induction can be rested, the uniformity of nature must not itself rely on inductive justification.” He then goes on to argue that for the statement the “future will resemble the past” to be true induction is necessary and that at best the uniformity of nature is a claim.

Philosophical jargon aside, the uniformity of nature is a claim and not a fact or philosophical principle. The supposed absurdity of disbelieving in the uniformity of nature is not caused by reason or facts, but by the faith of those who believe in uniformity. When skeptics, ancient Sadducees or modern neo-Darwinists, mock believers for trusting the Bible’s account of creation, the introduction of death, the destruction of the pre-diluvian world, souls that will never die, the intermediate state after death, the approaching “new heavens and new earth,” they do so because of their faith and not the facts.

The way Jesus, Paul (Acts 17) and Peter argue against skepticism is by proclaiming and believing the claims of Scripture against the scoffers’ claims of uniformity. If we are followers of Jesus and imitators of Paul and Peter as they follow Christ (1 Cor. 11:1), we must to do the same.

A Fragment on the Spiritual Disciplines: Satan’s Armor

Christians speak much of the armor of God: the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:13-15). The armor of  God prepares us “to withstand in the evil day” (v. 13) and  “extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one” (v. 16).

Yet Christians forget that the Bible teaches that Satan has “armor in which he trusted” (Luke 11:22). Satan has a faith or a system of beliefs which protects from God. And he shares these beliefs with his spiritual children. Satan’s defense mechanisms range from bold proclamation of atheism (Psalm 10:4), to magical spells (Isa. 47:9), to misinterpreting the Bible for a sinful earthly advantage (Mark 10:7-13) and self-righteousness (Luke 18:10-13) before God. For his followers, for instance the Pharisees, it includes spiritual disciplines like prayer (Matt. 6:5) and fasting (v. 16), and reading and applying the Bible (Mark 12:24; Matt. 9:13).

The belt of lies, the breastplate of wickedness, shield of disbelief, and a heart of stone all defend Satan and his followers from comprehending their doom and repenting. Satan’s armor functions as an explanation of spiritual and earthly events that defends against the witness of nature, the conscience, the Spirit, and God’s Word.

Because the purpose of the armor is not truth but comfort through self-deception, there’s no need or possibility of a coherent or single system of spiritual disciplines, philosophy or theology as a whole because sin is irrational (Eccl. 9:3). The sound of one hand clapping or something coming from nothing comforts only those who reject God.

We are born wearing Satan’s armor (Gen. 8:21). We remove it by repenting of our sins and trusting in Jesus Christ as the ultimate means of safety in this life and in the life to come.  We “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:14). Thus we exchange the habitual defenses of Satan for “the whole armor of God” (Eph. 6:11).

Yet once saved, we can still “present our members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness” (Rom. 6:13). The Greek word translated here as “instruments” can also be translated as weapons. Thus we can pick up the weapons and armor of the flesh (2 Cor. 10:4). We can use the good things of God to destroy rather than to build up and defend (2 Cor. 10:8). And thus Satan taught his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:5), fast (6:16), and to misuse the Bible

To overcome this fleshy tendency to take off the armor of God and to pick up the armor of Satan, we must approach the spiritual discipline with a posture of dependence on God (Rom. 6:13) and mercy towards our fellow man (Matt. 9:13). Our safety is never found in having done devotions, but because God sustained us in devotions. We pray not for earthly power, but for the strength to honor God. We love our fellow man in mercy not because he is loveable, but because we have been forgiven much (Luke 7:47).

Prayer:
Lord Jesus, teach us to put on the armor of God and to not put on the armor of evil one. Teach us to come to you alone for safety and keep us from being deceived. Forgive us for those times that we have defended our hearts from your Spirit and your Word with Satan’s armor. Help us to have mercy on our neighbor as you have had mercy on us. Amen.

A Fragment on the Problem of Evil with Augustine

"But neither to the good angels do these things, except as far as God commands, nor do the evil ones do them wrongfully, except as far as He righteously permits. For the malignity of the wicked one makes his own will wrongful; but the power to do so, he receives rightfully, whether for his own punishment, or, in the case of others, for the punishment of the wicked, or for the praise of the good." Augustine, On the Trinity, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), pg 61, 3.8.13.

If God punishes willing sin with sin and purifies the saved through suffering, God is then just in empowering and maintaining the conditions whereby sin can exist so that willing sin can be punished and the saved purified. In both the case of the sinner and the righteous something good is happening, because the wicked are being punished by sinning and the righteous are purified by being sinned against.

God’s justice requires that he only empower or maintain that which is good and empowering sinners to sin is their punishment and is therefore just. By empowering we (Augustine and I) don’t mean direct action but energizing or maintaining the conditions whereby Satan or a wicked person can act. God establishes the good by grace (unmerited Divine intervention for good) and allows evil by withdrawing grace. God softens the heart with grace and justly hardens the heart by withdrawing grace.

Textual Defense:

Sinning is a punishment for willing sin:

Psalm 81:11-12—But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels.

All things work for the good of the righteous:

Romans 8:28—And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

God sovereignly controls wicked actions for the good:

Genesis 50:20—As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Strength/Weakness:

The depths of the “mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2:7) are greater than this. The statement explains God’s justice after the Fall, but not before. Yet as a rational defense for God’s justice in current conditions, it should comfort the saints and befuddle the enemies of God.

A Fragment on Lust

William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

CXXXIX

The expense of the spirit in a waste of shame

                       Is lust in action; and till action, lust

Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame,

                       Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;

Enjoyed no sooner, but despised straight;

                       Past reason hated, as a swallowed bait,

On purpose laid to make the maker mad;

                       Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;

A bliss in proof,--and proved, a very woe;

                       Before, a joy proposed; behind a dream:

All this the world well knows; yet none knows well

                       To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.  

Comment:

I doubt that Shakespeare was born again, though I would be delighted if he knew and walked with Christ. Even so, there are two great benefits to this poem:

The first is a biblically informed, beautiful, and accurate meditation on the destructive nature of the passions and the conscience’s knowledge of lust. Each of us is aware that we want things that we ought not to want. 

These desires are liars from the moment we contemplate them; they are the foundation of all lies, murder, and cause wholesome shame. Civilization and all of its benefits are undermined by the pursuit of them, and they endanger all human relationships. 

The moment we consume the delicacy (Ps. 141:4), we recognize that we have acted unreasonably and we are enmeshed in cascade of tensions, stupidity, and purposeful manipulation to extract ourselves from the consequences. We hate ourselves for the consuming, but we know that will want the thing again and more. Further, the “passing pleasure of sin” (Heb. 11:23) will only increase our desire for more until we and all that we love are destroyed. 

Second, this poem illustrates beautifully the common grace element of the Western tradition’s meditation on coveting or lust. Both of Shakespeare’s traditions, the Christian and the pagan philosophers—as meditated through Plato and Aristotle and even the more careful Epicureans—, understood that human appetites were potentially destructive to the individual and the wider society.

Because the West has denied the truth of both Scripture and the pagan philosophers, two things await us—social chaos and tyranny. If we will not allow God to rule we must deny reason, and if we deny reason and God, nothing awaits us but a hellish earth and in eternity the Lake of Fire. 

Application: 

Press this sonnet against your heart. Allow it to inform and strengthen your conscience, sensibilities, and life. Our intellects have the power to observe and restrain the appetites by redirecting, reformulating, and replacing them. 

If you are a Christian the Spirit of God is within to help you, but he requires that you both cooperate with him (Gal. 5:25) and call upon him for assistance (Ps. 101:2). The Spirit of God works both subconsciously and through the formation of the intellect in conformity to the Scriptures. And so while he waits ready to help you overcome; the means that he offers are faith and conscience conformity to his word. 

My non-Christian friends, you know this sonnet is true. History and current observation prove the human appetite unlimited. An infinite hunger within a finite being is only extinguished on two conditions: death or by being satisfied with God. This is the spiritual seed of death is within the human heart or mind which combines with the biological. We destroy ourselves because of what we want. I ask you to reconsider the claims of Christianity.

If you will not be satisfied with God, please consider channeling your passions through the ethical systems and teaching of the more sober-minded philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and Kant. They can teach you to suppress your hunger and offer some pale imitation of the Divine.