The Dialectical God - Part Two

Halting the Effort to Attribute Evil to God and Absolve Man

The Sinful God of Von Balthasar

Indeed, the enterprise of Von Balthasar appears grandiose and original: a theology of the glorification of God, in which God appears within the category of beauty, not a theologia gloriae (theology of glory) against which Luther polemicized, where the theologian glorifies himself and not God.

In opposition to this theology, Luther posited the theologia crucis (theology of the cross) of St. Paul. As St. John expresses it, the glory of Christ consists precisely in his cross, in his sacrifice for the remission of sins. Through this, Christ conquered death by his death.

A significant document in this regard, referencing Von Balthasar, is Maurizio Cecchetti's article Con l’incarnazione Dio salverà la creazione (With the Incarnation God Will Save Creation), published in Avvenire on February 3rd last year [1]. The interesting aspect of this theology is its attempt to speak in the name of a merciful God who punishes no one.

This idea seems very appealing, as the prospect or eventuality of falling forever into a place of terrible and unspeakable torments without the possibility of escape does not attract anyone. At the same time, however, we might ask ourselves: do we see God as our supreme good and ultimate purpose in life? Are we pursuing the blessed vision of God in heaven through our actions? Do we take His commandments seriously? Are we prepared to abandon everything to retain our connection with God? Is prioritizing God's will and pleasing Him our highest aim? Do we repent for our sins and seek to return to Him? Can we imagine life without His presence and approval? Do we turn to Him for support in times of trouble? Are we driven by fear of God's judgment and His warnings?

Let us keep in mind that the punishment of hell is nothing other than the logical consequence of rejecting the supreme good, that eternal good for which we are made and in which alone we find the ultimate meaning of our lives and our eternal happiness. It is just for God to punish us if we disobey His commandments, which alone free us from suffering, death, and every evil.

Those who believe that God punishes no one think they possess the true concept of divine goodness compared to those who believe that God predestines only some chosen by Him to paradise while judging rebels worthy of condemnation and inflicting eternal punishment on them.

Those who think this way consider themselves more merciful than Jesus Christ, who on the contrary, on the day of judgment, will say to some, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!" They should ask themselves if there’s something flawed in their way of thinking.

Their mistake lies in believing that punishment is an act of wickedness, cruelty, or violence. They do not consider whether there can be a just and deserved punishment. For them, punishment as such, that is, imposing a penalty of any kind for sin, is inherently unjust, lacking in goodness and mercy.

On the other hand, if suffering does not come from God, if He does not send it to us, and if we do not accept it trustingly from His fatherly hands, we face a significant question. If we fail to recognize suffering as divine punishment for original sin and our sins, or as an opportunity given by God to expiate our faults in Christ and become children of God, what answer can we find? Given that our human means are inadequate to free us from suffering, the Christian faith offers a profound response. It provides a reasonable and luminous answer, even though it is veiled in mystery. This response allows us to glimpse a mystery of divine love. It comforts our troubled and bewildered souls, gives us strength to confront suffering with hope, transforms suffering to our advantage, and imparts patience and serenity.

Von Balthasar's theology places the origin of evil, along with the tragedy of death and sin, on the mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption. This association is central to the Trinitarian mystery itself and almost constitutes its essence. This approach prompts us to question whether, and to what extent, he accepts biblical creationism and realism, as seen in St. Thomas Aquinas.

We need to consider if he accepts the idea of a world created by divine will that exists externally to God, with both good and evil present within it. This includes the concepts of hell and paradise as separate from God. Alternatively, does he view the world of good and evil, heaven and hell, as internal to the essence of God, akin to Hegel's perspective?

Von Balthasar’s view also involves a conflation of Hades with hell. He argues that Christ descended to hell, taking humanity with Him to lead them to paradise.

In reality, Balthasarian "theodramatics" suggest that Von Balthasar leans more towards Hegel than St. Thomas. This is evident, except in his hagiographical and mystical writings. These writings balance his views and instead suggest an orthodox understanding of the distinction between God and the world. They exonerate God from the guilt of evil, attributing it solely to the world, as is appropriate.

Yet, ambiguity remains, and effort is required to interpret in a Catholic sense. However, we are encouraged in this by Von Balthasar's critique of Rahner's Hegelian pantheism. But before directly addressing Von Balthasar, let us examine the historical antecedents of the dialectical conception of God. This leads us to the Kabbalah.

The God of Kabbalah Goes Against Himself to Reconcile with Himself

We often view Kabbalah as something unworthy of serious consideration—just a collection of obscure, extravagant writings that seem intricate and incomprehensible. The term "cabala" has even become synonymous with "plot" or "deception" in popular usage. But what if Kabbalah, which means "tradition," actually contains ideas similar to those of the Gnostics, Scotus Eriugena, Nicholas of Cusa, Renaissance thinkers, Giordano Bruno, esoteric Freemasonry, Fichte, and Hegel?

In reality, Kabbalah is nothing more than a strand of Jewish thought originating in the early centuries before Christ, which has consistently accompanied the history of rabbinic thought in a dialectical clash in contact with Scripture, alongside other Platonic, Manichaean, and pagan mystical motifs, where profound insights coexist with absurd ideas. Due to its esoteric allure and undeniable theological interest, Kabbalah has periodically left its mark on the history of European and Christian philosophical thought.

One of the core interests of Kabbalah is the origin of evil and its redemption (tikkùn). However, in its quest to understand the cause and origin of evil and to seek liberation from it, Kabbalah distorts the narrative of original sin. It portrays the serpent as a liberator and views God as a tyrant.

Kabbalah explores the creation story and original sin, focusing on the serpent's role, representing the demon about God. In Kabbalah, God is defined not only by being but also by non-being, not only by good but also by evil, not only by truth but also by falsehood, and not only by life but also by death. Thus, the demon, though deceitful and murderous, is regarded as a servant of God and can even take on the appearance of God Himself. The demon both opposes and collaborates with God. Humanity is viewed not only as a creature but also as possessing divine powers.

Kabbalah does not differentiate between divine wrath as a will to punish and an evil will. It conflates the punishment of evil with the guilt of evil. Consequently, removing sin and achieving redemption requires addressing the guilt of evil rather than the associated punishment or suffering. For Kabbalah, sin is not removed through suffering but rather through the removal of sin itself.

The judgment of the Pharisees on Jesus' actions, "By Beelzebul, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons" (Mt 12:24), reflects this Kabbalistic principle, which is also found in the saying: "The devil casts out the devil." This principle became clearer in the 17th century with Jakob Böhme and the Jewish mystic Sabbatai Zevi, who claimed to be the Messiah. Hegel, an admirer of Böhme, also embraced this principle, which he described as the "power of the negative." This concept combines conceptual negation, punishment of evil, and guilt of evil.

Luther's God Predestines both Heaven and Hell

It is interesting how Luther, in narrating his spiritual struggles, always speaks to us only of his relationship with God and the devil and never speaks of his guardian angel, who has an essential function in the Christian life to help us thwart the snares of the devil and to know the will of God.

Luther is so captivated by Satan's deceptive power that he even claims that sometimes God appears to him as the devil, and sometimes the devil appears as God. It brings to mind Descartes' notion of the evil genius.

As is known, Luther supports predestination both to salvation and damnation, but without our free will having any part. If the sinner sins, the fault is God's and if the righteous person is saved, the credit is God's.

Furthermore, as is known, Luther's God does not erase sin, but covers it, so that it remains, but in such a way as to no longer be considered a sin: it becomes a normal thing. So we have a God who legalizes sin. Let us not be surprised if Luther comes to say that God is the very cause of sin. But isn’t this calling evil good? In this way, Luther’s God came to legalize sin as if it were justice.

Thus, in Luther’s view, sin is forgiven without repentance—repentance is impossible for him because sin is considered an inherent part of human behavior. Thus grace coexists with sin: simul justus et peccator. Luther indeed aims to refer to concupiscence, which is a tendency toward sin. However, as the Council of Trent criticizes him, he confuses sin with concupiscence. He desires that, just as concupiscence is excused because it is inherent to the fallen state of nature, sin should also be excused, allowing him to continue sinning without a troubled conscience.

Luther distinguishes heaven from hell. There are the blessed and there are the damned. However, as is known, he denies the supernatural merits and the salvific function of free will. It is not those who choose God who go to heaven, but those whom God has chosen. Similarly, it is not simply those who oppose God who go to hell, but those whom God has destined to be condemned.

Blessedness is not a reward earned through good works; similarly, eternal punishment is not just retribution for disobeying the commandments. The blessed are unaware of the reasons for their presence in heaven, just as the damned are ignorant of why they are in hell.

God does not save or condemn based on humanly discernible criteria that were made known and agreed upon in advance. Consequently, at the final judgment, individuals cannot know the reasons for their salvation or condemnation, nor can they verify God's faithfulness to any pre-established agreements [2].

Luther uses the mysterious sovereign will of God as a pretext to argue that God saves or condemns for unknown reasons. This stance runs counter to all reasonable expectations and contradicts any agreements God might have made. It implies that God operates as if He were above the principle of non-contradiction, even though He established that principle through creation. In reality, it suggests that God acts and thinks without an underlying ideal, relying solely on His unquestionable omnipotent will and arbitrary decisions, without needing to justify His actions or choices to anyone.

We are not permitted to judge God's actions, disapprove of His work, or expect Him to justify Himself to us. Instead, it is we who must account for ourselves to Him. What we are allowed to do, as rational beings endowed by His will, is to understand the reasons behind the rewards and punishments He assigns. However, we should not claim to know why He chose one thing over another to reward or punish. While the specific reasons for God's divine choices are known only to Him, we can still seek to understand the broader rationale behind His decisions by recognizing His loyalty, justice, mercy, and fidelity to His covenants.

Instead, in this Lutheran view of predestination, the attributes of God's will—such as wisdom, goodness, reasonableness, consistency, and loyalty—are not upheld. Instead, a cruel, unfaithful, unreliable, disloyal, and fickle God emerges, which according to Luther would be the God of "faith". While God's future choices may be unpredictable, we can be certain that He will remain faithful to His covenants.

It is also important to remember that for Luther, God does not save by moving the will of man to good works, but, like the ancient pagan Fate, by His unquestionable decree independent of what man does, for good as well as for evil, He is free to reward the wicked and punish the righteous.

If one is predestined to hell, it is useless for them to perform good works. If one is predestined to heaven, they can commit all sins or perform whatever they want and still go to heaven. God sends to hell even if a person has obeyed all the commandments, and sends to heaven even if one has disobeyed them all because He does so not to punish for bad deeds and reward for good ones, but simply because He wants to. To be saved, one just needs to believe they are saved.

Luther neglects those parables in which the workers verify the justice of the compensation given by the master agreed upon beforehand according to the contract of work and ignores Christ's warning that we can only be saved if we observe the commandments. In fact, for Luther, whoever obeys the commandments, assuming it is possible, cannot have a certain hope of going to heaven. Whoever disobeys the commandments can be sure of being saved anyway; they simply need to have faith in God's mercy.

Moreover, Luther's view of God does not involve erasing sin but merely covering it, so it remains but is no longer considered a sin—it becomes a normal occurrence. Thus, God legalizes sin. It is not surprising that Luther might say God is the very cause of sin. However, this raises the question of whether this amounts to calling evil good. In this view, Luther's God legalizes sin as if it were justice.

In Luther's theology, sin is forgiven without repentance, which he believes is impossible since sin is structural to human nature. Thus, grace coexists with sin: simul justus et peccator. Although Luther refers to concupiscence—a tendency to sin—he confuses it with actual sin. He wishes that just as concupiscence is excused because it is part of fallen nature, so too should sin be excused to continue sinning without remorse.

Luther distinguishes between heaven and hell, acknowledging the blessed and the damned. However, he denies the supernatural merits and the salvific role of free will. It is not those who choose God who go to heaven but those whom God chooses. Similarly, those who are against God do not necessarily go to hell; rather, it is those whom God sends there.

Blessedness is not a reward for good works, and eternal punishment is not a deserved penalty for disobedience. The blessed do not know why they are in heaven, and the damned do not know why they are in hell.

Luther argues that God does not save or condemn based on humanly verifiable criteria. Instead, God saves or condemns arbitrarily, against all reasonable expectations, and without accountability. This view portrays God as unpredictable and unbound by the principle of non-contradiction, acting solely on His will without explaining His choices.

We are not allowed to judge or disapprove of God's actions; rather, we must give Him an account. As intelligent beings, we are permitted to understand the reasons behind His rewards and punishments, though the specific reasons for His choices are known only to Him. This understanding should recognize His loyalty, justice, mercy, and faithfulness to His covenants.

Luther’s perspective on predestination does not uphold wisdom, goodness, or consistency in God's will. Instead, it presents a cruel, unreliable, and fickle God, which Luther characterizes as the God of "faith." While God's future choices may be unpredictable, He will remain faithful to His covenants.

Luther also contends that God does not move human will towards good works. Instead, like ancient pagan Fate, God's decree is independent of human actions, allowing Him to reward the wicked and punish the righteous arbitrarily. A person predestined to hell cannot change their fate with good works, while a person predestined to heaven can sin freely and still be saved. God sends people to hell or heaven not based on their deeds but simply because He wills it. To be saved, one merely needs to believe they are saved.

Luther ignores parables where workers verify the justice of their compensation according to a previously agreed contract and Christ’s warning that we can only be saved by observing the commandments. For Luther, obedience to the commandments does not guarantee salvation, while disobedience can be overlooked if one trusts God's mercy.

Man is Innocent, While God is Evil.

Luther felt profoundly conflicted during his early spiritual journey. As a young monk, he felt constantly guilty before God despite his best efforts to obey. He experienced a sense of inherent falseness and an invincibly evil will.

Conversely, he felt unjustly accused by a God who blamed him for sins he did not commit, unable to resolve this inner turmoil.

Luther, wrestling with his frailty and the intense pull of human desires, became convinced that it was impossible to completely satisfy God's divine law. At the same time, he felt reproached by God and threatened with eternal punishment for his disobedience. He came to believe that God's punitive justice towards him was cruel and unjust, as it sought to punish someone for mere human weakness.

Because of this, Luther, feeling unable to reform his will through repentance, saw no purpose in asking God for forgiveness with the intent of changing. On the other hand, he perceived God's desire to punish him as cruel and unjust, since it aimed to punish someone incapable of following the law.

Luther began to think that a God who punishes cannot be good and, therefore, cannot be the true God. He concluded that true divine justice could only be found in God's mercy. In Luther's view, a merciful God does not demand that a sinful man perform good deeds he is unable to do. Instead, God overlooks his law, does not demand correction, and does not hold a person’s failings against them. Rather, He tolerates these failings, asking only for trust in His mercy. God accepts the sinners as they are, justifies them even though they are not just, lifts them out of their misery, comforts them, refrains from punishing them, and grants them His grace.

For Luther, then, divine forgiveness is not the erasure of sin following the sinner’s repentance, because repentance is both impossible and useless, given that the human will remains incorrigibly bad. Therefore, a sinner receives grace even while continuing to sin, becoming a "just sinner" while remaining in a state of sin. For Luther, even the act of sinning is inevitable. The only act of goodwill a person can make, which is crucial for salvation beyond the futile efforts of free will, is to believe that God will save them regardless.

This, Luther believed, was the truth that resolved his inner turmoil during his famous "tower experience" in 1514-1515, where he felt he had a vision of Christ Himself, who reassured him and promised to save him, freeing him from the obligation to observe the commandments and asking only for steadfast faith in His mercy. From this experience arose the well-known Lutheran triad: sola gratia (grace alone, without works or merits), sola fides (faith alone, without reason), and sola Scriptura (Scripture alone, without the Church’s teaching authority).

Luther echoed the heretical thesis of Marcion, who claimed that the God of the Old Testament is a punitive, cruel, fearsome, unapproachable, and despotic deity, whereas the Christian God, the incarnate God, is the compassionate, tender, and merciful God who is close to humanity.

Luther purported to fight pride and promote humility, but in reality, he promoted a false concept of humility that masked pride and mistook true humility for arrogance. How did this reversal occur? He rightly accused those who boasted of their good works before God of pride.

It is also interesting to note that in Lutheran spirituality, the only forces acting upon man in his relationship with God are God and the devil. Since Luther denied free will, man is always either moved by God or by the devil. Luther completely overlooks the role of the guardian angel, who is necessary as a mediator in one’s relationship with Christ.

The Holy Spirit is the inspirer of the most important missions, in great events, and extraordinary personal and communal situations. The Virgin Mary is the universal mediator for all. The saints are intercessors for the charisms each person possesses, serving as examples. However, the guardian angel is the mediator for the ordinary needs of the daily life of each individual, especially in the battle against the devil.

The guardian angel alerts and unmasks the devil’s snares. While it’s true that Luther acknowledges the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he uses this to unjustly evade obedience to the Church, which is also guided by the Holy Spirit, even more so than any individual Christian.

Thus, Luther’s spiritual life became unilaterally polarized between God and Satan. Without the support of the guardian angel, the soul is vulnerable to Satan’s deception, who may appear in a divine guise [3], leading to the risk of mistaking God for the devil—a theme already present in Kabbalah.

P. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP

Fontanellato, February 22, 2024

Source:

https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/il-dio-dialettico-occorre-bloccare_6.html

Notes:

[1] https://www.avvenire.it/agora/pagine/con-l-incarnazione-dio-salvera-la-creazione

[2] The famous novel by Franz Kafka, The Trial, provides an effective portrayal in its distressing depiction of the hallucinatory and absurd Lutheran conception of divine judgment.

[3] There is reason to suspect that the "Spirit" Hegel speaks of, which he never qualifies as holy and instead calls the "spirit of the world" (Weltgeist), is not God but the devil.