# John of Damascus (Church Life)



## RamistThomist (May 13, 2015)

I do not endorse much of what John says here. I am simply outlining his thoughts.

Book IV is something along the lines of “soteriology” and the “life of the church.” 

Concerning Baptism: While John, like most of the fathers, probably holds to baptismal regeneration, it’s interesting he doesn’t take it in extreme directions. He says others who have not had a Trinitarian baptism should be rebaptized (IV.9). Regeneration takes place in the spirit, not necessarily in the act of baptism (p. 78, col. 2). John justifies the church’s use of oil in baptism because of Noah and the flood (p. 79 col. 1).

The Power of the Cross

The power of God is the Word of the Cross (p. 80 col. 1). All of this sounds good but John now moves into dangerous waters:

(21) We ought to worship the sign of the Cross because the honor passes from the image to the prototype.

A warning sticks in my head: something about not worshipping man-made pesels. 

Further, we should worship towards the East (IV.12). John argues:
(22) Since God is spiritual light, and since the sun rises in the East, we should worship towards the East.

This doesn’t follow--at least not yet. John refines his argument:

(22*) We are composed of visible and invisible nature. Therefore, our visible nature corresponds to the physical sun rising and our invisible nature corresponds to God’s being spiritual light.

I’m not convinced. Perhaps there is one other argument:

(22’) Christ will appear in the East and our worshipping towards the East is a joyful anticipation of his return.

It’s a pious sentiment and I suppose it hearkens us to vigilance, as long as we don’t make it a law. John acknowledges this tradition is unwritten and he says many apostolic traditions are. The problem he now faces is proving that tradition x is part of the apostolic tradition. It simply cannot be done without asserting the consequent (and that one argument is why Orthodox Bridge is terrified of me). 

The Sacraments

(23) The bread and wine are changed into God’s body and blood (p. 83 col. 1). 

John warns us not to ask how. Nor does he give any argument. He does deny ex opere operato, for he says it only forgives sins for those who receive it with faith. John appears to contradict himself:

(23*) The bread of communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity (p. 83 col. 2 paragraph 3).

If the bread is changed into God’s body (23), then how can it be united with God’s body (23*). It doesn’t make any sense to say that my body is united with my body. 

(24) The bread (used metonymically for “bread and wine”) is our participation and communion in Christ’s body. 

On Mary

(25) Mary did not have pain in childbirth (p. 86 col 1).

John has to make this claim if the EO view of Mary’s being uncorrupt holds. To put it crudely, her “lady parts” were not damaged in childbirth, for how could the one who heals corruption (death, physical destruction) cause physical corruption in someone?

Of course, he holds that Mary never had sex with Joseph and that the phrase “first born,” simply means Jesus was born first, not that there were others. This is strained almost to credulity. Further, the argument that Mary knew that she gave birth to God and wouldn’t pollute herself with sex won’t work, for Mary often showed ignorance to Jesus’s identity. If Mary were ignorant to Jesus' true identity as God Incarnate, the argument "She wouldn't pollute her holy womb with sex" simply cannot work.

_Venerating the Saints
_
John says saints had God dwell in their bodies, and so should be venerated. But the verse he quotes to prove his point (2 Cor 3:17) simply proves that God dwells in all of the believers. The only way John’s discussion makes sense is if “saints” refers to departed believers.

Should we venerate their relics? John says yes and this is his argument:

(26) God did amazing things like springs from the desert and killing people with the jawbone of an ass, so why should we be surprised that God works miracles in the relics of his saints?

This isn’t an argument. I suppose it’s possible that oil can burst forth from a martyr’s remains, but even if that is true (and I’ll grant for argument that it sometimes happens), how does it follow that we are to bow down and venerate created pesels? We can rephrase John’s position:

(26*) We should give honor to these heroes.

No one disputes this. What do we mean by "honor?" Is the only way to honor them to prostrate before them?

Images

(27) The honor given to the image passes to the prototype (IV.16)

John says the warning in the 2nd Commandment doesn’t apply because it only concerns worshipping false gods (the demons of the Greeks). Further, God the Father is incorporeal, so he can’t be imaged by art.

This isn’t John’s full argument. He spells that out in Three Treatises on Divine Images (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press). Since he doesn't give the full argument, I won't give a full rebuttal. I actually have what I believe are relatively strong defeaters to image-worship, but they only obtain if the iconodule offers a good presentation, which we don't have here.

Scripture

He has a good and profitable section on Scripture.

Eschatology

John posits a future Antichrist (IV.26). He is aware of John’s admonition but uses Antichrist as short-hand for the Man of Sin/Beast. Enoch and Elijah will come and witness against him, which will convert the Jews to Christ. Much needs to be filled in, but I agree with John.


----------

