|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Nobody. The ego is another word for being selfish. If we choose to be selfish, we speak of a selfish ego. It's the stance we choose to have towards life, other men and God. Ego is another word for selfishness, and people are not created and are not born with it.
I know you think that - I was just teasing you. It is one my few pleasures left in life!? Sorry. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Original sin would be if I thought people are born that way. I don't believe that we are born that way I believe we are born like Adam was created.
Speaking as a parent I can't see how anyone can not believe in OS. I never had to teach my children to sin ... it seemed to come naturally to them ... and indeed that seems to be the universal human experience.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Sin is the sting of death. Death is ontologically prior to sin, it is it's ontological cause. We sin as we move towards non-being, because we move towards non-being. And not the other way around!
I don't see why you are arguing with me over this. Your problem seems to be with the Apostle Paul. (e.g. Romans 6: 23). Trying enlightening him.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Crumbs. Miss a day and what a welter to think about!
I don't think death is prior to sin; that doesn't seem the case according to Genesis or according to Paul: sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin (Romans 5:12). That sounds more like Paul Tillich to me than the church fathers. Death is the final enemy, but it is caused by sin - so sin must be dealt with.
I think it is hard to take 'all' to mean 'many'. The whole point of chs 1-2 of Romans is that all means all: there is no-one who can boast, not even the mother of God.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know you think that - I was just teasing you. It is one my few pleasures left in life!? Sorry.
Sorry for not getting it. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
I don't think death is prior to sin; that doesn't seem the case according to Genesis or according to Paul: sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin (Romans 5:12).
Not prior chronologically. Prior ontologically. It might sound strange to you guys (I think it might, but then many here say you are not that different from the Orthodox, so it might not sound strange after all) but for the fathers, the beginning of the Universe, ontologically speaking, lies at the end, and not at the chronological beginning. I will have to unpack that later perhaps, but drawing from that, I can say with Paul that the ontological beginning of sin is non-being, i.e. death.
In 1 Corinthians 15.56 Paul says (and he is not being novel here, he is expressing standard Orthodox teaching) that sin is the sting of death. Like the bee, ontologically is prior to its sting, so is death ontologically prior to sin. It is it's beginning! Now that I think of it, I have heard that a striking difference at a conference held a few years ago between Catholics and Orthodox on salvation was the fact that Catholics insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from sin, while the Orthodox insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from death. And as I think about it and take into account our discussion here, I can see why this difference was pointed out.
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
all means all
Then how do you square that out with at least two people not dying (Enoch and Elijah) when Paul says clearly that all died? Why the double standard? (thank God the bible says they didn't die, or else it could be dismissed as another of those peculiar Orthodox beliefs ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In 1 Corinthians 15.56 Paul says (and he is not being novel here, he is expressing standard Orthodox teaching) ...
This sums up your approach Andreas. I know this is probably just you expressing yourself clumsily (as we all do sometimes ) but it also reveals your attitude that comes across in these threads.
While we are talking about chronology may I point out that Orthodox Christianity flows out of the the teaching of the Apostles, not the other way round.
I am hapy to accept the three 'legs' of scripture, tradition and reason (which I actually see as consistent with sola scriptura) but comments like the above reveal just how skewed your view is towards Orthodox tradtion.
I'm just waiting for the moment when you post ... "Jesus was mistaken on X, but the Orthodox Fathers managed to put him straight!" ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
[ 18. February 2008, 00:59: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you suggesting that it is either God's will that people hit the floor when they fall, or that the hitting of the floor is outside of God's control?
Yep.
I guess you are saying the first, that it is God's will that people hit the floor when they fall - and that their legs break, or whatever the physical consequences are.
Are you wondering why people find this objectionable?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Surely there are other options....
And the one you give (that this is an inevitable consequence of God creating humans with freedom in a physical world) seems incredibly similar to saying that 'hell' is an inevitable consequence of giving mankind the freedom to believe in or reject God.
Not inevitable. But freedom is nothing without possible alternatives.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
God does not stand by idly as people make these choices and play out their own will. He is present with and loves every person on earth and every devil in hell. Without His presence they would instantly cease to exist.
Ummh. A pretty good definition of hell is the absence of God's presence (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 1: 9).
If God is omnipresent there is no such thing as His true absence. Hell is the relative absence of God - not because He is not there but because He is not invited or accepted.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess you are saying the first, that it is God's will that people hit the floor when they fall - and that their legs break, or whatever the physical consequences are.
God's permissive will, but not his deliberate will.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not inevitable. But freedom is nothing without possible alternatives.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) If God created the world, and if we are not dualists, then he chose what those alternatives would be.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If God is omnipresent there is no such thing as His true absence. Hell is the relative absence of God - not because He is not there but because He is not invited or accepted.
That is an assertion from your theological framework not an argument.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The ontological argument andreas is advancing must make the following teaching by Paul somehow imperfect, misleading (let's avoid the word "novel").
Romans 5:12 - scroll down to get Greek and English
Or as the NIV puts it
12. Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin ...
In the Pauline world view, sin was the forerunner and cause of death. Given classic Jewish understandings of scripture (1st century AD) - i.e. no hang-ups re evolution etc - Paul would see no difference between chronological and ontological truth here. For him it is just truth.
And for Paul (1 Cor 15:26) death is clearly the last enemy.
So I would be very interested to be referred to a Patristic source of this Orthodox ontological teaching re sin and death. From my uneducated protestant viewpoint, it seems to reverse the very clear meaning of scripture on this point.
Now that I see it, it may also be an underlying cause of the different views of substitution involved in Christ being "made sin" etc - see earlier exchanges.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bucca
Shipmate
# 12995
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Speaking as a parent I can't see how anyone can not believe in OS. I never had to teach my children to sin ... it seemed to come naturally to them ... and indeed that seems to be the universal human experience.
Indeed. People have to learn how to share; innately we are all selfish when born. Anyone who watches a baby will see that, as far as they are concerned, all the world is a resource to their "ego".
Posts: 778 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by andreas1984:
[In 1 Corinthians 15.56 Paul says (and he is not being novel here, he is expressing standard Orthodox teaching) that sin is the sting of death. Like the bee, ontologically is prior to its sting, so is death ontologically prior to sin. It is it's beginning! Now that I think of it, I have heard that a striking difference at a conference held a few years ago between Catholics and Orthodox on salvation was the fact that Catholics insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from sin, while the Orthodox insisted that salvation is primarily salvation from death. And as I think about it and take into account our discussion here, I can see why this difference was pointed out.
The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bucca
Shipmate
# 12995
|
Posted
If adam ate then he would experience death, he ate, became "aware" of Good and Evil (despite it having previously being saidthat "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and because of this he also experienced "death" (of the personal level stuff) rather than keeping a god-centred mind and seeing the immortality of the All.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.
I agree there is much room for confusion over this. I think, rather as the footnote to my NIV bible puts it, that scripture teaches us this way. Physical death is the penalty for sin. But it is also the symbol of spiritual death.
When Paul argues in Rom 5:14 that "Death reigned from Adam to Moses", he seems to me to be saying that although there was no law (no Mosaic law) nevertheless people continued to die. Certainly they died physically!
Of course, all of that leads back (yet again) to the Original/Ancestral sin argument as well. These things are very tricky to untangle in cross-traditional discussions.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Not prior chronologically. Prior ontologically. It might sound strange to you guys (I think it might, but then many here say you are not that different from the Orthodox, so it might not sound strange after all) but for the fathers, the beginning of the Universe, ontologically speaking, lies at the end, and not at the chronological beginning. I will have to unpack that later perhaps, but drawing from that, I can say with Paul that the ontological beginning of sin is non-being, i.e. death.
I would be grateful if you would indeed unpack this further! It just doesn't seem to me to make good sense of Paul or Genesis. Adam was warned not to eat the fruit, lest he 'surely die'. Then when Adam and Eve do eat it, Adam is told that now because from dust he came to dust he will return. Paul says that death entered through sin: in Adam all died. It seems to me best to understand some highly mysterious OT passages in the light of this rather than vice versa: Enoch was dead in Adam even if he did not die physically (although no doubt in Christ he was made alive).
Death is indeed the (final not only) enemy. It is indeed to be overcome, something from which we must be saved. I have no problem with saying any of that, clearly it is thoroughly biblical. But what I don't get is why this necessarily excludes the possibility that we also need to be saved from sin. As others have pointed out that seems clearly true of Paul, but also of John e.g. John 3:36 (God's wrath remains on those without the Son) and perhaps the most important text, 1 John 2: he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins. It is also in Matthew ('you are to call him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins').
The point of quoting these is not to see who can quote the most number of proof texts and win, but to say that the idea of the necessity of salvation from sin seems fairly widespread in the NT. You are right to quote texts saying that we also need to be saved from death but that does not mean that's the only thing we need to be saved from.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think, Sean, that the ontological argument makes death the "thing in itself" and sin a kind of derivation of that "thing in itself". That is where andreas's "sting" comes in. So that if you are saved from death you are, ipso facto, saved from sin? Something like that, anyway. Think I'll pm Father Gregory ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I am hapy to accept the three 'legs' of scripture, tradition and reason (which I actually see as consistent with sola scriptura) but comments like the above reveal just how skewed your view is towards Orthodox tradtion.
This is only because the three 'legs' approach is not Orthodox. For us fundamental is the Revelation of God to man, and this revelation takes place from the beginning of the world (with angels and for the creation of mankind for men).
In this sense the Orthodox Tradition is equated with the Revelation of God to man. Dude, when I say the Fathers, I mean a line of people starting from Adam and Melchisedeck and Abraham and Moses, going to Panagia, the Apostles and the Martyrs, going to elder Paisios and Porfyrios and Sophrony.
It's not a category of people that existed after after the Apostles...
Don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to accept any of this. I'm just trying to explain where I come from.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The ontological argument andreas is advancing must make the following teaching by Paul somehow imperfect, misleading (let's avoid the word "novel").
Romans 5:12 - scroll down to get Greek and English
Or as the NIV puts it
12. Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin ...
First of all Paul said two things about death/sin.
On the one hand he said that death entered the world through sin. On the other hand he said that sin is the sting of death. We have to address both sayings of Paul.
I said that Paul is Orthodox in saying that sin is the sting of death, because he is not being novel here, he echoes the Orthodox Tradition, like the prophet Hosea does. In fact, one could say that Paul quotes from the Old Testament.
In my view, the two things Paul says are in harmony, because chronologically death came after Adam's sin, while ontologically death comes prior to sin.
Which is why death is the last enemy. Because it's the greatest enemy.
In your view, how do the two sayings of Paul fit together?
I will give patristic references later. I will try to find something in English online, and that's not easy because only a select few writings are available in English online...
Oh, one more thing. This chronologically later being ontologically prior view, affects our views on the Incarnation as well. In my view, God the Word became man not because of the Fall but so as to effect the deification of creation drawing all things to Himself in the eschata. If we say that God the Son became man because of the Fall, we are saying that something chronologically prior is the cause for the Incarnation. If we say that the eschata are the cause, we are putting as the cause something chronologically later.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Speaking as a parent I can't see how anyone can not believe in OS.
Then why is it that only Protestants and Catholics believe in Original Sin? Why not the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the secularists, the Hindu? They become parents as well. I think it has to do with the common culture shared by Protestants and Catholics rather than with objective reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.
Well, Paul speaks about pain and suffering first. The tragedy of creation shocks him, and he offers that explanation as to why this happens. The entire creation, he wrote, is under bondage. I think his view is more unified...
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
You are right to quote texts saying that we also need to be saved from death but that does not mean that's the only thing we need to be saved from.
I don't say we need to get saved only from death, but primarily from death. There is a big difference there.
Will unpack more...
[ 18. February 2008, 10:14: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Sorry for triple posting...
My use of "ontological" might not be that accurate since death and sin are not "onta" (beings), but I hope you get my point despite the poor terminology. I'm talking about cause and effect.
Last night I was thinking about it, and I remembered something else. Which makes more sense, since they are not "onta" (in beings the cause lies at the end, and not the beginning).
Death, as non-being, is where we come from chronologically and it is what we are made of, since creation is created "out of nothing". In this sense we carry nothingness in us, and we tend to get drawn towards it. God however gives us the potential of overcoming that.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In this sense the Orthodox Tradition is equated with the Revelation of God to man.
Thanks for putting me straight.
If this is representative of Orthodox thought in general then it is very reassuring that you guys make me look positively inclusive and ecumenical. Con-Evos are liberals, basically.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This chronologically later being ontologically prior view, affects our views on the Incarnation as well. In my view, God the Word became man not because of the Fall but so as to effect the deification of creation drawing all things to Himself in the eschata. If we say that God the Son became man because of the Fall, we are saying that something chronologically prior is the cause for the Incarnation. If we say that the eschata are the cause, we are putting as the cause something chronologically later.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) You're just saying the same thing in reverse. Why does God need to deify creation? Did he bodge it first time round?
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Then why is it that only Protestants and Catholics believe in Original Sin? Why not the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the Taoists, the secularists, the Hindu? They become parents as well. I think it has to do with the common culture shared by Protestants and Catholics rather than with objective reality.
Er, Andreas, the answer to that question would be ... original sin. That doesn't prove it to be so, but it is entirely consistent. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The concept of death needs defining here. God told Adam he would die if he ate. In what sense then did he die? not physically but spiritually.. In that sense, Paul teaches then that the wages of sin are 'death'.
...I don't say we need to get saved only from death, but primarily from death. There is a big difference there.
I remain astonished that anyone thinks that the Bible is talking about literal death in this context. I would think that Jamat's point would be universally accepted by Christians.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You're just saying the same thing in reverse. Why does God need to deify creation? Did he bodge it first time round?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
God deifies creation because it's creation and not God! To deify does not mean to correct an error or to save from sin. It means to make God. And creation has that potential by grace, it was created for that reason. The reason for creation is the eschata, and not the beginning. We were not created perfect and fell from perfection. We were created to become perfect in the eschata.
Incidentally, this is at the heart of the Origenistic controversy. Origen proposed a perfect creation from which we fell, thinking that Christ became man so that we can get restored to where we fell from, while the Church chose a different approach, namely that we were created immature, and perfection lies at the end of history, not at its beginning.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I remain astonished that anyone thinks that the Bible is talking about literal death in this context. I would think that Jamat's point would be universally accepted by Christians.
Well, Paul speaks about creation waiting with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God, so that it can get set free from its bondage to corruption. The whole creation, Paul says, has been groaning together and has been feeling great pain together (like that of childbirth) till now.
[ 18. February 2008, 11:18: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I guess you are saying the first, that it is God's will that people hit the floor when they fall - and that their legs break, or whatever the physical consequences are.
God's permissive will, but not his deliberate will.
Yes, that is exactly how I would put it. Evil things are not willed by God, but He permits them to happen for the sake of a higher good. Gravity is by and large a useful force. Its negative effects are permitted for the sake of the greater good.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not inevitable. But freedom is nothing without possible alternatives.
If God created the world, and if we are not dualists, then he chose what those alternatives would be.
Yes, He chose what those alternatives would be, the idea being that they are the best possible alternatives - even if they include things that are evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If God is omnipresent there is no such thing as His true absence. Hell is the relative absence of God - not because He is not there but because He is not invited or accepted.
That is an assertion from your theological framework not an argument.
God's omnipresence is a well accepted Christian premise. Besides, the Bible specifically speaks of His presence in Hell:
quote:
Psalm 139:7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.
Of course the Bible often also speaks of God being in certain places (Bethel, Jerusalem, His tabernacle or temple) and not being in others. Doesn't this simply mean that He is more present or less present according to certain factors, such as our reception of Him?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
God deifies creation because it's creation and not God! To deify does not mean to correct an error or to save from sin. It means to make God. And creation has that potential by grace, it was created for that reason. The reason for creation is the eschata, and not the beginning. We were not created perfect and fell from perfection. We were created to become perfect in the eschata.
Incidentally, this is at the heart of the Origenistic controversy. Origen proposed a perfect creation from which we fell, thinking that Christ became man so that we can get restored to where we fell from, while the Church chose a different approach, namely that we were created immature, and perfection lies at the end of history, not at its beginning.
My turn.
I understand all that.
However, fall or created immature you are still left with God needing to provide for what is lacking in his creation... that must be the case or you wouldn't say 'by grace'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
First of all Paul said two things about death/sin.
On the one hand he said that death entered the world through sin. On the other hand he said that sin is the sting of death. We have to address both sayings of Paul.
<snip>
In my view, the two things Paul says are in harmony, because chronologically death came after Adam's sin, while ontologically death comes prior to sin.
Which is why death is the last enemy. Because it's the greatest enemy.
In your view, how do the two sayings of Paul fit together?
andreas, I'm glad that you see that your view depends upon an "ontological" understanding about the relationship between sin and death, though I note your retreat from the word.
In my view, the two sayings sit together like this. There is no need for the ontological argument if death came into the world through sin. The two Pauline statements are perfectly harmonious. The defeat of sin, ipso facto, means the defeat of death. However we see death. Just as the sting is the "deadliness" of the bee, so sin is the "deadliness" of death.
Your argument I suppose is that the sting, being a part of the bee, is in someway subordinate to it. But the analogy points in a different direction. The power of death is taken away by the removal of its essential poisonous cause, sin. So the sting is not subordinate. It is the primary cause of damage.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I remain astonished that anyone thinks that the Bible is talking about literal death in this context. I would think that Jamat's point would be universally accepted by Christians.
I think the problem, Freddy, is that Pauline thought would not make the neat physical/spiritual distinctions which we sometimes make. When he talks about death he means the whole thing - unless it is clear from context that he only means a particular aspect of it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So the sting is not subordinate. It is the primary cause of damage.
Let's add a third saying of Paul.
He wrote that in death everybody sinned. Romans 5.12
I have read that this verse has been mistranslated by Augustine, who didn't know Greek that well, as to mean that "in Adam all sinned". This translation is completely alien to the Greek speaking fathers, who read it differently. If I remember right, the fathers have read it "in which [death] all sinned", with the exception of St. Photius who proposed another reading "because all sinned". In other words, none read it to say "in which [Adam's sin] all sinned".
How do you read Romans 5.12?
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The same way I read 1 Cor 15:22
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Ah, but traditional Orthodoxy would not object to death being introduced and reigning in all, even in Jesus Christ, through Adam. The question for our discussion here has to do with the relation between sin and death and whether all people have sinned in Adam or not!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
In Hebrews 2.15, Paul writes:
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Let's add that saying to our discussion.
One more thing:
Barnabas, I hope you don't mind me bringing an example from St. John Chrysostom's commentary on Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, about the passage you mentioned.
Just like in Adam all die, so will all in Christ live. What then? Tell me, everybody died in Adam the death of sin? Then how was Noah [found] righteous in his generation? And how [was] Abraham? And how [was] Job? How [were] all the rest? And what then does it mean that all will live in Christ? And where are those who will go to the Gehenna? If this word has been said concerning the body, it stands. If it has been said concerning justice and sin, it does not stand. So that after you hear the bringing to life to be common to all people, you won't think he means the sinners will be saved as well, he added: Each in his own order*. (translation mine)
[*order as in "the order of phoenix"]
[ 18. February 2008, 14:23: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
andreas, you are being too agile and may be missing a point or two on the way. Let me slow you down. I will look at your argument and quote in due time. But first, do I take it that you concede that I have a consistent argument re the two Pauline quotes to which you referred earlier? That is an important step in the dialogue. Before widening the argument (which is what you are seeking to do), may we have a stock take please?
For I now believe you are shifting your ground from ground which you (rightly) were beginning to find uncomfortable.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I think your explanation is consistent, but there is a flaw in it, namely that Jesus Christ, in whom sin did not have any handle, died. If it was true that where no sin is, no death is either, then Christ wouldn't have died. If, on the other hand, our nature is blameless, but death is the result of the ancestral sin, then Christ, being of this earth, like we all do, was under the ancestral sin, and died the death we all die despite sin having no handle in him.
I think that it is important to take all of Paul into account, and this is why I gradually widen our focus to include more sayings of Paul regarding death and sin.
That said, please, do stop the discussion at whatever point you want to be clarified. If previous points need to get discussed further or if new questions or insights are born, then by all means say so!
[ 18. February 2008, 15:27: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Think I'll pm Father Gregory ...
In the meantime, here's a post of fr. Hrehory that might be relevant.
[ 18. February 2008, 15:50: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984
I think your explanation is consistent, but there is a flaw in it, namely that Jesus Christ, in whom sin did not have any handle, died. If it was true that where no sin is, no death is either, then Christ wouldn't have died.
But it is not a flaw from my POV. Jesus died because he was made sin, not because he was sinful.
This sin and death and Adam thing. I dug out this from Bishop Kallistos, which seems to make me both orthodox and Orthodox on this issue. Anyway, not Augustinian.
"For the Orthodox Tradition then, Adam's original sin affects the human race in its entirety, and it has consequences on both the physical and moral level: it results not only in sickness and physical death, but in moral weakness and paralysis". Tick from me.
"But does it also imply an inherited guilt? ...Original sin is not to be interpreted in juridical or quasi-biological terms, as if it were some physical 'taint' of guilt, transmitted through sexual intercourse." Tick from me
So I cannot see why Orthodoxy needs the "ontological" argument you were advancing - at least there is clearly one Orthodox bishop who doesn't need it. Anyway, taking that into account, here are some observations your quote from John Chrysostum.
First of all, I am really puzzled that you have quoted it! Noah did die, so did Job. I suppose it turns on what he really means by "the death of sin". Perhaps it is a kind of anti-Augustinian argument? But in any case, the main context is the general resurrection, of which Christ is the first fruit. Chrysostum seems to me to be pointing out, correctly, that in the Traditional understanding some will be raised for eternal bliss, some for eternal judgment. I think that is an argument against universal salvation, rather than the order of sin and death. But that's just the way it looks to me.
Back to where this interesting discussion came from, (whether the S. in PSA was Orthodox as the Wikipedia article indicated), I can't see the journey has proved anything. But I enjoyed the views!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Andreas, thank you for continuing to engage in this discussion. I appreciate that it is frustrating to you at times so thank you for working so hard to explain this all! I particularly admire the fact that what you are trying to do is show that there are two aspects of what Paul is saying, and we must try to make sense of both of them. I still think though that this means that whilst your view (death is overcome) can be subsumed into ours, you are not engaging with the biblical and patristic witness that sin also needs to be overcome in order to overcome death.
I agree that Augustine, much as I love him, mistranslated/perpetuated a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 (he did not know Greek). It is not that in Adam all sinned so much as in Adam all died, hence verse 15: the many died by the one trespass. So the distinction between ontological and chronological priority doesn't work here: had it not been for the trespass, there would not have been death.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, Sean D. Very elegantly and graciously put; sums up my present understanding very well. And I echo your thanks.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I propose a resolution that I believe will accommodate us all ... but there is an Orthodox sting in the tail.
Death and sin are locked into a vicious circle downward into non-humanity/hell. Resurrection and deification are an upward "virtuous circle" into God.
Here's the sting ...
It's in the sequencing and, primarily, the initiation .... death leads to sin leads to death.
NOT ... sin leads to death leads to sin.
Now this is not pedantry for the crucial difference between us and animals is that we know that we shall die. Remember that the TEMPORARILY forbidden tree was the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Death is corrupting both physically and spiritually. When death is destroyed sin loses its power for love has NOTHING to do with the fear of punishment (1 John 4:18) but rather has EVERYTHING to do with the undoing of death. That is why we can now eat BOTH of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil AND the tree of life. Prometheus has no place here. God is not peeved that we stole the goodies ... we just weren't READY for it in Eden. We hadn't grown up yet.
The law was to do with rewards and punishments. All it did was expose sin and bring death. Grace without the resurrection is absolutely impossible. That is the crucial difference between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox now.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Barnabas
I prefer working with primary sources. Bishop Callistos' works are secondary sources, while the works of the Orthodox Saints are primary sources for Orthodoxy. I wouldn't want to make a negative comment on him, because I appreciate his work, but do know that his work is not exactly uncontroversial. Of course, this can be said about theologians in general. There are theological fights going on, but I'm not so much interested in them as I am in what the Saints have to say.
Dear Sean D
I appreciate the time you take to explore things further here. This thread is long, and might become much longer, but I appreciate the opportunity to learn ourselves and each other better here.
I'd like to ask you to unpack a bit on your view on sin. What do you think the scriptural and patristic witness to be concerning sin?
Incidentally, a few posts ago, I presented with one patristic witness, John Chrysostom, who said that not all die the death of sin...
My view (a big portion thereof) can be shown in these posts here:
post 1
post 2
It seems that while I was taking a break from typing this post father Gregory made a reply.
I agree with what he wrote, and I would like to put some emphasis on his "not mature enough" view. It's only recently that I realized there is a consensus for that view of mankind, so I think it's important to point that out. In a sense, we are being created, we have not been created yet.
Thanks for this fascinating discussion. All of you.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Andreas
Yes, that "not mature enough" point really is vital. It represents the theodicy background of St. Irenaeus and the Greek fathers generally. It was the early tradition in the west as well until Augustinianism fully prevailed. Of course it is fully geared to a modern view of human development so why it is not more widely recognised and valued in the west I have no idea. Perhaps it is because the other view puts a premium on the psychological conflict vis-a-vis conversion, sola gratia etc. and that tradition is loathed to let go of that. Luther on the toilet 'n all that.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
It took me much time to understand this.
It was not until I read an almost full explanation of that view on a theological book that it all made sense. Then I was able to examine under that light many many Greek speaking Saints to realize that it was not a peculiarity of Saint Ireneus, but the consensus of the universal church...
In fact, even the controversy with Origen (fifth ecumenical council) can be seen under that light. Origen proposed that we have been created perfect and then fell, and then Jesus Christ comes to bring us back to the perfection from which we fell. He was condemned for that, because the church view was that we have not been created perfect, but immature. Even though the church thought the world we see today is not God's original creation (and you know how I feel about that), they said that the world God created was immature, even though death and pain did not exist in it, and still in need of the salvation of deification.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Think I'll take some time out to read Father G's online sermons.
I'm not that bothered about his sequences of sin-death-sin or death-sin-death; I have been intrigued for some time by the picture of Adam as innocent but immature. And I'm not Augustinian re sin as a "sexually transmitted" disease.
For years I've believed in the huge significance of Ezekiel's banning of the saying "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge". But I also see the significance of Ezekiel's corollary "The soul that sins is the one which will die". So while I can see much merit in the Orthodox notion of all falling together and being raised together (i.e the church as a body, not just a collection of saved individuals), I do not think one can so easily discard both the OT and NT pictures of the significance of individual responses. Nonconformists do have a tendency to individualism, so I think all of this links together in my understanding of the significance of sin and death, of salvation and resurrection.
Anyway, that's a brief summary of where I'm at prior to this bit of hard work. I'll give this thread a miss for a couple of weeks or so - then come back to see where you've all been. The thread seems disinclined to die! Pause for thought ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
200,000 years ago a hominid of the modern sort paused over a kill in the East African plains. She thought to herself, "This animal is dead. I killed it." Stooping to look down, she felt a momentary pity for her supper. Then she remembered her father. An animal also killed in the hunt. Tears had failed to dislodge a certain bitterness in her heart for a father she never knew. She slit the animals throat and cursed the Great Spirit. Maybe she would find happiness tonight. Experience taught otherwise. She could remember. Worse still she could imagine. The dream of death would never leave her. A bloody sacrifice was always necessary and yet it never sufficed. Tomorrow would be the same.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
(breaks promise for two points, then I'm off)
Father G - yes I see the point
andreas - Romans 5:12.
Here is a blue letter bible link showing Textus Receptus and Westcott Hort Greek. I've looked at both carefully and don't get your translation point. Maybe you can enlighten me further?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Barnabas62
I have struck gold! I was hoping that John Meyendorff's essay on Original Sin might be online and it is, (excerpted from his book: "Byzantine Theology"). Here is the key extract about Romans 5:12. Scroll to the bottom for the link to much more contextual material.
quote:
The scriptural text, which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine and the Pelagians, is found in Romans 5:12 where Paul speaking of Adam writes, "As sin came into the world through one man and through sin and death, so death spreads to all men because all men have sinned [eph ho pantes hemarton]" In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt ("in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned"), and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek — the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form eph ho — a contraction of epi with the relative pronoun ho — can be translated as "because," a meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all confessional backgrounds.22 Such a translation renders Paul’s thought to mean that death, which is "the wages of sin" (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who like him sin. It presupposed a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but did not say that his descendants are "guilty" as he was unless they also sinned as he did.
A number of Byzantine authors, including Photius, understood the eph ho to mean "because" and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the normal retribution for sin. But there is also the consensus of the majority of Eastern Fathers, who interpret Romans 5:12 in close connection with 1 Corinthians 15:22 — between Adam and his descendants there is a solidarity in death just as there is a solidarity in life between the risen Lord and the baptized. This interpretation comes obviously from the literal, grammatical meaning of Romans 5:12. Eph ho, if it means "because," is a neuter pronoun; but it can also be masculine referring to the immediately preceding substantive thanatos ("death"). The sentence then may have a meaning, which seems improbable to a reader trained in Augustine, but which is indeed the meaning which most Greek Fathers accepted: "As sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death, all men have sinned..."
Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.
John Meyendorff Extracts
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks Father G. Basically I didn't understand the controversy, but I can see it now.
quote:
A number of Byzantine authors, including Photius, understood the eph ho to mean "because" and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the normal retribution for sin.
I think that is pretty much where I was (emboldened bits). I'll reflect on this during my time off.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The controversy has to do with whether we are still created "very good", like Adam did, or we have our natures flawed or tainted by birth.
The Orthodox went with saying that our sin is always personal, like our ancestors' sin was theirs alone (hence we speak of ancestral sin). In this sense babies are not sinners, but innocent and very good, with the potential of remaining sinless (like Panagia did) or sinning (like the rest of us did). It's a matter of personal choice, it does not have to do with our nature.
In that text by Meyendorff (grrrrr... again a secondary source; I don't like that!) it is said that "Patriarch Photius even goes so far as to say, referring to Western doctrines, that the belief in a “sin of nature” is a heresy." Of course it is, but who realizes that nowadays?
For the Orthodox fathers nature is always blameless. It remained blameless after the ancestral sin. Our free will is to blame if we choose sin over virtue, not our nature.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Now this is not pedantry for the crucial difference between us and animals is that we know that we shall die. Remember that the TEMPORARILY forbidden tree was the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Death is corrupting both physically and spiritually. When death is destroyed sin loses its power for love has NOTHING to do with the fear of punishment (1 John 4:18) but rather has EVERYTHING to do with the undoing of death. That is why we can now eat BOTH of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil AND the tree of life. Prometheus has no place here. God is not peeved that we stole the goodies ... we just weren't READY for it in Eden. We hadn't grown up yet.
Wow. Will have to reflect on this a bit more... but I really like it e.g. the potential for reconciliation between evolution and theology.
I think what I was struggling with in Andreas's explanation was that it sounded as if the fact that humanity was going to die, led us to sin. I found that hard to square with Paul. Yet I do agree that at the beginning, human immortality was conditional rather than absolute. That is, it depended on being able to continue to partake of the tree of life, rather than being an inherent attribute of humanity. So I guess what one could say is that death was potentially present prior to sin (hence I concede Andreas's 'ontologically prior', if this is what is meant by it). Death was not actually prior, nor was it inevitable (had humanity not sinned, they would have continued to enjoy the tree of life until Christ had come and led the creation to completion).
Perhaps so far so good although perhaps Orthodoxy holds that death would have been inevitable (that is the impression I get from Fr Gregory's posts but I could be misinterpreting here). If so, that I would struggle with a great deal. I think what I also struggle with though is the idea that it is the ontological priority of death that causes sin. Is it that we sin in order to try and secure life for ourselves? Could you explain that a bit more, ideally (since I am a pietistic sort of soul) in biblical terms?
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
For the Orthodox fathers nature is always blameless. It remained blameless after the ancestral sin. Our free will is to blame if we choose sin over virtue, not our nature.
There's this guy called Paul - you should read him sometime ... I think he would shed some light on this debate. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
For example Romans 6 - he is VERY clear about freedom there. Humanity is divided into two camps - either we are slaves to sin or slaves to God. The whole point of the chapter is that there is no middle 'free' position.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
There's this guy called Paul - you should read him sometime ... I think he would shed some light on this debate.
Interesting you mention Paul. You see, the Greek speaking fathers wrote tons of pages commenting all of his epistles while Augustine, if I remember right, he only made commentaries for one* and a half** of his epistles. Yet somehow he became this huge expert on Paul...
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example Romans 6 - he is VERY clear about freedom there. Humanity is divided into two camps - either we are slaves to sin or slaves to God. The whole point of the chapter is that there is no middle 'free' position.
You are using a text which Paul himself says he writes it that way because he speaks to spiritual babies, and not grown up men, and calls it spiritual milk and not solid food, and then you take Paul's word's on slavery literally... Dear Lord!
God does not want slaves, but sons, and the whole point of the Economia is for us to finally become what we are called to be, sons of God.
That said, and to speak in Paul's terms, enslaving yourself either to sin or to God presupposes your own personal free will. You enslave yourself to either God or sin. You. And that you means your free and personal will. It's not a "middle" position, but what makes Paul's use of words possible in the first place. It's what makes the gospel possible. You were sinners, Paul says. Now choose to leave all that behind you. Make a choice. Follow Christ and stop living the way you did. Get the new life Christ offers.
*Galatians, which is not that long an epistle...
**think it's a small part of Romans, not even half of the epistle
[Incidentally, Barnabas, the misinterpretation of Romans 5.12 referring to Adam's sin is said to begin with... Origen! Interesting how the Origenistic controversy pops in again...]
[ 19. February 2008, 11:10: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Sean
quote:
Is it that we sin in order to try and secure life for ourselves? Could you explain that a bit more, ideally (since I am a pietistic sort of soul) in biblical terms?
In my hominid story the huntress is corrupted by her fear of death and her anger at the deity who let her father die. Here is a key text ... noteworthy of course because the death of Christ is massively important in Hebrews ...
quote:
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:14-15)
Human sin is a voluntary and case by case submission of either terror or evasion from the legacy of death as a conscious and God-alienating awareness. This is why the law is important ... it attempts to deal with this corruption by constraining our relationship with God in the cult ... that is, sealed by blood sacrifice. The death and resurrection of Christ overturns all that and puts the initiative for resolving the impasse of death on God's side. The whole purpose of the incarnation was to undo death ... and, therefore, deal with sin's root.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Thank you. I think though that what I am looking for though is something that draws a stronger connection between the possibility of death, and sin. That is, the text from Hebrews shows that fear of death is a slavery, but not really that the slavery in question is the same as that of sin. So whilst I can agree that the death and resurrection of Christ overcomes death, what I am still unsure of is why that overcomes sin.
I guess what I am saying is that I don't accept your definition that sin is
quote:
a voluntary and case by case submission of either terror or evasion from the legacy of death as a conscious and God-alienating awareness.
The archetype of sin in Genesis 3 seems to be much more to do with a refusal to trust God when he says that you will die IF you do this. Quite the opposite in other words: I will do this and I will not die, instead of, I will do this, because I am afraid I am going to die.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Sean
The basic temptation was to try and have the power over death apart from God. That was what the serpent intimated. He had insinuated the consciousness of death (as a possibility at this stage) engendering fear and an impassioned resort to exclusion against God. The serpent makes God out to be a peeved deity who won't share the goodies with humanity .... which is precisely the Promethean myth. Basically, it's jealousy of a make believe God ... a reflection of the devil's own hubris. What it is not is a mere "keep off the grass."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sean D
I'm pretty much where you are at. As part of my reading programme, I found this on Fr Gregory's website, and in view of recent questions, I thought it might be an informative read. I'm still puzzling over it myself. It is intriguing, as I said before.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
