A few answers. . .
Submitted by Dirk G on September 02 1999 at 08:07:00
In reply to Man of a thousand questions Submitted by F.O.D. on September 01 1999 at 14:19:29
|
Hey, FOD. What we are concerned with here is the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. And that’s what frustrates me. To really get into the discussion takes way more time than I have. I enjoy it, but I’m also working full-time. I also realized, after hours of typing madly off-line, that I wasn’t answering the questions you’re asking. You’re asking about process, but I prefer to talk about meaning. I don’t know “how” a biochemically formed foetus receives a spirit from God, but I think I can tell you why. Some thoughts: Just because something is inexplicable doesn’t mean it’s non-existent. Just because a physical explanation exists doesn’t mean that it is sufficient. Anyway, I’ve located the bit on Romans 5 that I mentioned in my other post. It’s from Byzantine Theology: historical trends and doctrinal themes by John Meyendorff (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974). Here are some significant passages from the chapter on “Man.” Because of the inter-relatedness of it all, I’ve included other material to provide a bit of context. There’s not much point in speaking about “the Fall” if we don’t also think about where we fell from, and where we might be heading. * * * * * * The view of man prevailing in the Christian East is based upon the notion of “participation” in God. Man has been created not as an autonomous, or self-sufficient, being; his very nature is truly itself only inasmuch as it exists “in God” or “in grace.” Grace, therefore, gives man his “natural” development. This basic presupposition explains why the terms “nature” and “grace,” when used by Byzantine authors, have a meaning quite different from the Western usage; rather than being in direct opposition, the terms “nature” and “grace” express a dynamic, living, and necessary relationship between God and man, different by their natures, but in communion with each other through God’s energy, or grace. . . Thus, the most important aspect of Greek patristic anthropology, which will be taken for granted by the Byzantine theologians throughout the Middle Ages, is the concept that man is not an autonomous being, that his true humanity is realized only when he lives “in God” and possesses divine qualities. . . [Listed earlier in the chapter as including being, eternity, goodness, wisdom, justice, purity, and above all, love. --Dirk] . . . there is no opposition between freedom and grace in the Byzantine tradition: the presence in man of divine qualities, of a “grace” which is part of his nature and which makes him fully man, neither destroys his freedom, nor limits the necessity for him to become fully himself by his own effort; rather, it secures that cooperation, or synergy, between the divine will and human choice which makes possible the progress “from glory to glory” and the assimilation of man to the divine dignity for which he was created. [2 Cor. 3:18 “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” --Dirk] The Greek patristic understanding of man never denies the unity of mankind or replaces it with a radical individualism. . . (“As in Adam all men die, so also in Christ shall all be brought to life” [1 Co 15:22]). . . It is obvious, therefore, that the sin of Adam must also be related to all men, just as salvation brought by Christ is salvation for all mankind; but neither original sin nor salvation can be realized in an individual’s life without involving his personal and free responsibility. 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, death, so death spread 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. Such a translation renders Paul’s thought to mean that death, which was “the wages of sin” (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who, like him, sin. It presupposes a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but does not say that his descendants are “guilty” as he was, unless they also sin as he sinned. . . .The sentence 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. . .” [Compare with Hebrews 2:14,15 “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.” --Dirk] 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. * * * * * * Now do you see what I was getting at by contrasting “original sin” with “original guilt”? We’ve been affected by the original sin, but we are not guilty of it. I don’t have thousands of answers, but I’m sure several of us could recommend books that may help you find some answers that make sense to you. I’ll try to discuss body and soul later on. Dirk |