OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 04:53:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nicholas Cabasilas and the Latin West  (Read 6480 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 06, 2010, 05:12:12 PM »

I personally thought Anselm was a major player in spreading the idea of substitutionary atonement.  And many Orthodox Churches also put the blame on Aquinas.


I am not certain why the blame St. Thomas Aquinas. His view is dissonant with the theory of substitutionary atonement.

So is Anselm's actually. One has to put penal substitution into Anselm...It is not there naturally.

M.

Among the things underlying Anselm is the question of why a truly loving God ejected Adam and Eve and all the ensuing generations out of paradise...and why is there such a state or place as hell?

How can a genuinely loving God do these things.

The answer demands a rational examination of Scripture and the life of Christ and tradition in order to satisfy...That is important to some people. 
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #46 on: May 06, 2010, 05:28:05 PM »

I personally thought Anselm was a major player in spreading the idea of substitutionary atonement.  And many Orthodox Churches also put the blame on Aquinas.


I am not certain why the blame St. Thomas Aquinas. His view is dissonant with the theory of substitutionary atonement.

So is Anselm's actually. One has to put penal substitution into Anselm...It is not there naturally.

M.
Good to know... I have not studied St. Anselm nearly as much as I have studied St. Thomas Aquinas. I will have to read more on Anselm and his view.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,709


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #47 on: May 06, 2010, 06:58:55 PM »

I personally thought Anselm was a major player in spreading the idea of substitutionary atonement.  And many Orthodox Churches also put the blame on Aquinas.


I am not certain why the blame St. Thomas Aquinas. His view is dissonant with the theory of substitutionary atonement.

Well, St. Thomas Aquinas is Catholic, so by virtue, that just makes him disagreeable... Tongue

Or for other cases, I tend to feel it's the Orthodox Christian way of being disagreeable  Wink
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,709


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #48 on: May 06, 2010, 07:09:18 PM »

Thank you Mary and Papist...

To be quite honest, I wonder how they came up with the idea of an offense of an infinite degree that requires infinite punishment or someone of infinite merit.  It just becomes overly legalistic.  It really doesn't seem much different than penal substitution.  But as you said, this is from the article, not directly from his writings, so I'm looking forward to see what you have next on Anselm.

I was wondering.  Does Aquinas say the same thing as the article implies.  Since the offense is infinite, therefore, should there be a repayment of that infinite offense in some sort of way?

Plus, I usually tend to think that the power of the offense is measured by the one who offends, not necessarily by who is offended.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,709


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2010, 01:31:04 AM »

Dear Mary,

I was also wondering if you can also help me out with the issue of "infinite sin."
Aquinas argues that sin is not infinite in its essence, but that the person offended, namely God, is infinite.

Something just occurred in what you say here.  Would Aquinas still use the phrase "infinite sin" even though it's not an accurate phrase, and would he say that this is not an accurate phrase, that really the "infinite" describes God, not sin itself?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: May 07, 2010, 02:07:13 AM »

Thank you Mary and Papist...

To be quite honest, I wonder how they came up with the idea of an offense of an infinite degree that requires infinite punishment or someone of infinite merit.  It just becomes overly legalistic.  It really doesn't seem much different than penal substitution.  But as you said, this is from the article, not directly from his writings, so I'm looking forward to see what you have next on Anselm.

I was wondering.  Does Aquinas say the same thing as the article implies.  Since the offense is infinite, therefore, should there be a repayment of that infinite offense in some sort of way?

Plus, I usually tend to think that the power of the offense is measured by the one who offends, not necessarily by who is offended.

The idea that reparation could be achieved only by a person of equal standing
was firmly embedded in the society of Anselm's time.
In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an
offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply
forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. (This is a crucial new
element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in
fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable
deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.) No human would be
adequate to pay this debt, so God the Son volunteers to do so. "If the Son chose
to make over the claim He had on God to man, could the Father justly forbid Him
doing so, or refuse to man what the Son willed to give him?" Christ satisfies
our debt in this, the "Satisfaction Theory." Western Christian theology marched
on from that point, encountering controversies and developments and revisions,
but locked on the idea that Christ's death was directed toward the Father. When
Western theologians look back at the centuries before Anselm they can't find his
theory anywhere (well, there are some premonitions in Tertullian and Cyprian,
but it wasn't the mainstream.) And Anselm's ideas which developed when
Christendom had been rent in two remain, still, essentially unknown to the
ancient Churches of the East.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2010, 06:35:11 AM »

Thank you Mary and Papist...

To be quite honest, I wonder how they came up with the idea of an offense of an infinite degree that requires infinite punishment or someone of infinite merit.  It just becomes overly legalistic.  It really doesn't seem much different than penal substitution.  But as you said, this is from the article, not directly from his writings, so I'm looking forward to see what you have next on Anselm.

I was wondering.  Does Aquinas say the same thing as the article implies.  Since the offense is infinite, therefore, should there be a repayment of that infinite offense in some sort of way?

Plus, I usually tend to think that the power of the offense is measured by the one who offends, not necessarily by who is offended.

When God Created everything out of nothing, it was created in right order because there is nothing but Good that comes from God.

Once sin comes into Creation, all of Creation then shows forth the results of that release of evil.

Adam's was the ancestral sin.  His was not the first sin.

So it is not a matter of the power of the offense.  It is a matter of how one sets aright the results of evil entering creation. 

Once Satan fell from grace, evil was is and ever shall be loose in the world.  And the only way to contain evil is to establish a form of containment that will be everlasting.

The honor that is given to God by man, east and west, north and south, at its core, is whatever we do to seek God's will which is the original right order of creation.

Willing something means nothing until we act.  You and I can sit on our duffs for an age "willing" to get up but until one of us DOES it, the willing is meaningless.

So we cannot fix creation but we can be and be in it, in such a way that we orient our doing and being in accordance with the original good order of creation.  And THAT is the honor we can give to God and THAT is our participation in the salvific action of Christ.

Satisfaction is nothing more that the restoration of right order into creation.

You can't do that.  I can't do that.  Only GOD can do that.  And the Son of God did that.

At some level it is very simple minded.

M.
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,709


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #52 on: May 07, 2010, 01:29:25 PM »

So if bringing back the right order of creation is the key point here, then there seems to be no room for an idea of "infinite offense" in your description, as such would go against what you wrote quite beautifully.

So what is the point of Anselm and/or Aquinas (if Anselm doesn't say this) concerning "infinite offense" if God is not offended, but rather we offend ourselves, and that God can only fix what we did to ourselves?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 01:30:12 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2010, 01:31:38 PM »

So if bringing back the right order of creation is the key point here, then there seems to be no room for an idea of "infinite offense" in your description, as such would go against what you wrote quite beautifully.

So what is the point of Anselm and/or Aquinas (if Anselm doesn't say this) concerning "infinite offense" if God is not offended, but rather we offend ourselves, and that God can only fix what we did to ourselves?
I think we walk into a dangerous and unscriptural place is we say that God is not offended by our sins. I am not saying that God is changeable or "hurt" by our sin, but the scriptures seem to indicate that in some way God is offended by our sin. In fact, the scriptures demonstrates that he "hates" our sins.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2010, 01:35:27 PM »

So if bringing back the right order of creation is the key point here, then there seems to be no room for an idea of "infinite offense" in your description, as such would go against what you wrote quite beautifully.

So what is the point of Anselm and/or Aquinas (if Anselm doesn't say this) concerning "infinite offense" if God is not offended, but rather we offend ourselves, and that God can only fix what we did to ourselves?

Presuming that not all will or do repent....of course.  Has Satan repented and is he now in heaven?  That would be wonderful news because then we could all be free from any concerns of the demonic.

M.
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,709


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2010, 01:40:07 PM »

So if bringing back the right order of creation is the key point here, then there seems to be no room for an idea of "infinite offense" in your description, as such would go against what you wrote quite beautifully.

So what is the point of Anselm and/or Aquinas (if Anselm doesn't say this) concerning "infinite offense" if God is not offended, but rather we offend ourselves, and that God can only fix what we did to ourselves?
I think we walk into a dangerous and unscriptural place is we say that God is not offended by our sins. I am not saying that God is changeable or "hurt" by our sin, but the scriptures seem to indicate that in some way God is offended by our sin. In fact, the scriptures demonstrates that he "hates" our sins.

You're right.  He's wrathful against sin.  I don't mean to cheapen the seriousness of sin.  But at the same time, I tend to see God's wrath as a form of chastisement not mere punishment.  Therefore, to directly "offend" God because of sin is not necessarily make God form a knee-jerk reaction of anger, but God is disappointed and loving enough that He chastises us.  In other words, God centers His purpose around us, not around Himself.  Otherwise, we go to the other extreme, that rather than fixing humanity's ailments, He's only appeasing Himself, His own anger, sort of like a boxing max rather than a physician healing a patient.

When I think of "infinite offense," I think that my fist was big and powerful enough to cause a dent in God.  Really, this is why I cringe at the term.  In other words, offense and sin are infinite, not God.  So why continue using the term if they're not really infinite?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 01:45:58 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,361


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2010, 01:45:44 PM »

So if bringing back the right order of creation is the key point here, then there seems to be no room for an idea of "infinite offense" in your description, as such would go against what you wrote quite beautifully.

So what is the point of Anselm and/or Aquinas (if Anselm doesn't say this) concerning "infinite offense" if God is not offended, but rather we offend ourselves, and that God can only fix what we did to ourselves?
I think we walk into a dangerous and unscriptural place is we say that God is not offended by our sins. I am not saying that God is changeable or "hurt" by our sin, but the scriptures seem to indicate that in some way God is offended by our sin. In fact, the scriptures demonstrates that he "hates" our sins.

You're right.  He's wrathful against sin.  I don't mean to cheapen the seriousness of sin.  But at the same time, I tend to see God's wrath as a form of chastisement not mere punishment.  Therefore, to directly "offend" God because of sin is not necessarily make God form a knee-jerk reaction of anger, but God is disappointed and loving enough that He chastises us.  In other words, God centers His purpose around us, not around Himself.  Otherwise, we go to the other extreme, that rather than fixing humanity's ailments, He's only appeasing Himself, His own anger.

When I think of "infinite offense," I think that my fist was big and powerful enough to cause a dent in God.  Really, this is why I cringe at the term.  In other words, offense and sin are infinite, not God.  So why continue using the term if they're not really infinite?
I agree with pretty much most of what you are saying. I am going to do some more research on this "infinite offense" term this weekend, because you are right. We can't put a dent in God.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2010, 10:58:53 PM »

So if bringing back the right order of creation is the key point here, then there seems to be no room for an idea of "infinite offense" in your description, as such would go against what you wrote quite beautifully.

So what is the point of Anselm and/or Aquinas (if Anselm doesn't say this) concerning "infinite offense" if God is not offended, but rather we offend ourselves, and that God can only fix what we did to ourselves?

Presuming that not all will or do repent....of course.  Has Satan repented and is he now in heaven?  That would be wonderful news because then we could all be free from any concerns of the demonic.

Saint Martin of Tours tells us that Satan in capable of repentance and a return to heaven.

To read what Saint Martin says go to messages 1623

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg428893.html#msg428893
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,709


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2010, 02:33:24 AM »

So if bringing back the right order of creation is the key point here, then there seems to be no room for an idea of "infinite offense" in your description, as such would go against what you wrote quite beautifully.

So what is the point of Anselm and/or Aquinas (if Anselm doesn't say this) concerning "infinite offense" if God is not offended, but rather we offend ourselves, and that God can only fix what we did to ourselves?
I think we walk into a dangerous and unscriptural place is we say that God is not offended by our sins. I am not saying that God is changeable or "hurt" by our sin, but the scriptures seem to indicate that in some way God is offended by our sin. In fact, the scriptures demonstrates that he "hates" our sins.

You're right.  He's wrathful against sin.  I don't mean to cheapen the seriousness of sin.  But at the same time, I tend to see God's wrath as a form of chastisement not mere punishment.  Therefore, to directly "offend" God because of sin is not necessarily make God form a knee-jerk reaction of anger, but God is disappointed and loving enough that He chastises us.  In other words, God centers His purpose around us, not around Himself.  Otherwise, we go to the other extreme, that rather than fixing humanity's ailments, He's only appeasing Himself, His own anger.

When I think of "infinite offense," I think that my fist was big and powerful enough to cause a dent in God.  Really, this is why I cringe at the term.  In other words, offense and sin are infinite, not God.  So why continue using the term if they're not really infinite?
I agree with pretty much most of what you are saying. I am going to do some more research on this "infinite offense" term this weekend, because you are right. We can't put a dent in God.

Looking forward to the results of your research  Smiley
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2010, 02:47:10 AM »


I agree with pretty much most of what you are saying. I am going to do some more research on this "infinite offense" term this weekend, because you are right. We can't put a dent in God.
Christ is Risen!

I say, believe, declare and proclaim that, in my limited understanding of Roman theology, the sins which you, personally, are committing today are an infinite offence against the infinite holiness of God.  It is only thanks to the redemption wrought by Christ on the Cross that God is willing to forgive you your infinite offences against Him.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2010, 08:38:47 AM »


I agree with pretty much most of what you are saying. I am going to do some more research on this "infinite offense" term this weekend, because you are right. We can't put a dent in God.
Christ is Risen!

I say, believe, declare and proclaim that, in my limited understanding of Roman theology, the sins which you, personally, are committing today are an infinite offence against the infinite holiness of God.  It is only thanks to the redemption wrought by Christ on the Cross that God is willing to forgive you your infinite offences against Him.

If and only if you repent those sins which were committed in knowledge and with full consent of the will.  Part of Christ's saving act is to give us the Gospels and the mystery of Baptism so that we may know our sins and repent.  The tears of the penitent are a laver of regeneration just as the waters of Baptism, but without them the heart is a heart of stone and will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but be condemned by its own will to the fires of eternity.

M.
Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2010, 11:59:04 AM »

A number of years ago the Orthodox theologian David B. Hart published an essay on Anselm in the ecumenical journal Pro Ecclesia.  Unfortunately, I cannot find my copy of the article.  He also discusses Anselm in his now famous book The Beauty of the Infinite.  Hart believes that Anselm has been much misunderstood, both in the West and East.  Here is a passage from the book that I found on the internet:

Quote
.. the notion that Christ's death constitutes an appeasement of divine wrath against sin figures more than marginally in the history of Christain reflection upon salvation, especially in the West. Is it not the case, one might at least ask, that the theology of atonement has usually involved some sense that the death of Christ is required by the Father as a transaction that accomplishes reconciliation, and has therefore made God complicit in the violence of sacrifice? The locus classicus of the "substitution theory" of atonement is, of course, the Cur Deus Homo of Anselm .... If one is to reconsider the presence of violence in Christian sacrificial themes, and not do so with quite the peremptory disregard for tradition that Girard evinces, it would be disingenuous (to say the least) to ignore not only Anselm's influence but the claims his theology makes upon Christian thought ...

The argument of Cur Deus Homo ... Every rational creature is created to partake of beatitude in God, Anselm asserts, in return for which the creature owes God perfect obedience, by withholding which humanity offends infinitely against the divine honor and merits death .... the God-man must come, in order to make satisfaction on humanity's defense ....

But Anselm's argument, thus denuded of every nuance and ambiguity that enriches the text from which it is drawn, is susceptible of every causal misconstrual the theological mind can devise .....

... the closer the attention one pays Anselm's argument, the harder it becomes to locate the exact point at which he supposedly breaks from patristic orthodoxy. The divine action follows the same course as in the "classic" model: human sin having disrupted the order of God's good creation, and humanity having been handed over to death and the devil's rule, God enters into a condition of estrangement and slavery to set humanity free .... Anselm's is not a new narrative of salvation. In truth, this facile distinction between a patristic soteriology concerned exclusively with the rescue of humanity from death and a theory of atonement concerned exclusively with remission from guilt - the distinction, that is, between "Physical" and "moral" theories - is supportable, if at all, only in terms of emphasis and imagery; Athanasius, Gregory of nysea, and John of Damascus (to name a few) were no less conscious than Anselm of the guilt overcome by Christ on the cross, nor he any less concerned than they with the Son's campaign against death's dominion .... And it is explicitly not a story about a sustitutionary sacrifice offered as a simple restitution for human guilt, but concerns, rather, the triumph over death, the devil, and sin accomplished in Christ's voluntary self-donation to the Father, which the Father receives (as Gregory the Theologian would say) "by economy", so that its benefits might rebound to those with whom Christ has assumed solidarity ....

Even here, then, in the text that most notoriously expounds the sacrificial logic of atonement, the idea of sacrifice is subverted from within: as the story of Christ's sacrifice belongs not to an ecomony of credit and exchange but to the trinitarian motion of love, it is given entirely as gift - a gift given when it should not have needed to be given again, by God, at a price that we imposed upon him .... the primordiality of the gift is the truth of Christ's paschal donation: the gift God gives in creation continues to be given again, ever more fully, in defiance of all rejection, economy, violence, and indifference; there is no division between justice and mercy in God, on Anselm's account, because both belong already to the giving of the gift - which precedes, exceeds, and annuls all debt.

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2010, 01:09:48 PM »

In the same vein as Father Al's immediately preceding post:

The Truth of the Resurrection | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | From Introduction to Christianity

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/ratzinger_resurrectionitc_mar07.asp

To the Christian, faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an expression of certainty that the saying that seems to be only a beautiful dream is in fact true: "Love is strong as death" (Song 8:6). In the Old Testament this sentence comes in the middle of praises of the power of eros. But this by no means signifies that we can simply push it aside as a lyrical exaggeration. The boundless demands of eros", its apparent exaggerations and extravagance, do in reality give expression to a basic problem, indeed the" basic problem of human existence, insofar as they reflect the nature and intrinsic paradox of love: love demands infinity, indestructibility; indeed, it is, so to speak, a call for infinity. But it is also a fact that this cry of love's cannot be satisfied, that it demands infinity but cannot grant it; that it claims eternity but in fact is included in the world of death, in its loneliness and its power of destruction. Only from this angle can one understand what "resurrection" means. It is" the greater strength of love in face of death.

At the same time it is proof of what only immortality can create: being in the other who still stands when I have fallen apart. Man is a being who himself does not live forever but is necessarily delivered up to death. For him, since he has no continuance in himself, survival, from a purely human point of view, can only become possible through his continuing to exist in another. The statements of Scripture about the connection between sin and death are to he understood from this angle. For it now becomes clear that man's attempt "to be like God", his striving for autonomy, through which he wishes to stand on his own feet alone, means his death, for he just cannot stand on his own. If man--and this is the real nature of sin--nevertheless refuses to recognize his own limits and tries to be completely self-sufficient, then precisely by adopting this attitude he delivers himself up to death.

Of course man does understand that his life alone does not endure and that he must therefore strive to exist in others, so as to remain through them and in them in the land of the living. Two ways in particular have been tried. First, living on in one's own children: that is why in primitive peoples failure to marry and childlessness are regarded as the most terrible curse; they mean hopeless destruction, final death. Conversely, the largest possible number of children offers at the same time the greatest possible chance of survival, hope of immortality, and thus the most genuine blessing that man can expect. Another way discloses itself when man discovers that in his children he only continues to exist in a very unreal way; he wants more of himself to remain. So he takes refuge in the idea of fame, which should make him really immortal if be lives on through all ages in the memory of others. But this second attempt of man's to obtain immortality for himself by existing in others fails just as badly as the first: what remains is not the self but only its echo, a mere shadow. So self-made immortality is really only a Hades, a sheol": more nonbeing than being. The inadequacy of both ways lies partly in the fact that the other person who holds my being after my death cannot carry this being itself but only its echo; and even more in the fact that even time other person to whom I have, so to speak, entrusted my continuance will not last--he, too, will perish.

This leads us to the next step. We have seen so far that man has no permanence in himself. And consequently can only continue to exist in another but that his existence in another is only shadowy and once again not final, because this other must perish, too. If this is so, then only one could truly give lasting stability: he who is, who does not come into existence and pass away again but abides in the midst of transience: the God of the living, who does not hold just the shadow and echo of my being, whose ideas are not just copies of reality. I myself am his thought, which establishes me more securely, so to speak, than I am in myself; his thought is not the posthumous shadow but the original source and strength of my being. In him I can stand as more than a shadow; in him I am truly closer to myself than I should be if I just tried to stay by myself.

Before we return from here to the Resurrection, let us try to see the same thing once again from a somewhat different side. We can start again from the dictum about love and death and say: Only where someone values love more highly than life, that is, only where someone is ready to put life second to love, for the sake of love, can love be stronger and more than death. If it is to be more than death, it must first be more than mere life. But if it could be this, not just in intention but in reality, then that would mean at the same time that the power of love had risen superior to the power of the merely biological and taken it into its service. To use Teilhard de Chardin's terminology; where that took place, the decisive complexity or "complexification" would have occurred; bios, too, would be encompassed by and incorporated in the power of love. It would cross the boundary--death--and create unity where death divides. If the power of love for another were so strong somewhere that it could keep alive not just his memory, the shadow of his "I", but that person himself, then a new stage in life would have been reached. This would mean that the realm of biological evolutions and mutations had been left behind and the leap made to a quite different plane, on which love was no longer subject to bios but made use of it. Such a final stage of "mutation" and "evolution" would itself no longer be a biological stage; it would signify the end of the sovereignty of bios, which is at the same time the sovereignty of death; it would open up the realm that the Greek Bible calls zoe, that is, definitive life, which has left behind the rule of death. The last stage of evolution needed by the world to reach its goal would then no longer be achieved within the realm of biology but by the spirit, by freedom, by love. It would no longer be evolution but decision and gift in one.

But what has all this to do, it may be asked, with faith in the Resurrection of Jesus? Well, we previously considered the question of the possible immortality of man from two sides, which now turn out to be aspects of one and. the same state of affairs. We said that, as man has no permanence in himself, his survival could. only be brought about by his living on in another. And we said, from the point of view of this "other", that only the love that takes up the beloved in itself, into its own being, could make possible this existence in the other. These two complementary aspects are mirrored again, so it seems to me, in the two New Testament ways of describing the Resurrection of the Lord: "Jesus has risen" and "God (the Father) has awakened Jesus." The two formulas meet in the fact that Jesus' total love for men, which leads him to the Cross, is perfected in totally passing beyond to the Father and therein becomes stronger than death, because in this it is at the same time total "being held" by him.

From this a further step results. We can now say that love always establishes some kind of immortality; even in its prehuman stage, it points, in the form of preservation of the species, in this direction. Indeed, this founding of immortality is not something incidental to love, not one thing that it does among others, but what really gives it its specific character. This principle can be reversed; it then signifies that immortality always" proceeds from love, never out of the autarchy of that which is sufficient to itself. We may even be bold enough to assert that this principle, properly understood, also applies even to God as he is seen by the Christian faith. God, too, is absolute permanence, as opposed to everything transitory, for the reason that he is the relation of three Persons to one another, their incorporation in the "for one another" of love, act-substance of the love that is absolute and therefore completely "relative", living only "in relation to". As we said earlier, it is not autarchy, which knows no one but itself, that is divine; what is revolutionary about the Christian view of the world and of God, we found, as opposed to those of antiquity, is that it learns to understand the "absolute" as absolute "relatedness", as relatio subsistens.

To return to our argument, love is the foundation of immortality, and immortality proceeds from love alone. This statement to which we have now worked our way also means that he who has love for all has established immortality for all. That is precisely the meaning of the biblical statement that his Resurrection is our life. The--to us--curious reasoning of St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians now becomes comprehensible: if he has risen, then we have, too, for then love is stronger than death; if he has not risen, then we have not either, for then the situation is still that death has the last word, nothing else (cf. I Cor 15:16f.). Since this is a statement of central importance, let us spell it out once again in a different way: Either love is stronger than death, or it is not. If it has become so in him, then it became so precisely as love for others. This also means, it is true, that our own love, left to itself, is not sufficient to overcome death; taken in itself it would have to remain an unanswered cry. It means that only his love, coinciding with God's own power of life and love, can be the foundation of our immortality. Nevertheless, it still remains true that the mode of our immortality will depend on our mode of loving. We shall have to return to this in the section on the Last Judgment.

A further point emerges from this discussion. Given the foregoing considerations, it goes without saying that the life of him who has risen from the dead is not once again bios, the biological form of our mortal life within history; it is zoe, new, different, definitive life; life that has stepped beyond the mortal realm of bios and history, a realm that has here been surpassed by a greater power. And in fact the Resurrection narratives of the New Testament allow us to see clearly that the life of the Risen One lies, not within the historical bios, but beyond and above it. It is also true, of course, that this new life begot itself in history and had to do so, because after all it is there for history, and the Christian message is basically nothing else than the transmission of the testimony that love has managed to break through death here and thus has transformed fundamentally the situation of all of us. Once we have realized this, it is no longer difficult to find the right kind of hermeneutics for the difficult business of expounding the biblical Resurrection narratives, that is, to acquire a clear understanding of the sense in which they must properly be understood. Obviously we cannot attempt here a detailed discussion of the questions involved, which today present themselves in a more difficult form than ever before; especially as historical and--for the most part inadequately pondered--philosophical statements are becoming more and more inextricably intertwined, and exegesis itself quite often produces its own philosophy, which is intended to appear to the layman as a supremely refined distillation of the biblical evidence. Many points of detail will here always remain open to discussion, but it is possible to recognize a fundamental dividing line between explanation that remains explanation and arbitrary adaptations [to contemporary ways of thinking].

First of all, it is quite clear that after his Resurrection Christ did not go back to his previous earthly life, as we are told the young man of Nain and Lazarus did. He rose again to definitive life, which is no longer governed by chemical and biological laws and therefore stands outside the possibility of death, in the eternity conferred by love. That is why the encounters with him are "appearances"; that is why he with whom people had sat at table two days earlier is not recognized by his best friends and, even when recognized, remains foreign: only where he grants vision is he seen; only when he opens men's eyes and makes their hearts open up can the countenance of the eternal love that conquers death become recognizable in our mortal world, and, in that love, the new, different world, the world of him who is to come. That is also why it is so difficult, indeed absolutely impossible, for the Gospels to describe the encounter with the risen Christ; that is why they can only stammer when they speak of these meetings and seem to provide contradictory descriptions of them. In reality they are surprisingly unanimous in the dialectic of their statements, in the simultaneity of touching and not touching, or recognizing and not recognizing, of complete identity between the crucified and the risen Christ and complete transformation. People recognize the Lord and yet do not recognize him again; people touch him, and yet he is untouchable; he is the same and yet quite different. As we have said, the dialectic is always the same; it is only the stylistic means by which it is expressed that changes.

For example, let us examine a little more closely from this point of view the Emmaus story, which we have already touched upon briefly. At first sight it looks as if we are confronted here with a completely earthly and material notion of resurrection; as if nothing remains of the mysterious and indescribable elements to be found in the Pauline accounts. It looks as if the tendency to detailed depiction, to the concreteness of legend, supported by the apologist's desire for something tangible, had completely won the upper hand and fetched the risen Lord right back into earthly history. But this impression is soon contradicted by his mysterious appearance and his no less mysterious disappearance. The notion is contradicted even more by the fact that here, too, he remains unrecognizable to the accustomed eye. He cannot be firmly grasped as he could be in the time of his earthly life; he is discovered only in the realm of faith; he sets the hearts of the two travelers aflame by his interpretation of the Scriptures and by breaking bread he opens their eyes. This is a reference to the two basic elements in early Christian worship, which consisted of the liturgy of the word (the reading and expounding of Scripture) and the eucharistic breaking of bread. In this way the evangelist makes it clear that the encounter with the risen Christ lies on a quite new plane; he tries to describe the indescribable in terms of the liturgical facts. He thereby provides both a theology of the Resurrection and a theology of the liturgy: one encounters the risen Christ in the word and in the sacrament; worship is the way in which he becomes touchable to us and, recognizable as the living Christ. And conversely, the liturgy is based on the mystery of Easter; it is to he understood as the Lords approach to us. In it he becomes our traveling companion, sets our dull hearts aflame, and opens our sealed eyes. He still walks with us, still finds us worried and downhearted, and still has the power to make us see.

Of course, all this is only half the story; to stop at this alone would mean falsifying the evidence of the New Testament. Experience of the risen Christ is something other than a meeting with a man from within our history, and it must certainly not be traced back to conversations at table and recollections that would have finally crystallized in the idea that he still lived and went about his business. Such an interpretation reduces what happened to the purely human level and robs it of its specific quality. The Resurrection narratives are something other and more than disguised liturgical scenes: they make visible the founding event on which all Christian liturgy rests. They testify to an approach that did not rise from the hearts of the disciples but came to them from outside, convinced them despite their doubts and made them certain that the Lord had truly risen. He who lay in the grave is no longer there; he--really he himself--lives. He who had been transposed into the other world of God showed himself powerful enough to make it palpably clear that he himself stood in their presence again, that in him the power of love had really proved itself stronger than the power of death.

Only by taking this just as seriously as what we said first does one remain faithful to the witness borne by the New Testament; only thus, too, is its seriousness in world history preserved. The comfortable attempt to spare oneself the belief in the mystery of God's mighty actions in this world and yet at the same time to have the satisfaction of remaining on the foundation of the biblical message leads nowhere; it measures up neither to the honesty of reason nor to the claims of faith. One cannot have both the Christian faith and "religion within the bounds of pure reason"; a choice is unavoidable. He who believes will see more and more clearly, it is true, how rational it is to have faith in the love that has conquered death.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 01:10:16 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2010, 05:21:58 PM »

A number of years ago the Orthodox theologian David B. Hart published an essay on Anselm in the ecumenical journal Pro Ecclesia. 

Christ is Risen!

I confess that I do not know of David Hart.  But then of course that is understandable since I live in a distant corner of the world.    Are there any Orthodox here who know of him and can tell us how he is viewed by the Church, Orthodox theologians?
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2010, 05:56:09 PM »

Perhaps also of interest:

Nicholas Cohen, Feudal Imagery or Christian Tradition?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #65 on: May 08, 2010, 06:07:36 PM »

David Hart from Beauty of the Infinite:

+++++++++++++++++++++

.. the notion that Christ's death constitutes an appeasement of divine wrath against sin figures more than marginally in the history of Christain reflection upon salvation, especially in the West. Is it not the case, one might at least ask, that the theology of atonement has usually involved some sense that the death of Christ is required by the Father as a transaction that accomplishes reconciliation, and has therefore made God complicit in the violence of sacrifice? The locus classicus of the "substitution theory" of atonement is, of course, the Cur Deus Homo of Anselm .... If one is to reconsider the presence of violence in Christian sacrificial themes, and not do so with quite the peremptory disregard for tradition that Girard evinces, it would be disingenuous (to say the least) to ignore not only Anselm's influence but the claims his theology makes upon Christian thought ...

The argument of Cur Deus Homo ... Every rational creature is created to partake of beatitude in God, Anselm asserts, in return for which the creature owes God perfect obedience, by withholding which humanity offends infinitely against the divine honor and merits death .... the God-man must come, in order to make satisfaction on humanity's defense ....

But Anselm's argument, thus denuded of every nuance and ambiguity that enrivhes the text from which it is drawn, is susceptible of every causal misconstrual the theological mind can devise .....

... the closer the attention one pays Anselm's argument, the harder it becomes to locate the exact point at which he supposedly breaks from patristic orthodoxy. The divine action follows the same course as in the "classic" model: human sin having disrupted the order of God's good creation, and humanity having been handed over to death and the devil's rule, God enters into a condition of estrangement and slavery to set humanity free .... Anselm's is not a new narrative of salvation. In truth, this facile distinction between a patristic soteriology concerned exclusively with the rescue of humanity from death and a theory of atonement concerned exclusively with remission from guilt - the distinction, that is, between "Physical" and "moral" theories - is supportable, if at all, only in terms of emphasis and imagery; Athanasius, Gregory of nysea, and John of Damascus (to name a few) were no less conscious than Anselm of the guilt overcome by Christ on the cross, nor he any less concerned than they with the Son's campaign against death's dominion .... And it is explicitly not a story about a sustitutionary sacrifice offered as a simple restitution for human guilt, but concerns, rather, the triumph over death, the devil, and sin accomplished in Christ's voluntary self-donation to the Father, which the Father receives (as Gregory the Theologian would say) "by economy", so that its benefits might rebound to those with whom Christ has assumed solidarity ....

Even here, then, in the text that most notoriously expounds the sacrificial logic of atonement, the idea of sacrifice is subverted from within: as the story of Christ's sacrifice belongs not to an ecomony of credit and exchange but to the trinitarian motion of love, it is given entirely as gift - a gift given when it should not have needed to be given again, by God, at a price that we imposed upon him .... the primordiality of the gift is the truth of Christ's paschal donation: the gift God gives in creation continues to be given again, ever more fully, in defiance of all rejection, economy, violence, and indifference; there is no division between justice and mercy in God, on Anselm's account, because both belong already to the giving of the gift - which precedes, exceeds, and annuls all debt.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #66 on: May 08, 2010, 06:56:48 PM »

David Hart from Beauty of the Infinite:


Not knowing who David Hart is nor how he is assessed by the Orthodox, I looked him up on Wiki.  He seems to be known among Protestants and Anglicans but not to the Orthodox.   Are there Orthodox on the Forum who can say something about how he is seen in America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bentley_Hart
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,202


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #67 on: May 08, 2010, 07:21:07 PM »

David Hart from Beauty of the Infinite:


Not knowing who David Hart is nor how he is assessed by the Orthodox, I looked him up on Wiki.  He seems to be known among Protestants and Anglicans but not to the Orthodox.   Are there Orthodox on the Forum who can say something about how he is seen in America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bentley_Hart

For my part, I'm afraid I don't know much. I have seen a couple people recommend his book Atheist Delusions, but apart from that I am unfamiliar with him.
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 08, 2010, 10:35:53 PM »

David Bentley Hart
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2010, 01:29:27 AM »

Father,

I have already referenced that Wiki article and pointed out that he seems to be known in some Protestant and Anglican circles.   It is his street cred among the Orthodox which interests me.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2010, 07:53:42 PM »

Father,

I have already referenced that Wiki article and pointed out that he seems to be known in some Protestant and Anglican circles.   It is his street cred among the Orthodox which interests me.


He has been panned rather severely on the Ochlophobist blog, as well as this one rather significant faux pas: http://pactum-serva.blogspot.com/2009/12/reason-36-why-eastern-orthodox.html

He has taken some heat on the 'net for editing his own Wikipedia page, though I would not know how to verify that.

His detractors have taken to calling him 'DBH.'
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #71 on: May 10, 2010, 11:19:51 AM »

Father,

I have already referenced that Wiki article and pointed out that he seems to be known in some Protestant and Anglican circles.   It is his street cred among the Orthodox which interests me.


He has been panned rather severely on the Ochlophobist blog, as well as this one rather significant faux pas: http://pactum-serva.blogspot.com/2009/12/reason-36-why-eastern-orthodox.html

He has taken some heat on the 'net for editing his own Wikipedia page, though I would not know how to verify that.

His detractors have taken to calling him 'DBH.'


Missing a plane is a faux pas that indicates that you are not a true Orthodox thinker?  Cheesy  Jest kidden'!!

I wonder how he would respond to the assertion that David Hart is the 21st Century's American answer to Father Lev Gillet?
Logged

thetraditionalfrog
Traditional Frog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 197



« Reply #72 on: May 10, 2010, 01:17:45 PM »

Quote
Most catechism debates I've been in seem to boil down to the 'Rainbow Series' versus the 'Carlton Series' versus the 'Ware Series' (I use the latter two).

I was catechised using Fr Michael Pomanzansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology over a period of six months. I also met individually with Father as well. My parish still does the same. Of course, the already Orthodox are welcome and encouraged to attend as well... makes a great refresher course!
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 01:20:49 PM by thetraditionalfrog » Logged

“For the honorable Cross and golden freedom!” -Sv Lazar

 “Give up everything for Christ, but Christ for nothing!” -Sv Sava
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 56 queries.