Posted on 02/15/2004 10:57:05 PM PST by lockeliberty
No, I am not the author and I am still working through to try and understand all of the nuances the author presents. Creation was declared "very good." The ontological status of man and creation as good was thus the only ontological status. Thus, it is a misconception to consider the antithesis (evil,sin,Satan) as a part of the original creation. Dualism is then giving the antithesis a necessary reality. Dualism gives the antithesis a certain structure within the world, a place of it's own. Antithesis is directional. It points us back to our original ontological status. The claims is that nothing in this world can be purely good or purely evil. The antithesis has layed claim on all parts of this world but the Thesis also is "reconciling all things to Himself."
I've read some of Dooyeweerd's philosophical writings and my head nearly exploded. What's your take on Dooyeweerd?
Or am I missing the point completely?
I just looked it up. I've not read it, but it looks like Dupre has. Thanks for the recommendation.
I read de Lubac's The Drama of Atheistic Humanism before I had read any of the authors he studied in that work. A re-read is definitely in order.
The discussion on this thread is outstanding. Thank you so much for posting the article!
From the onset, there was something that just didn’t seem right as the author is speaking of the early Christian theology incorporating Greek philosophy. I finally figured out what was bothering me…
The Jewish people were under Hellenistic rule from about 334 B.C., i.e. Greek philosophy was infused in Jewish thought and culture long before Christ was born.
I have to be honest with you AG. What I see is that you and betty have reassigned Plato to the role of John the Baptist, the one came before. We have God's special revelation to the Jewish people and Plato is not mentioned, nor are his dualist categories. Hopefully I will have a response soon to logos' fine question which will in turn rebut the Platonic position.
Then you have misunderstood. John the Baptist is the precurser, the one who prepared the way for the Christ in Spirit, to prepare human souls. Plato and the Greeks are no way near to this astounding dignity. For their influence was mainly on the intellectual culture of the time. I do not see why it is necessary to pit Plato against John as if they were in any sense rivals. In no way do I believe that.
I would also like to point out that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of specific Old Testament prophesy.
Biblical prophesy wasn't only to convince the world of God's power. If that were the case, prophecies about weather and such would do. The prophecies reveal important markers towards the arrival of God's kingdom.
I do find it interesting (and have noted it several times) that the prophet Daniel spoke of Alexander the Great very clearly.
It was the prophesy itself which caused Alexander to deal kindly with the Jewish people. It is also significant that Alexander normalized the Greek language throughout the empire. Where language goes, philosophy follows. Philosophy is fundamentally, after all, a matter of definition, of understanding.
I truly believe God planned all of this so that the people alive in Christ's time would have the conceptual understanding and language capability to receive and spread the Gospel.
But that does not mean I believe Plato was of the same stature of John the Baptist. Plato's contribution was as betty boop said, to the intellect - not the soul.
Is it possible - just a thought before I dig deeply into all the rest of this - that Christian dualism springs from the difficulty that most Christians have in realizing that they already participate in eternal life? In other words, that we tend to look forward to some unspecified future date and destination, failing to realize that we've already arrived now? "In the world but not of the world" must have some meaning greater than simple human aspiration, don't you think?
that Christian dualism springs from the difficulty that most Christians have in realizing that they already participate in eternal life? In other words, that we tend to look forward to some unspecified future date and destination, failing to realize that we've already arrived now?
I'm not convinced that it springs from the ignorance most Christians have of thier present kingdom authority but rather Platonic dualism that has infested Christian theology is the cause of that lack of knowledge. Following Platonic theory we are just "hovering" between earth and heaven in some sort of synthetic no-mans land reaching for the sky while being pulled by some sort of evil grativational force toward the earth. With that sort of mindset it is only natural that the natural is considered evil.
Thank you so much for writing -- will be in touch soon.
This site goes down soon for maintenance. Expanding these remarks will have to wait.
Meanwhile, thank you truly for sharing your thoughts.
logos, I agree with your sense concerning how many Christians view themselves as being either "here" or "there" - not realizing that the "there" is "here" when a believer has been born again (Romans 8, John 3). Spiritual awareness takes time/trial/patience, IMHO - and without it, I don't see how one could rationalize it as anything other than a dualism.
lockeliberty, the "in between" communication of the soul/spirit has been the subject of Jewish mysticism from the beginning. The Kabbalists claim that such traditions were passed down verbally from Adam, that writing such Holy matters was forbidden. I believe that is what the word actually means.
Notwithstanding the Kabbalists, there is much discussion of soul/spirit on traditional Jewish websites. Sadly, the New Age movement has picked up on also and have their own form of mysticism using the same terms.
The "in between" has to do with the words used in the Torah. In Genesis 1, the word nephesh is used to describe the soul of animals. In Genesis 2, the word neshama is used to describe the breath of God given Adam so that he would be a living soul.
In Jewish mysticism there are even more words, ascending as follows: nephesh, ruach, neshama, chaya and yeshida.
The idea is that the ruach is the spiritual arrow within a man (free will) where he decides to either be carnally minded (nephesh) or Godly (neshama). The levels above neshama have to do with becoming ever more spiritual. At least that is the way I understand what I have read. LOL!
This hierarchical communicating soul/spirit structure appears to be quite similar to Plato's metaxy. Perhaps the thinkers arrived at similiar ideas from different directions, or perhaps Plato picked it up in studying the Torah in Egypt as I recall being mentioned in one of Justin Martyr's papers.
Ah, I see I have not made myself crystal clear; let me clear that up.
I really wasn't speaking to the ignorance that many young Christians have concerning their present citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven. I had more in mind those mature Christians who, knowing they already participate in eternal life, still are unable to live out the faith they proclaim.
I think the case has been made that everywhere Christianity has gone in the world it has taken on the patina of the new culture in which it finds itself. Clearly, looking only at the outward manifestations of the faith, there is a difference between "Western" Christianity and Christianity as practiced on the continent of Africa, or in middle China, as just two examples. We seem unable to pull our feet out of the muck of whatever corner of the world in which we find ourselves and walk the golden streets of heaven. Certainly the influences of Plato in first century Christendom are another example, but it doesn't seem to me that Plato should take the blame for the manifestations of Indio/Hispanic culture found in the faith as practiced in Central America.
I have become somewhat amused by the various attempts over the years by different sects, if you will, that have attempted to "return to the first century church", which itself was aculturized by the Mediteranean (sp) society in which it lived. I'm amused because, while I do think such attempts are valid and faithful, no one ever seems to want to go the extra step and practice the faith like the One who introduced it into the world in the first place, Jesus Christ Himself. Somehow the thought seems to be that "if we can trade our post-modern culture for the culture of first century Jerusalem and Rome, we'll be much better Christians". I doubt that's true; at best it's a trading of the culture we know for a culture we only think we know.
Perhaps it's because we are unable to practice Christianity as Christ did. Granted, it sure wouldn't be an easy task to undertake. When I read the gospels looking for Christ's manner and method of ministry, here is what I see:
He made no direct attempt to establish an institutional church anywhere or by any particular liturgy or doctrine. He made no mention of denomination, sect, cult, or derivation of faith at all. He established no dogma or doctrine, although I hasten to add that we humans immediately fashioned our own doctrines and attached them to His words just as soon as He was out of our presence. (I'm not saying there is no doctrine to be found in the gospels; I'm just saying that any there is, at best, indirectly alluded to rather than firmly established by our Lord.) So, how did Jesus "do ministry"?
Wherever He woke on any given day He set out along the Way; speaking, teaching, healing and otherwise dealing with whomever He met as He traveled. He seemingly gave no thought most of the time to what direction He traveled, nor did He often seem to have any particular destination in mind. Wherever He found Himself at night, He (presumably) found a place to sleep, from where the next morning He arose and did it all over again. He left no "house churches" in His wake, constructed no cathedrals or temples, and from all evidence gave very little thought to His earthly surroundings (we know He was very aware of the earth and all its glory, however, for it was the trappings of the earth which punctuated His parables).
The closest thing I can find to Jesus' model of ministry in history is the story of Johnny Appleseed, and I don't think that had quite the same goals in mind. I can't think of a single Christian known to history who followed His model of ministry. Perhaps some of the early Christian monks came closest, but I think it's telling that, by and large, they are unknown to history.
In short, I don't know of course, but I have to wonder if this (Jesus' ministry) isn't what Bonhoeffer was thinking about when he began talking about "religionless Christianity". And again, I hasten to add that I couldn't do it myself. I don't see how I could minister after the manner of Jesus ... and still have a wife and family. We "know" the glories of heaven, but we are unable to give up the comforts of the world. I think that is our dualism. Our heads are in the clouds, but our feet are stuck in the mud of everyday concerns.
If we are ever able to slough off the dualism which I think is a condition of our humanity, we will have to find a way to introduce our heads to our feet, so to speak, and I think that is only possible ... and barely at that ... through the avenue of our hearts. And if you must know, I see this forum as a microcosm of the problem; there are many here from practically all persuasions of Christianity who have filled their minds with the intricacies of Scripture, but who, from their manner of speaking to each other, give very little evidence that they have ever opened their hearts to Christ.
Long story short, in my view we are dualists because we are humans, and no matter how often we tell ourselves that we are citizens of heaven and only sojourners in the world we can't ever quite act like we truly and fully believe that.
Whether all that can be laid at the feet of Plato, I'll leave to bb. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.