Posted on 03/06/2015 12:02:35 PM PST by NRx
... Now, with regard to Christian theology, the position both of the Eastern-Hellenic and the Western-Latin traditions appears initially the same as that of ancient philosophy. Thus, Origen on the one hand reassures us (De Princ. II, 9,2 · In Joh. 4, II, 17) that God is not the Creator of evil (no longer with a capital E, since only God comprises the true Being) and that it does not possess a hypostasis or life or essence of its own, but exists as a denial of Good - an idea that we shall encounter many times in Western thought, up until Hegel. Augustine on the other hand (for example Conf.III, 7, 12) similarly reassures us that evil does not exist as one among beings, but is encountered as a denial of Good, privatio boni. It is a mere absence of Good, whose creator of course is not God (De quaest. 83, 24).
Nevertheless, with Augustine begins a series of huge problems on the subject of evil, which continue to torment both East and West, to this day. You will understand what I mean, when I mention that Augustine is, on the one hand, the one who linked evil to the renowned (as named by him during the year 396) "Original Sin" which, to him is a historical event - much like the siege of Troy or the Persian wars - an entirely inconceivable notion for the Hellenic-speaking Patristic tradition however. So now it is Sin that "gives birth" to Evil, and not vice-versa. To understand the difference, I will point out that for Saint Maximos the Confessor (for example) the cause of Evil is the "ex nihilo" creation of the world; in other words, it exists, not only towards the direction of Being, but also in another direction - towards the "decomposition" (apogenesin) of beings: evil -fundamentally- is a deterioration of the being, and not a "moral" event. Thus, while for Saint Maximos (or Athanasius the Great) it is precisely the primeval seed of nihil inside the bowels of the being that gives birth to the potential of sin and consequently of evil (if and provided it is activated by Man's free will), for Augustine it -reversely- is the moral decision of humans (Adam and Eve) that gave birth to evil (with all its guilt); Augustine is the... father of guilt, in the West.
This has an immense impact at the level of ontology. And yet, with all the above, evil was regarded by Augustine as something "invented" by man (abetted of course by the devil, whose position however is not a powerful enough one - something not so unusual in Augustine's work), even though this invention reveals a complete and witting destruction of man's nature. In other words, with this invention man showed that his nature - albeit created innocent and good by God - wittingly became evil in essence, especially female nature; because woman (even before her encounter with the Serpent-Devil) already had within her the thirst for power and the audacity for an easy acquisition of divinity, into which she guilefully dragged Adam also, thus proving him to be similar to her. In plain words, according to Augustinian theology man is not evil because he wittingly or after being fooled participates in - and abandons himself to - the worldly deterioration that is already under way, but because he himself finds deterioration within his own nature. (I am not ignorant of the possibility that we can find similar positions in the Hellenic-speaking Fathers, however, I think that these do not prevail theoretically in the Patristic tradition, inasmuch as they probably have the character of a kerygma**). Thus was born the idea of inherited guilt, as well as that of absolute predestination. Given that man's nature is now absolutely perverted, it is impossible for man to truly seek God and His Grace - the latter can only be an involuntary and irresistible (a word that Augustine characteristically uses) gift of God, to those whom He - for unknown reasons - prefers. the rest are just a doomed crowd: "massa damnata". But this way, very little is mentioned about man's freedom. Indeed, human freedom is of minimal significance here; or, rather, there is no freedom at all - as a choice - but only as a compulsory acceptance of the irresistible Grace of God.
(Read the rest at the linked site.)
I would take issue with the author's claim of "inherited guilt", but beyond that I appreciate this insight into Orthodox thinking on the subject. Has there been any specific Orthodox theological response to the issues of Arminianism or Pelagianism in western theology?
Interesting read, totally devoid of Sciptural support.
I’ll give it a 4.
The problem is that evil isn’t a thing, it is an action. It is the unwillingness to follow God and an attempt to pervert His will.
Evil began in the spiritual realm when Satan and his followers rebelled against God. Evil began in the physical realm when Adam and Eve sinned against God.
Furthermore, I think this is not an ontological problem, its a taxonomical problem.
There is more to philosophy than the Bible.
That was my take on it also. Totally carnal thinking. Satan was the one who originally rebelled against God and Eve listened to Satan rather than to God.
There is plenty of Christianity that is philosophical. This is why RC priests usually have a philosophy degree prior to studying theology. The same thought processes apply.
Now I would go as far as say there is nothing in common between Modern or Contemporary philosophy and Christianity...
You know, I don’t think the problem most people have is with the existence of evil as much as how God deals with it.
It seems like God apparently doing nothing to stop it or remedy it (on our time frame) is what trips people up more than the fact that it exists.
The problem is that spiritual truths are spiritually discerned, and man, by his own wisdom, cannot come into spiritual truth through human reasoning and thinking (philosophy as it were).
Men MUST be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand the things of God.
Which is likely why we will never come up with an adequate explanation of why evil exists and why God appears to be doing nothing to stop it.
-— The problem is that spiritual truths are spiritually discerned, and man, by his own wisdom, cannot come into spiritual truth through human reasoning and thinking (philosophy as it were). -—
FYI, that’s a metaphysical claim.
Since Jesus is Truth Itself, all truth is God’s truth. The ancient pagan philosophers who followed truth, to the best of their abilities, were following Jesus implicitly.
Paul told these ancient Greeks that he would tell them more about their “unknown god,” because he had the benefit of having received divine revelation, inaccessible by reason alone.
No, it's not. God tells us that in Scripture.
Paul told these ancient Greeks that he would tell them more about their “unknown god,” because he had the benefit of having received divine revelation, inaccessible by reason alone.
You just countered your own claim.......
But for the purpose of this topic is seems that is all philosophical. At least Arminians try to ground their arguments in Scripture.
And BTW, what is the true benefit of earning a philosophy degree and then seminary? Granted we have folks whondo that, but it is not the norm. Seems kind of backwards to me. Just my 0.02 cents
The existence of God is evident by the world around us, which is bad news as that does nothing but condemn us.
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” (Is. 1:18 KJV)
We study theology in the seminary, which uses the same processes as philosophy, but the data comes from Scripture.
Not many pay attention to it anymore, but ancient Greek philosophy was all about determining meaning and one’s purpose in a greater pattern. This is why the Church Fathers were quick to pick it up, since Scripture also does that. It teaches people how they fit in God’s plan of salvation, which is a story that continues today.
Modern and Contemporary philosophy discard the search for purpose in life to focus on the process of ethics. Three hundred years after the start of the Enlightenment, we have nothing but factions in ethics that are based on the opinion of the movement founders, as if they were gods pronouncing what is right and wrong. Many in the academia who do Modern and Contemporary philosophy bristle when you use the word Truth with the capital T. They deny there is such a thing.
God’s laws are answer to the question of “How should I live as a person in God’s creation.” Philosophy should be an inquiry of why He formulated them that way, or it does nobody any good.
Teleology is out. But it's something that we all assume in our everyday actions. One important thing that distinguishes Aristotle from almost all modern philosophers is that he didn't bend reality to fit his theories.
Many in the academia who do Modern and Contemporary philosophy bristle when you use the word Truth with the capital T. They deny there is such a thing.
Which tells you that, at bottom, it's a spiritual problem, since we know who Truth is.
“Augustine is the father if guilt in the west ...; (Original Sin named by him in the year 396)”
The concept of original sin is inherent in the Adam and Eve story. (Genesis 1:19) Because Adam (and Eve) now return to dust, they brought death into the world that God had created. They did this from their own free will. The doctrine would have come to light inevitably by anyone studying Genesis and deducing the obvious conclusions:
We know with absolute certainty that effects of Adam and Eve’s sin in disobeying God’s Will was passed to their offspring. This is because the immediate offspring and all subsequent generations of man became subject to the law of death (and toil, etc) too. If not, those subsequent offspring would have been free from death as Adam and Eve were before their choice to turn away from God. Only Adam and Eve would have died, Cain and Able, et al., would have lived on, or at least until they themselves sinned.
If ONLY Adam and Eve were affected by their sin, their offspring would not have died, just the two of them.
The earliest fathers realized this, even though they may not have called it original sin, per se. Irenaeus refers to infant baptism in 189 A.D. in his treatise “Against Heresies”; he realized that there was guilt to be washed away. Hippolytus and Origen took this position as well; in the 200’s both wrote of the need for infant baptism (and all baptism), well before Augustine. Clearly they recognized that there was sin to be washed away, and for infants it wasn’t personal sin, or course.
Free will is the cause of evil in this world. God gave us free will because he wanted us to love and serve him freely; otherwise his creation would not have been perfect. Augustine certainly taught that man’s nature is inherently good and clearly takes this position in “The City of God”. Evil is the absence of love for God. God does not create evil, He can’t, He is only good. He allows it because His creatures would not be in His image if they could not reason.
The problem of evil is not that complicated, actually. Evil comes from man’s (and the fallen angels’ choice to not choose God- look at what happened to Lucifer!)
Those who have trouble with evil and think that its existence is a reason to lose their Faith have lost sight of the fact or refuse to acknowledge that mankind has a destination that is free of evil (heaven). Here on this fallen earth, this is a pilgrimage, not our final stop. God would be evil if this life here WAS it, but we have a chance to love and serve him here, and get to heaven due to the Redeemer’s work on the cross.
I should have written: “that the effects of original sin ... were passed to their offspring.”
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.