Posted on 02/24/2004 12:46:27 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
Rebecca Hagelin asks, "Can you handle the Truth?" in today's, WorldNetDaily. "If you only go to the movies to be entertained, don't go see The Passion of the Christ," she said, adding "but if you want to experience an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine, you must see The Passion of the Christ.
If the portrayal of death and suffering are now, "an artistic achievement beyond any scale you could imagine," Sadam Hussein and the Taliban have been greatly misjudge. They were only misunderstood artists. Instead of having our stomachs turned at the images of Taliban atrocities and Sadam's sadistic tortures we should be exulting in these images of such artistic importance.
The only real difference between glorying in the portrayal of suffering and death in Gibson's film, or the actual images of its modern day counterpart, is that Gibson's is a fake. That does not deter the superstitious masses who hold suffering, pain, and death as their highest ideals, however. It is what their God, whom they believe condemns the vast majority of mankind to eternal torment and suffering, teaches them. Of all the things one might place a value on, the thing their God values above all others is suffering and death.
Of all the things their God might have accepted as payment for man's salvation, it was not Jesus' healing the sick, or feeding the hungry, that was valued. Their God would settle for nothing less than the most excruciating pain, pointless suffering, and agonizing death possible as "payment." What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?
Rebecca describing the experience of 5000 people who watched the film, said, "We were not entertained. We did not laugh. We did not leave relaxed." In other words, they did not enjoy the film, they suffered it. Rebecca regards suffering a virtue. She said about her discomfort watching the film, "the flogging scene didn't end quickly ... so why should it end quickly for me as a mere observer?"
Because, Rebecca, suffering is evil. Pain and death are not virtues, they are the opposite of all human life is about. The purpose of life is not to pain and anguish, the purpose of life is joy and happiness.
We have no doubt, Rebecca is correct to say, "The Passion is powerful – it is reality," because the world is full of suffering and brutality, made possible by the very kind of perverted psychology that not only accepts suffering, but positively worships it.
Hey... no fair stacking the deck, Saint Seraphim!!
You know that we Presbyterians believe in the Covenantal Grace of infant baptism adminstered to the child of a believing parents who commit to raise their children in the Faith... while we don't believe with the Catholics and the Orthodox that Baptism causes Regeneration in and of itself, we do believe that God generally assures us that "the Promise is to you and to your children", and that God has thus ordained that the children of Faithful Believers shall generally be numbered among the Elect (I'd have to guess that the vast majority of Christians in history are not "adult converts" but rather children of Believing Parents who have been raised in the Faith).
So no, I can't exactly apply the Scriptures which describe the Fallen Condition of Man in general to those who are "conferred by baptism into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit". But like I said, that's stacking the deck, Saint Seraphim!! What is the general condition of Fallen Man outside of the Covenantal Grace of Believing Families and Believing Churches?
And for the general condition of Fallen Man -- Romans 8:5-8 and Ephesians 2:1-3 are the applicable Scriptures on the matter.
The natural condition of man is to be united to God. In the EO church, we share a more optimistic, less sacrificial, understanding of Christ’s "rescue mission". We view the incarnation of Christ as a cosmic event. By taking on a body, God united all material reality to himself. By entering into human existence, God opened the way for us to participate in His existence, to partake of His divinity, by means of a communion of life-giving love.
Well, I can't find a thing with which to disagree in that entire paragraph... but "life-giving love" is exactly the point. "He loved us, before we first loved Him." That's why Calvinists say that Regeneration must precede Faith -- God's Love must make us Alive, before we Live in Love to Him.
OP, what do you do with Scripture like "Be ye perfect"?
Attempt to obey it.
Badly. And with huge, gaping failures.
Clinging as my only confidence to the Fact that my Savior has obeyed Perfectly... on my behalf.
God bless, OP
"We all have the image of God in us and we belong to him, even if we're sinners"
Howard Finster
This is entirely true.
Only tangentially. I have in mind first William of Ockham's nominalism and concept of free-will as freedom of indifference (See Servais Pinckaer's book The Sources of Christian Ethics). It was these philosophical positions that were the matrix in terms of which the Reformers did their theology (partly reacting AGAINST the faulty concept of free-will developed therein). Thinking within the terms set up by nominalism, and wrongly reading Catholic theology in those terms, they came to a rejection of Catholic theology. In addition, however, they and their descendants developed a theology of God and man that was situated largely in the same set of terms. Hence, although the word nature might be used, it is construed nominalistically. As I think I can show.
I understand, I think, your point that our post-fallen nature is satanified, that it consists in rebellion, etc. You seem to think that this is much more horrifying than the Patristic and Thomistic view. I think, rather, that it does not take seriously enough the concept of a wound of nature. Aquinas includes on his classic list of the four wounds MALICE toward God and neighbor. I fail to see in your descriptions of post-fall nature anything more than the malice he describes. Are we rebels? Yes. Are we satanifed as you say? Yes. Are we incapable of fulfilling covenental precepts (i.e. meriting)? Yes. Are we bound to sin mortally? Yes. Are we deicidal? Yes. The question is whether these are wounds of human nature or human nature itself.
The difference between my view and yours seems to turn on the difference between a wound of nature and a nature.
I think what you want to say is that after the fall human nature consists in, its very essence, is rebellion, deicidal pride, etc. Whereas I admit that humans have these features, but they are wounds of nature, not the very nature itself. You are thinking nominalistically, I think, because you are treating every universally predicable term (e.g. rebellion) as an expression of the essence of man. All humans are born on planet earth, but that feature is not essential to man nor the very nature of man. It is possible, and perhaps some day will be so, that some human is not born on planet earth. A man born on a moon base is a man nonetheless, because being born on planet earth is not the essence of man but an accident (a property that can be gained or lost without a thing ceasing to be what it is). To say that being born on planet earth belongs to the essence of man just because all men have the feature is as nominalist as can be, even if you use the WORD "nature".
Your post, oddly, seems to say that human nature did remain continuous between pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian humans - at least in one respect.
the Imago Dei is there, and it is not silent. It is active, operative, and will-fully blasphemous.
Is this the same Imago Dei possessed by Adam and Eve or a different one? Surely it acts differently than theirs did, but natures are not actions or action-types. Are these rebellious actions constituitive of the Imago Dei or not? If post-lapsarian man has the same Imago Dei as pre-lapsarian man, then the characteristic of rebellion counts as a wound of the image, it is not what the image itself consists in. If it is what the image itself consists in, then the pre-lapsarian people would have acted the same way. If post-lapsarian man has a different image than pre-lapsarian man had, and if human nature is nothing other than the image, then human beings ceased to exist at the fall and a new kind of being -- call them fallen-man--came into existence.
Let me ask you some questions. I think that this is the best way to sort out what we each think a nature is, and what we each think human nature is. If you could be so kind as to answer briefly, I would much appreciate learning from you.
1. Do post-fallen humans have the same nature or a different nature as Adam and Eve originally had? Is the post-lapsarian Imago the same imago or a differnet imago than the pre-lapsarian imago? I understand that the individuals of that image ACT differently, but is the ACTION the image itself or not?
2. Did Adam and Eve cease to exist at the Fall and an entirely new entity, fallen-Adam and fallen-Eve, come into existence? Did humans cease to exist at the fall and some whole new species of creature come into existence? Is there ANYTHING continuous between pre-lapsarina and post-lapsarian man, or are the two entirely discontinuous down to the very essence?
3. Do terms describing sinful characteristics, e.g rebelliousness, signify the same sorts of reality as terms describing holy characteristics, e.g. charitable? Are evil-predications predications of a privation or of something having positive existence in reality?
4. Do you distinguish between things predicated as belonging to the nature or essence of a thing and things predicated of a thing but not as belonging to the essence? If so, how do you distinguish between the two?
5. Is sodomy an act in accord with the nature of Adam and Eve? Or is sodomy contrary to the nature of Adam and Eve?
6. Do you assign sovereignty as God's primary attribute, and define his other attributes (e.g. goodness, love, justice, mercy) in terms of His sovereignty, or is some attribute other than sovereignty (e.g. wisdom, goodness) God's primary attribute in terms of which sovereignty is defined?
7. Does God command things because they are good or are they good because he commands them? Are evil things evil because he forbids them or does he forbid them because they are evil?
8. What is punishment?
I apologize for the length of the questions. Please, take your time and get back to me. I think this could be a profitable discussion.
The Greek word which was translated into our word "sin" originally meant to fall short or miss the target. As in archery. The west has created an entirely new concept from this. "Stain" is probably acceptable for use in describing sin, but I find the use of "fall" as I have encountered it in the west, to be beyond what the Orthodox church actually teaches.
The Russians have a word for "fall" that more accurately fits the situation, imo. It is a usage which describes an unfortunate but very accidental, unintentional, kind of fall, one which implies only a slight injury, and this seems to contrast with what I often perceive as the more "devious" portrayals of Eve sometimes encountered in the west.
I think that English is simply a poor language for conveying spiritual things. Russian, Greek, and even Serbian offer us a far greater spiritual treasure.
I suppose I would say that this could be a major contribution to your prediction a few posts ago about Christianity in the west.
Let me just touch on Marmema's statement:
I think that English is simply a poor language for conveying spiritual things. Russian, Greek, and even Serbian offer us a far greater spiritual treasure.
There were only three liturgical languages in Christianity, as still are, as far as I know: Greek, Latin (which was developed from Greek) and Church Slavonic (constructed from Greek grammatically and alphabetically in the 9th century). These languages have corresponding constructs that are exact equivalents of each other.
Other languages have to use similar words, or words with approximate meaning, they have to qualify the sentences or express concepts in using several less precise expressions together.
As far as Marmema's comment is concerned, Russian and "even" Serbian are one language in the Church (Church Slavonic is the official language). Modern vernacular Serbian is a poor medium for conveying spiritual concepts. Russian, because it has deviated less from the original language, has advantage there, but is still lacking the sophistication of the Church Slavonic.
Yes, the stain is slight in the sense that it does not cause human nature to cease to exist. Humans are wounded and stained, but still human. The Imago Dei is blurred, distorted, and prone to miss the mark, but still the Imago Dei. Because we are so stained, humans are inclined to miss the mark -- to miss it by a very wide mark. Hence, Auschwitz. Hence, Calvary.
I too try to avoid using all talk of sin-nature, post-lapsarian man, fallen-nature etc. These terms, on my view, reveal the LOSS of any concept of human nature and are discordant with Scripture. The very vocabulary and language that is being used obscures the Gospel. I use these expressions not because they are in my vocabulary, they are not even in Aquinas' vocabulary. They are not in Catholic vocabulary. But they are Calvinist terms, developed under the influence of a human philosophy alien to the Gospel, and I use them only because my interlocutor is Calvinist.
If you want to read a valuable study of the Thomistic concept of sin, and see how close it is to your own, MarMema, I suggest Josef Pieper's book "The Concept of Sin". A whole chapter is devoted to the meaning of peccatus as missing the mark.
You did cause me to reflect on the different views of the Crucifixion for most of the day. I hope that doesn't ruin your evening too :^)
And this is what happens when you attempt to translate many beautiful Russian spiritual concepts into English.
Oh and I wasn't referring to the liturgy. I do love Slavonic though. I think the Trisagion in particular is much prettier in Slavonic. I suppose that is only because it flows so much more easily in Slavonic, not because the translation is lacking.
If you are quoting Mt 5:48 that sentence is in the future tense (will-be therefore you perfect), not in the present (be therefore perfect).
It is a hope that, through theosis, we can live up to that -- but it's not very likely.
Where does He say that?
Slavonic is so Serbian in many ways (indefinite verbs end on "i," there are seven cases, the use of "to be," etc. have all wholly or in part been lost in other Slavic languages), but it is also so Russian. The Serbian Orthodox Church used what was known as the Serbian "reduction" (or edition) of the 9th century liturgical language until the late 18th century, when it switched to the Russian "reduction" (like English-English and American-English), which is still the official for used.
Compared to vernacular (at least in Serbian, but even in Russian), the Slavonic flows like a stream.
The Orthodox view on this is elaborated by Fr. Potapov as an exmaple.
Doesn't the Calvinist/Presbyterian regenration-justification-sanctification strikingly correspond to the ancient Eastern Orthodx concept of baptism-faith-theosis?
Your other statements:
He [God] declared that the soul that sins shall die
The sinning soul will die.(Eze 18:20; Eze 18:4 ). Amen.
He also declared that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.
Is there an OT reference to that?
His mercy is keeping us all alive, but he offers eternal life to those who will believe.
Then the Gift is not “free.”
I had thought the verse was in the Old Testament
Not a chance.
but it is in Hebrews 9:22, "and without shedding of blood there is no remission."
How appropriate for this season, but it’s not in the Law. The Torah says nothing of atonement for future generations.
Jews have a day set aside once a year to atone for their sins, for all generations “And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.”
You may not know this, but the Passover lamb is meant to be eaten (Exo 12:3-10), the sacrificed animal may not be human, neither is eating flesh nor drinking blood allowed in Judaism.
Passover is a commemorative event. One does not atone for sin during Passover.
Sin sacrifice is defined in Leviticus 4. The sacrificial animal must be an animal approved by God (humans are not), must be physically unblemished, must be done by a Levite priest, death must be due to blood loss (not suffocation), at an officially designated area (not an execution ground), the blood is poured or sprinkled on the altar.
Leviticus (22:20,24) specifically makes clear that the animal must be physically perfect and that nothing that is “bruised or crushed, or broken or cut” will be acceptable.
The animal used on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:5-34), is not killed. The animal for that ritual of atonement of sins is a goat, a scapegoat, upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the world; obviously the animal of the atonement in the Law is a goat not a lamb.
That is why Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, not only by obeying the Law perfectly, but he also became the fulfilling sacrifice which the others were a shadow of.
Some Hebrew sacrifices did involve animal blood. (Lev 17:11) However, if that is true, than it should also be true that we are not allowed to drink blood (Lev. 17:10), lest it not be forgotten that even the symbolic sin is a sin (Matthew 5:28).
Going by the Law, it will also be true that one can only atone for one’s own sins “The righteous shall be credited his own righteousness, and the sinful shall have his own sin counted against him.” (Eze )
Moses tried to atone for the sins of his people, and God refused saying that he will only “blot out” those who have sinned against Him.
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.