www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Death prior to the fall

Joe,

To answer your first set of questions, I have to say yes AND no. How I answer that question depends on my answer to your last question, "What would distinguish what I've just articulated from fideism?"

Fideism, as said before is a leap of faith. A belief based on no evidence. There have been certain thinkers both religious and secular, who have advocated this type of "faith" and described it as the Catholic idea of faith. I, however, most heartily disagree. What then is Faith? The biblical answer is well known "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." But that answer is almost as mysterious as the original question "What is faith". Rather than beat around the bush because I want to go take a nap I'll just say straight out that Faith is not "blind belief"; such belief might as well be belief in nothing. IT is not rationalistic. That is, faith cannot be created by argumentation on a human level. Faith, very simply is divine. It is divine knowledge imparted to the soul. We believe XYZ a priori not by jumping over a cliff in blind trust (where is the confidence in that?) not by being argued into belief (where is the humility?) but by an immediate act of God upon the soul whereby faith is infused. Faith is divine knowledge of divine things. It is implanted into us in seminal form at Baptism and we RECOGNIZE truth rather than are persuaded of truth. Arguments and persuasion, rationality and reason all have their uses: to uncloak, to debunk, to cast down the reasoning of the world and expose it for the fraud that it is. Why cant the natural man believe? Because he has no faith. He has no experience of God. The Christian, on the other hand HAS faith and can believe. He may also disbelieve; but he does not do so because he cannot believe. Rather he does so because he does not WANT to believe. It becomes personal between him and God.

I want to tread very carefully when I make this next statement as there are many here on the forum more knowledgeable about this than I am, but I believe that if one reads St Gregory Palamas, one will come away with this understanding of faith, or something similar to it.

The west has obscured this through emphasis on rationality. Now, rationality is useful as I said for debunking the lies of the world. It is NOT useful for creating faith. It cannot do that. Only God can create faith in someones heart. Now I will not say that God can't use a rational argument to be the MEANS of awakening faith, I am only arguing that rationality alone has no power to do so. And I think the best of the western fathers would agree.

SO, the long and short is, we do not argue from what we simply believe, but we argue from what we actually know to be true. This is why the statement elsewhere in the thread that compares Genesis to the Greek Mythologies and says that there is no difference between the two in terms of proving one or the other is only partially correct. In terms of literature, no, the written word has no power to create faith. THus the Genesis narrative AS LITERATURE is no more true or valid than the Greek Mythologies. However, Genesis is NOT simple literature, it is the Word of God inscripturated. It is impossible that it is not true and those with Faith can recognize its truth. I don't say they WILL recognize it because we are still sinful people but they CAN recognize it if they will.

It all goes back to the fact that Truth is Genuinely Rational, but not HUMANLY Rational, rather Divinely Rational. That Divine means of thinking is given to us, in seminal form, in the gift of Faith. So we are able to think as GOd thinks, albeit as sinful creatures.

Hope this helps.

Jason

Genesis is either an accurate and reliable narrative describing the events of the creation of man and the subsequent entrance of sin in to the world through the introduction of death, or it isn't. The "not a science book" angle to me really has no bearing (though I think the vast majority of patristic commentators viewed it in quite literal terms). It's not a matter of science however, it's a matter of what is written on the page itself being accurate and true to the events that it describes. Gordon in my opinion has best articulated the danger to the whole Gospel story if the underlying elements are found to be suspect. Basically it seems to me there is an impulse to undercut the authority (it's not science, it's not exactly how it happened, it was written to be communicated in a simple and entertaining way, etc.) of the text to deal with its apparent inconsistencies and problems while also claiming it is authoritative and trustworthy. That makes no sense, and that is why the issue isn't with higher criticism or people outside the church. The issue is with what is being communicated, i.e. there's a reliable truth behind a highly unreliable exterior.

I'm not hearing good answers to explain this.

The order of the creation is not based on chronological order, but ordered based on a division of the realms and rulers of creation.

It is chronologically based, and the whole subject of this thread shows why the chronological order is so important. Genesis says that death entered the world through the actions of man. Were life and death to have existed for millions of years before the appearance of man, then death is not the result of sin, but a part of the natural order. I think you can see where that leads.

I think that's what this whole thread is about.

It is chronologically based

the whole subject of this thread shows why the chronological order is so important.

Nothing in this thread or elsewhere necessitates that the order given in Genesis 1 is the actual chronological order of creation. Now it is important to determine how (and if) death existed in the world before Adam's Fall, and if so, what did that death entail.

Joe gave the reason above. If death, pain, suffering, etc. are not the result of man's choosing evil in the Garden of Eden; then death, pain, etc. are part of the natural created order of things. In other words God is the source of these things, and not man and his sin. The chronology is actually incredibly vital. To suppose that life, death, pain and so on existed for millions of years before man wipes out the theological underpinnings of sin and salvation; because there is no perfect state to return to (i.e. the Garden of Eden), things are just the way they are.

I think that this is well said and a good explanation. But, if true, then it would seem that physical death existed before the fall.

Joe

So are the pain and suffering and death that we endure to be equated with that of the lower creation? I don't see how one can escape this conclusion if what is said above is true. Further, there is no distinction made between physical cessation of life and the Biblical notion of Death as separation from God.

Vegetable life was created for the purpose of dying by its very purpose: food. To eat a plant is to kill it. End of story.

This helps a great deal. I suspect that Augustine would certainly agree and those in the Reformed tradition as well (probably Luther as well). I suspect that even Aquinas would agree though perhaps not (not sure how far Aquinas would go with this). I will say that the position you articulate here seems to be the position of St. Paul in Romans. Those who are elect are given the grace to see. Those who are not are not given that grace. So, your position is coherent and biblical. The non-believer will still claim that this is fideism. But, what it amounts to is that if I have true faith (a gift of God), then I intuitively know the truth and as long as I have that gift, there shouldn't be any serious doubts. It is a faith that I need not demonstrate or prove, but it is a faith that is rational (not in the scientific or philosophical sense, but in the intuitive sense). Whether I agree with this, I'm not sure. But it gives me food for thought.

Joe,

Now I am distressed. I am not an Augustinian! At least not in the classic sense.

I suspect that, though my position might appeal to the Reformed superfically, they would scream in rage were I to elucidate further. Just to clarify a couple terms that have been introduced to this discussion: ELECT and ELECTION. I find the Augustinian notion of election to be repugnant. Particularly in it's Calvinistic manifestations. Election for me, very simply means those who are baptized. And I don't hold to this strictly either. God is not bound by the Sacraments. He can and does work outside of them but for this explanation, election=baptism. TO be elect thus means to be in union with Christ who is the Elect One. SO to be in union with him is to share in all that he possesses. If it's true of Jesus, it's true of us (not speaking metaphysically of course!).

That is my first perspective. There is a second perspective that I have toyed with lately that I think may appeal more to the Orthodox: In Christ ALL men are elect. That is to say that Jesus redeemed absolutely everyone lock stock and barrel by his death and resurrection. SO it is proper to say that ALL have been saved. Yet, there remains the issue of free will so that a man, even though in Christ he is redeemed, refuses to accept the gift and thus perishes eternally. God will force no man to receive grace.

Now if the Reformed Augustinians heard me say the above you can bet your buttons I'd be castigated and spit upon and howled at. But both positions seem to be both biblically and Traditionally tenable to me.

What think ye?

Jason