Romans 8.19-22 reads:

v.19: For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;

v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope

v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...

a) How do you understand this passage?
b) What does this tell us about redemption?
I have heard it said that Christ came to save human beings and only human beings. But this passage seems to suggest that Christ's redemption is not reserved only for humanity but for the whole of creation. Is that true? If it is true, from what does creation (apart from humanity) need to be redeemed and how is it to receive its redemption?
c) What exactly is it that "creation awaits with eager expectation"? Why is "all creation groaning" and for what?
d) What, if anything, does this passage tell us about Christ's mission?

Akoue - to better understand this section, I believe it helps to see how it fits in its broader context.

Paul has been arguing up until this point that "life in the Spirit" brings freedom from condemnation and an inheritance in the kingdom of God—those who are led by the spirit of God are heirs to the kingdom. However, Paul clarifies this by saying that the life of the believer will be marked with suffering "...in order that we may also be glorified with him." Now that brings us to your point of focus.

So with the idea of suffering in view, these verses are giving more clarity to Paul's idea of suffering. The world itself is in bondage to the futility inherent in God's creation. There is no paradise on earth. God is the one who subjected it to this futility... Solomon refers to it as vanity (in Ecclesiastes), which may or not be an accurate translation from Hebrew (perhaps futility is more apt, I don't know). At any rate, the creation itself is waiting to be redeemed along with mankind from the same bondage. Peter tells us that the earth will be burned with a fervent heat and that God will begin a new creation, the next time God creates what he intends to it will be glorious because suffering will be absent from it.

Okay, so I have attempted already to answer question a), above.

Question b) what does this tell us about redemption? I think it tells us that Christ's redemption is all encompassing, meaning that his death and resurrection came to bring about an existence for his creation that will be utterly glorious and free from corruption. So in a very real sense, his redemption was for his entire creation. However, akoue, the central characters in this redemption story were God and the firstfruits of his creation (mankind), the man Jesus being the head since he is the Messiah. So for the animal lovers of the world, I don't think this passage is giving credence to any idea about dogs and cats being co-heirs to the kingdom of God. I think all Paul is attempting to convey here is that creation itself is in bondage but God is going to free the whole of his creation from this bondage, not just mankind.

Question c) What exactly is it that "creation awaits with eager expectation"? Paul answers this question: “…for the revealing of the sons of God.” God's ultimate plan is to redeem mankind and make them into glorious creatures, free from corruption. Again, because man is the crown of God's creation and the subject of his story of redemption, until man is redeemed, the rest of creation must wait for God to bring this chapter to a close. I think this is Paul's argument.

Question c) ii “Why is "all creation groaning" and for what?” I think some of the questions you ask sort of overlap. Creation is groaning because it has been subject to futility. Solomon's understanding of life in Ecclesiastes is that life is truly futile. There is no lasting joy in this life. There are good days, yes; but ultimately, goodness and joy seem to escape us. We are evil and the world we live in is corrupt, so for that reason people and creation groan.

Question d) “What, if anything, does this passage tell us about Christ's mission?” One word…redemption. Titus 2, says it best: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

These are my two cents.

jakester,

Thanks so much for taking the time to write such a thoughtful, and thought-provoking, reply. It is exactly what I was hoping for when I posted the question. Actually, it's more, since I never expected anyone to take up each of my questions in turn. (As you say, quite charitably I might add, the questions do "overlap" a bit.)

I need to spend some time thinking about what you've written before asking some follow-up questions (questions, not objections), but I didn't want to postpone registering my appreciation. Another first-rate post!

Akoue,
I would suggest you visit this web:

Does Romans 8:19-22 Refer to the Cursed Creation? (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:k0J2d56OTuAJ:www.godandscience.org/youngearth/romans8.html+romans+8:19-22&hl=es&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=es)

There you can see an interesting point of view on the above.
However, let me tell you that in his letters to the Romans, S. Paul was trying to speak basically about their sins. But this is beside the point. What I think you should bear in mind is that any answer you may receive to your questions IS NOT and CANNOT BE a definite answer. Christ’s mission on Earth is clearly that of redeeming man from his original sin to allow him to achieve Salvation. This is what Jesus says in the Gospels.
But we know nothing of GOD’s designs for “the ways of GOD are inscrutable” and we shall only know for sure if we are, one day, lucky enough to deserve being called to enjoy perfect happiness in GOD’s Kingdom!

jakester,

I'd like to thank you again for your post. I've given it quite a bit of thought and would like to try to bring together some of my thoughts in the light of what you've said.

I've been torn between two ways of understanding "the one who subjected it". On one reading, it would be Adam, on account of whose sin creation was cursed (Gen.3.15-17). Viewed in that light, the hope of creation would be for the restoration promised to Noah "between myself and you and every living creature" (Gen.9.12-13). On another reading, it is God who "subjected" creation, and this seems to be the way you read it. I am inclined to favor this reading as well. On this reading, although God cursed it on account of Adam's sin, he still gave it the hope of sharing in human redemption. This, I think, accords with what you've said, namely that the central characters of the drama of fall and redemption and final glory are God and humanity. But I think I am parting ways with you inasmuch as it is my understanding that creatures other than human beings are to participate in the glory that awaits. (I'm interested to hear your thoughts about that.)

This leads me to believe that creation's hope is to be relieved of dissolution and decay (corruption). And this is also to be delivered from contingency (I think you are saying something similar with your remarks about futility in Ecclesiates--but please correct me if I'm wrong).

My sense, then, is that what is being talked about in Rom.8 is a cosmic event, a cosmic victory for Christ, and a cosmic return to the glory of God. And this makes me wonder about the cosmic significance of what some like to call "the Christ-event". If sin degraded not just humanity but all of creation; if, that is, sin has impacted the whole of creation in a fundamental way; then it would seem that the coming of the Messiah was the remedy applied to the whole of the created order. (This is not, of course, to suggest universal salvation--although you can kind of see where people get that. It may be wrong, but it's not just stupid.)

Anyway, these thoughts should all be read as followed by a paranthetical question mark. I don't mean to come across as someone with a theory. I very much hope to hear people's thoughts about this (any or all of it).

Akoue,
I would suggest you visit this web:

Does Romans 8:19-22 Refer to the Cursed Creation? (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:k0J2d56OTuAJ:www.godandscience.org/youngearth/romans8.html+romans+8:19-22&hl=es&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=es)

There you can see an interesting point of view on the above.
However, let me tell you that in his letters to the Romans, S. Paul was trying to speak basically about their sins. But this is beside the point. What I think you should bear in mind is that any answer you may receive to your questions IS NOT and CANNOT BE a definite answer. Christ’s mission on Earth is clearly that of redeeming man from his original sin to allow him to achieve Salvation. This is what Jesus says in the Gospels.
But we know nothing of GOD’s designs for “the ways of GOD are inscrutable” and we shall only know for sure if we are, one day, lucky enough to deserve being called to enjoy perfect happiness in GOD’s Kingdom!

Thanks very much for your post, and for the link.

While I agree with you that Christ's earthly mission is to redeem humanity, I don't think that this is at all incompatible with a mission to redeem all of creation. The two seem quite compatible to me.

You may be right that there can be no "definite" answer to the question. I'm not sure I agree with you about that, but I certainly am alive to that very real possibility. But, even if there can be no definite answer, I think there is still much to be learned from asking, and trying to answer, the question. I know I've already learned from doing so. I hope others are as fotrunate as I have been in this regard.

One last thing. While you are right that we can never comprehend God's designs, I do believe we are called to strive to understand them to the best of our quite limited abilities. There's no shame in failure here. It's the search for truth that is important. And, like St. Augustine, I regard that as a kind of worship.

Akoue,
Thanks for asking that question.
After reading that which has been offered so far I am not yet ready to post answers.
I'm learning as it goes so far.
One thing that has popped into my head is the possibility of intelligent beings on other planets in this vast universe.
If so did Adam and Eve's sin effect them and If so why?
Your question are universal as is creation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

jakester,

I'd like to thank you again for your post. I've given it quite a bit of thought and would like to try to bring together some of my thoughts in the the light of what you've said.

I've been torn between two ways of understanding "the one who subjected it". On one reading, it would be Adam, on account of whose sin creation was cursed (Gen.3.15-17). Viewed in that light, the hope of creation would be for the restoration promised to Noah "between myself and you and every living creature" (Gen.9.12-13). On another reading, it is God who "subjected" creation, and this seems to be the way you read it. I am inclined to favor this reading as well. On this reading, although God cursed it on account of Adam's sin, he still gave it the hope of sharing in human redemption. This, I think, accords with what you've said, namely that the central characters of the drama of fall and redemption and final glory are God and humanity. But I think I am parting ways with you inasmuch as it is my understanding that creatures other than human beings are to participate in the glory that awaits. (I'm interested to hear your thoughts about that.)

This leads me to believe that creation's hope is to be relieved of dissolution and decay (corruption). And this is also to be delivered from contingency (I think you are saying something similar with your remarks about futility in Ecclesiates--but please correct me if I'm wrong).

My sense, then, is that what is being talked about in Rom.8 is a cosmic event, a cosmic victory for Christ, and a cosmic return to the glory of God. And this makes me wonder about the cosmic significance of what some like to call "the Christ-event". If sin degraded not just humanity but all of creation; if, that is, sin has impacted the whole of creation in a fundamental way; then it would seem that the coming of the Messiah was the remedy applied to the whole of the created order. (This is not, of course, to suggest universal salvation--although you can kind of see where people get that. It may be wrong, but it's not just stupid.)

Anyway, these thoughts should all be read as followed by a paranthetical question mark. I don't mean to come across as someone with a theory. I very much hope to hear people's thoughts about this (any or all of it).

Akoue – let me first just say that I truly appreciate the depth of the questions you are asking. Rarely do I find someone who genuinely and honestly wrestles with the text because based upon my experiences, conversations like these tend to be very dogmatic—people substantiate their views by referring to a text and rather juvenilely offering their argument for their position…I am certainly guilty of that, but I have learned that giving a rational argument for a position is really the most responsible and beneficial way to talk through these things and I certainly strive to that end. But I am most grateful for the spirit in which you are asking your questions.

Okay, I will attempt to answer your questions but if I don't cover everything, let me know.

First off, regarding who subjected creation to futility—yes, I believe it is God who subjected it. I do not subscribe to the idea of a cosmic law, a law that forces God to move in any certain direction with respect to his creation. In other words, there is a belief that because Adam sinned, the world was automatically forced into a chaotic state and God was helpless to stop the effects of Adam's sin. God did not need to do anything to his creation after Adam had sinned…God was not obligated to curse creation because of Adam's sin. God being the creator could do whatever he wished with his creation regardless of whether man obeyed him or not. To me, those who would read that Adam somehow subjected creation to futility espouse the cosmic law principle. We can talk more about this if I am not clear. For the sake of my argument, God subjected creation to futility after Adam's sin for a reason. Life on earth is a pedagogical tool in the hands of God to reveal that there is something wrong with us and with the world. When God pronounced curses upon Eve and then Adam, they would live with that understanding all of their lives: Eve would suffer in childbearing and Adam would feel the futility of life through a life of labor (hard work). But in the midst of these pronouncements, God gave us a clue as to how he intended to reverse this futility:

“…I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

Most scholars would agree that this is the very first announcement of God's plan of redemption. The woman's offspring is God's Messiah: Yeshua (Yahweh's Salvation). The language regarding bruising of the head of the serpent and the heel of the offspring in my judgment, are references to Christ's death and Satan's defeat (his reign over this world would be usurped). When we look back over the whole of this story, the story itself is clearly one of redemption.

Secondly, regarding your comment: “But I think I am parting ways with you inasmuch as it is my understanding that creatures other than human beings are to participate in the glory that awaits. (I'm interested to hear your thoughts about that.)” I'm not sure I understand the distinction that you are making when you talk about “creatures other than human beings are to participate in the glory that awaits.” Let me try to answer what I think you are asking. Isaiah 11 is a prophecy of the day in which Christ rules over Israel as King. In this new creation, there is clearly something different about the creatures other than man:

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.
He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
or decide disputes by what his ears hear,
4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
5 Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist,
and faithfulness the belt of his loins.
6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.
9 They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

The thought of creatures that were once predators and prey existing together in a manner like this is clearly remarkable. It can only be glorious.

Yes, I agree with your assertion that Romans 8 is describing a cosmic event. The whole of creation will be changed. II Peter describes the earth as being “…stored up for fire.” Some argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that this world is in a constant state of increasing entropy, so if that is a real phenomenon, then it could be an objective argument for the idea that God must make a new creation because he never intended this creation to remain forever. Christ's death and resurrection is the beginning of the final age, the last age before man enters into the Sabbath rest of God. We are not in that rest yet but we are told to persevere in the faith that we may enter into the rest of God (Hebrews 4):

“Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

“As I swore in my wrath,
'They shall not enter my rest,'”
although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said,

“They shall not enter my rest.”

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”

For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.””

I hope I have addressed each of your questions. Again, let me know if I missed anything or if I have not clarified any of my points too well.

Again, these are my thoughts and my best arguments about how I am thinking about these things presently.

Sincerely.

Romans 8.19-22 reads:

v.19: For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;

v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope

v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...

a) How do you understand this passage?
b) What does this tell us about redemption?
I have heard it said that Christ came to save human beings and only human beings. But this passage seems to suggest that Christ's redemption is not reserved only for humanity but for the whole of creation. Is that true? If it is true, from what does creation (apart from humanity) need to be redeemed and how is it to receive its redemption?
c) What exactly is it that "creation awaits with eager expectation"? Why is "all creation groaning" and for what?
d) What, if anything, does this passage tell us about Christ's mission?

Chapter 8 of Romans is doctrine to “walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.” We see that hope saves; 'we are saved by hope,” (Spe enim salvi facti sumus). Spes, the last resource available to men according to the traditions held in Rome at the time. Thus, being heirs, 'sons of God,' our suffering with Him is glorified – a blessing conferred to a soul united with God. “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us.” (Rome 8:18) Man becomes vexed with his inability to transcend his condition of bondage in sin to a glory of the sons of God. On this account God took on man's vanity; a suffering mortal body cursed to wear the mantel of thorns. Lift your eyes to heaven, and look down to the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish like smoke, and the earth shall be worn away like a garment, and the inhabitants thereof shall perish in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my justice shall not fail. (Isaiah 51:6)

Thus, Paul laments, “For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity: not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope.” (Romans 8:19-20) However, in Christ that liberates the suffering of mankind is through hope in “his coming to a dignity, clothe even the servants with a brighter garment, to the glory of the son; so will God also clothe the creature with incorruption for the glorious liberty of the children.” (Chrysostom Romans, Hom. 14) Thus, man is freed, the soul becoming incorruptible in his hope in Christ. Paul then counsels that we not stoop lower than creation, having anguish in our concupiscence, not just anguish, rather a "clinging to these things but actually groaning in our delay for our adoption."

JoeT

jakester,
Thanks much for that.
It is very thought provoking and interesting.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT,
I really like you post on that.
Like that of jakester's post it is though provoking and interesting,
Prace and kindness,
Fred

God was helpless

?

JoeT

JoeT777,
I really doubt that.
Fred

JoeT777,
I really doubt that.
Fred

So does jakestar. That's the view he is rejecting.

So does jakestar. That's the view he is rejecting.


I must've misread it. Sorry.

JoeT

Akoue – let me first just say that I truly appreciate the depth of the questions you are asking. Rarely do I find someone who genuinely and honestly wrestles with the text because based upon my experiences, conversations like these tend to be very dogmatic—people substantiate their views by referring to a text and rather juvenilely offering their argument for their position…I am certainly guilty of that, but I have learned that giving a rational argument for a position is really the most responsible and beneficial way to talk through these things and I certainly strive to that end. But I am most grateful for the spirit in which you are asking your questions.

Thank you for your kind words, jakester. I enjoy discussions with you as well. I also find rational discussion preferrable to the alternatives. Back and forth quotations of biblical passages on its own isn't nearly so helpful as reasoned discourse about those passages. I have found your posts very helpful and a pleasure to read and think about.


First off, regarding who subjected creation to futility—yes, I believe it is God who subjected it. I do not subscribe to the idea of a cosmic law, a law that forces God to move in any certain direction with respect to his creation. In other words, there is a belief that because Adam sinned, the world was automatically forced into a chaotic state and God was helpless to stop the effects of Adam’s sin. God did not need to do anything to his creation after Adam had sinned…God was not obligated to curse creation because of Adam’s sin. God being the creator could do whatever he wished with his creation regardless of whether man obeyed him or not. To me, those who would read that Adam somehow subjected creation to futility espouse the cosmic law principle. We can talk more about this if I am not clear. For the sake of my argument, God subjected creation to futility after Adam’s sin for a reason. Life on earth is a pedagogical tool in the hands of God to reveal that there is something wrong with us and with the world. When God pronounced curses upon Eve and then Adam, they would live with that understanding all of their lives: Eve would suffer in childbearing and Adam would feel the futility of life through a life of labor (hard work). But in the midst of these pronouncements, God gave us a clue as to how he intended to reverse this futility:

I agree that God was at no time compelled to act one way or another. But I'm not so sure that I want to reject altogether the idea of a cosmic law or cosmic order. I think it would be helpful--for me at least, and perhaps for others as well--to pause over this a bit. God's providence is a cosmic law, one that holds not just for humanity but for the whole of his creation. With sin something was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before. But what was that something? Sin is not, after all, just a label that is given to things that are bad, and it isn't just a psychological condition. Sin is a reality. The wrongful exercise of free will--whether by Satan and the fallen angels or by Adam and Eve and their progeny--impacts the whole of creation. So, I guess, part of my initial question--from what does creation long for redemption--is utlimately getting at the nature of sin. (I have to thank you for helping me see this. I wasn't aware that this was part of what I was asking until thinking about your posts brought it to the surface.)

So I suppose I would like to talk a bit more about what you've called "the cosmic law principle", if you're okay with that. I do agree with you that there is no law by which God is himself compelled; it's just not clear to me that this means there isn't a cosmic law that is in play in Rom.8. That said, though, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, and so I'm not sure what to say about it. Any thoughts?


Most scholars would agree that this is the very first announcement of God’s plan of redemption. The woman’s offspring is God’s Messiah: Yeshua (Yahweh’s Salvation). The language regarding bruising of the head of the serpent and the heel of the offspring in my judgment, are references to Christ’s death and Satan’s defeat (his reign over this world would be usurped). When we look back over the whole of this story, the story itself is clearly one of redemption.

I agree.


Secondly, regarding your comment: “But I think I am parting ways with you inasmuch as it is my understanding that creatures other than human beings are to participate in the glory that awaits. (I'm interested to hear your thoughts about that.)” I’m not sure I understand the distinction that you are making when you talk about “creatures other than human beings are to participate in the glory that awaits.” Let me try to answer what I think you are asking. Isaiah 11 is a prophecy of the day in which Christ rules over Israel as King. In this new creation, there is clearly something different about the creatures other than man:

I was just thinking about all the other things that God made before he made man and woman. Mostly I'm thinking about animals, but I don't know that it needs to be limited to that. (Fred's interesting idea about the possibility of life on other planets comes to mind.)


The thought of creatures that were once predators and prey existing together in a manner like this is clearly remarkable. It can only be glorious.

Agreed. But I'm inclined to think that Rom.8 is pointing us to something beyond harmony. In Orthodoxy, for example, it is not uncommon to talk about a return to unity with the Trinity, a participation in the divinity. This strikes me as a very interesting, and not at all artificial, idea. On this way of thinking, Christ promises not just harmony with God and others but an even deeper unity with God, a unity that is to be enjoyed by the whole of creation (with the obvious exception of those who choose to reject God and so are damned). I'm not trying to defend this view, but I do think it may capture something deep.


Yes, I agree with your assertion that Romans 8 is describing a cosmic event. The whole of creation will be changed. II Peter describes the earth as being “…stored up for fire.” Some argue that the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that this world is in a constant state of increasing entropy, so if that is a real phenomenon, then it could be an objective argument for the idea that God must make a new creation because he never intended this creation to remain forever.

That's an interesting idea. I'm really glad you mentioned it.

Thank you again for helping me think through this. I look forward to your next post.

Oh, and let's agree that we're working through this together. That way we can feel free to try out different ideas in order to see what works and what doesn't, without having to worry that we'll be forced into defending something we may only have presented as an idea we're trying out. I know I'm not ready to defend the ideas I've presented in this post. But I am trying them out to see whether they make sense. I'm always happy to get feedback on this.

Ahh, Joe, it's good to see you back. Finally I have some time to respond to your post.


Chapter 8 of Romans is doctrine to “walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.” We see that hope saves; ‘we are saved by hope,” (Spe enim salvi facti sumus). Spes, the last resource available to men according to the traditions held in Rome at the time. Thus, being heirs, ‘sons of God,’ our suffering with Him is glorified – a blessing conferred to a soul united with God. “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us.” (Rome 8:18) Man becomes vexed with his inability to transcend his condition of bondage in sin to a glory of the sons of God. On this account God took on man’s vanity; a suffering mortal body cursed to wear the mantel of thorns. Lift your eyes to heaven, and look down to the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish like smoke, and the earth shall be worn away like a garment, and the inhabitants thereof shall perish in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my justice shall not fail. (Isaiah 51:6)

I like what you say about our suffering uniting us to God. That puts another face on Rom.8 and, if I'm not misunderstanding, suggests that our suffering and "groaning" unites us both with God and with the creation which is also "groaning". I like that idea a lot. Also the point about vexation, frustration: This is something I hadn't paid enough attention to, I think.


Thus, Paul laments, “For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity: not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope.” (Romans 8:19-20) However, in Christ that liberates the suffering of mankind is through hope in “his coming to a dignity, clothe even the servants with a brighter garment, to the glory of the son; so will God also clothe the creature with incorruption for the glorious liberty of the children.” (Chrysostom Romans, Hom. 14) Thus, man is freed, the soul becoming incorruptible in his hope in Christ. Paul then counsels that we not stoop lower than creation, having anguish in our concupiscence, not just anguish, rather a "clinging to these things but actually groaning in our delay for our adoption."

It's always nice when Chrysostom is mentioned. Few have had a deeper understanding of Scripture. I wonder what to make of this in relation to the groaning and anticipation of creation, though, since I'm increasingly convinced that Rom.8 is talking about more than just humanity. I'm tempted to see it as an expression of a kind of solidarity of fallen humanity with a creation that in some sense feels the anguish of its fallen condition. Paul often uses very organic language, and I wonder whether his organicism isn't central to Rom.8, where the creation as a whole suffers in something like the way the whole body suffers when it's infected with a nasty disease.

Just a thought. I wouldn't want to have to defend it... yet.

Ahh, Joe, it's good to see you back.
But I haven’t been anywhere; I just couldn’t find the time to respond. I’ve been spending a great deal of time drumming for business (unsuccessfully, I might add).



I like what you say about our suffering uniting us to God. That puts another face on Rom.8 and, if I'm not misunderstanding, suggests that our suffering and "groaning" unites us both with God and with the creation which is also "groaning". I like that idea a lot. Also the point about vexation, frustration: This is something I hadn't paid enough attention to, I think.

Don’t forget the entire chapter is being addressed to those who are justified in Christ and thus “there is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” I think the key to your verses is in verse 18; “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us. “ St. Chrysostom suggests that Paul is pointing out two senses of suffering; one that is unworthy and can never be worthy enough compared to the promised glory, the other a type of suffering, our nature moves quite freely towards, is one we sometimes typify with the saying to “wallowing in one’s our own pity.” The first is a suffering that the penitent finds vexingly insufficient for reparations therefore he bemoans his inability to “suffer enough” warranting merit as adopted sons of God (as Christ suffered), the later the penitent bemoans, is frustrated that his sufferings lack of merit. Thus we have Paul reckoning (calculating the value of his sufferings finding them unworthy in contrast to the wondrous gift of glory. “For that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure, exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.” (2 Corinthians 4:17)


It's always nice when Chrysostom is mentioned. Few have had a deeper understanding of Scripture. I wonder what to make of this in relation to the groaning and anticipation of creation, though, since I'm increasingly convinced that Rom.8 is talking about more than just humanity. I'm tempted to see it as an expression of a kind of solidarity of fallen humanity with a creation that in some sense feels the anguish of its fallen condition. Paul often uses very organic language, and I wonder whether his organicism isn't central to Rom.8, where the creation as a whole suffers in something like the way the whole body suffers when it's infected with a nasty disease.

Yes, in a sense I would agree that Romans 8 deals with a fallen humanity and anguished creation in a fallen condition. But, I think Paul’s words are more to the point that this creation is hope.


Ver. 21. That the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption.

Now what is this creation? Not yourself alone, but that also which is your inferior, and partakes not of reason or sense, this too shall be a sharer in your blessings. For it shall be freed, he says, from the bondage of corruption, that is, it shall no longer be corruptible, but shall go along with the beauty given to your body; just as when this became corruptible, that became corruptible also; so now it is made incorruptible, that also shall follow it too. And to show this he proceeds. (εἰς) Into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That is, because of their liberty. For as a nurse who is bringing up a king's child, when he has come to his father's power, does herself enjoy the good things along with him, thus also is the creation, he means. You see how in all respects man takes the lead, and that it is for his sake that all things are made. See how he solaces the struggler, and shows the unspeakable love of God toward man. For why, he would say, do you fret at your temptations? you are suffering for yourself, the creation for you. Nor does he solace only, but also shows what he says to be trustworthy. For if the creation which was made entirely for you is in hope, much more oughtest thou to be, through whom the creation is to come to the enjoyment of those good things. Thus men (3 manuscripts fathers) also when a son is to appear at his coming to a dignity, clothe even the servants with a brighter garment, to the glory of the son; so will God also clothe the creature with incorruption for the glorious liberty of the children. CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 14 on Romans (Chrysostom) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210214.htm)

JoeT

God was helpless??

JoeT my quote was as follows: "In other words, there is a belief that because Adam sinned, the world was automatically forced into a chaotic state and God was helpless to stop the effects of Adam's sin."

Joe - no harm, no foul

Akoue,
Thanks much for that even if it was for Joe, I benefited much.
Fred

Akoue,
Thanks much for that even if it was for Joe, I benefited much.
Fred

Hello, Fred.

It wasn't meant for any one person more than any other. I'm really delighted to have a nice conversation about this with thoughtful people. I find I'm learning as we go. And if you got anything out of it, so much the better!

Akoue - I will respond before the end of the weekend... busy with my family now but I want to respond.

Cheers.

Thank you for your kind words, jakester. I enjoy discussions with you as well. I also find rational discussion preferrable to the alternatives. Back and forth quotations of biblical passages on its own isn't nearly so helpful as reasoned discourse about those passages. I have found your posts very helpful and a pleasure to read and think about.

I agree that God was at no time compelled to act one way or another. But I'm not so sure that I want to reject altogether the idea of a cosmic law or cosmic order. I think it would be helpful--for me at least, and perhaps for others as well--to pause over this a bit. God's providence is a cosmic law, one that holds not just for humanity but for the whole of his creation. With sin something was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before. But what was that something? Sin is not, after all, just a label that is given to things that are bad, and it isn't just a psychological condition. Sin is a reality. The wrongful exercise of free will--whether by Satan and the fallen angels or by Adam and Eve and their progeny--impacts the whole of creation. So, I guess, part of my initial question--from what does creation long for redemption--is utlimately getting at the nature of sin. (I have to thank you for helping me see this. I wasn't aware that this was part of what I was asking until thinking about your posts brought it to the surface.)

So I suppose I would like to talk a bit more about what you've called "the cosmic law principle", if you're okay with that. I do agree with you that there is no law by which God is himself compelled; it's just not clear to me that this means there isn't a cosmic law that is in play in Rom.8. That said, though, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, and so I'm not sure what to say about it. Any thoughts?

I agree.

I was just thinking about all the other things that God made before he made man and woman. Mostly I'm thinking about animals, but I don't know that it needs to be limited to that. (Fred's interesting idea about the possibility of life on other planets comes to mind.)

Agreed. But I'm inclined to think that Rom.8 is pointing us to something beyond harmony. In Orthodoxy, for example, it is not uncommon to talk about a return to unity with the Trinity, a participation in the divinity. This strikes me as a very interesting, and not at all artificial, idea. On this way of thinking, Christ promises not just harmony with God and others but an even deeper unity with God, a unity that is to be enjoyed by the whole of creation (with the obvious exception of those who choose to reject God and so are damned). I'm not trying to defend this view, but I do think it may capture something deep.

That's an interesting idea. I'm really glad you mentioned it.

Thank you again for helping me think through this. I look forward to your next post.

Oh, and let's agree that we're working through this together. That way we can feel free to try out different ideas in order to see what works and what doesn't, without having to worry that we'll be forced into defending something we may only have presented as an idea we're trying out. I know I'm not ready to defend the ideas I've presented in this post. But I am trying them out to see whether they make sense. I'm always happy to get feedback on this.

Akoue – I realize the inherent challenge in trying to communicate particular thoughts and ideas when there is no immediate feedback and clarification of comments, etc. I will do my best to articulate my thoughts here.

First off, I will try to make a distinction between the idea of a cosmic law and God's sovereignty over his creation. Here's the difference as I see it. Adam sinned when he disobeyed God's command to abstain from eating from the tree. However, at that moment sin itself had not entered into the world for the first time; I see that Satan was already existing in rebellion towards God prior to Adam's transgression…Satan had already brought sin into existence and the scenario in the garden was a manifestation of the evil already present in the world, which we would call sin. But God had not already cursed creation even though sin was already present because of Satan. So sin as a phenomenon was in existence even as Adam was alive prior to his own transgression.

I think the cosmic law principle would say that because sin entered into existence, God “had” to deal with this something that “…was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before.” However, I argue that God's sovereignty would say that God's control over his creation, whether man or any other creature obeyed him or disobeyed him, is so absolute that he could have done any number of things with Satan and with Adam and with the rest of creation. It seems that once the scenario in the garden took place, God chose to act then (not when Satan fell) and he subsequently cursed his creation. But I think he could have cursed creation on account of Satan as well if, strictly speaking, sin brought into existence somehow changes the whole of the created reality. Ultimately, sin in of itself did not impact creation in any particular away, autonomously from God; God chose to punish the serpent, Adam and Eve because of their sin but God could have chosen to not to curse them... he could have simply destroyed them and made another human being in his place while leaving the rest of what he already created intact. Sin is transgression against God but it is not some inherently powerful force which brings about an effect in creation. The only effect that is really a reality in the garden scenario is God's choice to do something in reality: he cursed his creation.

Where any of my argument really matters is when we come back to your earlier post. The question was asked, was it Adam who subjected creation to futility or God who subjected it? The cosmic law principle would say that because sin was brought into existence, sin changed everything as if it were a kind of autonomous power (mystical force). Well, we know that Adam did sin and from Adam's standpoint, something was profoundly different for him and Eve: he now knew the personal experience of being a transgressor and an enemy of God…previous to this event, he and Eve enjoyed fellowship with God. But as I said, their sin was not the first sin to ever occur, Satan's sin of pride and his subsequent fall were sins in existence prior to Adam and Eve and yet the whole of creation was not subject to a curse. What I personally think will happen in heaven is people will be the sort of creatures who when presented with a garden scenario (eat or don't eat of the tree), they will only want to obey their God. Their hearts will be changed and they will be holy. The point you were making before was that believers in heaven will “…return to unity with the Trinity, a participation in the divinity.” Yes, I think this is the case as well, it is not merely harmony with other creatures, but more importantly, harmony with God is the most profound sense. 2 Peter 1 says the following:

“His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”

To me, becoming a partaker of the divine nature is as I argued above…an existence in which holiness and automatic goodness are mine. Jesus Christ obeyed the Father in every circumstance; he endured temptations and yet he never failed to do the will of God. In heaven, this will be the experience of the child of God. Not only that, but an intimacy that people have never experienced before with God will also be a reality. The bible says that "God dwells in unapproachable light...and that no man has ever seen him." (1 Timothy 6) I believe that this reality will be no more because "when we see him we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John) The curtain will be pulled back and man will enter into the presence of God whereas such was not possible before.

I know I have covered a lot of ground here and my aim was to have gotten to the heart of what you are asking. I may not have successfully done so but I sincerely tried. Please follow up with any comments or questions. As you said, I welcome thoughtful discourse and arguments from the biblical text, not just the biblical text. Yes, I welcome the idea of working through this together…I have spent considerable time reflecting on Romans 8 and Romans collectively, so I have garnered a comfortable position on much of what I have studied previously but I am not unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints if I find that they are compelling and rational.

Look forward to your thoughts.

jakester,
I like your thought on that.
They are though provoking.
But I must point out that it was before Jesus was born that man have never seen God's face.
"Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

jakester,
I like your thought on that.
They are though provoking.
But I must point out that it was before Jesus was born that man have never seen God's face.
"Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God"
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred - yes, I agree with you that Jesus is the image of the invisible God... I've got no quibble with that. However, if you survey 1 Timothy 6, Paul says that the God who will reveal Jesus Christ "dwells in unapproachable light, who no man has ever seen or can see." My argument in my post was that no man has ever seen the invisible God nor can he see him... that is, that God cannot be seen while we are in our present form. Akoue was saying that perhaps in heaven we are reunited with the Trinity. In other words, will God in heaven always remain invisible and so will we only see Christ? Or will we be able to somehow engage with God and the Spirit of God in some tangible manner. The difficulty in this is perhaps trying to wrap our minds around the Trinity, I don't know.

Do you understand the distinction I was trying to make?

Fred - yes, I agree with you that Jesus is the image of the invisible God...I've got no quibble with that. However, if you survey 1 Timothy 6, Paul says that the God who will reveal Jesus Christ "dwells in unapproachable light, who no man has ever seen or can see." My argument in my post was that no man has ever seen the invisible God nor can he see him...that is, that God cannot be seen while we are in our present form. Akoue was saying that perhaps in heaven we are reunited with the Trinity. In other words, will God in heaven always remain invisible and so will we only see Christ? Or will we be able to somehow engage with God and the Spirit of God in some tangible manner. The difficulty in this is perhaps trying to wrap our minds around the Trinity, I don't know.

Do you understand the distinction I was trying to make?

I would say that Jesus (as GOD's son) was one image GOD let us see as much as the image Moses was allowed to see in Mount Sinai. Once again, our RCC claims that those who will be lucky enough to achieve Salvation will be able to submerge themselves in the wonderful contemplation of GOD.
Yet, nowhere I think it is said that this contemplation refers to something material - as we understand this word - resembling a person or anything we know.
It may just be, and I think it will likely be, some vision so splendid and awesome that our mere looking at will fill us with happiness forever.
However, as I said in my previous answer, all these considerations belong to the world of the unknown aspects of Divinity which we shall only be able to know for sure when we cease to exist down here.

jakester ,
Yes, I understand where you are coming from on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hello, again, jakester.

There's a lot in your post that I'm pondering, and I will offer a more substantial response quite soon. In the meantime, I'd like to try to get clear about one thing (the absence of clarity may be more my fault than yours): What, if anything, changed when sin entered the world? Prior to God's decision to curse his creation, in the space of time between the sin and the cursing. This is something I am myself trying to get clear about.

You rightly point out that the very first sin was not Adam's but Satan's. Here again: Did anything change, was anything different, once the sin was committed but before God cast Satan down? In other words, had God chosen not to punish Satan or Adam, would the creation have been other than as it was created on account of the sin that was committed?

I hope I've posed the question in a way that's clear. I plan to formulate a response to your post very soon, and hopefully that will lend clarity to my question (in the event clarity is lacking).

Akou
My answer to your questions is...
Only God knows.
Fred

Akou
My answer to your questions is....
Only God knows.
Fred

Oh, gee, thanks Fred! That helps me out a lot.

(And yes, I am kidding.)

Akoue,
LOL

I will try to make a distinction between the idea of a cosmic law and God’s sovereignty over his creation…

I think the cosmic law principle would say that because sin entered into existence, God “had” to deal with this something that “…was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before.” However, I argue that God’s sovereignty would say that God’s control over his creation, whether man or any other creature obeyed him or disobeyed him, is so absolute that he could have done any number of things with Satan and with Adam and with the rest of creation.

I had a small about of paraskevidekatriaphobia Friday and I may not have been on top of my game – it’s taken a few days to get over it. But, don’t worry; I made it till midnight ALIVE. It was a light about compared past years. The only ill effects was spilled coffee (twice), a stubbed toe getting out of bed, and I crashed my computer when I got to work – and that was just in the am. I won’t bore you with the afternoon’s mayhem. No, I’m not superstitious (much).

As I understand it, a universal or cosmic law held by most states that the ultimate goal of the soul is to master its physical condition; the human intellect becomes one with the energies of the universe, as it were, to become the universe. This cosmic law seems to suggest that man can transcend his physical world. Taken as such, jakester’s comments, though wrong, begin to make a little sense. The problem with the Cosmic Law it contends that man is capable of transcending his own nature, transcending his own creator. Being a created creature, man cannot reason the intent of his Creator.

As I read jokester’s post, it seems to infer that sin is something I’m not familiar with. While sin does change things, it can’t change reality. Sin is not a material thing which can be held and dispensed; rather it is a moral evil, a privation of form, or a disorder created in God’s perfect creation. St. Thomas and Augustine both teach that sin is a voluntary act of the will. “… sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. Xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says "word," "deed," or "desire"; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, "contrary to the eternal law." The point is that it is man who transgresses against God, not sin.

A little research shows how central the themes of these verses are to Church doctrine. I found the verses 18-30 referenced by Chrysostom on Romans, Evangelium Vitae, Augustine, City of God Christian Doctrine, Augustine’s Harmony of Gospels, Lumen Gentium, Summa Theologica… ad infinitum. This set of verses is mentioned in nearly 70 different Catholic works (most with multiple citations), including 18 works in the Magisterium. I only mention this to show the importance of these verses in Catholic theology. It seems to me that the prominence of such verses demands a disciplined rigor for interpretation. Most Catholic works seem to pick up Chrysostom’s interpretation of Paul’s philosophy in these verses. That central philosophy seems to advance the theme of hope. First it should be recognized that the intended audience is the Christian - Jewish community in Rome. This audience would recognize exactly what’s being said. In Romans 8.

Verse 18

“For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us.”

It’s clear that Paul is calculating (or comparing) the sufferings of the mortal created creature with the promised glory. The re-birth of baptism delivers man from the ‘law’ of sin conferring the salvific graces of the Holy Spirit; “And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin: but the spirit liveth, because of justification.” Man’s nature is vexingly driven to transcend his condition of bondage in sin through the Law. Unable to do so he becomes frustrated by a nature that “walks according to the flesh”. Paul is reminding us that it is in Christ that “we are saved by hope.” This is Salvation that carries man beyond a binding Law of indebtedness which the flesh cannot transcend. Thus we find our sufferings are of little worth. No penance will ever surmount the quantities owed for such a glorious gift. Hope is the theme here. “For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience.”

Verses 19 and 20 (following St. Chrysostom)

For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity: not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope.

We have great hope (expectation) to remain exposed to the truth of the sons of God. “In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundedst the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment: And as vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed.” (Psalm 101:26, 27) All that is man, not found in Christ, will perish. Those found in Christ will be made incorruptible. (1 Cor 15:53). It’s our hope in Christ that becomes the object of our reason, “ not willingly that it was made subject, it is not to show that it is possessed of judgment that he says so, but that you may learn that the whole is brought about by Christ's care, and this is no achievement of its own.”

St. Chrysostom answers his own question, “And now say in what hope?” with verse 21, “Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.” What’s delivered isn’t the corruptible, but the rather the soul is made incorruptible sons of God.

JoeT

Joe,
I'm sorry for you that you have paraskevidekatriaphobia, whatever that is. I'm completely unaware of what it is.
Your post has caused me to ponder more of what those verses intend to say to the layman such as I.
Again I am thankful of the presevered works of the saints and The Church fathers and people like you who can and do provide that information.
Thanks for the good post and I hope and pray that you will heal well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Satan had already brought sin into existence and the scenario in the garden was a manifestation of the evil already present in the world, which we would call sin. But God had not already cursed creation even though sin was already present because of Satan. So sin as a phenomenon was in existence even as Adam was alive prior to his own transgression.

This is a very interesting point. Many commentators (both historical and contemporary) tend to give Adam the "credit" for bringing sin into the world, even though the first sin had already been committed by Satan. I suppose one way of reading that would be to say that although sin existed, it did not exist "in the world". I don't find that interpretation terribly helpful, though. But something suggested by what you write here, with which I am particularly interested (and with which I have some sympathy, at least in a general way) is the idea that sin is a sort of spiritual disease which is communicable, which can be transmitted. It is a sort of cancer on the soul of the one who sins, as indeed on the created order itself (hence natural, as opposed to moral, evil). Augustine, along with a great many early Christians, thought of it this way (in part). Looked at in this light, sin has a kind of reality, although the nature of its reality is not easy to articulate. Here Augustine, along with many others including esp.Pseudo Dionysius, regarded sin or evil as nothingness: The committing of sinful acts is a deviation from the goodness and order God bestowed upon his creation. When we sin, we damage the fabric of that created reallity. (This doesn't imply a cosmic law compelling God; this may be part and parcel of what it means to say that God cursed his creation.)


I think the cosmic law principle would say that because sin entered into existence, God “had” to deal with this something that “…was introduced into the creation that wasn't there before.” However, I argue that God’s sovereignty would say that God’s control over his creation, whether man or any other creature obeyed him or disobeyed him, is so absolute that he could have done any number of things with Satan and with Adam and with the rest of creation.

Here I suspect, when it gets right down to it, you and I agree. My one real reservation concerns the notion of control. While I readily agree that God is omnipotent and can dispose of his creation as he sees fit, it isn't at all clear to me that God exercises his omnipotence equally at all places and all times. Here's where I have some sympathy with some version of a cosmic law: There is a divinely ordained order to creation, and that order includes the laws and principles which God has inscribed in rational beings for the guidance and constraint of free will. The misuse of free will can, it seems to me, disrupt the order of the creation, not because God is in any way compelled or limited himself, but because he ordained a creation in which free will has real causal power. The proper exercise of free will maintains harmony between the agent and creation (and God), and the misuse of free will breeds disharmony. I would argue that we can in fact see the effects of this disharmony, though I'll leave that for another occasion.


It seems that once the scenario in the garden took place, God chose to act then (not when Satan fell) and he subsequently cursed his creation. But I think he could have cursed creation on account of Satan as well if, strictly speaking, sin brought into existence somehow changes the whole of the created reality.

I agree.


Ultimately, sin in of itself did not impact creation in any particular away, autonomously from God; God chose to punish the serpent, Adam and Eve because of their sin but God could have chosen to not to curse them... he could have simply destroyed them and made another human being in his place while leaving the rest of what he already created intact. Sin is transgression against God but it is not some inherently powerful force which brings about an effect in creation. The only effect that is really a reality in the garden scenario is God’s choice to do something in reality: he cursed his creation.

I don't mean to suggest that sin is an inherently powerful force, although it probably sounds like I'm at least leaning in that direction. I do, however, think that sin or evil can be thought of as a virus that spreads and disrupts the harmonius order of creation. This isn't to suggest that God's hand is in any way forced. But it makes sense to me that part of the punishment for sin, part of the consequences with which the creature (us) must deal as a result of violating God's established moral order, is a creation which now includes a kind of friction that it did not at its inception. This is why Augustine, for instance, distinguished between the natural state and the preternatural state: The nature of reality after the introduction of sin is not that of its preternatural state, i.e. reality before there was evil. I am not suggesting that one is bound to accept Augustine's distinction, only that I find it to be quite deep and not at all silly. Sin, evil, changes things. This is true in the individual and it is true of creation as a whole. And this resonates powerfully with the claim that creation groans for redemption, that creation in a sense suffers under the weight of human sinfulness.


Where any of my argument really matters is when we come back to your earlier post. The question was asked, was it Adam who subjected creation to futility or God who subjected it? The cosmic law principle would say that because sin was brought into existence, sin changed everything as if it were a kind of autonomous power (mystical force).

I don't want to go all in on the cosmic law principle, but I think there's probably something right about it. Like you, I want to stear clear of the idea that this principle is independent of God's power to ordain. That said, if Satan can enter and possess an Apostle of the Lord, then evil does have palpable power to change reality from one state to another.


were sins in existence prior to Adam and Eve and yet the whole of creation was not subject to a curse.

Again, this is a very good point. It's not at all obvious to me what is to be made of this fact, though. (Maybe why I'm still here trying to probe this issue with you and others.)


The curtain will be pulled back and man will enter into the presence of God whereas such was not possible before.

I also wonder about the extent of the transformation that will be wrought by the face to face encounter with God. The way some people talk about heaven makes me think that they haven't nearly considered how utterly transformative it would be to be that intimate with God. I suspect the integration of individuals with one another and with God will far transcend the broadly sensuous descriptions one often hears.

I thought yours was a fascinating post and I hope I've done it some justice. As always, I very much lookk forward to hearing your thoughts.

I had a small about of paraskevidekatriaphobia Friday and I may not have been on top of my game – it’s taken a few days to get over it.

The next time it rolls around just think of it as the day A LOT of Templars died. That should make it seem much less creepy!


As I understand it, a universal or cosmic law held by most states that the ultimate goal of the soul is to master its physical condition; the human intellect becomes one with the energies of the universe, as it were, to become the universe. This cosmic law seems to suggest that man can transcend his physical world. Taken as such, jakester’s comments, though wrong, begin to make a little sense. The problem with the Cosmic Law it contends that man is capable of transcending his own nature, transcending his own creator. Being a created creature, man cannot reason the intent of his Creator.

I'm not sure that there is some one thing that is typically meant by cosmic law. Of course, it may get a lot of play in some new age circles, but I wouldn't know since I avod them like the plague that they are. When I use it here, at least, I certainly don't have in mind anything like transcending of the physical or of God or anything like that. I don't think jakester does either, although I don't mean to be presumptuous. As my last post may help make more evident, I'm thinking of a Divinely established law governing creation. It would especially include moral laws. I don't see the moral order and the metaphysical order of creation as two independent realities: I see them as mutually interpenetrating. This is certainly how Augustine sees it in the middle books of the City of God, and very clearly in bks 19-22. I actually think that this is a very ancient, and authentically Christian view. It's all over the Church Fathers. In fact, I can't think of a single one who didn't believe this.


While sin does change things, it can’t change reality. Sin is not a material thing which can be held and dispensed; rather it is a moral evil, a privation of form, or a disorder created in God’s perfect creation.

Actually, my sense is that you and jakester are probably fairly close together on this point, with me as the odd one out. I do think that evil is a privation, but I think that that privation has, as it were, metaphysical force. The absence of good isn't, so to speak, a vacuum; it's the presence of evil (this is essentially how Augustine puts it in bks.13-14 of the City of God.) It is the presence of an absence. But since the highest good is God, it is the absence of God, a turning away from him, and it is violence against the goodness of his creation.


Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God's reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. Xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says "word," "deed," or "desire"; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, "contrary to the eternal law." The point is that it is man who transgresses against God, not sin.

The business about "due measure" is Aquinas dutifully channeling Aristotle. He does way too much of that in my opinion. It is true, though, that the agency is ours, not sin's. It is we who sin, not sin that acts through us. At the same time, though, we have no trouble talking about, for instance, temptation as though it did have a weird sort of agency. And I'm not sure that's altogether wrong--although I do think it's easy to take it way too far.


A little research shows how central the themes of these verses are to Church doctrine. I found the verses 18-30 referenced by Chrysostom on Romans, Evangelium Vitae, Augustine, City of God Christian Doctrine, Augustine’s Harmony of Gospels, Lumen Gentium, Summa Theologica… ad infinitum. This set of verses is mentioned in nearly 70 different Catholic works (most with multiple citations), including 18 works in the Magisterium. I only mention this to show the importance of these verses in Catholic theology. It seems to me that the prominence of such verses demands a disciplined rigor for interpretation. Most Catholic works seem to pick up Chrysostom’s interpretation of Paul’s philosophy in these verses. That central philosophy seems to advance the theme of hope. First it should be recognized that the intended audience is the Christian - Jewish community in Rome. This audience would recognize exactly what’s being said. In Romans 8.

It is central, to be sure. The Church Fathers devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to Romans 7 and 8. Much of Augustine's theology can in fact be read as an extended meditation on these two chapters.

Yet, nowhere I think it is said that this contemplation refers to something material - as we understand this word - resembling a person or anything we know.

Quite right. I think there is a tendency in some quarters to construe and to envisage the beatific vision in excessively materialistic and sensuous terms. To do so, I feel, underestimates that transformative power of such intimacy with God. But here, as you say, the answers are destined to elude us while we make our pilgrimage.

Thanks for the excellent post.

The next time it rolls around just think of it as the day A LOT of Templars died. That should make it seem much less creepy! .

Less creepy! Wanta bet?

It just occurred to me that this is the first time in ten years that I will have 3 bouts of illness. March is looming, and August will be here before you know it. OH! The HUMANITY! Did you know that a year with 3 months of such Fridays occurs only 4 times in a 28 year cycle? And, did you know that one need only whisper 'fire' in a crowded room to start panic. Think about it, wasn't last year's black August enough! Enough of superstitions - I'm not superstitious anyway.

As to the backhanded hex wished upon me - I'm not superstitious: but, just because King Philip had the Templars arrested on Friday, October 13, 1307, tried, executed, and burned at the stake, doesn't bother me one bit; hardly at all, not much. But did you know that in 2001 a document known as the Chinon Parchment was found in the Secret Archives of the Vatican which cleared the Templars and absolved them of all heresies?

When you think about it, doesn't this connect with our Verses in Romans 8; the corruptible creature knows not the magnitude of glory that belongs to the sons of God? “…delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.” Honor, courage, commitment, the core values that define Soldiers of Christ: Sigillum Militum Χρisti (the Seal of the Soldiers of Christ)

A superstition started by a stupid ol' book, The Da Vinci Code doesn't bother me - too much, hardly at all, maybe a little. That is to say, “why take something which you could easily abolish as a superstition and carefully perpetuate it as a bore?” (Chesterton)

Semper Fidelis, JoeT

Joe,
Thanks for that.
I had not heard of that document on the Knights.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Less creepy! Wanta bet?

It just occurred to me that this is the first time in ten years that I will have 3 bouts of illness. March is looming, and August will be here before you know it. OH! The HUMANITY! Did you know that a year with 3 months of such Fridays occurs only 4 times in a 28 year cycle? And, did you know that one need only whisper 'fire' in a crowded room to start panic. Think about it, wasn’t last year’s black August enough!? Enough of superstitions - I'm not superstitious anyway.

As to the backhanded hex wished upon me - I’m not superstitious: but, just because King Philip had the Templars arrested on Friday, October 13, 1307, tried, executed, and burned at the stake, doesn’t bother me one bit; hardly at all, not much. But did you know that in 2001 a document known as the Chinon Parchment was found in the Secret Archives of the Vatican which cleared the Templars and absolved them of all heresies?

When you think about it, doesn’t this connect with our Verses in Romans 8; the corruptible creature knows not the magnitude of glory that belongs to the sons of God? “…delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.” Honor, courage, commitment, the core values that define Soldiers of Christ: Sigillum Militum ??isti (the Seal of the Soldiers of Christ)

A superstition started by a stupid ol’ book, The Da Vinci Code doesn’t bother me - too much, hardly at all, maybe a little. That is to say, “why take something which you could easily abolish as a superstition and carefully perpetuate it as a bore?” (Chesterton)

Semper Fidelis, JoeT

As lousy and obnoxious as The Da Vinci Code is, the Friday the 13th superstition can't be pinned on it. Been around too long. (Besides, Dan Brown isn't long on actual creativity. That's why he being sued for plagiarism.)

And the Holy See had never held the Templars guilty. In fact, it had opposed the action taken by Philip all along.

I wish you well as you struggle with your phobia. Try to forget it's Friday the 13th. Maybe get really drunk on Thursday the 12th and just stay in bed and sleep right through it. That's the kind of thing sick days were created for, after all.

Akoue.
LOL
Fred

As lousy and obnoxious as The Da Vinci Code is, the Friday the 13th superstition can't be pinned on it. Been around too long. (Besides, Dan Brown isn't long on actual creativity. That's why he being sued for plagiarism.)

And the Holy See had never held the Templars guilty. In fact, it had opposed the action taken by Philip all along.

I wish you well as you struggle with your phobia. Try to forget it's Friday the 13th. Maybe get really drunk on Thursday the 12th and just stay in bed and sleep right through it. That's the kind of thing sick days were created for, after all.

I've got one of those unbelievable and tragic stories to tell about Friday the 13th - maybe some slow day I'll tell it. On the lighter side, I've got a friend that call's each Friday the 13th to berate me for being superstitious and to get the latest horror story. But, I've hijacked your thread long enough over silliness.

Unless I missed it, I think you owe us your thoughts on Romans 8.

That goes for you too arcura, I don't recall you weighing in.

JoeT

JoeT777
I have participated on that for quite some time. (several posts).
Basically I've been leaning from it.
Fred

Joe,
I'm sorry for you that you have paraskevidekatriaphobia, whatever that is. I'm completely unaware of what it is.
Your post has caused me to ponder more of what those verses intend to say to the layman such as I.
Again I am thankful of the presevered works of the saints and The Church fathers and people like you who can and do provide that information.
Thanks for the good post and I hope and pray that you will heal well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Fred,
This is supposed to be applied to people suffering an irrational fear...

Unless I missed it, I think you owe us your thoughts on Romans 8.

Funny, I thought that's what I've been doing all along.

Funny, I thought that's what I've been doing all along.

I thought so, too!

Funny, I thought that's what I've been doing all along.

I thought so, too!

Well, yes but only to suggest your “cosmic victory” theory. Surely, Paul had a lot more in mind than God is Great? Certainly, Paul’s audience understood the importance of being described as “sons of God.”

Where’s the beef?

On another matter, St. Thomas isn’t channeling Aristotle; you need to explain that one As I see it St. Thomas uses Aristotle to form, as it were, metaphysical algorithms. I suppose next you’ll be accusing St. Augustine of being a reformed sinner.


JoeT

Well, yes but only to suggest your “cosmic victory” theory. Surely, Paul had a lot more in mind than God is Great? Certainly, Paul’s audience understood the importance of being described as “sons of God.”

Where’s the beef?

On another matter, St. Thomas isn’t channeling Aristotle; you need to explain that one As I see it St. Thomas uses Aristotle to form, as it were, metaphysical algorithms. I suppose next you’ll be accusing St. Augustine of being a reformed sinner.


JoeT

Good one. I like that and may steal it. (I said "steal", not "pay for".) I definitely think Aquinas is a first rate thinker; I've learned a lot from him and know that that he still has a lot to teach me. I do sometimes think that the Aristotelian superstructure of his thought stifles some of his own native brilliance, though. Besides, the quaestio-format just really starts to bug me after a while.

You're right to say that so far I haven't given a straightforward interpretation of Rom.8. But, and this is not a put-on, it's because I don't have one to offer. I would like to have one, and that's why I've been digging into the issues we've been discussing. They clearly play an important part in what's going on in the passage, but I don't quite understand what part that is. So I have a bunch of ideas swirling around, but not much else.

So far, I think, I'm persuaded that there is something in the vicinity of a cosmic law principle in play, but please note all my caveats about this. I agree with jakester that the cosmic law can't be thought of as something that somehow compels God to act in one way or another. But I do take very seriously the idea that creation (not just humanity) is suffering, groaning for an anticipated redemption. I'm just not at all sure what to make of that. I think my remarks above about evil are an important part of the story, but I definitely don't have all that worked out yet.

So I'm honestly not trying to keep my cards close to my vest. There's just still a lot about this short but very meaty passage that I haven't figured out yet. And since all the people who have posted to this thread so far are thoughtful guys, I have been shamelessly using you to help me sort things through. And it's helped a lot, even if I'm not quite there yet--in fact, I'm not even sure where there is, but I am confidant that I'll know it when I arrive. Do you think what I've said in previous posts makes sense? Because I'm not sure what to think about it. The feedback really does help.

Hello my friend,

Another excellent thread. I've read some but not all of the entries. I'd like to post my own because I have thought about this quite a bit. And, I've never understood why some say that animals will not go to heaven. I say this, because I had a dream once that my grandmother showed me my childhood dog, in heaven. She was quite happy (the dog), but I don't think she knew where she was.

Anyway, to prepare the way, these are simply my speculative thoughts and may or may not adhere to Catholic doctrine. I hope they do, but I'm not certain they do.

For one thing, we rarely remember that the one who introduced sin into the world was Satan. Unfortunately, Adam became his lackey or pawn.

In addition, I practice the "Presence of God" devotion. From practice of this devotion, I've come to believe that we are never out of God's presence. Not on this earth, not in heaven and not even in hell.


Romans 8.19-22 reads:

v.19: For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;

God knows who are the predestined. But no creature knows.


v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it,

I suggest that this subjection occurred when Satan fell and dragged with him 1/3 of the stars.


in hope

This introduces the next verse and in my opinion should be part of the next verse. Only by and through hope, will creation be set free from slavery...


v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption

In other words, then, only by and through hope in God will creation be set free from slavery to corruption, that is from slavery to Satan and sin which he introduced into the world.


and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

By whose faith, hope and love, the world will be freed from corruption.


v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...

All creation is suffering because of the sin of Satan. Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"


a) How do you understand this passage?

Well, if we compare to another passage:

Romans 5 12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"

But suffering and death was introduced into creation by Satan. In my opinion.


b) What does this tell us about redemption?

John 12 32 And I, if I be lifted from the earth, will draw all things to myself.

Jesus is redeeming the world. Even sinners will be redeemed. But not to heaven.


I have heard it said that Christ came to save human beings and only human beings. But this passage seems to suggest that Christ's redemption is not reserved only for humanity but for the whole of creation. Is that true?

I believe it is.


If it is true, from what does creation (apart from humanity) need to be redeemed and how is it to receive its redemption?

From Satan.

John 12 31 Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.


c) What exactly is it that "creation awaits with eager expectation"?

Union with God.


Why is "all creation groaning" and for what?

Union with God.


d) What, if anything, does this passage tell us about Christ's mission?

561 "The whole of Christ's life was a continual teaching: his silences, his miracles, his gestures, his prayer, his love for people, his special affection for the little and the poor, his acceptance of the total sacrifice on the Cross for the redemption of the world, and his Resurrection are the actualization of his word and the fulfillment of Revelation" John Paul II, CT 9).

Jesus the Son of man and Son of God conquers all, draws everything to Himself and then returns everything to the Father.

What do you think?

Akoue,
Like you I have not come to a complete understanding of that passage.
Hopefully more discussion on it will be of value.
Fred

Hello my friend,

Another excellent thread. I've read some but not all of the entries. I'd like to post my own because I have thought about this quite a bit. And, I've never understood why some say that animals will not go to heaven. I say this, because I had a dream once that my grandmother showed me my childhood dog, in heaven. She was quite happy (the dog), but I don't think she knew where she was.

Anyway, to prepare the way, these are simply my speculative thoughts and may or may not adhere to Catholic doctrine. I hope they do, but I'm not certain they do.

De Maria,

It's so very nice to see you here with us for a while. I hope all is well with you.

Well, I am still working my way through your (typically) excellent post. I know I like it a lot and I know that I found myself nodding in agreement as I read along. But it's thoughtful and I'd like to give it a thoughtful (as opposed to off-the-cuff) response. I just had to take a quick moment to say how delighted I was by your first paragraph. I too have been a bit confused by the claim that animals will not go to heaven, and this is surely at least part of what motivates my interest in the present passage. (But only part.)

If either of us were advocating apokatastasis--the idea that everything, including Satan, is to be united with God in heaven--then we'd be on the wrong side of Catholic doctrine. But nothing you've said even hints at that, so I think the coast is clear.

I look forward to spending some time with your post. Knowing me, I'll have a long, and probably long-winded, reply before too long.

Be well.

Akoue,
Like you I have not come to a complete understanding of that passage.
Hopefully more discussion on it will be of value.
Fred

I hope so too. At least it's a fun passage to ponder. Especially in good company.

v.19: For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God;

v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)

V. 19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. (KJV)


v.20: for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope

v. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity: not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope. (Douay-Rheims)

v. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, (KJV)


v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

v. 21 Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. (Douay-Rheims)

v. 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (KJV)


v.22: We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now...

v. 22 For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain, even till now. (Douay-Rheims)

v. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (KJV)

So far, I still can’t come to agreement with anybody who has posted a response. I see a different focus in these verses. Some of the fault may be mine - I get thick headed sometimes. Some of the fault may be that each of the translations can be construed with different connotation. (see above) One difference is the interchange of the word ‘creation’ and ‘creature’ in the different versions. I realize that this is a small substitution, but it seems to add or takeaway some inference. And what’s worse, is that if I take bits and pieces of all three of the versions above I come even closer to St. Chrysostom’s interpretation; I get frustrated trying to view it any other way.

In my opinion verse 24 is the focus when discussing verses 18 to 25.

v. 24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? (Douay-Rheims)

And verse 19 points to this conclusion.

v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)

Here the ‘creature’ is man, and through original sin is made subject to vanity. Vanity is the causality for man’s walking “according to the flesh.” And as we know the way’s of the flesh lead to corruption, death. Thus, Paul wants us to look at the futility of our sufferings. Our sufferings become futile or otherwise ineffectual. Thus we groan in our labor longing for freedom from the condition of concupiscence.

So, where do we find our deliverance? In Christ we see that the chains of concupiscence break us from corruption (death); liberating man to become adopted children of God. “we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body” Paul tells us how this happens, “we are saved by hope!”

JoeT

So far, I still can’t come to agreement with anybody who has posted a response. I see a different focus in these verses. Some of the fault may be mine - I get thick headed sometimes. Some of the fault may be that each of the translations can be construed with different connotation. (see above) One difference is the interchange of the word ‘creation’ and ‘creature’ in the different versions. I realize that this is a small substitution, but it seems to add or takeaway some inference. And what’s worse, is that if I take bits and pieces of all three of the versions above I come even closer to St. Chrysostom’s interpretation; I get frustrated trying to view it any other way.

In my opinion verse 24 is the focus when discussing verses 18 to 25.

v. 24 For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? (Douay-Rheims)

And verse 19 points to this conclusion.

v. 19 For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. (Douay-Rheims)

Here the ‘creature’ is man, and through original sin is made subject to vanity. Vanity is the causality for man’s walking “according to the flesh.” And as we know the way’s of the flesh lead to corruption, death. Thus, Paul wants us to look at the futility of our sufferings. Our sufferings become futile or otherwise ineffectual. Thus we groan in our labor longing for freedom from the condition of concupiscence.

So, where do we find our deliverance? In Christ we see that the chains of concupiscence break us from corruption (death); liberating man to become adopted children of God. “we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God, the redemption of our body” Paul tells us how this happens, “we are saved by hope!”

JoeT

Joe, thanks so much for providing the variant translations of these verses. One thing that I think I can offer is a little bit of clarity on this. The Greek word that is used for creation in vv.19-22 is "he ktisis". In vv.20-22 "He ktisis" is in the nominative singular, and this means that the correct translation in these verses is "the creation" or "creation" (if you leave the definite article, he, out); in v.19 it is in the genitive. I don't see mention of any variant readings in the manuscript tradition that would explain the plural found in some translations. I'm guessing this is the translators inserting some of their own interpretive preferences.

This does have some repercussions for the interpretation of the passage, inasmuch as "creation" allows for the possibility that it isn't just creatures (say, animals and humans) that long to be one with God. But it definitely doesn't decide things one way or another, since in some sense, everything that God created can be regarded as a creature. (Augustine famously referred to time as a creature, since it is part of the creation.)

Your point about the centrality of hope to an understanding of the passage is well taken. I think that is right. Or at least, I agree. The idea that creation itself longs for its creator, longs for union with the Godhead is really intriguing to me, and something I wish got more attention than it seems to. But that also raises the question, which we've been considering, of who placed it under subjection: God, Adam, or Satan? I think De Maria's post makes strong case for the view that it was Satan.

Having said all that, I think you are in good company if you find yourself favoring Chrysostom's reading. He was as fine a biblical scholar as there's ever been, and I am uneasy at the prospect of being at odds with him on this. But I confess that I don't see how concupiscence fits in here--though that may just mean that I am missing something. In any case, I think there are several things going on in the passage simultaneously (this is part of what makes it difficult, i.e. it is very dense) and unless I am confused (again, a real possibility) I don't think that what you have said is at odds with anything jakester, De Maria, or I have proposed. I think it's just not yet entirely evident how all the pieces fall into place alongside one another. This at least seems to be where I am at the moment.

I think that some notion of a cosmic law, together with the idea that creation as a whole is somehow filled with longing for God and your point about the centrality of hope, must all together be involved in these verses. But it's rather a lot to sort through once you start digging into the details. But I'm a glutton for punishment: I never like to stay at just the surface of the text. There's always so much more waiting below.

JoeT777,
Thanks much for that it adds much to my pondering.
I also tend to go along with St. Chrysostom's offering on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe, thanks so much for providing the variant translations of these verses. One thing that I think I can offer is a little bit of clarity on this. The Greek word that is used for creation in vv.19-22 is "he ktisis". In vv.20-22 "He ktisis" is in the nominative singular, and this means that the correct translation in these verses is "the creation" or "creation" (if you leave the definite article, he, out); in v.19 it is in the genitive. I don't see mention of any variant readings in the manuscript tradition that would explain the plural found in some translations. I'm guessing this is the translators inserting some of their own interpretive preferences.

Now I'll confess, I was secretly hoping you would explain the differences. I just didn't want to ask straight out. I appreciate it.


This does have some repercussions for the interpretation of the passage, inasmuch as "creation" allows for the possibility that it isn't just creatures (say, animals and humans) that long to be one with God. But it definitely doesn't decide things one way or another, since in some sense, everything that God created can be regarded as a creature. (Augustine famously referred to time as a creature, since it is part of the creation.)

Then couldn't (or shouldn't) we take the usage of 'creation' or 'creature' as allegorical. I'd suggest that since it doesn't significantly add to Paul's intended meaning it's likely to be figurative.

That is if you don't consider all of creation vs a creature or multiple creatures significant.


The idea that creation itself longs for its creator, longs for union with the Godhead is really intriguing to me, and something I wish got more attention than it seems to.

I can agree with this.


But that also raises the question, which we've been considering, of who placed it under subjection: God, Adam, or Satan? I think De Maria's post makes strong case for the view that it was Satan.

Yes, I picked up on the subjection by Satin. Where normally I agree with Juan on most things, I can't on this. But, let's see if one candidate at a time can be eliminated, especially Satin. According to V. 20 the ineffectiveness is born out of helplessness (subjection) in hope. Satin wouldn't offer hope, please remember “hope saves.” Satin doesn't want to 'save.' And the creature is unable to transcend the nature he was created in (or should I say created for); and Adam was 'creature'. We are only left with one other candidate. The One that saves with hope! Anyway, it seems to make sense.

You see if Satin causes our helplessness, presumably through sin, then how can God justify us (save us). We'd be automatically justified, “the devil made me do it!” I don't think God would buy it. I know my wife doesn't!

St. Augustine seems to hold the same view. God is the one who 'subjects': 8. I will be glad, and rejoice in Your mercy: which does not deceive me. For You have regarded My humiliation: wherein You have subjected me to vanity in hope. [Romans 8:20] You have saved my soul from necessities [Psalm 30:7]. You have saved my soul from the necessities of fear, that with a free love it may serve You. (St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 31) see also St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 25, 6



Having said all that, I think you are in good company if you find yourself favoring Chrysostom's reading. He was as fine a biblical scholar as there's ever been, and I am uneasy at the prospect of being at odds with him on this. But I confess that I don't see how concupiscence fits in here--though that may just mean that I am missing something. In any case, I think there are several things going on in the passage simultaneously (this is part of what makes it difficult, i.e. it is very dense) and unless I am confused (again, a real possibility) I don't think that what you have said is at odds with anything jakester, De Maria, or I have proposed. I think it's just not yet entirely evident how all the pieces fall into place alongside one another. This at least seems to be where I am at the moment.

To my recollection, Chrysostom didn't use 'concupiscence' – that was me. So, don't blame him. I'm probably wrong doing it, but I use 'concupiscence' to describe man's lust for depravity or the propensity for sin.

But, OK we'll leave it alone for awhile.


I think that some notion of a cosmic law, together with the idea that creation as a whole is somehow filled with longing for God and your point about the centrality of hope, must all together be involved in these verses. But it's rather a lot to sort through once you start digging into the details. But I'm a glutton for punishment: I never like to stay at just the surface of the text. There's always so much more waiting below.
Apparently I've got the same objection with 'cosmic law' as you had with the above. I just can't see it. But, if you get it figured out, you'll need to render it in its simplest form for this simpleton.

JoeT

JoeT777
I agree.
Also I find it difficult tp think that creation as a whole is longing for the God who created all that is seen and unseen.
Much of that creation, I think, can not long for anything for it never had life as we know it.
While some religions do believe that things such as rocks and hills have spirits I do not believe that they do or even can have spirits.
Without the ability to think how can anything "long"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777
I agree.
Also I find it difficult tp think that creation as a whole is longing for the God who created all that is seen and unseen.
Much of that creation, I think, can not long for anything for it never had life as we know it.
While some religions do believe that things such as rocks and hills have spirits I do not believe that they do or even can have spirits.
Without the ability to think how can anything "long"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You and Joe raise a great question, but one that it's not easy to deal with. I say this because it makes perfect sense to me that those parts of creation that have life so long for God. In fact, St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory Nazianzen say this. So is there a kind of cosmic longing that perhaps humans just can't understand, or is the longing only that of those things in the creation that have life? I could see it going either way at this point.

Now you get why I've been so stumped?

You and Joe raise a great question, but one that it's not easy to deal with. I say this because it makes perfect sense to me that those parts of creation that have life so long for God. In fact, St. Irenaeus and St. Gregory Nazianzen say this. So is there a kind of cosmic longing that perhaps humans just can't understand, or is the longing only that of those things in the creation that have life? I could see it going either way at this point.

Now you get why I've been so stumped?

Good points Fred. I think Akoue was 'stumped' because this tree was cut long before he entered the woods. (just joking!)

Akoue; here's a few more problems. Hope is a theological virtue. Now if we give hope to re-unite creation with God, can we then have a virtuous rock, a virtuous lake, or how about a virtuous desert? If we mean creature, as in all living things, then can we have virtuous snakes (I hate snakes), a virtuous fish, how about a virtuous cow?

Wouldn't this be projecting humanity on nature?

JoeT

Joe,
Good questions.
I have no answers just wonderings.
Fred

Akoue; here’s a few more problems. Hope is a theological virtue. Now if we give hope to re-unite creation with God, can we then have a virtuous rock, a virtuous lake, or how about a virtuous desert? If we mean creature, as in all living things, then can we have virtuous snakes (I hate snakes), a virtuous fish, how about a virtuous cow?

Wouldn’t this be projecting humanity on nature?

JoeT

I don't see why we couldn't say that hope is a theological virtue *in humans*. I don't think that runs the risk of being ad hoc.

I wonder, though, whether there isn't a way to understand it without anthropomorphizing nature. This has been on my mind, too, and all I have come up with so far is that hope on the part of creation may not look like human hope, or it might not look like hope to us but Paul is telling us that it is a kind of hope. In other words, we might be called upon to stretch our conception of what hope is. If there's anything to this (and I wouldn't want to have to defend it), then it might not be that we're anthropomorphizing nature but rather that we are being pointed in the direction of a less parochial understanding of what hope is.

Or it could be that it's late and I'm tired and my addled brain doesn't know which end is up. This is a live option.

EDIT:

I have placed asterisks around the phrase "in humans" above. As originally phrased, the first sentence of my post what unclear. What I meant to say is that we can consider hope to be a theological hope in humans but something other than a theological hope in non-humans. My purpose was to hive off a conception of hope that has application to creation as a whole without construing it as a theological virtue. I hope this makes sense to anyone who isn't me(!).

Akoue,
There are different understandings of "hope"
Such as I hope you have a good nights rest.
I'm about ready to hit the hay for another day.
To me a biblical hope is a theological expectation of a certainty.
Another is the hope I had when in the Garden of the God's in Colorado I was standing on a very big rock which was balanced on a comparatively very small footing.
I hoped that it would not move which was a reasonable assurance that it would stay put while I was standing on it.
Otherwise I would not have gotten up on it at all.
So is there another hope that such things as that rock could somehow experience?
I doubt it, but who knows?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Well, yes but only to suggest your “cosmic victory” theory. Surely, Paul had a lot more in mind than God is Great? Certainly, Paul’s audience understood the importance of being described as “sons of God.”

Where’s the beef?

On another matter, St. Thomas isn’t channeling Aristotle; you need to explain that one As I see it St. Thomas uses Aristotle to form, as it were, metaphysical algorithms. I suppose next you’ll be accusing St. Augustine of being a reformed sinner.


JoeT

Too difficult and elaborate to discuss St. Thomas Aquinas in this board. However, I can without any problems affirm that St. Augustine could be considered, to a certain extent, as a reformed sinner. As you probably know, he was educated in North Africa and resisted his mother's pleas to become Christian. He used to live for a long while as a pagan intellectual, and during this period he took a concubine and became a Manichean. It was only later he converted to Catolicism to eventually become a Doctor of the Church.

I therefore think he can be considered a repented sinner.

Akoue,
There are different understandings of "hope"
Such as I hope you have a good nights rest.
I'm about ready to hit the hay for another day.
To me a biblical hope is a theological expectation of a certainty.
Another is the hope I had when in the Garden of the God's in Colorado I was standing on a very big rock which was balanced on a comparatively very small footing.
I hoped that it would not move which was a reasonable assurance that it would stay put while I was standing on it.
Otherwise I would not have gotten up on it at all.
So is there another hope that such things as that rock could somehow experience?
I doubt it, but who knows?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, you are of course absolutely right to suggest that it would sound just really odd to speak of a rock having hope. I wonder if the way to think of it is not that this rock has hope and that river has hope, but rather that creation, taken organically as a whole, has hope. Paul uses organic language with great frequency, and he may have been thinking not of the individual things that make-up creation having hope but of creation, considered in its entirety, as having hope.

I don't think that this distinction puts the matter to rest by a long-shot. I just realized that my last post was more than a little unclear. My apologies for that.

Too difficult and elaborate to discuss St. Thomas Aquinas in this board. However, I can without any problems affirm that St. Augustine could be considered, to a certain extent, as a reformed sinner. As you probably know, he was educated in North Africa and resisted his mother's pleas to become Christian. He used to live for a long while as a pagan intellectual, and during this period he took a concubine and became a Manichean. It was only later he converted to Catholicism to eventually become a Doctor of the Church.

I therefore think he can be considered a repented sinner.

Sorry about that gromitt82. The statement was intended as a joke; it wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I agree with you whole heartedly; no doubt, Augustine was a reformed sinner.

I guess I should give up trying to be humorous – obviously I don’t have the talent.

JoeT

I guess I should give up trying to be humorous

I really wish you wouldn't.

And, for what it's worth, I happen to think you do a good job. I know I certainly enjoy stealing from you! If you stop, I'm going to have to rely only on my own imagination to come up with new material. Trust me, nobody wants that.

Sorry about that gromitt82. The statement was intended as a joke; it wasn’t meant to be taken literally. I agree with you whole heartedly; no doubt, Augustine was a reformed sinner.

I guess I should give up trying to be humorous – obviously I don’t have the talent.

JoeT

I'm sorry. I misunderstood you! It is not you do not have the talent to be humorous! I would rather say it is little old me who does not understand full well Shakespeare's beautiful language. Which should not surprise me for my mother language is Spanish...
Therefore, I most humbly apologize!:D:D

Romans 8.19-22

a) How do you understand this passage?
b) What does this tell us about redemption?
I have heard it said that Christ came to save human beings and only human beings. But this passage seems to suggest that Christ's redemption is not reserved only for humanity but for the whole of creation. Is that true? If it is true, from what does creation (apart from humanity) need to be redeemed and how is it to receive its redemption?
c) What exactly is it that "creation awaits with eager expectation"? Why is "all creation groaning" and for what?
d) What, if anything, does this passage tell us about Christ's mission?

Akoue:

Have we discussed all the issues listed above? Have we gnawed this thread down to the one question of ‘cosmic victory’? Are you prepared to defend the meat the ‘cosmic victory’ theory; or should we dispense with all the remaining issues first (if there are any)?

JoeT

PS. To all: when you get sick from all the corny jokes, just remember you had your chance!

.... where the creation as a whole suffers in something like the way the whole body suffers when it's infected with a nasty disease.

Just a thought. I wouldn't want to have to defend it... yet.

I also like Joe's contribution. And Jake's.

But I like the way you put this.

To sort of correlate it to what I said, I would say that sin is the disease and Satan is the bug which carried that disease into the universe.

I guess that begs the question, how are animals, who have no souls and inanimate objects which have no life, affected by sin?

I would say, physically.

If we read the book of Job, we see that Satan has some physical control over nature. It is he, I believe, who has introduced "chaos" into God's order.

The sin is not nature's. It is his. And because of his sin, he corrupts and subjects all which is within his power.

Unfortunately, Adam and Eve, gave themselves, and subsequently us, into his power. Otherwise, he would not be able to touch us.

Whether he would be able to tempt us, I don't know. I'm not sure that if Adam and Eve had passed their test, whether their children would not also be tested. It appears to me that every Angel was tested, so why wouldn't every soul?

What do you think?

Akoue:

Have we discussed all the issues listed above? Have we gnawed this thread down to the one question of ‘cosmic victory’? Are you prepared to defend the meat the ‘cosmic victory’ theory; or should we dispense with all the remaining issues first (if there are any)?

JoeT

PS. To all: when you get sick from all the corny jokes, just remember you had your chance!

I'm sick of ethanol.:p

I'm sick of ethanol.:p



Well, OK! How about Tennessee Whiskey anybody? You know old Jack went into his office one day in 1911 and tried to open the safe. He couldn’t recall the combination; so, frustrated he kicked the safe. He died shortly afterwards of a broken toe – or was it blood poisoning! And the moral of this real life story; if you bruise the bottle you wake up with a hangover, abuse the safe and you wake up dead!


JoeT

I also like Joe's contribution. And Jake's.

But I like the way you put this.

To sort of correlate it to what I said, I would say that sin is the disease and Satan is the bug which carried that disease into the universe.

This makes sense. And like a virus, sin propagates itself. So there is a sense in which we can speak of it having a sort of agency.


I guess that begs the question, how are animals, who have no souls and inanimate objects which have no life, affected by sin?

I confess I'm not quite sure what to make of the idea that animals don't have souls. Certainly the Fathers, and St. Thomas as well, hold that where there is life there is a soul. An animal's soul is not the same as a human soul, since ours is in the image of the Holy Trinity. But I would want to say that animals are not without souls.

In fact, we know that many animals have an interior psychological life that is quite rich. I mention this, because it would seem to me that sin can affect them in many of the ways it affects us (though, of course, not all).


I would say, physically.

Definitely. They suffer for the crimes that we commit. Well, and Satan too, of course. (Makes me think we should be more humane in our treatment of them.)


If we read the book of Job, we see that Satan has some physical control over nature. It is he, I believe, who has introduced "chaos" into God's order.

Good point. The Fathers often associate good with order and evil with disorder. The "chaos" that we find in creation is a disorder in both senses: It is a lack of order or a diminishment of harmony and it is a disorder in the sense of a disease.


The sin is not nature's. It is his. And because of his sin, he corrupts and subjects all which is within his power.

Yes. Otherwise, Manicheeism.



Unfortunately, Adam and Eve, gave themselves, and subsequently us, into his power. Otherwise, he would not be able to touch us.

Whether he would be able to tempt us, I don't know. I'm not sure that if Adam and Eve had passed their test, whether their children would not also be tested. It appears to me that every Angel was tested, so why wouldn't every soul?

I agree with you. I think that where there is free will, that will is subject to test and temptation.

In addition, I practice the "Presence of God" devotion. From practice of this devotion, I've come to believe that we are never out of God's presence. Not on this earth, not in heaven and not even in hell.

Sadly, I know very little about this devotion. But I am very intrigued by the notion of being in God's presence even in hell.


I suggest that this subjection occurred when Satan fell and dragged with him 1/3 of the stars.

The more I think about this the more I think you're right.


In other words, then, only by and through hope in God will creation be set free from slavery to corruption, that is from slavery to Satan and sin which he introduced into the world.

Yes. As well as what goes along with that, that to be far from God is to be, and to feel, imprisoned and bound. Existence then feels like a burden.


All creation is suffering because of the sin of Satan. Adam introduced sin and death to the human soul. In other words, mortal sin. But we can infer that physical death was already in the world because when God said, "you shall surely die the death". Adam didn't respond, "What's that?"

Yes, I like this a lot. In your reading of Scripture I have always found you to be very sensitive to its dialogical character. You are well-attuned to the silences. And I think you are right, that Adam's silence tells us something.


But suffering and death was introduced into creation by Satan. In my opinion.


Agreed.


Jesus the Son of man and Son of God conquers all, draws everything to Himself and then returns everything to the Father.

Exactly right. It calls to mind certain very old icons of Christ Pantocrator which evoke him as the source of unity to which all will return. This is something of which the Cappadocian Fathers, especially Gregory of Nyssa, speak very eloquently, and I believe you have captured the spirit of that with the reading you have offered here.

Thank you.

....

Exactly right. It calls to mind certain very old icons of Christ Pantocrator which evoke him as the source of unity to which all will return. This is something of which the Cappadocian Fathers, especially Gregory of Nyssa, speak very eloquently, and I believe you have captured the spirit of that with the reading you have offered here.

Thank you.

No, thank youuuuu!

I've mentioned these things on other forums and been accused of all kinds of heresies.

Its good to finally meet someone who understands what I'm saying.

Thanks again. And thanks to God for bringing you here.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Akoue,
I think you are right.
From now on I will think of "creation, taken organically as a whole, has hope."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No, thank youuuuu!

I've mentioned these things on other forums and been accused of all kinds of heresies.

Its good to finally meet someone who understands what I'm saying.

Thanks again. And thanks to God for bringing you here.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I am genuinely astonished that you have been accused of heresy for this. As I mentioned earlier, if you had defended apokatastasis then I could see it, since this was anathematized by the Council of Constantinople. But you have not argued that there is a sort of necessity by which all of creation, including Satan and the fallen angels, will return to the divine Monad. Perhaps talk of return to union with God is enough for some people to jump the gun. And I have known Thomists *of a certain stripe* who would say such things. (A really good Thomist would know better!)

I thank you both for your very kind words and for your participation in this conversation. I hope you'll give me feedback if you find anything in what I've posted to be unclear, mistaken, or misguided. For my part, I'm trying this out on you guys as I work through it for myself, so I am grateful for the time you've invested in helping me as I make my way.

Sadly, I know very little about this devotion.

Its very simple really. Most of us probably do it subconsciously. Simply "pretend" that God is with you all the time. Your "pretending" is really acknowledging an unseen fact.

You can do this by
1. occasionally glancing in His direction.
2. occasionally asking for advice as you would a friend or simply conversing.
3. continually praying, your favorite devotions or some short prayers (aka ejaculations)

These can be done out loud or mentally (mental prayer).


But I am very intrigued by the notion of being in God's presence even in hell.

God is omnipresent. I don't think there are any exceptions to that Divine attribute.

Some Muslims, for instance, claim that Allah does not exist in creation. We don't. We believe that God transcends creation. That means that God is not affected by creation, but He permeates it. We believe that God is not affected by time or space. God is smaller than the smallest piece of matter and greater than all creation.

Have you ever heard anyone ask, "how many angels on the point of a pin?" That's because angels take up no space, so they can all fit on that pinpoint. And God can be right there with them. And yet God is so grand that the entire universe can't contain Him.

Quite a paradox.

When we speak of the Trinity, we say that:
The Father is in the Son but the Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father but the Son is not the Father.
The Spirit is in the Father and the Son, but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.

We believe that God is Yahweh, I AM WHO AM. Otherwise interpreted, I AM ALL BEING.

Acts Of Apostles 17 28 For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

This is not Pantheism. Pantheism, as I understand it, says that God is the universe.
But we believe God is greater than the universe:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

God created heaven, purgatory and hell. Therefore God is there.

Psalm 138
8 If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present.

Hebrews 12 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Some say that the same fire that glorifies in heaven, cleanses in purgatory and punishes in hell.
"The day of judgment is coming, to burn like a furnace," Malachi 4, verse 1. chapter 3, verse 2, "the refiners for silver and gold." Hebrews 12, verse 29, tells us that our God is a consuming fire. That's the kind of love He has. It just burns out of control. Our God is madly in love with us. He's madly in love with us. It's sheer madness for the God who owes us nothing, to whom we owe everything but to whom we gave practically nothing. He turns around and gives us everything including himself by becoming one of us and allowing us to kill him. He's madly in love with us, and that mad love is burning out of control and filling this vast universe. It's just that our physical eyes can't see it, but they will some day and our souls will undergo it. And those who have refined their love through self-sacrifice and mortification and penance and charity through the spirit of the foundation which is Christ, but those who have done so are going to enter into that fiery love of God and say, "Oooh, it feels so good! I'm home." And other people are going to look back where they have compromised and taken short cuts; they've done a lot of great things in love and faith and hope. They've even suffered some, but they have taken a lot of short cuts, They are going to enter that fire and say, "Ooh, ooh...," and purgatory is for them.

Now the saints in heaven would freeze in purgatory, and hell fire for the saints in heaven would be like ice, dry ice. Our God is a consuming fire. The periphery of the universe is hell fire. That isn't the hottest. The hottest is what you find when you get closest to God. Out of the nine choirs of angels, the highest are the Seraphim. In Hebrew it means the burning ones. They glow bright because they are consumed with this passionate, fiery love that God has for all eternity for us as His children.
Purgatory: Holy Fire (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html)

2 Corinthians 5 8 But we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord.


And Scripture seems to say that being absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. There seems to be no distinguishing between heaven or hell.

Thoughts?

De Maria,
That's an amazing post.
Talking to God as if He were a friend right there with me is a great idea for He IS.
The rest I must ponder particularly about the fires of heaven and hell.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

God is omnipresent. I don't think there are any exceptions to that Divine attribute.

This is a very interesting point, one that has been uppermost in my thoughts as I've been thinking about Rom.8. I can see how saying this might lead some people to suspect you of holding a view close to that of Meister Eckhart, though from what you have said I wouldn't be one of them. I think that God's omnipresence is both a wonderful object for meditation and, at the same time, rather difficult to frame clearly. At least, it has been for me.



Some Muslims, for instance, claim that Allah does not exist in creation. We don't. We believe that God transcends creation. That means that God is not affected by creation, but He permeates it. We believe that God is not affected by time or space. God is smaller than the smallest piece of matter and greater than all creation.

And there is also a pantheistic tradition, represented most notably, I suppose, by Ibn Arabi.

The idea of God permeating creation is especially interesting to me. But, I confess, I'm not sure I entirely understand what you have in mind. Could I ask you to say a little more about the way you think about it?


Have you ever heard anyone ask, "how many angels on the point of a pin?" That's because angels take up no space, so they can all fit on that pinpoint. And God can be right there with them. And yet God is so grand that the entire universe can't contain Him.

Quite a paradox.

You're exactly right.


I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.

We believe that God is Yahweh, I AM WHO AM. Otherwise interpreted, I AM ALL BEING.


Right, God is Being. This is interesting to think about in the light of the idea, upheld by many Fathers and Doctors of the Church, that evil is nothingness.


This is not Pantheism. Pantheism, as I understand it, says that God is the universe.

I think this is one form, at least, that pantheism can take. In Ibn Arabi's case, he holds that God is *in* everything that exists. He is generally regarded to have been a pantheist. But, if you find that that is consistent with what you are saying, it might well be the case that there is a sense of pantheism that isn't problematic, while others forms of pantheism are. Certainly Meister Eckhart at least flirted with a problematic form of pantheism (although I very much doubt that he did anything more than to flirt with it). But since God sustains all Being, there is a sense in which he must be *in* all things that exist, insofar as they exist. (Oh, man, that last little phrase started to sound like Aquinas. Sorry guys, I may have a disease of the brain!)


But we believe God is greater than the universe:
[I]"The day of judgment is coming, to burn like a furnace," Malachi 4, verse 1. chapter 3, verse 2, "the refiners for silver and gold." Hebrews 12, verse 29, tells us that our God is a consuming fire. That's the kind of love He has. It just burns out of control. Our God is madly in love with us. He's madly in love with us. It's sheer madness for the God who owes us nothing, to whom we owe everything but to whom we gave practically nothing. He turns around and gives us everything including himself by becoming one of us and allowing us to kill him. He's madly in love with us, and that mad love is burning out of control and filling this vast universe. It's just that our physical eyes can't see it, but they will some day and our souls will undergo it. And those who have refined their love through self-sacrifice and mortification and penance and charity through the spirit of the foundation which is Christ, but those who have done so are going to enter into that fiery love of God and say, "Oooh, it feels so good! I'm home." And other people are going to look back where they have compromised and taken short cuts; they've done a lot of great things in love and faith and hope. They've even suffered some, but they have taken a lot of short cuts, They are going to enter that fire and say, "Ooh, ooh...," and purgatory is for them.

This is really interesting. Processing... processing... processing...



Now the saints in heaven would freeze in purgatory, and hell fire for the saints in heaven would be like ice, dry ice. Our God is a consuming fire. The periphery of the universe is hell fire. That isn't the hottest. The hottest is what you find when you get closest to God. Out of the nine choirs of angels, the highest are the Seraphim. In Hebrew it means the burning ones. They glow bright because they are consumed with this passionate, fiery love that God has for all eternity for us as His children.

Yes, and this is why I say that people often underestimate the transformative experience that is being in God's presence. It isn't a warm-fuzzy in your belly; it is a radical transformation of what you thought you were.

De Maria,
That's an amazing post.


I forgot to say: Yes, it is. I'm privileged to be able to discuss this with you, with each of you.

... I confess I'm not quite sure what to make of the idea that animals don't have souls.

Actually, I agree. But the subject of souls and spirits gets kind of hairy. Especially the terminology used by St. Thomas and the Fathers. Even the writers of the Bible are not consistent in their usage of these terms.

So, I kind of made my own terminology based on this CCC paragraph. I did so, in order to make sense of it for myself.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

As I understand this then, we are "souls". We don't have souls, we are souls.

We have Spiritual souls, which I abbreviate "spirit". And we have bodies made of matter which I call the "body". The union of the body and the spirit is the soul, which we are.

It stands to reason that animals have "animating" spirits. And it stands to reason that animals have matter which we call "bodies". Therefore the union of their animating spirit and their body, is an animal soul.

But there seems to be a qualitative difference between an animal soul and a human soul. We can see this in nature.

1. An animal is not offended by immodesty. An animal does not hide its sexual organs behind clothes.

We do. Based upon the fact that God clothed Adam and Eve after the Fall, I suspect that the Original Sin was a sin against the reproductive system. A sexual sin.

2. Nor does an animal worship. At least, we have not been able to identify worship in animals. Although some animals (especially elephants) seem to mourn their deceased.

Based upon the dream I had about my dog in heaven, I believe that animal souls do not have the attribute which recognizes its Creator. They know they exist, but they don't know why and they don't care. They are just happy to be alive, whether in this life or the next.


Certainly the Fathers, and St. Thomas as well, hold that where there is life there is a soul.

I wasn't aware of that. I've searched for this information and hadn't found any. I thought it didn't exist. Is there any reference you can provide?


An animal's soul is not the same as a human soul, since ours is in the image of the Holy Trinity. But I would want to say that animals are not without souls.

I agree.


In fact, we know that many animals have an interior psychological life that is quite rich. I mention this, because it would seem to me that sin can affect them in many of the ways it affects us (though, of course, not all)...

I agree. The Scriptures say:
Genesis 9:5 For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man.

in general, animals fear man. Yet some beasts do attack men. So it would seem that they are acting upon their free will and sinning against God's law.

Curious.

I also see this in my own pet. Our dog knows that he isn't supposed to eat out of the trash. We were recently wondering, "how did he get that out of the trash without spilling it?" He's a veritable Houdini! We suspect that he secretly stands up on two legs, sprouts opposable thumbs and proceeds to sift through the trash to the very bottom, getting just the morsels he wants! And spilling not a drop.

Amazing! I'm thinking about installing a hidden camera.

Its very simple really. Most of us probably do it subconsciously. Simply "pretend" that God is with you all the time.
Someone has to pretend??

And I have known Thomists *of a certain stripe* who would say such things. (A really good Thomist would know better!)

Surly this wasn’t meant for this zebra?

I did find that St. Thomas believes that animals had souls. However, he also suggested that the nature of the animal’s soul is different from those of men. Thomas would paint animal stripes different from man’s as being unable to move the intellect. In one striation of the animal’s soul Thomas does see hope, but obviously it’s not a virtuous hope; rather movement is from instinct. And St. Thomas makes it clear that different species have varying depths passions.




God is omnipresent. I don't think there are any exceptions to that Divine attribute…

Quite a paradox.

When we speak of the Trinity, we say that:
The Father is in the Son but the Father is not the Son.
The Son is in the Father but the Son is not the Father.
The Spirit is in the Father and the Son, but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.


I can agree wholeheartedly to this except for the last statement; I’m not convinced that it would be proper. By proper I mean that, in the order of things, you might say that the farmer is to the farm animals as God is to man. The farmer loves his animals, but I don’t think he would want to be among the pigs nor would he allow the pigs to be amongst Him in the house.


Another way I look at this is that the servant shouldn’t expect to live in the Master’s house. The servant’s place is in the court.


JoeT

Surly this wasn’t meant for this zebra?

Nope. I was thinking of Ralph McInerny.


I did find that St. Thomas believes that animals had souls. However, he also suggested that the nature of the animal’s soul is different from those of men. Thomas would paint animal stripes different from man’s as being unable to move the intellect. In one striation of the animal’s soul Thomas does see hope, but obviously it’s not a virtuous hope; rather movement is from instinct. And St. Thomas makes it clear that different species have varying depths passions.

I still have to get back to De Maria with some citations, which I will do soon, but you're right, Joe, animals do have souls. They were said to have appetitive (or sometimes carnal) souls; plants have nutritive (or sometimes vegitative) souls; humans have rational souls. What is especially distinctive of human beings is thought to be that we respond to norms of reason (logic, the moral law).

I must confess that I think this tends to sell animals short in a pretty dramatic way. St. Irenaeus says that animals pray (well, I might add) as did St. Gregory Nazianzen (who says that animals worship God--they "lift up to [God] a hymn of silence"). As we learn more about the cognitive abilities of many species, I find less and less reason to feel satisfied with the division of souls into rational, appetitive, and nutritive. (This isn't a matter of doctrine, though, anyway.) Having said that, I can't summon any sympathy for the notion that animals lack souls.

I'll be back anon with some citations and a response to De Maria's really thoughtful post.

Oh, just one general point: One thing that may explain why we don't find the Fathers arguing that animals have souls is that they didn't see it as a controversial idea and so didn't bother defending it. The point I made above, that where there is life there is soul, was a commonplace in the ancient world. We find it in philosophy (Aristotle's De Anima--see also Aquinas's commentary on it), literature, and medicine (Galen talks about it). This didn't really come up for criticism until the 17th century. Many Cartesians thought that animals are "thoughtless brutes". In order to "prove" their point they would enter a town or village, bind animals in the town square, and torture them. When the horrified townspeople came rushing to the animals' aid, the Cartesians would laugh at them and say that while the people thought that the cries and shreeks meant that the animals were in pain they were, in fact, just complex machines incapable of feeling pain.

I think we all know better than that.

the Cartesians would laugh at them and say that while the people thought that the cries and [shrieks] meant that the animals were in pain they were, in fact, just complex machines incapa.ble of feeling pain.
That's the line dog fighters use and tell the little kids who are watching.

Akoue,
I find it interesting that animals have souls and that in fact all ife may have souls.
I have long thought that the soul is the essence of life but till now did not put twi and two together to realize that all life has souls.
Thanks much for that.
Fred

I'm guessing animals are very close to God's heart. They are the unacknowledged victims of the Fall. Many are the stories of their unconditional love, even across species. Man is their biggest enemy.

Even my fundamentalist/evangelical Christian mother believes there will be animals in heaven. She thinks there will be even more wonderful animals than we know of now, but my thought is, why should Go reinvent the wheel? The animals here on earth fill the bill.

Wondergirl,
I agree that I believe that animals are close to God's heart.
But animals in heaven?
I hope so, but don't know.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

But animals in heaven?
I hope so, but don't know.
If God graced the Garden with animals for Adam and Eve to enjoy, why wouldn't He do the same for us in heaven?

Wondergirl,
That is a good question.
I have no answer.
Fred

v.21: that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
This verse intrigues me. I always thought of heaven as "up there" (probably because the NT says Jesus ascended into heaven). Could it be possible that the JWs have been right all along, that this earth will be repaired and will be our eternal home?

Nope. I was thinking of Ralph McInerny.

Am I getting bad vibs? I thought Ralph McInerny was a great man in the land of Catholic intellectuals? I looked up his vita; I remember the Father Dowling books (I think) and if memory serves me right I remember the name from William Buckley's Firing Line. I may have watched the show he was on (I didn’t miss many), but that would have been decades ago and I get names mixed up easily.

So, how does his view on St. Thomas cause stripes? Is it the Aristotle channel thing? ( You know, I still don’t understand that)

JoeT

[QUOTE=JoeT777;1560968....I can agree wholeheartedly to this except for the last statement; I’m not convinced that it would be proper. By proper I mean that, in the order of things, you might say that the farmer is to the farm animals as God is to man. The farmer loves his animals, but I don’t think he would want to be among the pigs nor would he allow the pigs to be amongst Him in the house.


Another way I look at this is that the servant shouldn’t expect to live in the Master’s house. The servant’s place is in the court. [/quote]

Our Lord Jesus was born in a cave and lain in a manger. An animal's feeding trough.

The Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette in a trash dump.

I don't think that affected God's glory one iota. Or if it did, only to augment it in my eyes.

Sorry about that

[QUOTE=Wondergirl;1561123]I'm guessing animals are very close to God's heart. They are the unacknowledged victims of the Fall. Many are the stories of their unconditional love, even across species. Man is their biggest enemy... {/quote]

Lets not go overboard. Animals are people too. Most of those stories of unconditional love are works of fiction. But there are just as many verifiable stories of animals biting the hand that feeds them (dogs, cats), stomping the care taker (horses and elephants) and of killing people. They are real, provable stories.

And I love my dog, but "unconditional love"? Naw. If you've got the food, he's got the love. The most quick way to most dogs' hearts is through their bellies. That's a verifiable fact.

Our Lord Jesus was born in a cave and lain in a manger. An animal's feeding trough.

The Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette in a trash dump.

I don't think that affected God's glory one iota. Or if it did, only to augment it in my eyes.


I won’t argue with that.

Jt.

I think animals are plenty complex. And just as there are many acts of betrayal perpetrated by humans, so too by animals. Similarly, some humans are capable of genuinely unconditional love, and some aren't (or just don't commit to it, which may be a kind of incapacity in its own right); some animals love unconditionally, and some don't. I don't want to idealize animals, but I don't want to be dismissive either. I think they are, in the main, psychologically complex. That we aren't always aware of the degree of complexity is probably to be expected. But they certainly aren't black boxes.

We know that animals are capable of altruism, and this was something once thought to be unique to human beings. And De Maria's story about his dog digging through the trash shows a high level of planning and sophistication, if you ask me. The dog broke the rules in the same way a human would have: In such a way as not to get caught.

Joe T,
I'm with you o the question, "So, how does his view on St. Thomas cause stripes? "
I have read a lot and seen a lot of Ralph McInerny's works.
I'm and admirer of him.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

This verse intrigues me. I always thought of heaven as "up there" (probably because the NT says Jesus ascended into heaven). Could it be possible that the JWs have been right all along, that this earth will be repaired and will be our eternal home?

I find that hard to square with the idea that the creation will return to the Creator. Part of this idea is, presumably, a return from multiplicity and dispersion to unity. Now how exactly that unity is to be construed I can't honestly say (this is part of what I've been thinking through as I read this thread). I'm not sure where metaphoricity starts and stops, which is to say that it isn't clear to me how return to unity with the Trinity ought to be understood.

Any thoughts about that? It does have a bearing on the passage from the OP since there is a real question about what the redemption of the creation is. (I like the thought of return to unity--obviously--but I am hard-pressed to articulate that in a way that doesn't have a vaguely Gnostic feel to it. And that makes me think I need to find a different way of thinking about it.)

Lets not go overboard. Animals are people too. Most of those stories of unconditional love are works of fiction. But there are just as many verifiable stories of animals biting the hand that feeds them (dogs, cats), stomping the care taker (horses and elephants) and of killing people. They are real, provable stories.

And I love my dog, but "unconditional love"? Naw. If you've got the food, he's got the love. The quickest way to most dogs' hearts is through their bellies. That's a verifiable fact.
Sorry to disagree. Cats must be a higher order than dogs. I am a living recipient of regular doses of unconditional love, and I don't wield the can opener. The biting, stomping, and snorting are simply evidence of the enslaved creation and groaning earth.

I'm not sure where metaphoricity starts and stops, which is to say that it isn't clear to me how return to unity with the Trinity ought to be understood.
Maybe the contributors to this thread are trying too hard. Maybe it will be as uneventful as the verses in Romans indicate, that God simply restores His Eden and we get to be there this time.

Joe T,
I'm with you o the question, "So, how does his view on St. Thomas cause stripes? "
I have read a lot and seen a lot of Ralph McInerny's works.
I'm and admirer of him.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

McInerny is what you might describe as a "Sola Aquinist". For him, Aquinas is the navel about which Catholic theology turns. And while I have no axe to grind with Aquinas, he isn't the only Doctor of the Church. McInerny's single-minded focus on Aquinas tends to express itself in the form of a deflationary attitude toward the contributions of the early Fathers of the Church, as well as of theological developments of the twentieth century, particularly those of the school sometimes called "Nouvelle theologie" or New Theology. Pope Benedict is a member of this school, as are other great modern theologians such as Congar, De Lubac, and Danielou. Pope John Paul II had deep affinities with this as well. These theologians have emphasized the early Fathers (though they, of course, don't in any way reject Aquinas).

So what I was getting at with my remark about Thomists of a certain stripe is that there are certain Thomists who tend to regard with some suspicion (and sometimes outright contempt, I'm sad to say) any theology other than that of Aquinas. As you can probably tell from my frequent mention of them, I have an especially deep fondness for and interest in the Church Fathers, and consequently McInerny's attitude gets under my skin a bit.

That's all I was getting at. He's certainly entitled to his interests, and Thomas Aquinas is far from a bad interest to have.

Wondergirl,
I think the bible tells us in several ways that this world will eventually be destroyed even burn up.
There may be a new earth but I think even that may be temporary as I the universe itself.
Several trillion years from now the universe will be all burned out. No more suns and stars to shine. Only God's light will remain.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
Thanks much for your explanation.
Now I think I understand.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So what I was getting at with my remark about Thomists of a certain stripe is that there are certain Thomists who tend to regard with some suspicion (and sometimes outright contempt, I'm sad to say) any theology other than that of Aquinas. As you can probably tell from my frequent mention of them, I have an especially deep fondness for and interest in the Church Fathers, and consequently McInerny's attitude gets under my skin a bit.


I find the Aquinas' logic easier to follow than those who reason without any systematic approach. Pope John Paul II seemed that way to me. Not that I questioned his teachings, only that they sometimes he seemed difficult to analyze (analyzing is just a thing I do - its from my training - I don't know why I do it all the time). The difference between the two, however, is that Pope John Paul II, as well as Pope Benedict, speak with an authority that Aquinas can only have by proxy.


JT

JoeT777,
Thanks for ex[aloning your way of thinking.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.

This draws near to something about which I have been thinking of late. I just finished saying something like this on another thread, but these lines in De Maria's post made me realize that it has an important bearing on this discussion as well. Sorry for the overlap.

There is a tendency for many Christians to overemphasize the Crucifixion. How is it even possible to OVER-emphasize the Crucifixion? I'm glad you asked. Here's how.

People often speak as if the work of redemption began at the Crucifixion of Jesus and ended with his Resurrection. Salvation history thus shrinks to the space of three days. This I believe to be a fundamentally confused way of thinking about it. The work of redemption began with the Incarnation, when the Word, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, became flesh. In the person of Jesus, the living (not yet crucified or resurrected) Christ, humanity and divinity were united. Since Christ was fully human and fully divine, the two natures (human and divine) comingled, and this sanctified humanity (i.e. human nature) just as it elevated it or magnified it. The union of the human and the divine was effected in the womb of Mary (a point emphasized by St. Cyril of Alexandria when he defended the title "Theotokos"). This, I think, gives us some purchase on the notion of a return to unity with the Trinity, with the Godhead, and this is, as we have been discussing, a unity that goes well beyond mere harmony or--as Wondergirl has wondered--an Edenlike existence on a perfected earth. This is what the Fathers, especially the eastern Fathers, mean by divinization or deificaton: We become one with God; it is the unity of the human and the divine which utterly transforms the human. The point I am making, and the point I think De Maria may have been making (sorry if I'm misrepresenting you with this!) is that, in an important way, that deification of the human was effected with the Incarnation.

If we think of the Incarnation as something like a window on the union of God with his creation, we get a glimpse of something far more radical than is sometimes envisaged. And De Maria's point above seems to me to point in the direction of this. In the person of Jesus Christ we see the human in the divine and the divine in the human. And I can't off the top of my head think of a reason to believe that this is not a symbol of the return home that marks the end of our temporal, earthly pilgrimage. Looked at in this light, the work of redemption begins with the unity of the divine and the human in the Incarnation and is completed, or perfected, in the unity of the human and the divine that is heaven. And I believe that Romans 8 is showing us that the union that awaits is not just that of the human and the divine but of the uncreated and the created.

This is not as outrageous as it may at first appear since, as I say, the Fathers do talk about this quite a bit and at considerable length. And this puts another face on Augustine's view that the Incarnation is itself a sacrament (in On the Trinity): It is the union of the divine and the human, but it is also a symbol of a divine or heavenly reality, namely the reality of heaven itself. In a similar way, then, the Eucharist and baptism could likewise be seen as symbols of the union of the uncreated (the divinity in the Real Presence and in the water) and the created (the bread and wine, the water). St. Ambrose talks this way about both baptism and Eucharist. What I hadn't adequately considered before is the unity that the Incarnation *points to*: Not only is the Incarnation itself already the unity of the human and the divine, it also points to the unity that awaits and for which we groan. (This also fits well with the text, which tells us that the groaning is from birth pains: Union has been in the process of being born since the Incarnation.)

So, then, the Incarnation is a sacrament of God's nearness, because there is a sense in which we are in him and he is in us, this because the second Person of the Trinity became human rather than just seeming to be human. By taking on human nature, he sanctified it, so that, as I say, the work of redemption began in Mary's womb and not on Golgotha. If we ignore this, if we become so fixated on the Crucifixion and Resurrection that we don't allow the mystery of the Incarnation fully to disclose itself to us, then we miss an awful lot.

I understand Joe's reservations about De Maria's earlier post, and I think those reservations are not unwarranted, since there are ways of understanding it that could lead one into error. I don't want to put words in De Maria's mouth more than I already have, but with this post I've tried to articulate a way of thinking about it that isn't theologically suspect. I stand by my earlier statement that there are a number of things going on in Romans 8, all at the same time. Unpacking this passage in a theological manner--in order to understand its deeply held truth--rather than in a strictly literal one--which fixates so intently on the words at the surface that it acts to bury the truths contained in it--yields a great deal and calls upon the reader to make a genuine and sustained effort to comprehend it. I feel like we've been making real progress. I hope you do as well.

Akoue,
I must thank you much for that.
I have a long time thought that the redemption began with the birth of Christ and did not start with the cross, but not to the extent that you offered here.
To that I agree very much.
It makes much theological sense.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thank you, Fred. I'm encouraged to know that it made some sense. And I always respect your theological judgment. Feels good to know it passed the "Fred test"!

The point I am making, and the point I think De Maria may have been making (sorry if I'm misrepresenting you with this!) is that, in an important way, that deification of the human was effected with the Incarnation.

I don’t have difficulty with most what’s being said except the following:

1) I don’t think you mean for man to be deified, rather incorporated into deification; a oneness with God. And, because of the objection I made to De Maria – the servants place – I would opt for language that suggested becoming adopted “sons of God” or “adopted children”; which of course is the promise of Romans 8

2) I hold that providence demands that man’s redemption (or salvation – if you prefer that word) has been in God’s plans since creation. Remember Christ wasn’t created; He has always existed as the second person of the Godhead. That “In the person of Jesus Christ we see the human in the divine and the divine in the human” is one of the great mysteries of our faith. It’s in the Eucharist we have Christ literally in us. (This kind of contradicts my ‘servants place’ statement doesn’t it?) Nevertheless, we are promised to become children of God, not Gods.


Unlike De Maria, I’m just not sure that the nature of man is such that it can withstand nearness to God that’s being suggested here (in fact, it’s not nearness rather incorporation). At least not until the soul has been purified by the purging fires mentioned by Juan.

If I was to agree 100% with this suggestion, I still can’t see it in Romans 8.

JoeT

At least not until the soul has been purified by the purging fires mentioned by Juan.
We still got to go through purging fires after we die? Isn't that the chaff? I was hoping to be wheat going into the barn!

We still gotta go through purging fires after we die? Isn't that the chaff? I was hoping to be wheat going into the barn!


Well yes, unless you happen to be perfect in Christ.


JoeT

Well yes, unless you happen to be perfect in Christ.


JoeT
I thought that's what He did for us.

I don’t have difficulty with most what’s being said except the following:

1) I don’t think you mean for man to be deified, rather incorporated into deification; a oneness with God. And, because of the objection I made to De Maria – the servants place – I would opt for language that suggested becoming adopted “sons of God” or “adopted children”; which of course is the promise of Romans 8

Fair enough. The language of deification is a little arresting to me as well--not that that means it's wrong. But your point is well taken.

The way I have been thinking about it is that we are already adopted children of God, so the union that is to come is one of greater intimacy even than that. I also think I like the word "divinized" better than "deified". It's just that when you say "divinization" it's quite natural for people to think you are talking about fortune-telling or something.


2) I hold that providence demands that man’s redemption (or salvation – if you prefer that word) has been in God’s plans since creation. Remember Christ wasn’t created; He has always existed as the second person of the Godhead. That “In the person of Jesus Christ we see the human in the divine and the divine in the human” is one of the great mysteries of our faith. It’s in the Eucharist we have Christ literally in us. (This kind of contradicts my ‘servants place’ statement doesn’t it?) Nevertheless, we are promised to become children of God, not Gods.

I was thinking not that we become gods, but that union with the Godhead means that we become divinized--that we participate in the divine nature.

I'm not sure whether it contradicts your earlier statement. It's difficult in part because we are talking about two different kinds of union: There is the union with God that we enjoy as adopted children, and there is the union with God that awaits us at the end of salvation history. I think of the latter as a union of greater intimacy, of course, since I think of it in the light of the union of the human and the divine in Jesus. This isn't, however, to say that we will become Jesuses. We won't ever be the second Person of the Trinity.


Unlike De Maria, I’m just not sure that the nature of man is such that it can withstand nearness to God that’s being suggested here (in fact, it’s not nearness rather incorporation). At least not until the soul has been purified by the purging fires mentioned by Juan.

I think this is a really good point. No, I don't see how human nature could withstand that kind of intimacy with God. I think the purification is also transformative--that would make a lot of sense. But, then again, human nature was able to bear the intimacy with the divine that we see in the Incarnation. I'm not quite sure what to think at the moment.

Alas, still more question marks. At least I feel like I have a better idea what the questions are though.

I thought that's what He did for us.

Can I ask you to say more about what you have in mind?

I believe Jesus' sacrifice was complete. We don't have to do anything to save ourselves or do anything to complete the process -- or have any punishment assigned to remove sin. I'm with my birthday buddy Martin -- here on earth we are simul iustus et peccator. On Judgment Day, we are only iustus (iusti?).

I believe Jesus' sacrifice was complete. We don't have to do anything to save ourselves or do anything to complete the process -- or have any punishment assigned to remove sin. I'm with my birthday buddy Martin -- here on earth we are simul iustus et peccator. On Judgment Day, we are only iustus (iusti?).

Where do you stand on the question of union that we've been discussing? Do you envisage further transformation of the sort I have alluded to with talk of deification or divinization or do you think of union in a different way?

Where do you stand on the question of union that we've been discussing? Do you envisage further transformation of the sort I have alluded to with talk of deification or divinization or do you think of union in a different way?
All that makes my head hurt. A United Methodist once told me that, in heaven, we will be tiny points of light in Jesus' crown. I don't want to be a point of light. I want to be there in my own skin, my own flesh, my own bones. In this life, I am becoming all that I will be there. (The purging is here and now.) Here I am called to be a reflection of divinity, of Perfect Love ("blessed to be a blessing"). There I will be one with divinity, not incorporated but of the same Mind and knowing only Good--your word "divinized" (which brings up the question of free will in heaven).

There is the union with God that we enjoy as adopted children, and there is the union with God that awaits us at the end of salvation history. I think of the latter as a union of greater intimacy, of course, since I think of it in the light of the union of the human and the divine in Jesus. .

I can think of Salvation in these terms; in a manner of speaking, a two step salvation.

I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone: and the sea is now no more. (Rev 21:1)

JoeT

Wondergirl,
From my understanding of it we will be in glorified bodies in heaven.
Also the sins we commit here on earth MUST be forgiven.
If we do not confess our sins with remorse and ASK for forgiveness we will not be forgiven.
If we do not forgive others we will not be forgiven.
Jesus shed His blood so that that we could be forgiven IF we do as we are told to do.
That is as I mentioned above. It is as the bible tells us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe,
What am I missing here??
I happen to agree with both you and Akoue.
Please explain yourself better.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

All that makes my head hurt. A United Methodist once told me that, in heaven, we will be tiny points of light in Jesus' crown. I don't want to be a point of light. I want to be there in my own skin, my own flesh, my own bones. In this life, I am becoming all that I will be there. (The purging is here and now.) Here I am called to be a reflection of divinity, of Perfect Love ("blessed to be a blessing"). There I will be one with divinity, not incorporated but of the same Mind and knowing only Good--your word "divinized" (which brings up the question of free will in heaven).

I can definitely relate to the hurting head. And, like you, I don't especially fancy being a point of light on a crown. In fact, part of what I am trying to do is to get behind the metaphors. The metaphors bug me most of all. People receiving crowns and all that. But union with the divine, that is something I cannot comprehend (though I'm going to keep trying) but which sounds good to me. I'm also not convinced that "glorified body" means something like "the body you've had all along only better". That's not the way I think of "glorified".

Joe,
what am I missing here?????
I happen to agree with both you and Akoue.
Please explain yourself better.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That was the point of my last post. I agree with Akoue at least ultimately, in the end, we will find ourselves transformed into a new heaven and a new earth as part of all creation. I just said it in a way so as not to hurt any of my sensibilities. (that is if I had any senses to hurt)

JoeT

In fact, part of what I am trying to do is to get behind the metaphors. People receiving crowns and all that.
And do I have to carry a harp and sing in the choir? I always hated practicing the piano (Chopin arrrgh), so I can't imagine practicing the harp. And I was always made alto. If anything, I want to sing the melody, not the notes below it. The wings might be fun, but I hate to wear long billowy robes that trip me up and make me look fat (white especially! Another arrrgh). I want to curry the horses and snuggle with the kitties and bake cupcakes. I'll even scoop litter and fork down the hay from the loft. (Am I whiny or what? )

Joe and Akoue.
Thanks, Joe, for the explanation.
Akoue, when I speak of a glorifies body I have in mind the body Jesus had after He rose from the dead. He could walk through walls and locked doors.
He could appear seemingly instantly many mile away and he could appear differently on occasion; his apostles could not recognize Him till he was ready for them to do so.
Even so he could be felt by others and could eat food.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue, when I speak of a glorifies body I have in mind the body Jesus had after He rose from the dead. He could walk through walls and locked doors.
He could appear seemingly instantly many mile away and he could appear differently on occasion; his apostles could not recognize Him till he was ready for them to do so.
Even so he could be felt by others and could eat food.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

My comment wasn't aimed at you, Fred. I'm sorry if it seemed that it was. I was actually thinking of some other people who say things like that. They also often seem to have very detailed predictions about how salvation history will end--including which countries will wage war on which others, who their leaders will be, etc.--and who will join God in heaven and who will be banished to what they appear to regard as a flaming body of water. That sort of thing.

What you say about the glorified body is interesting to me. I've been thinking about this too, as the thread has progressed: How to understand the meaning of "glorified". Given what I've said in other posts, you may not be at all surprised to hear me say that I am increasingly thinking of it in terms of the union with the Trinity that awaits us. In fact, I'm even wondering if "glorified" might mean something like "transcended". The thing is, I suspect it would be a mistake to think of it as our transcending materiality altogether. Jakester cautioned against something similar to this early in the thread, and I believe he was right to do so. The idea of the union of humanity with divinity is a difficult but also a thrilling thing to ponder (I find). Adding materiality to it makes it all the more engrossing, and difficult. How can our materiality be united to God's divinity? We know it can be, because the Incarnation shows us an example of it. I keep coming back to what has been said above, that the purification we are to undergo is itself transformative, so that perhaps the material bodies we will have will not be material in quite the way we think of materiality now. But this is a question I don't want to dwell on because (a) it will lead away from the other really interesting things we've been talking about and (b) I really haven't the first clue how to wrap my head around it. I just keep coming back to the Incarnation as a symbol and as a sacrament. I think as Christians we are meant to ponder that, to come to see it as an indication of the union that we all hope for in the end.

The idea of the union of humanity with divinity is a difficult but also a thrilling thing to ponder (I find). Adding materiality to it makes it all the more engrossing, and difficult. How can our materiality be united to God's divinity? We know it can be, because the Incarnation shows us an example of it.
One last gasp on that topic: Now you're getting closer to what I think. Even Job (19:26) said, "And after my skin hath been thus destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God." And oh yes, the resurrection of the body. Body? Ok, I'm off to bed.

Akoue,
I don't find it difficult to think that we can have bodies as Jesus did after He rose from the dead.
It is not something I groan over. Jesus is united with the trinity with a body that has transcended from mere human to one that is also divine.
We are thus set free from the slavery of a mere human body to one that is FREE from corruption with a glorified body such as Jesus had.
A body that is ready for the glory of heaven.
And now I am also ready for bed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
I don't find it difficult to think that we can have bodies as Jesus did after He rose from the dead.
It is not something I groan over. Jesus is united with the trinity with a body that has transcended from mere human to one that is also divine.
We are thus set free from the slavery of a mere human body to one that is FREE from corruption with a glorified body such as Jesus had.
A body that is ready for the glory of heaven.
And now I am also ready for bed.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That makes sense. Thanks.

Sleep tight and, if you have bed-bugs, sleep on the couch.

One last gasp on that topic: Now you're getting closer to what I think. Even Job (19:26) said, "And after my skin hath been thus destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God." And oh yes, the resurrection of the body. Body? Ok, I'm off to bed.

Ah, Wondergirl, you are like the Delphic Oracle of AMHD! Short and suggestive and sometimes provocative posts that often leave me not quite sure what you are saying. That's not an entirely bad thing, mind you, but I am going to bug you yet again: Would you please explain? I think I have an idea what you're saying but I'm not sure and am now in the grip of terrible suspense. (Was that perhaps your plan all along? To toy with me?)

I'm especially interested to know how I'm getting closer to what you think. What do you think? What do you think that I am getting closer to? You can't just dangle that out in front of me like a carrot and not say more, not explain... Wait, I've got it: You're a tease! You're a theological tease!

I believe Jesus' sacrifice was complete. We don't have to do anything to save ourselves or do anything to complete the process -- or have any punishment assigned to remove sin. I'm with my birthday buddy Martin -- here on earth we are simul iustus et peccator. On Judgment Day, we are only iustus (iusti?).

What accounts for the transformation from simul iustus et peccator to iustus? I don't want this to turn into yet another faith alone vs. faith+works thread. I am just interested in the transformation side of the story. In other words, lets just agree to disagree for the moment about whether works are required in addition to faith; we can put a pin in it (it's sure to come up on plenty of other threads in the near future). We can all agree (certainly Luther did) that we will not be in heaven as we are now; something changes. Now, my focus has been on the change from the sort of union we have with God here and now (as his adopted children) to the sort of union we will have with God at the end of salvation history (when we are one with the Godhead). A union that will embrace not just human beings but all of creation.

Christ's sacrifice is complete, we also agree about that. But the three days from the Crucifixion to the Resurrection isn't the whole of salvation history. As Goethe said, "Die Liebe Gottes regt sich nun" (the love of God is stirring in us now). God remains, as he was when Jesus walked in the Galilee, the agent of salvation history. I have tried to widen our gaze from Golgatha and the Tomb to the Incarnation itself with the idea that this is meant to tell us something about the union with God that we have to look forward to. And while we obviously cannot know in any detail what that union will be like, there is this nagging question regarding humanity as it stands face to face with the divine. It was not a pleasant experience for Moses on Sinai, and he was only permitted exposure to God's backside for a moment. What we are talking about now is the eternal *participation* in divinity. Joe's suggestion is that humanity cannot, in its present state, withstand the immensity of the divine presence. This makes a lot of sense to me. And yet we know it is possible because the Incarnation shows us that it is. In fact, I'm convinced that one of the things that the Incarnation is supposed to do is show as that it is possible.

Now Brother Martin envisages a transformation as well, from simul iustus et peccator to iustus. Like the transformation Joe talked about, this isn't a transformation that we can bring about on our own; it is God who works this transformation in us. Luther himself talks about it as purificatory, he just doesn't see the purification taking place in Purgatory. But he certainly seems to have thought that human nature requires additional ministrations on the part of the divine in order to prepare it for an eternal union with God. He held that we cannot do anything by means of which to merit our own salvation, we cannot be justified by anything other than faith in the crucified and risen Christ, but he very clearly did not think that the history of salvation closed at the empty tomb. That no further sacrifice is required does not mean that nothing further is required. (In fact, though I can't recall where, I do remember Luther saying something very close to this--I mean with very nearly the same words I just used.)

So I guess this is just a long-winded version of an earlier request: How do you think of this yourself? Happily none of us is interested in apocalypticism and so there is no question about the end times, but rather about the end of salvation history that comes with the union of human and divine, created and uncreated. How say you, WG?

We still gotta go through purging fires after we die? Isn't that the chaff? I was hoping to be wheat going into the barn!

I’m at a loss to see the logic of your query!

I’m sure that you expect our earthly justice to punish crime.. but you seem to consider instead unfair that the Divine justice (which must be perfect by definition) should not act in response before any crimes committed against GOD.

Whether this punishment is a purging fire, as you say, or the simple denial and permanent separation from God after the Last Judgement, will be eventually found out by those of us who do not deserve our Salvation.

However, if I were you, I would quickly give up any hopes of “being the wheat that goes into the barn”.

Whether you are “wheat” or “chaff” depends entirely upon you. As you already know, the chaff is the dead part of the plant (your sins) whereas the wheat is the live part of it (your good deeds).

And, naturally enough, the dead parts are thrown away.

Now then, who determines this? We do for the wheat but God does it as far as we are concerned.

Keep that in mind!

Now then, who determines this? We do for the wheat but God does it as far as we are concerned.
Jesus, by His sacrifice on the cross, made me wheat.

Whether you are “wheat” or “chaff” depends entirely upon you. As you already know, the chaff is the dead part of the plant (your sins) whereas the wheat is the live part of it (your good deeds).

And, naturally enough, the dead parts are thrown away.

Now then, who determines this? We do for the wheat but God does it as far as we are concerned.

Keep that in mind!

hello, gromitt -

If you read Matthew 13, Jesus explains what wheat is and what chaff is. Wheat is not good deeds and chaff is not bad deeds. Wheat are the sons of the Kingdom of God and chaff are the sons of the evil one. I think it is very misleading to interpret wheat as good deeds and chaff as evil deeds because to do so is to miss entirely Christ's use of the parable.

See the passage for yourself:

The Parable of the Weeds Explained
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Sincerely.

FYI there's a book called Driven By Eternity by John Bevere that explains this situation quite well.

FYI there's a book called Driven By Eternity by John Bevere that explains this situation quite well.
How does it explain "this situation"? According to a review, "This book really has a legalistic bent and a 'works mentality' to it that could lead people down a wrong path spiritually."

Is that true? Is that what we should know about the book?

I don't know where your review came from, but the book talks about wheat and chaff and burning through the fire. I've read it and watched the seminar.

Your tone implies offence. How could that have happened with a suggestion of a book?

Your tone implies offence. How could that have happened with a suggestion of a book?
Offense? Not at all. I have read many of your posts and figured the book is by a fundamentalist/evangelical author so I went searching for reviews.

Oh. Yep that about sums up my view point. ;)

Gone the way of the dodo, back to picking at each other as normal.

Thread closed before it gets worst