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?

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

Akoue,
I would suggest you visit this web:

Does Romans 8:19-22 Refer to the Cursed Creation?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

God was helpless

---

?

JoeT

JoeT777,
I really doubt that.
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

JoeT777,
I really doubt that.
Fred

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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

---

I must've misread it. Sorry.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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).

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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)

---

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakester

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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