Problem of sin before evil existed

[Zavulon]

Dear All,

I could not find this questions in the previous posts, so if someone could answer me I would be gratefull.

The first beeing that God has created was an anglel. This angel has a free will, as will also the first created man have. And this The first created angel sinned with the first sin of pride, and then he became fallen Angel (Lucifer, Satanail, Devil, ...)

Question:
If he is really the first created thing. Then beside him and God, there was nothing.
If there was nothing just good God, and good creation, where is his sin of pride coming from

Answer:
If he could sin, because the God have gave him free will. Then God has by giving him free will, instored the capability of sin.

Because there was nothng evil, but everything was good, and somehow by his free will this angel has adopted the sin of pride, - but there was no sin existed yet. So he could not have adopted anything, and if he had not adopted anything, he had it in himself like a potential, but not yet functional and he made it funcionaal. So God has put this potential in him

And remember that there was no origin sin yet to happen. For Adam and Eve there is a logical biblical solution. To be in communion or not to be in communion with the God. And evil snake was in Paradise already. So for us our human nature was created good, and we are not evil, but we can receive evil thoughts.

Some contemporary theologians say that fallen angel had sinned because The created has not its foundation in being, like the uncreated God has, but in unbeeing, as a result of creatediness.

Any thoughts on this topic?

Zavulon.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

If God created us with free will how is He not the author of evil?

God created us with free will as a most essential aspect of being in His image & likeness. But this free will is not totally 'open-ended' as if any choice at all corresponds to our nature. Rather our free will is fulfilled only in turning towards God and the things of God. In this sense then free will & choice have a restricted meaning just as good itself does also.

A most poignant question of modern man however is hidden in your question: as soon as he turns towards God and encounters his own sin he perceives first his own utter inability to really get ahead of his sin; and then he notices how his ability to choose (free will) is the means by which he sins. The question can then arise:Since it is God Who created man with free will is not the call to holiness some sort of unwinnable & cruel game?

Of course such questions can arise mainly from our own pride and stop there. On the other hand they can also reflect the fact that we have arrived at a very important point in our life in Christ since we now begin to sense the depth of our own powerlessness to really change. Here we stand on the razor edge between pride- blaming God for our sin- and humility -seeing that the fault lies with us and our choices.

The answer to the above question ultimately lies in us utterly abasing ourselves and relying on the mercy of God. The questions that come up can of course begin & end with pride. But in Christ even pride can lead to humility if we recognise how in every sense it is a dead end (literally) and that before us now is the opportunity to turn towards humility and a greater reliance on God. In this sense to have come to such questions (unless they were just idle intellectual speculation; ie questions & answers without engaging in a life in Christ) then can indicate we have been led to a very important doorway by Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Zavulon]

Dear father Raphael,
bless

1.) Divine providence has arranged that by not answering my posted question, you answered my unasked one. Because in my spiritual life I come across a specific situation in which by knowing that I cannot maintain in virtues, or even in my prayer longer than a month, a I start asking myself why to do it, if I cannot succed to last long enough.

2.) But to go back on my question.
a) In the human situation it is explainable.
the Holy fathers are saying that human nature is not evil, and that first set in sin is to adopt evil thought. And this evil though is not from human nature, mot even by potential, but this eveil thought are form The Evil One.
b)Human nature is truly human nature when in communion with God, and withoug this link it is not true human nature.

3.) I am asking about "time" before Adam and Evil, I talk about The Evil One, (Devil, Fallen Angel...) He did not have evil one to offer un evil thought. There was not evil one yet.

4.) If this is intellectual speculation let it be, by this also demands for un answer.
And Life in the Christ is shown in the Holy Spirit, which gave you the anser 1., that very much helped me in my spititual life. But lets i andvanced also in my intelectual life.

Thank you once again.

Zavulon
(Aleksandar Zatezalo)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Zavulon,

First you asked,


"the Holy fathers are saying that human nature is not evil, and that first set in sin is to adopt evil thought. And this evil though is not from human nature, mot even by potential, but this eveil thought are form The Evil One."

Human nature certainly was not & is not evil by nature but still it was created with free choice even before the Evil One's temptation which led to the Fall. So the ability to fall was still there even without the Evil One. The Evil One was the means but not the cause of the evil choice which was man.


"b)Human nature is truly human nature when in communion with God, and withoug this link it is not true human nature."

I think I understand what you are saying. But I would probably say that human nature is always human nature but is fulfilled in communion with God. The problem with saying that human nature is not true human nature outside of communion with God would be I think that what is the basis of its ability to be in communion with God except that it is human nature?


"3.) I am asking about "time" before Adam and Evil, I talk about The Evil One, (Devil, Fallen Angel...) He did not have evil one to offer un evil thought. There was not evil one yet.

This shows that the angelic beings do have will. The Evil One did have an evil impulse due to a misuse of his will although this permanently affects him due to the difference in angelic from human nature.


"4.) If this is intellectual speculation let it be, by this also demands for un answer. And Life in the Christ is shown in the Holy Spirit, which gave you the anser 1., that very much helped me in my spititual life. But lets i andvanced also in my intelectual life."

Please be assured that my response was not meant to be critical.

At times, especially as a priest I feel I need to understand the pastoral or spiritual point of the question: ie how it comes from and leads back to our life in Christ. And for this reason it might seem that my answers have little to do with the questions at times.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Zavulon and Fr Raphel,

It is interesting to note that this question has always been one that has consumed the minds of Christians. Perhaps most verbosely, it was the one great question with which Augustine of Hippo struggled for most of his life: 'How did evil begin?' (Most people who have not read his City of God think it to be a book primarily about political theology, etc., and tend to be rather surprised to see that vast extent of pages dedicated to the question of why the angels would have rebelled; why anyone fully in communion with God would turn away; etc.)

Part of the challenge, at least as it is discernable to me, is the tendency to think it quite strict and stagnant categories. There is 'union/communion' (a state), there is 'disunion' (another state); there is 'assent/obedience' (a defined act), there is 'rebellion' (another strict act). But human experience of human reality does not seem to offer much in the way of support for this kind of vision. It is possible to be obedient yet err, to love yet rebel, et cetera. A ten-minute obersvation of a child is fairly clear proof of this (adults tend to be more on their guard; it can take eleven or twelve minutes...). http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

There was a great sense, in the early Church, of appreciation for this dynamic character to human being. Writers such as Paul, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem (and many others) all take it into account in their articulations of human nature. We seem to have lost something of it today.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for that needed addition to our posts!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

This is a truly fascinating thread. Thank you for your posts, and thank you Zavulon for posing the question.

Would it be Orthodox to say that the Devil's prideful choice of evil is a theological mystery (obviously I don't mean 'mystery' in the sense of sacrament, God forbid, but in its everyday sense)? What I'm trying to say is, is it a correct Orthodox response to say that, although we know the devil fell as a result of envious pride, the question "whence comes evil" can receive to further response? Except perhaps a theologoumenon or theological speculation? Is it even wise for those beginning the spiritual life to speculate on this question?

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Bryon,

Your comments in your latest post (your no. 179, above) were very interesting. It strikes me that there are various facets to the kind of questions your raise. In a sense, the devil's 'prideful choice of evil' (to take up your phrasing) is wholly explicable: it is the choice rooted in pride, rather than communion, that renders the act evil. There is a certain straightforward reality here; one which can and should be appreciated for its straightfowardness and simplicity, as this is the root of its pastoral value. To sin is to sin, whether one is a man or an angel.

But from another perspective, there is the great mystery of the advent of sin, which is less straightforward. Whence that pride and act of rebellion? Yes, perhaps there is a kind of pastoral purpose served in leaving this to the unknown, to mystery, as a thing more prone to tempt into inaction that action. But there is also value in struggling with the very mysteriousness of it. The fact that evil would rise out of even a 'good, yea very good' creation itself speaks something about the character of freedom and will -- a lesson that needs to be learned and re-learned. It paints part of the picture of human nature.

INXC, Matthew

[Zavulon]

Dear all,

Lets underline previous discussion.

1. God has created different being, both angels and humans
2. What God has created he has created good.
3. God gave his being the free will. That means the possibility or ability of free choice and we have that regardless on our temptations.
(Theotokos has ability to sin, but she had not ever sinned in her life.)
4. Beings with free will are both angles and humans
5. In scriptural testimony we find that Adam and Eve choose to believe to the snake (the Devil) with their free will. The temptation come outside. They have capability, but they did not know of it, before someone else offered them. We can not say that God by providing Adam with the free will is cause of evil. No.
6. Still remains question, First created angel, had free will, had capability to sin, but he didn't have evil thought to offer him evil.

And finally, we didn't give any hypothetical solution. Except Byron and he suggested that it remains secret by divine providence.

I would like to repeat the thoughts of Metropolitan John Zizioulas concerning this matter, and ask you once again Do you have any hypothesis?

Zizioulas :
The only one that is uncreated and has no beginning is God, The Holy Trinity. Everything else that has its beginning in time is created. Uncreated has it's ontological foundation in being, meaning He is Life, and the only Giver of Life. Everything else that is created has no ontological foundation in itself. But because everything was created out of unbeing (ex nihilo). Unbeing is always present in created as a threat. So everything that has its beginning might have an end, meaning it is finite (limited). Because all that is created, has no ontological foundation in being it must be in communion with someone who has/is, that is only God. With free will we can decide to be or not to be in communion with the uncreated. But death, or end, is something that goes together with creation ex nihilo.

So Zizioulas is saying that this Finite - End, this Threat is The fallen Angel (Satan, Devil), who himself was in Paradise showing that inseparable part of creation.

Regards,
Zavulon

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I follow you Zavulon until you write in point 5 above:


"5. In scriptural testimony we find that Adam and Eve choose to believe to the snake (the Devil) with their free will. The temptation come outside. They have capability, but they did not know of it, before someone else offered them. We can not say that God by providing Adam with the free will is cause of evil. No."

It's the middle part which I think is a problem. The Evil One tempted Eve from 'the outside'- just as the we say that a thought is a temptation from 'the outside'. But the Fall occurred because Eve freely assented to the temptation. This led not to a new substance called evil ("and where did it come from since it wasn't there before?"). Rather evil is a descriptive word for the distortion of what is good and of the proclivity henceforth to confusion.

This understanding of evil also relates to our understanding of responsibility for sin. We have mentioned Eve being provoked by the Evil One. But what of Adam who fell when he listened to Eve? As you know it is standard Orthodox teaching that all Adam had to do was repent of what he had done when God questioned him in the garden. But instead Adam blamed Eve. This only makes sense if the sin of Adam arose from within himself- indeed this is the sin that made him fall so grievously. So you can follow this back up the line from Adam to Eve to the Evil One- the sin is from a choice made within oneself and this is precisely why the consequent fall is so serious- the choice made is a turning away from personal responsibility.

This I think also follows in your #6 where you say,


"6. Still remains question, First created angel, had free will, had capability to sin, but he didn't have evil thought to offer him evil."

No- but his will must have first inclined towards a rejection of the providence of God (that Lucifer had his proper place already) and then the evil choice of actual rejection was made. In other words the evil in this case arose from misuse of free will and this is perhaps a better way to see the problem of evil- a distortion of good.

If I understand your ultimate question about how evil could arise from what God created good I would suggest that the Fall is the mystery of how completely from within we can choose what is so destructive.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Regarding Lucifer, you write:


his will must have first inclined towards a rejection of the providence of God (that Lucifer had his proper place already) and then the evil choice of actual rejection was made

Does this not leave Zavulon's question unanswered? Why did Lucifer's will incline towards rejecting God, if Lucifer was created good? I can see that thinking of evil as a distortion of the good is a fruitful way forward, and of course Fr Zizioulas comments about ontological being and unbeing are simply brilliant. But this still leaves me with the overwhelming question: why would any being created good and enjoying the presence of the Lord ever incline his will towards evil or unbeing in the first place?

Thanks for continuing this interesting discussion, and Matthew, thank you for the elaboration of my suggestion!

In Christ
Byron

[Klod]

Personally, I think that the sin commited by Lucifer, in a context which is not known to man, it is connected to his inability to repent, and that the devil has no ability to repent this is a opinion, I may say, of the church, although not a official teaching.

Both, the way Lucifer sinned, and his inability to repent, are incomprehensible to us humans for the same reason, that both belong to another type of reality.

We can understand only what is repentable, that is a human perspective of sin in our reality.

A question that I have had, when I studied Dogmatics, was that why was serpent, knowing that it was the fallen Lucifer, allowed to dwell in paradise, when he tempted the First couple?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,
You wrote:


Regarding Lucifer, you [ie Fr Raphael] write: his will must have first inclined towards a rejection of the providence of God (that Lucifer had his proper place already) and then the evil choice of actual rejection was made Does this not leave Zavulon's question unanswered? Why did Lucifer's will incline towards rejecting God, if Lucifer was created good? I can see that thinking of evil as a distortion of the good is a fruitful way forward, and of course Fr Zizioulas comments about ontological being and unbeing are simply brilliant. But this still leaves me with the overwhelming question: why would any being created good and enjoying the presence of the Lord ever incline his will towards evil or unbeing in the first place?"

I think that Matthew's comments about evil & good not being so clear-cut really pointed this discussion in a very helpful direction. Of course if our starting point is to think of the pre-Fall state as clear-cut good & the post-fall state as clear-cut evil then we are in an unsolvable problem of how to account for evil.

But if we understand that good refers first to the actual reality of God's creation with all of the 'risk' this implies especially as relates to the fact that angelic and human nature is created with free will- then what is good or its definition assumes a very different aspect. We then see that almost unconsciously we impose an abstract definition of good onto God's creation rather than beginning with the reality of what God created- and seeing how this defines what good means.

I am not the one who is going to pretend that I can define everything that God's good means when it comes to His creation. But certainly it does refer to 1) the fact that He created us with free will to choose what is contrary to His will & providence- this is the 'risk factor' of His creating something relatively autonomous from Himself but which is really a sign of how He creates in love.

2) Then the fact that there is free will as I tried to point out yesterday also relates to the fact that free will and responsibility for our sin are so intimately connected. If there was not freedom of will what responsibility would there be for our sin? And if there were no responsibility why would it ever be really considered evil in the first place? So again we can see how freedom and how sin arose are so intimately interwoven.

3)The Holy Frs such as St Irenaeus of Lyons describe how man at his creation was supposed to grow in spiritual maturity. We cannot understand this without ascribing a shortcoming to God and His creating unless we again take into account the risk of creating a distinct humanity with the free will to grow in Him- or the the possibility of rejecting Him.
We are drawn to the idea that God could have created 'a perfect man' who would do no evil & cause no suffering to others. This is often our assumption of what a really perfect creation could have been. And our question of why God didn't create in this way is probably what is behind this whole issue after all- why did God not create a creation that would not have allowed for sin and death? In other words it is nice to accept the idea that we are immature in Christ if this only means we are called to grow in Him- but if we encounter the other side of this that we are created really free- then somehow at the back (or front) of our minds we suspect that God's creation is somehow not good because it allows for sin & death.

Why God's good creation allows for sin & death is best answered by looking at why we who were created good still choose sin. Really the mystery of the choice of Adam & Eve at the Fall is being played out at every second of every day of our own lives. On the other hand amidst sin that can be so overpowering it seems we also choose life. And I think the two sides of this mystery are intimately connected and provide an answer of sorts to this question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Fr Raphael,

I appreciated very much your recent post. I agree entirely with the assertion that the kinds of static categories that so often inspire our conceptions of states of evil and good, also inspire a similar black-and-white vision of 'perfection' as it applies to creation. In a society and culture that lauds 'freedom' so loudly as the great right and intrinsic heritage of all human peoples, it is always a touch ironic that the main call for justice issued against the account of creation is that it does not prohibit freedom--does not set up a context in which sin were not a possibility, evil not a reality, however theoretical. The cry is routinely that God should have done so, should have acted in this way; that the very advent and rise of evil is a sign of deficiency, not of human economy, but of God who 'did not create a world where this wouldn't or couldn't happen'. (I should point out that I'm not here characterising any particular comments in this forum, but general trends at large.)

The fathers tend to speak in terms of union and communion: that is 'good' which is in communion with God its fashioner, which 'bears his marks and imprints', to paraphrase Irenaeus. For reality without will, i.e. plants, stones, and the like, this is a matter of natural stature and the use to which it is put. But for willing beings this becomes not only a question of natural creation, but of the active willing that possessing a will implies. To bear the fruit of the divine image, to be created 'after the image of God', is to exemplify this most fully -- the realise in free willing the communion thrust by God upon a plant or a rock, but wrought in humanity through a harmony of creation and communion.

'Freedom' is not merely a deliberative choice between 'right' and 'wrong'; it is paramountly a condition of communion, in which both beings are active in the union rather than one forcing its realisation in the other. The deliberation of right and wrong can figure into this, but only once this communion has first been broken and the will creates the 'evils' through its own acts. This is why for the fathers, the opposite of 'freedom' is not paramountly enslavement, but disobedience. It is in disobedience that communion is shattered, and 'freedom' is debased, becoming merely an uninhibited choice between moving towards the fruit of that disobedience or away from it. It is in this context that the fathers can speak, as so often they do, of the regaining of true freedom as the fruit of obedience, for obedience restores freedom to a reality of communion, rather than mere deliberation.

INXC, Matthew

[Boulos]

Forgive my ignorance, but from Isaiah 14.12 and from Luke 10.18 and many more other references, i see as if Satan who was created as all things " good", was fallen from pride, and whithout this fall, the incarnation of Christ our Lord wouldn't have happened to us at our time, and the holy ones wouldn't be shining like stars in the heaven. The profets wouldn't have appeared to us for guidance and maybe the whole creation would be just like plants which are not image of God. And God created Adam on his Immage.

So Satan is taking a kind of part of all that creation which is good for eternity, since satan is just a tool of creation to complete tomorrow's eternal kingdom of our Lord. Today is just a small period, but the creation extend to the eternity which forever, not just a period or stage of creation.

This is personal opinion.
INXC

[Klod]

Whether Logos would have come as man, without the fall of Lucifer, or even of that of man, I think this beyond the scope of the doctrine as it is in our reality (after the fall).
But, personally, I have all the good reasons to believe, that Incarnation of Logos is far more then a saving action on the part of God. It is more, because in its centre is Communion of God and Man (and not simply a sacrificing act), and since Man, even before the fall, needed advancement in spiritual life, he needed that Incarnation-Communion, as an fullfillment, even without the fall.

It cannot be that the Fall brought Man to a higher state then that for which man was created for.

God didnt need the fall of Man in order to teach him what Grace is.

Fall is an unfortunate event in human history which God used, by his Grace, to save him.

greetings

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yes I think it was St. Maximos the Confessor who explained that the Incarnation of Christ was the very purpose of the creation and its fulfillment. This apart from the Fall.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

Klod's assertion that the Incarnation would have occurred regardless of Satan's fall, or more correctly put, that Satan's fall was not the necessary condition of its joyous occurrence, is as far as I know (professional theologians, help!) part of Orthodox doctrine. However, is it incorrect to suggest that the Fall of Lucifer does indeed have its special place in the Divine Economy? If so, I imagine that this "special place" can at best be only surmised by the human mind, and it may even be wisest to leave well alone rather than speculate too much about it, as Bishop Kallistos suggests in "The Orthodox Way". Still, honest intellectual enquiry with an aim to deeper relationship with the Lord is surely a good and useful activity, provided we seek His blessing in this - what do others think?

Speaking of honest intellectual enquiry, thank you again Fr Raphael and Matthew for your continuing insights into the mystery of good and evil.

Fr Raphael wrote:


In other words it is nice to accept the idea that we are immature in Christ if this only means we are called to grow in Him- but if we encounter the other side of this that we are created really free- then somehow at the back (or front) of our minds we suspect that God's creation is somehow not good because it allows for sin & death.

If I understand this correctly Fr Raphael, you are saying that our calling to grow in Christ is inevitably accompanied by the danger of regressing spiritually; that spiritual development and its opposite are necessary conditions of one another in a sense. After all, if the potential to sin did not exist, there would be no meaning in virtue, and sin would be blameless if virtue was impossible.

Matthew wrote:


'Freedom' is not merely a deliberative choice between 'right' and 'wrong'; it is paramountly a condition of communion, in which both beings are active in the union rather than one forcing its realisation in the other...This is why for the fathers, the opposite of 'freedom' is not paramountly enslavement, but disobedience. It is in disobedience that communion is shattered, and 'freedom' is debased, becoming merely an uninhibited choice between moving towards the fruit of that disobedience or away from it. It is in this context that the fathers can speak, as so often they do, of the regaining of true freedom as the fruit of obedience, for obedience restores freedom to a reality of communion, rather than mere deliberation.

What a different kind of freedom this is to the way "freedom" is understood in the world! Yet how hard it is to remember this and remain in communion, in the face of worldly temptations. Sometimes I think it isn't so much the attraction of sin itself that gives it its power, as the more or less conscious awareness we all share of the contrast between what is beautiful and holy, and what is base. It's as if we despair at a very deep level by our awareness of the distance between our true freedom and our worldly choices.

In Christ
Byron

[Boulos]

Forgive my ignorance again, but lets underline Luke20.13,

From here i see a reflexion of "evrything good " (Luke 20.9), later pride fall(Luke 20.11 to and 12), then later incarnation (Luke20.13)....

From these verses we can link few symbolic ideas abt the fall and incarnation too no?
INXC

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,
You wrote:


If I understand this correctly Fr Raphael, you are saying that our calling to grow in Christ is inevitably accompanied by the danger of regressing spiritually; that spiritual development and its opposite are necessary conditions of one another in a sense. After all, if the potential to sin did not exist, there would be no meaning in virtue, and sin would be blameless if virtue was impossible.

Yes- the Fall & resurrection are constantly being played out in our lives. In this sense these two are a type of our lives in Christ- sinning, falling and getting up again. And I am wondering if through our own experience of good & evil we can best answer how evil arose for Adam & Eve. If the deeper question is why God allowed Adam & Eve to fall how is this any less applicable to our present circumstance- why does God allow anyone to fall?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all, Byron wrote, somewhat distantly above (a few days ago, perhaps):


But this still leaves me with the overwhelming question: why would any being created good and enjoying the presence of the Lord ever incline his will towards evil or unbeing in the first place?

I think that some of the discussion since you posted this question has perhaps touched on this -- questions of authentic 'freedom' not as simple deliberation, but a context of communion; growth and development, etc. -- but it is also worth perhaps re-stating such ideas in more concrete terms. The analogy used by at least one father (Irenaeus of Lyons, to whom Fr Raphael refers in the above) is that of a child; and the specifics of that analogy can be framed in modern experience. In an ideal family situation, a child is brought into life with all benefits and aids: the context of that child's existence, provided for by the parents, is wholesome and lacking in no good thing (again, this is an idealised situation). Proper instruction is given, as the child grows and matures, in right living. Nothing of benefit is withheld. Guidelines are given as to what is of benefit and what of hindrance: 'Don't do this' and 'Do that' are given as means of instruction in growth. Yet for all this, children are children, and there is a 'lack of experience' and finitude about infantile existence that does not perfectly (i.e. wholly, in an adult way) comprehend the instruction and guidance, and at times wanders from it -- not on account of grave moral guilt or rebellion, but out of immaturity. Nonetheless, as time passes, departure from guidance becomes more a thing of maturity, of rebellion, and takes on new tones.

For several of the fathers, there is a parallel here to the original fashioning of man and the advent of sin. For Irenaeus at least, it was not terribly shocking that Adam ate of the tree, that he went against the word of the Lord, his 'parent'. It does not present for him the 'Great Why?' that it has for some others.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Boulos,

I understand your linking of the ideas you present (goodness - pride - sin - incarnation - redemption); but it does not necessarily hold that just because one thing comes after another, or even that it might correct the effects of something earlier, that the earlier thing is necessarily the cause of the latter. The UN statements on civil liberties clearly enshrine considerations of past moments in American civil history; but those historical moments cannot rightly be seen as the causes of the statements.

The redemption offered in the incarnation clearly does, in Christian teaching, redeem from the sin instigated by humanity, protologically in response to dialogue with Satan. Yet Christ is called 'the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world'; it is the incarnate Jesus Christ who is iconographically portrayed standing on the shores of the sea, creating the fish and animals; it is Christ who is the central figure of all history and economy -- a consistent patristic portrayal that does not stand rightly if the incarnation is solely a reaction or response to transgression.

There are a great many fathers who say that 'On account of our sins he took flesh and became man'; but again, there is the question of full scope. He also became man to fulfil the image and enable the likeness of humankind to its maker; he also became man to unite creation to its fashioner.

INXC, Matthew

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

Fr Raphael wrote:


I am wondering if through our own experience of good & evil we can best answer how evil arose for Adam & Eve. If the deeper question is why God allowed Adam & Eve to fall how is this any less applicable to our present circumstance- why does God allow anyone to fall?

This seems to me a very useful way of turning an important pastoral question around. What makes many - myself, for one - question God's intentions in making the world is our experience of personal falling. It is very difficult to accept the responsibility for this falling, and a lot easier to simply blame someone or something. Yet Elias the Presbyter points out that embracing involuntary suffering is even more profitable to our salvation than suffering voluntarily (only he puts it much more beautifully!). To me this thinking could perhaps apply also to our occasions of sin or falling; even when we feel that we are unable to resist temptation, and are therefore in a sense, falling involuntarily, the right response is not to blame God for putting us in the predicament of having to choose, but to accept with humility that the terrible choice is there for a reason - in other words, that His wisdom in creating this world is greater than our understanding of it will ever be. Why does God allow anyone to fall? I would say, in order to get up again, and learn from the experience. "Go, and sin no more". As Matthew has pointed out above, the humility of Irenaeus helped him to discern Adam's immaturity in eating of the Tree of Knowledge, not God's faulty design.

Pray for me, brothers, that I may ask "why?" less often.

In Christ,
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Byron,

This discovery of the pastoral issue that lies behind specific readings and approaches to the early realities of creation and all its aspects, is, as you say, part of the patristic approach itself. Often those fathers who would go into the most minute detail about the 'scientific' details of creation, were the most careful to show that these details paramountly reveal something of God and something of humanity that is useful for change and transformation.

INXC, Matthew

[Scott Pierson]

A thought pops into our mind so to speak without our willing it. If we accept the thought, identify with it and whatnot we are guilty of sin to varying degrees based on how far it went in the process. BUT the arrival of the thought comes from a pre rational place that is really outside our will (from our flesh, the demons, etc) the sin comes from accepting the thought not having it...example the thought of sexual sin with a good looking women that walks by.. I didnt actually will "man I would really like a thought to arise that would tempt me in regards to this women". The thought simple arises from the flesh. If this is true how did that first thought (logismoi) arise in the mind of satan. he didnt have flesh or a fallen nature that would even bring up a thought of sin to be considered by the will in the first place did he? The thought itself arises prior to the will doesnt it? That would mean there would have to be some pre disposition or at least some thing in the nature that would lend itself to causing the thought to arise in the first place? Was he maybe tempted as a test and then failed by giving into the temptation.. but then that might make God a tempter which the Bible says He is not . Did God maybe have a "tempter" built into the nature of Satan. I've always wondered about that. If one has absolutely no concept of pride or predisposition for the feeling to arise, nor anything that could work to tempt you in that direction (without the internal predisposition to be tempted how could anything tempt in the first place? It would be like "tempting" an asexual single celled organism with a beautiful women)How does it happen? Does it have something to do with the creative aspect of the mind or imagination possible?

Scott

[Jan McGuffin]

In attempting to read and digest all of the responses here it seems that my general lack of knowledge about Angels brings up a question or perhaps a general area of puzzlement having to do with Creation. Is that term used to mean when God first created anything outside of the uncreated -- I guess the question is - were the angels created before or after God began creation as described in Genesis 1:1 (1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth).

In a different vein:
Somewhere along the way I was taught that there is nothing that is evil in and of itself since God created all and said that it was good (Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.) - that evil is the perversion of that which is good rather than a separate entity apart from good. If this is not correct (in the Orthodox understanding) please give some resources on this.

My apologies if this has already been answered somewhere and I missed it in the searches and reading - I am very new to this site.

[Demetrios]

Hello everyone. My name is Demetrios. This is my first post but I have bin following for some time now. I'm a Greek Orthodox craddle and lay person working out my salvation. This Quote by Metropolitan John Zizioulas recieved my attention so I felt compelled to post. I was always under the impression that we are eternal beings. This quote makes it sound as if our eternal life is based on communion with god and without this communion there is death. I have read some into ST Maximos witch indicates that all will resurrect, be in communion and the presents of God. That pesents could be hell or heaven depending on weather our will conforms with gods will. Can someone shed some light on this topic. Thank you



I would like to repeat the thoughts of Metropolitan John Zizioulas concerning this matter, and ask you once again Do you have any hypothesis?

Zizioulas :
The only one that is uncreated and has no beginning is God, The Holy Trinity. Everything else that has its beginning in time is created. Uncreated has it's ontological foundation in being, meaning He is Life, and the only Giver of Life. Everything else that is created has no ontological foundation in itself. But because everything was created out of unbeing (ex nihilo). Unbeing is always present in created as a threat. So everything that has its beginning might have an end, meaning it is finite (limited). Because all that is created, has no ontological foundation in being it must be in communion with someone who has/is, that is only God. With free will we can decide to be or not to be in communion with the uncreated. But death, or end, is something that goes together with creation ex nihilo.

So Zizioulas is saying that this Finite - End, this Threat is The fallen Angel (Satan, Devil), who himself was in Paradise showing that inseparable part of creation.

Regards,
Zavulon

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hello everyone. My name is Demetrios. This is my first post but I have bin following for some time now. I'm a Greek Orthodox craddle and lay person working out my salvation. This Quote by Metropolitan John Zizioulas recieved my attention so I felt compelled to post. I was always under the impression that we are eternal beings. This quote makes it sound as if our eternal life is based on communion with god and without this communion there is death. I have read some into ST Maximos witch indicates that all will resurrect, be in communion and the presents of God. That pesents could be hell or heaven depending on weather our will conforms with gods will. Can someone shed some light on this topic. Thank you

What Metropolitan John speaks of is found in many of the Holy Fathers.

For example St Athanasius writes that:


Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ; and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore upon men who as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked- namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in a limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. (3)

In chap 4 St Athansius continues:


For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence & love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Demetrios]

Thank you for those quotes father. I am not as educated as some of the posters hear and hope to get some enlightenment on this issue. I resently studied the topic and though that because Christ took on human nature he restored it to the pre fallen state. Since he is part of the trinity witch exists for ever. Human nature has bin restored through him. I'm not claiming that he restored our souls with it. That would be foolish.

If death is hell there is no suffering in that. That almost gives a licence to do anything on earth without consequence. Since death is the worst thing that can happen. Forgive me in advance if my writing tone comes off harsh or to the point. It's just the way I write. I would also welcome any additional quotes from the fathers or other members views. thanks