Is Christianity dualistic?

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I'm wondering whether the distinction between God's uncreated essence and the created essence of everything else is dualistic in a philosophical sense. I'm also wondering if monism is heretical. Any thoughts?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear all,

I'm wondering whether the distinction between God's uncreated essence and the created essence of everything else is dualistic in a philosophical sense. I'm also wondering if monism is heretical. Any thoughts?

In Christ
Byron

Dear Byron,

I'm not sure of the philosophical aspect of your question.

But we need to keep in mind that it was Christianity after all, especially due to the Patristic influence, that insisted on the radical distinction between God as uncreated and His creation. In this sense there is an essential dualism in Christian thought.

However it is also crucial to keep in mind that this dualism is not oppositional as in various gnosic systems.

The distinction between Uncreated and created is a relation of communion, not of opposition.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[D. W. Dickens]

However it is also crucial to keep in mind that this dualism is not oppositional as in various gnosic systems.

The distinction between Uncreated and created is a relation of communion, not of opposition.


What a great point. The Uncreated and the created are not in opposition, in fact, the very Gospel (the good news we have to proclaim to the world) is that there is no enmity.

[Peter S.]

What a great point. The Uncreated and the created are not in opposition, in fact, the very Gospel (the good news we have to proclaim to the world) is that there is no enmity.

I have from my priest heard that dualism is the result of the Fall and Christ wanted to abolish the separation.

In Christ
Peter

[D. W. Dickens]

I have from my priest heard that dualism is the result of the Fall and Christ wanted to abolish the separation.


There is an inadequate use of words here. Dualism implies a world view containing opposite originating "somethings".

But the dualism here is simply the lack of the only one "something". Lack is not a something (cold isn't a thing but the absence of heat, darkness isn't a thing but a lack of light).

Created matter even after the fall wasn't opposed in a dualistic sense to the Uncreated, rather it lacked its proper relationship and wasn't fully itself. Without the Uncreated the created falls into oblivion. It has no substance on it's own to "oppose" the Uncreated.

[Michael Bauman]

Dear all,

I'm wondering whether the distinction between God's uncreated essence and the created essence of everything else is dualistic in a philosophical sense. I'm also wondering if monism is heretical. Any thoughts?

In Christ
Byron

Bryon,
1. Christianity is not philosphical, it is about union with Christ. It is a uniquely intimate and personal experience within the community of believers.
2. Christianity is the only faith that is not dualistic in any sense. Only our false sense of separation from God leads to philosphical dualism.
3. The Incarnation, The Cross and the Resurrection did away with all separation. We just have to participate
4. The 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon A.D. 451 articulated the theological and dogmatic reality:
Wherefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same consisting of a reasonable soul and a body, of one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, the same of one substance with us as touching the manhood, like us in all things apart from sin; begotten of the Father before the ages as touching the Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as touching the manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, with out confusion, without change, without division, without separtion; the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved, and concurring into one Person and one subsistence, not as if Christ were parted or divided into two person, but one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as the Prophets from the beginning spoke concerning him, and our Lord Jesus Christ instructed us, and the Creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.
5. It is part of the fallen understanding of human beings that we seek anything and everything to keep from acknowledging both our radical dependency of our Creator and our essential union with Him.
6. Our denial takes the form of all types of dualism, e.g. Manicheanism, Arianism, Gnosticism, etc and monisms of various types such as Monophysitism, Monothelitism and, of course, materialism and philosophical naturalism. Most of the ...isms in my list are officially recognized heresies in the Church (although for some reason we seem to be backtracking on Monophysitism). Materialism and philosphical naturalism are simply the result of apostasy.
7. Simply put: any dualistic or monistic philosophy is not compatible with Chrisitanity. Both dualism and monism stem from our proclivity to worship the created thing more than our Creator (Romans 1).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have from my priest heard that dualism is the result of the Fall and Christ wanted to abolish the separation.

In Christ
Peter

Yes, I think it could be put like this since it is similar to the way of thinking of St Maximus the Confessor.

Dualism also however is used according to its 'dictionary definition' to mean those who hold to a universe originating from two opposed moral forces. Thus for example, gnostics would be referred to as dualists.

However, even though such a word and concept is very handy shorthand I am not sure when the Fathers used such a word. For them the universe already was dual in the sense of Creator/created but of course in an intensely relational manner. Thus as St Irenaeus argued, the problem with the gnostics was not that they sought knowledge; rather it was that they sought knowledge that was false.

Or to say it another way, the gnostic understanding of reality was deeply flawed because it misunderstood the nature of the Creator/created duality making this oppositional instead of being based on a relation of communion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Bauman]

Yes, I think it could be put like this since it is similar to the way of thinking of St Maximus the Confessor.

Dualism also however is used according to its 'dictionary definition' to mean those who hold to a universe originating from two opposed moral forces. Thus for example, gnostics would be referred to as dualists.

However, even though such a word and concept is very handy shorthand I am not sure when the Fathers used such a word. For them the universe already was dual in the sense of Creator/created but of course in an intensely relational manner. Thus as St Irenaeus argued, the problem with the gnostics was not that they sought knowledge; rather it was that they sought knowledge that was false.

Or to say it another way, the gnostic understanding of reality was deeply flawed because it misunderstood the nature of the Creator/created duality making this oppositional instead of being based on a relation of communion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Good point here that ordinary, philosophical dualism is oppositional in nature. Christianity is inter-relational.

I found a helpful concept in Lossky's Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. The concept of antinomy (two things that seem opposite but actually combine to make one truth). Chrisitanity is full of such antinomies, e.g., that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man or that God is both wholly other but that we can know Him and commune with Him.

Many heresies have arisen by the inability to be comfortable with and accept the whole truth when such antinomies are encountered. The tendency is to fall into oppositional dualism thereby loosing understanding of the truth.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I took a fast look through the index for St Irenaeus`s Against Heresy and was unable to find a reference that uses the word dualism in the sense that we usually mean it nowadays. Indeed his whole argument of the absurdity of the gnostic chain of being is based on an understanding of the absolute preeminence of God.

Of course though in doing this St Irenaeus is bringing in a totally Christian point of reference about divinity. Here he is very Patristic in his ìntolerance towards the premise of the gnostic argument of there being no real natural distinction between divine & created being. For the gnostics after all the duality is the result of man not understanding that he originates from (not created by) the divinity. For the gnostics then this duality, which results from man`s ignorance of his divine source, can only be resolved by his return to and resolution back into his divine source.

Seen in this way then it can be better understood why St Irenaeus insists as a basic premise about the absolute majesty and Oneness of God. Where the gnostics see a negative duality St Irenaeus instead sees God in His condescension adopting the human condition with the Incarnation so that man can fulfill the integrity of his nature. Here is a whole radically different movement of the Uncreated God towards man who is created. In describing how the Incarnation fulfills the integrity of what is created St Ireneaus correctly puts his finger on the underlying motivation of gnosticism- a deep suspicion towards the material.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

You cannot start with some abstract term. You have to start with a particular case. A discussion based on asking if Christianity is dualist is meaningless unless you identify what you mean by dualism, by citing a case. Things don't exist in the abstract. Christianity does not have to define itself in contrast to an abstraction. It defines itself in relation to concrete cases.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Once again the monachos forum proves very useful and even enlightening! Thank you all for your comments, which are helping to resolve a philosophical problem that I worked myself into. I find it particularly important to note that the dichotomy between created and uncreated is overcome in the Incarnation, and that the relationship between these orders of reality is (or can be) a cooperative one. I also find it important to be aware that the tendency to view things dualistically is a result of the fall, and that both dualism and monism can be characteristics of heretical thinking.

Many thanks for all your comments.

In Christ,

Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,


Created matter even after the fall wasn't opposed in a dualistic sense to the Uncreated, rather it lacked its proper relationship and wasn't fully itself. Without the Uncreated the created falls into oblivion. It has no substance on it's own to "oppose" the Uncreated.

What does 'lacking its proper relationship' and 'not being fully itself' mean in the context of created matter? What does 'having substance on its own to "oppose" the Uncreated' mean?

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear all,

What does 'lacking its proper relationship' and 'not being fully itself' mean in the context of created matter? What does 'having substance on its own to "oppose" the Uncreated' mean?

In Christ
Byron

Without the Uncreated, the created cannot exist. While we can rail and rebel we cannot defeat God, we cannot make Him "go away" because we only exist by His will and not ours. He can will us out of existance, we cannot will Him away, even if we pretend to do so. He is, whether we are or not. You cannot say the same about us, that we would exist without Him, even if the atheists want to pretend so.

At least that is how it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Herman


Without the Uncreated, the created cannot exist. While we can rail and rebel we cannot defeat God, we cannot make Him "go away" because we only exist by His will and not ours. He can will us out of existance, we cannot will Him away, even if we pretend to do so. He is, whether we are or not. You cannot say the same about us, that we would exist without Him, even if the atheists want to pretend so. Point taken, no problem with this. But what I'm really asking - and I know it's unorthodox and I shouldn't ask -is what does it mean to speak of created matter being fully itself or having a proper relationship to the Uncreated? Does matter like this, presumably one can call it transfigured matter, differ - say - in its chemical properties or energy levels from other matter? Fallen matter does appear to have 'substance of its own', so what do we mean when we say it has no substance to "oppose" the Uncreated?



In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Herman

Point taken, no problem with this. But what I'm really asking - and I know it's unorthodox and I shouldn't ask -is what does it mean to speak of created matter being fully itself or having a proper relationship to the Uncreated? Does matter like this, presumably one can call it transfigured matter, differ - say - in its chemical properties or energy levels from other matter? Fallen matter does appear to have 'substance of its own', so what do we mean when we say it has no substance to "oppose" the Uncreated?

In Christ
Byron

No idea really. Maybe it is that "dark matter" stuff that science has recently be theorizing about. Perhaps it is something that hasn't been discovered yet that "empiricists" would refuse to recognize until it is. Maybe we who are created are simply unable in our present state to sense or measure that which is uncreated?

How does someone blind from birth describe light or color? How do the deaf describe music? They know it exists, people tell them about it, but what is it, really? What does it mean to speak of blue or green? What is a glissando or a whole note?

Read Holy Scripture. Read the Fathers. Pray. Hear the teachings of the divine services. Develop a relationship with the One who has the true and real answers to your questions. These questions are answered, not in the head, but in the heart.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Ken McRae]

6. Our denial takes the form of all types of dualism, e.g. Manicheanism, Arianism, Gnosticism, etc and monisms of various types such as Monophysitism, Monothelitism and, of course, materialism and philosophical naturalism. Most of the ...isms in my list are officially recognized heresies in the Church (although for some reason we seem to be backtracking on Monophysitism). Materialism and philosphical naturalism are simply the result of apostasy.

Please explain what you mean by 'philosophical naturalism'? Thank you.

[Michael Bauman]

Please explain what you mean by 'philosophical naturalism'? Thank you.

Ken, Philosophical Naturalism is the belief that everything can be explained without reference to any divine reality at all. Everything, including the thoughts, feelings and existence of human beings has a completely natural, i.e., material cause. God is merely a poetic metaphor that was once used as a place holder for our lack of knowledge. Fortunately we have learned enough we can afford to abandon the concept of God altogther. The idea of God is in fact dangerous and only keeps us from progressing. Those who persist in the idiotic notion that God is real are immature, reactionary bigots.

Communisim is a utopian version of philosophical naturalism, there are many scientistic versions and many cultural movements driven by various strains of philosophical naturalism including abortion, feminism, gay rights, animal rights, and unfortunately much of the environmental movement.

PN at one and the same time arrogates the human intellect to the level of the divine and reduces human beings to mere bio-mechancial organisms without intrinsic value of any kind.