Robin and Chris,
Then what does Paul mean when he says "natural man" ?


[i]Split from this thread on the Free Offer of the Gospel[i]
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi....php?tid=14459

puritansailor

[Edited on 1-24-2006 by puritansailor]

Originally posted by Saiph
Robin and Chris,
Then what does Paul mean when he says "natural man" ?

It's best to use Paul's term "sarks" or "flesh." To be in the "flesh" is to not be regenerate, first and foremost. Romans 6 refers to the only two types of people on earth: those "in Adam" or those "in Christ." To be "in the Spirit" is to be in Christ. Yes....even while the Christian struggles horribly (failing?) with habitual sin, Romans 8 describes that even then, we are IN CHRIST --- because the Gospel is outside of us. The Gospel depends on what Christ DID!

Now THAT is Good News!

Robin

PS. Always keep the reading of Romans in sequential order (chpt 1 --- 16.) To interrupt the sequence is to thwart a beautiful and awesome symphony of Truth, Paul is unfolding.

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Robin]

Yes, but the natural man understandeth not the things of the Spirit.
I believe it does damage to total depravity to say human nature is good, and by definition should be in reference to Christ.

When any man does what is "natural", it is sin. In Christ we are a new creation. He was the second Adam. We are heirs of the first, until regeneration. I understand what Calvin was trying to say, but he should have used better terms. Natural does not mean unaltered, or pure, or upright in the biblical sense. It means correspondence with the ordinary course of nature. Nature is fallen. The secular naturalist would prefer the former definition.

Is death unnatural ?

Or

Is the resurrection unnatural ?



[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]

Originally posted by Saiph
Yes, but the natural man understandeth not the things of the Spirit.
I believe it does damage to total depravity to say human nature is good, and by definition should be in reference to Christ.

When any man does what is "natural", it is sin. In Christ we are a new creation. He was the second Adam. We are heirs of the first, until regeneration. I understand what Calvin was trying to say, but he should have used better terms. Natural does not mean unaltered, or pure, or upright in the biblical sense. It means correspondence with the ordinary course of nature. Nature is fallen. The secular naturalist would prefer the former definition.

Is death unnatural ?

Or

Is the resurrection unnatural ?



[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]

Maybe we should move the thread?

So much can be said, Mark. It sounds like we need to unpack what pre-Fall, post-Fall human nature is like.

Btw, death is NOT natural. (!)

(whistling....) O, Dr. Clark.....care to make a much more insightful response to Mark's points, than I ever could?

Robin

I would be willing to accept your view if you define "natural".
We could then reduce the argument to a matter of vantage point or perspective.

My definition is: that which follows the ordinary course of nature.

Hence:

Eph. 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

And by contrast:

II Pe 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Originally posted by Saiph
.
I believe it does damage to total depravity to say human nature is good, and by definition should be in reference to Christ.

..... The secular naturalist would prefer the former definition.

Mark, obviously I agree with your important reminder that a clear reference to Christ (hypostatic union/Trinity) remains intact when discussing the condition and essense of humanity.

However, I'd beg to disagree....the secular naturalist prefers to justify, even validate his sin by claiming "it's only natural."



r.

However, I'd beg to disagree....the secular naturalist prefers to justify, even validate his sin by claiming "it's only natural."

That is exactly my point. Sin is natural. We are born hating God. (And to the naturalist, that means unaltered or pure, ie. my 1st definition.)

[Edited on 10-26-2005 by Saiph]

But there is a difference in what you're saying above, and the claim that human nature is inherently evil. We know that every human nature, apart from Christ, IS evil, but its not to say that human nature (per se) IS evil, because then to do so would say that Jesus Christ has a "sinful" human nature, since human nature is always evil.

I think its a valid distinction to not always lump "human nature" and "sin" together, and to call the distinction into view is a great way to bring up the subject of Christ's perfection and His work on our account, especially in this day and age where His LIFE is ignored as being meritorious, and only His DEATH is talked about.

Also, when we get to Heaven and are glorified, will we not have a human nature? And Adam was created with a human nature, and it wasn't an evil nature that was given to him.

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
But there is a difference in what you're saying above, and the claim that human nature is inherently evil. We know that every human nature, apart from Christ, IS evil, but its not to say that human nature (per se) IS evil, because then to do so would say that Jesus Christ has a "sinful" human nature, since human nature is always evil.

Hebrews 2:16
For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

I think its a valid distinction to not always lump "human nature" and "sin" together, and to call the distinction into view is a great way to bring up the subject of Christ's perfection and His work on our account, especially in this day and age where His LIFE is ignored as being meritorious, and only His DEATH is talked about.

Also, when we get to Heaven and are glorified, will we not have a human nature? And Adam was created with a human nature, and it wasn't an evil nature that was given to him.

I think this is why I asked Robin to define "Nature", and I qualified my statements with my definition.

Nature and natural are two different things

That sagacious Dominican friar of the 13th century solves this for us:

Man's nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above (Article [1]). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he is unable to fulfil it by his own natural powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured.


And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.


Aquinas - Summa Theologica (Treatise On Grace) Question 109 Article 2

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]

Originally posted by Saiph
That sagacious Dominican friar of the 13th century solves this for us:

......Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue.

........

And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.


Aquinas - Summa Theologica (Treatise On Grace) Question 109 Article 2

So is Aquinas saying that Adam before the Fall could not keep the law decree God made ("do not eat..") without God's help?

Just wondering, am I reading him right?

Robin

Yes, Robin. But Adam could not breathe or think without God's help in that most generic sense as well. So it does not remove Adam's freedom.

Originally posted by Saiph
Yes, Robin. But Adam could not breathe or think without God's help in that most generic sense as well. So it does not remove Adam's freedom.

Wow --- this is quite different than what the confessions state (3 F's.) I mean.....what's the deal if God creates Adam to NOT be able to obey the edict "do not eat"....? Where in Scripture does it teach God created Adam unable to obey Him (before the Fall?)

r.

I did not say God created Adam with the inability of obedience.

Adam was able to sin.
Since the fall we are not able, to not sin.
In Christ we are able to not sin.
In eternity we will not be able to sin.

Originally posted by Saiph
I did not say God created Adam with the inability of obedience.

Adam was able to sin.
Since the fall we are not able, to not sin.
In Christ we are able to not sin.
In eternity we will not be able to sin.

Most importantly, was Adam able to NOT sin (before the Fall?)

r.

I bet that's what he meant to type, Robin, and that it was a typo to omit the word "not" in that first line.

(Sorry to speak for ya, Mark!)

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I bet that's what he meant to type, Robin, and that it was a typo to omit the word "not" in that first line.

(Sorry to speak for ya, Mark!)

Yes.

Augustine:

Pre Fall Man: able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare);
Post Fall Man: not able not to sin (non posse non peccare);
Regenerate Man: able not to sin (posse non peccare);
Glorified Man: unable to sin (non posse peccare).

But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue.

... And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good.... Aquinas - Summa Theologica (Treatise On Grace) Question 109 Article 2

Robin has put her finger on a very important problem. Thomas' doctrine of the donum super additum (super added grace), i.e., preserving grace before the fall was rooted in a non-Christian anthropology and a non-Christian ontology.

The background to this move was Augustine's turn to neo-Platonism (Plotinus) as way of explaining evil as a matter of being (good) and non-being (evil).

From my 2001 essay on Concupiscence in Modern Reformation:

St. Augustine (354-430) expressed his mature views in the treatise, On Marriage and Concupiscence (419) written against the Pelagians. Under the influence of neo-Platonism Augustine interpreted Paul's teaching on the "Spirit" and "flesh" in terms of being rather than as ethical and eschatological categories. Though he denied any "carnal concupiscence" before the fall and he considered it the "law of sin" (Romans 7.23), he also associated it very closely with sexual desire. Baptism, "the laver of regeneration" (Titus 3.5), washes away original sin and the guilt of concupiscence, but in this fallen world, the act of concupiscence remains, even among the regenerate. The "evil of concupiscence" may be tamed for procreation, but even in marriage it brings shame when its passions run hot.

According to Thomas Aquinas (c.1224-1274) humans were created good, with all the virtues, but because we are creatures and material we necessarily have "lower powers" or "appetites." Even before the fall, these powers were only subject to the soul, even before the fall, only by a "super added gift" (donum super additum) of grace. He says, "even before sin " man "required grace to obtain eternal life"¦." From the beginning, before the fall, Adam had within his soul, certain lower powers, one of which (concupiscence) was "the craving for pleasurable good" and this desire itself arises from natural, lower appetites. Thomas reasoned this way because he presupposed a sort of continuum of being between God and man, with God having complete being and man have relatively less. In short, for Thomas, concupiscence is the result of being human and was the precondition for sin even before the fall.

The Reformation not only reformed the doctrine of justification, but also moral theology. Against the prevailing medieval and Roman view, the Protestants denied that we fell because we were human. Rather, as the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) taught in Q. 6, we were created "in righteousness and true holiness, that we might rightly know God our creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal blessedness." Thus the First Adam needed no grace before the fall. Grace is for sinners, not for the sinless. The Protestant theologians consistently defined concupiscence as a post-fall phenomenon. Among the children of the first Adam, concupiscence is both an actual sin and the pre-condition or proclivity to sin.

Unlike Aquinas, who restricted concupiscence to the "sensual appetite," Calvin argued that it affects the whole of fallen man.

"¦that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence (Institutes 2.1.8).

Thinking about the deadly mixture of God's Law and our sin, Calvin rejected any idea of sinless perfection in this life.

"¦if we go back to the remotest period, we shall not find a single saint who, clothed with a mortal body, ever attained to such perfection as to love the Lord with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength; and, on the other hand, not one who has not felt the power of concupiscence (Institutes, 2.7.5).

Unlike Augustine, Calvin did not necessarily associate concupiscence with sexual desire. For Calvin, concupiscence is nothing more than a comprehensive synonym for sin.

With Scripture, the Reformed theologians said that we were created "good," "righteous" and "holy." Sin, they said, is "accidental" to our nature as created. There was a radical Lutheran who taught in the 16th c that sin is "essential" to our nature as created, but his view was rejected universally. We all agree that, post-fall, we are inherently, "naturally" and radically sinful.

The Reformed expressed this affirmation of the goodness of Adam (before the fall) as created (contra Thomas and Augustine) by teaching the covenant of works in which Adam was said to have been, before the fall, able to keep the law and to earn (yes, I said "earn") a state of consummate blessedness. Now, that "earning" was within a covenant freely made by God by, as the WCF says, "voluntary condescension," so it was by God's "ordained power" rather than relative to God's "absolute power."

This is the background for our view of Jesus' sinlessness (impeccability) and active obedience for us and imputed to us. Our standards and theologians all have it that Jesus "earned" or "obtained" our justification and eventual consummate blessedness.

As to the free offer, when we speak of a sincere offer we're speaking of the administration of the covenant of grace. God has willed that the covenant of grace should be administered through the "serious" and "indiscriminate" (the language of the Synod of Dort) offer of the gospel. It is more than a demand, as some would have us think.

Again, this view relies on distinctions that some have either lost or forgotten, namely the distinction between God's knowledge (said to be "archetypal" i.e., original, absolute, omniscient, immense etc) and ours (said to be "ectypal," i.e., imperfect, derived etc).

God, of course, has decreed from all eternity who will and will not come to faith. We, otoh, are ignorant of the details of this decree. We are shut up to the revealed will of God (which Luther called the theology of the cross). The revealed will of God, as the Reformed have mostly understood it, is that the gospel should be preached to sinners the way God has preached it to us, as it were, through the prophets: "Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked says the Lord...?" "God is not willing that any should be perish..."

What sort of "willing" does Scripture have in view in such places? Given the clear teaching of Scripture that there is a decree, then such willing must be on a different order. It was to account for that "revealed" willing that we formulated the doctrine of the free, well-meant, sincere, offer.

rsc

RSC,

So you would say human nature is good ?

Very good reformed defense.

Adam traded the daily meal with God in the garden for a meal that would seperate him from God. The fruit was the devil's sacrament. So why talk of human nature as good ? We are born guilty in Adam, until born again in Christ.
If Limited Atonement is true, any offer to the reprobate is insincere. But, we offer it to all because we do not know who is reprobate.

Originally posted by Saiph
RSC,

So you would say human nature is good ?

Very good reformed defense.

Adam traded the daily meal with God in the garden for a meal that would seperate him from God. The fruit was the devil's sacrament. So why talk of human nature as good ? We are born guilty in Adam, until born again in Christ.
If Limited Atonement is true, any offer to the reprobate is insincere. But, we offer it to all because we do not know who is reprobate.

Yes, I agree that Adam traded God's sacrament (see Witsius on the Economy of the Covenants vol 1) for the Devil's (Olevianus called Adam's rebellion a false covenant).

The Reformed point has been that human nature is good per se i.e., as created. We were not created corrupt (Augustine and Thomas) or fallen. We didn't have moral greeblies running around within that required the quenching powers of prelapsarian grace.

After the fall, the good creation, namely human nature, was radically and profoundly corrupted. Grace, as we mostly use it, is reserved to describe God's favor toward sinners not the sinless and not Adam ante lapsum.

It does not follow to say that because the atonement is personal or definite (using Roger Nicole's categories) that the WMO is insincere. The question of the WMO is not God decree but our stance. What attitude are we to adopt toward those who are obviously outside the Christ confessing covenant community? We are to take the stance that God has revealed himself as taking.

Further, God can be said to love his good creation. He loves his creatures. Love is one of the communicable (by analogy not by participation) attributes. As a divine attribute it is essential to God's nature. It is who he is. Peter van Mastricht, for example, was very clear about God's love for all, even the reprobate.

We cannot peer into the divine decree or into the eternal knowledge of God. We shouldn't try. Given that (Creator/creature) distinction, how should we speak to those outside the covenant community who may or may not be elect (or to those within, for that matter)?

"Come to me all who weary laden, and I will give you rest"

"For God so loved the world"

That's the gospel call.

rsc

Thinking through the Aquinas proposition again, I suppose I was equating contingent with some type of moral corruption. Even in our glorified state we will be contingent though.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Originally posted by Saiph
RSC,

So you would say human nature is good ?

Very good reformed defense.

Adam traded the daily meal with God in the garden for a meal that would seperate him from God. The fruit was the devil's sacrament. So why talk of human nature as good ? We are born guilty in Adam, until born again in Christ.
If Limited Atonement is true, any offer to the reprobate is insincere. But, we offer it to all because we do not know who is reprobate.

Yes, I agree that Adam traded God's sacrament (see Witsius on the Economy of the Covenants vol 1) for the Devil's (Olevianus called Adam's rebellion a false covenant).

The Reformed point has been that human nature is good per se i.e., as created. We were not created corrupt (Augustine and Thomas) or fallen. We didn't have moral greeblies running around within that required the quenching powers of prelapsarian grace.

After the fall, the good creation, namely human nature, was radically and profoundly corrupted. Grace, as we mostly use it, is reserved to describe God's favor toward sinners not the sinless and not Adam ante lapsum.

It does not follow to say that because the atonement is personal or definite (using Roger Nicole's categories) that the WMO is insincere. The question of the WMO is not God decree but our stance. What attitude are we to adopt toward those who are obviously outside the Christ confessing covenant community? We are to take the stance that God has revealed himself as taking.

Further, God can be said to love his good creation. He loves his creatures. Love is one of the communicable (by analogy not by participation) attributes. As a divine attribute it is essential to God's nature. It is who he is. Peter van Mastricht, for example, was very clear about God's love for all, even the reprobate.

We cannot peer into the divine decree or into the eternal knowledge of God. We shouldn't try. Given that (Creator/creature) distinction, how should we speak to those outside the covenant community who may or may not be elect (or to those within, for that matter)?

"Come to me all who weary laden, and I will give you rest"

"For God so loved the world"

That's the gospel call.

rsc

But yet through the necessity of dependence on God rather than an independent work system wasnt there a revelation hid in God as well as the limits of the good material that made up man a cause to see grace necessary?

But yet through the necessity of dependence on God rather than an independent work system wasnt there a revelation hid in God as well as the limits of the good material that made up man a cause to see grace necessary?

That is why the Westminster Confession 7:1 says:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

As has been noted, the Divines could have spoken of grace here, but did not. That such a diverse group of folk agreed to this language, omitting grace, says something.

They turned not to grace to explain God's free act in covenanting with Adam, instead they turned to the divine free will. Hence "voluntary condescension." All of God's revelation is a voluntary condescension, but they chose to highlight that fact in the making of the covenant of works.

The Creator/creature relations are such that man did not have any claim on God without God having freely willed to enter into a legal relation.

That done, it was a legal, and not a gracious relation. Adam was to earn his entry into glory. The first Adam having failed to do, the Second Adam did exactly that. Praise God for the strict, meritorious, legal, obedience of the Second Adam in place of his people.

rsc

Amen -

Dr. Clark, you said:

Robin has put her finger on a very important problem. Thomas' doctrine of the donum super additum (super added grace), i.e., preserving grace before the fall was rooted in a non-Christian anthropology and a non-Christian ontology.

Would you mind explaining this. I have been trying to figure out what you meant by going back and re-reading Thomas, and Augustine on "soul".
Outline their non Chirstian anthropology and ontology for me.

Have you read Bahnsen's paper on substantive monism ? Seems to me that the classic hylomorphic view is not wrong after all. Surely you do not accept Descartes non-spacial susbtance idea ?

Originally posted by Saiph
Dr. Clark, you said:

Robin has put her finger on a very important problem. Thomas' doctrine of the donum super additum (super added grace), i.e., preserving grace before the fall was rooted in a non-Christian anthropology and a non-Christian ontology.

Would you mind explaining this. I have been trying to figure out what you meant by going back and re-reading Thomas, and Augustine on "soul".
Outline their non Chirstian anthropology and ontology for me.

Have you read Bahnsen's paper on substantive monism ? Seems to me that the classic hylomorphic view is not wrong after all. Surely you do not accept Descartes non-spacial susbtance idea ?

No, I've not read Bahnsen on substantive monism. I have read Thomas and a fair bit of medieval theology.

Did you look up the "donum super additum"?

The covenant of works is an alternative to the DSA. There is talk among some Protestants about prelapsarian grace (e.g., in Ursinus and in others) but it is not on the same order nor did it function the same way as the DSA. There is some language in the Belgic about Adam not understanding his prelapsarian state, but I don't think this is a DSA.

One of the great differences between the medievals and Reformation theology was the rejection by the Reformation of a widely assumed Plotinian-Dionysian scale of being in favor of a Creator/creature distinction.

No, I'm not advocating Aristotle's ontology or psychology. I am, however, influenced by Brian Davies' astute interpretation of Thomas which I is supported by Roman scholars of Thomas with whom I've talked.

The problem isn't exactly or only body/soul relations but Thomas' ontological assumptions which the Reformation rejected and that, given the rejection, fed or supported their view of the prelapsarian state.

Augustine and Thomas' were influenced by Plato (or Plotinus) in their anthropology but particularly in their assumption about divine-human relations. The Reformation finally destroyed the continuum between God and Man. Evangelicals have spent most of the last two hundred years re-building that continuum in the form of a ladder (via mysticism) to the beatific vision. I understand, the theology of the cross is not for everyone, but neither is Christianity.

The Protestant view of concupiscence over against the medieval (and frequently patristic) is a good case. See my essay some time back in Mod. Ref. on this.

Cheers,

rsc

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

But yet through the necessity of dependence on God rather than an independent work system wasnt there a revelation hid in God as well as the limits of the good material that made up man a cause to see grace necessary?

That is why the Westminster Confession 7:1 says:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

As has been noted, the Divines could have spoken of grace here, but did not. That such a diverse group of folk agreed to this language, omitting grace, says something.

They turned not to grace to explain God's free act in covenanting with Adam, instead they turned to the divine free will. Hence "voluntary condescension." All of God's revelation is a voluntary condescension, but they chose to highlight that fact in the making of the covenant of works.

The Creator/creature relations are such that man did not have any claim on God without God having freely willed to enter into a legal relation.

That done, it was a legal, and not a gracious relation. Adam was to earn his entry into glory. The first Adam having failed to do, the Second Adam did exactly that. Praise God for the strict, meritorious, legal, obedience of the Second Adam in place of his people.

rsc

I guess i am having a hard time with the word covenant being used in scripture in the sense it is used by most reformers in a works paridigm.
I also have questions about whether that focus of obedience -disobedience was the major test in that covenant. Obviously the struggle between good and evil existed before the fall in other persons. Its obvious that satan was allowed by God to tempt man. Now these angelic powers and Gods power exceded mans limits just as they do post fall. I would question whether man in himself had the power in himself to thwart satans tatics without God intervening in it in some way by grace or in not allowing that temptation to effect that fall unless God limited Satan in some way.

What did Adam enjoy before the fall ? The idea that we cannot speak of grace where sin is absent does not seem biblical to me. Grace according to some in this thread seems to always be God's favor despite our sin.

I believe that is a new meaning for grace? Grace and favor are used interchangeably in the NT. The term "favor" does not change or modify your definition of "grace" in my opinion. The donum super additum seems to come from Augustine.

The crux of this argument is perhaps this: If man cannot earn merit before God by his own natural ability, then this was just as true before the Fall as it is after it.

In both cases, Man requires supernatural power to remain in fellowship with God. If you believe that Adam and Eve were in a righteous state and relationship before God without supernatural grace/favor before the Fall, then you are accepting a form of prelapsarian pelagianism.

Dr. Clark, could you outline for me the Biblical mind-body connection, and the difference between our ontological reality and God's ?

Now before someone accuses me of doing away with the covenant of works (which incidentally, I accept in principle, but do not see explicitly outlined in scripture) let me outline Augustine's idea of ability again.


Augustine:

Pre Fall Man: able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare);

Post Fall Man: not able not to sin (non posse non peccare);

Regenerate Man: able not to sin (posse non peccare);

Glorified Man: unable to sin (non posse peccare).


In the pre-fall state, man's ability to keep the law of not eating the fruit was by supernatural grace. Just as it is in regenerate man. Adam, and Eve, were not walking with God when the serpent was giving his lecture. Why not ? Adam was silent during the whole ordeal. Why did he not protect Eve ?

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Saiph]

I guess i am having a hard time with the word covenant being used in scripture in the sense it is used by most reformers in a works paridigm [sic].

The classical Reformed tradition didn't have this problem, but lots of folk have, including the Socinians, the Arminians, the Lutherans (although Luther taught a sort of covenant of works in his lectures on Genesis in the 1540's). Be careful about rejecting the covenant of works since you may find yourself in unhappy company. The answer, "but I'm just following the Bible" won't help since that is exactly what the Socinians said as they rejected the deity of Christ, the Trinity, justification sola gratia etc.

Think of it this way, was Jesus in a covenant of works or not? Was Jesus born under the law or not? Of course the answer is yes.

If Jesus as the second Adam was in such a covenant/relation to divine justice, then there can be no theoretical objection to such a relation having existed before.

The Reformed argued also from the language of Gen 2-3 (as I've done here before on other threads) and from the prima facie evidence of Hosea 6:7 and from the legal aspect of the Israelite national covenant.

Have you read Witsius? Get the new Horton book on covenant theology from Baker -- I really ought to get a percentage for all the shilling I do for him!

I also have questions about whether that focus of obedience -disobedience was the major test in that covenant.

This objection is most puzzling. What is complicated about "the day you eat thereof you shall surely die"? Seems like a test of obedience to me and it has seemed so to catholic (including the Protestants) Christianity since the Fathers. The idea of the covenant of works is not a novelty.

Listen, if grace swallows up everything, as pious as that sounds, grace comes to mean nothing as it does in Barth where the decree and grace obliviate law and reprobation. Then, however, Barth proceeds to re-arrange law and gospel (since it's all of grace) and voilÃ* we have moralism, i.e., justification by grace and cooperation with grace. Murray denied or weakened the covenant of works, with no intent to damage Reformed theology and within 25 years Norm Shepherd was adopting Pelagianizing views. I don't know of an instance in the history of Reformed theology where the covenant of works has been denied without unhappy consequences (e.g., Baxter).

....I would question whether man in himself had the power in himself to thwart satans [sic] tatics [sic] without God intervening in it in some way by grace or in not allowing that temptation to effect that fall unless God limited Satan in some way.

This is prejudicing the question, however. It isn't a matter of man's intrinsic powers per se. It is a matter of the nature of the covenant of works/nature/life.

Is God able to establish such a covenant? To say no is to invoke a series of theological problems. The focus should not be on what I think is hypothetically possible, however, but on what God actually did. The text does reveal a test - eat and die; don't eat and live.

Where is grace in the narrative? God made Adam "good." There is no defect. This is why the Reformed confessions speak with one voice about Adam's prelapsarian state. HC 6

...God created man good and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify Him

Adam was in a probationary state. He was made to enter into a probationary state.

Consider HC 9

Does not God, then, do injustice to man by requiring of him in His law that which he cannot perform?

No, for God so made man that he could perform it; but man, through the instigation of the devil, by wilful disobedience deprived himself and all his descendants of this power.

How does the HC (and WCF 7) understand Adam's potential and ability prelapsarian state? Is Adam weakened in any way? No. Does Adam have concupiscence? No. Is Adam lacking anything to fulfill the demands of the law? No.

We have trouble imagining a purely righteous man because our imaginations are warped by sin. We make it normative and we read it back into the prelapsarian state, but Scripture doesn't have this problem. It doesn't read grace or favor back into the prelapsarian state because it understands and implies what the HC says.

The fault of sin is Adam's, not God's. Adam did not fall from grace. That is the ROMAN view not the Protestant view. Adam broke the law. This fact is the basis for John's definition of sin as "lawlessness" not "gracelessness."

The notion that the fall was a fall from grace stems, as I've said before, from an unbiblical and pagan view of divine-human relations. We do not exist on one end of a continuum with God. We are and only shall be analogues to God. Full stop.

To say that grace was necessary before the fall is to say that, in effect, divinity is a pre-requisite for obedience, that humanity as such is incapable of obedience. That scheme almost always (and certainly did in Thomas and certainly does in contemporary evangelicalism) lead to a doctrine of theosis -- divinization as salvation. See M. Karkainen's (Fuller Sem) new book where teaches this explicitly.

This, of course, destroys not only the Creator/creature relations by turning the creature into the Creator it also makes our problem ontological rather than moral. Scripture never does this. The Protestants didn't do this. Augustine and Thomas did. Augustine and Thomas were wrong! Luther, Calvin and our theologians and symbols were more biblical.

This approach also destroys the incarnation. We have a God-Man Savior. His humanity is not deified and his deity is not confused with his humanity. We have a Savior with two distinct natures united in one person.

Why did God the Son have to become, having willed to be our Mediator and representative, a true man? Why not just come without the incarnation? To fulfill the covenant of works broken by Adam. If the "fall" was a "fall from grace" then why all the fuss about the law? About Jesus "righteousness" and "obedience"? Why the brutal 40 day temptation in the wilderness? Why not just "poof" and make it all go away? Why sweat, as it were, great drops of blood? Why "learn obedience" by the things he suffered? Why die outside the camp? Why be circumcised for us on the cross? Because, he was the Second Adam? He had to go back into the garden and do battle with the evil one, as a true man, and he did that his whole life. That is why he said "It is finished!"

None of that makes any sense on an alternate scheme. The truth is that western theology was schizoid for most of 1000 years and God bless that fat little Saxon monk for finalizing the divorce from Plotinus and Dionysius and the rest of the theologians of glory!

rsc

What did Adam enjoy before the fall ? The idea that we cannot speak of grace where sin is absent does not seem biblical to me.

He enjoyed righteousness. I think I addressed this in the reply made immediately above.

Grace according to some in this thread seems to always be God's favor despite our sin.

Well, there is a considerable amount of biblical support for this definition! Where sin abounded, grace abounded more (Rom 5:20)

This is also the confessional definition of sin and grace.

I believe that is a new meaning for grace? Grace and favor are used interchangeably in the NT. The term "favor" does not change or modify your definition of "grace" in my opinion.

I don't understand. Grace and favor are synonyms. They both properly denote demerited favor to sinners.

Can they be used in other ways? Perhaps, as in "common grace" but improper or broader usage does tend to create theological confusion.

The donum super additum seems to come from Augustine.

As a historian, that's interesting. As regards the theological truth of the prelapsarian state, I don't care. Augustine is a hero but he was wrong about many things, which fact he realized himself, since he wrote (quite wonderfully) a book chronicling his own errors. The Reformed have never regarded Augustine as an infallible oracle.

The crux of this argument is perhaps this: If man cannot earn merit before God by his own natural ability, then this was just as true before the Fall as it is after it.

You're close to the nub of the issue, but your reasoning seems flawed. I think I detect a hidden premise in the implied syllogism.

It is Pelagian to equivocate about human nature. Humanity (as Augustine taught us and as Boston repeated) has existed in four states. The prelapsarian state and the post-lapsarian states are distinct. Hence Paul called the natural state post lapsum "œdead."� (Eph 2;1-4). Prior to the fall we were "œalive."� Our abilities, then, suffered a mortal blow, literally, after the fall.

Thus whatever we cannot do (anything meritorious) after the fall is no indicator of human ability before the fall. The fundamental problem in the debate with the FV is their refusal to make this distinction. Failure to make this distinction what made Pelagius err. As I recall, Augustine had quite a bit to say to Pelagius about just that.

In both cases, Man requires supernatural power to remain in fellowship with God. If you believe that Adam and Eve were in a righteous state and relationship before God without supernatural grace/favor before the Fall, then you are accepting a form of prelapsarian pelagianism.

In a word: nonsense. See above. Without equivocating re "œnature"� we´re fine.

Dr. Clark, could you outline for me the Biblical mind-body connection, and the difference between our ontological reality and God's ?

No. Read the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession etc. I don´t think it´s that complicated. We are body and soul. We´re complex entities. We´re creatures. We´re analogues. God is none of those. What else do you want me to say?

In the pre-fall state, man's ability to keep the law of not eating the fruit was by supernatural grace.

Where is the biblical proof for this?

rsc

Dr. Clark,

God created us, but He has no obligation to us because of that mere act creation.
Therefore, as contingent beings, even in a biological and natural sense, we depend on His common grace for every movement. I seriously do not see any contradiction with what Augustine taught and the Covenant of Works.

Why is it so heretical to say that Adam was able to obey God because of supernatural grace from God ?

There is no equivocation on human nature. God simply gave man over to disobedience at the fall. God ordained the fall of Satan and man because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

The problem is the fallacious logical order of infralapsarianism. Supras have always understood the need for common grace.

WHen I asked:

Dr. Clark, could you outline for me the Biblical mind-body connection, and the difference between our ontological reality and God's ?

You replied:

No. Read the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession etc. I don´t think it´s that complicated. We are body and soul. We´re complex entities. We´re creatures. We´re analogues. God is none of those. What else do you want me to say?

I have read those documents countless times. I am still wanting.

I have read Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Bahnsen, on this mind-body question and still am not satisfied.

I was hoping a doctor of philosophy like yourself could help me out.

My specific question would be is the mind/soul biological, some spiritual substance tethered to the biological, or some entity wholly other than the body but caged within ?

I am trying to understand problems like catatonic states, mental retardation, Alzheimers, comas, and demonic posession. Does lack of motor function effect the soul ? Do mentally retarded or autistic people feel like a soul trapped inside a body they cannot control ? Are they coherent and conscious within, looking out at a worl that does not understand them ? How does a demon possess a person ? Do they merely control their body, or can they somehow infiltrate some immaterial substance of the human soul ? Are they like a virus in the bloodstream to the soul ? Does Christianity even come close to having an answer for any of these questions ?

God created us, but He has no obligation to us because of that mere act creation. Therefore, as contingent beings, even in a biological and natural sense, we depend on His common grace for every movement. I seriously do not see any contradiction with what Augustine taught and the Covenant of Works.

Aren't you satisifed with the language of the WCF and the HC that I have cited previously? What is there exactly about the confessional language with which you disagree?

Why, when the WCF speaks of "voluntary condescension" do you insist on other language?

What is the virtue (no pun intended) of injecting grace into the prelapsarian covenant?

Why is it so heretical to say that Adam was able to obey God because of supernatural grace from God ?

Mark, go back and re-read my earlier posts. I didn't say "heretical." I do think it's an error. You tell me why I think it's an error and we'll see if we're communicating. It isn't help for an endless cycle of demands for the same arguments.

It is possible that the traditional proofs don't satisfy you. I understand that. I don't agree, but I understand. It happens.

There is no equivocation on human nature. God simply gave man over to disobedience at the fall. God ordained the fall of Satan and man because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

You're not accounting for the radical difference in human nature post lapsum.

The problem is the fallacious logical order of infralapsarianism. Supras have always understood the need for common grace.

Please give a concrete historical example where a confessional supralapsarian Reformed theologian before Herman Hoeksema or Gordon Clark argued for prelapsarian grace. Why exactly is this logically necessary? The debate between supras and infras wasn't about the historical fact of the fall or its effects. All the orthodox (of which tiny handful were actually supra) affirmed that in the fall our faculties were entirely corrupted. Before the fall we were uncorrupted and able to do what God commanded. What changed was not the law but our ability.

Mark, if I may say, it seems to me that your theology tends to rationalism. You might give the possibility some thought.

rsc

I have read those documents countless times. I am still wanting.

Have you understood the confessional doctrine?

What is it exactly that leaves you wanting? You may be asking for things Reformed theology cannot and will not supply? I don't know.

I was hoping a doctor of philosophy like yourself could help me out.

This isn't a philosophical question -- or at least that's not how I do theology -- and I'm most definitely not a philosopher. In my doctrine of God course I find it's the philosophical theologians who cause the most trouble (open theism, social Trinitarianism).

Have you thought about seminary? I know a really good school!

I teach historical theology. I know a lot more about what was than about what "is" according to the philosophers. I tend to sort of modified common sense epistemology and I'm Van Tillian in my apologetics, but that's about it.

My specific question would be is the mind/soul biological, some spiritual substance tethered to the biological, or some entity wholly other than the body but caged within ?

I taught theological anthropology at Wheaton a couple of times, but I can´t reproduce the course here. It´s been a few years. In short, what I know about body/soul relations is what the Scriptures say as they've been interpreted by the Reformed confessions and theologians.

To go much beyond that, for me, tends to rationalism.

I can't tell you in any great detail what the soul is; just that we are a soul and that we have one. We are capable of being separated from the soul and in that case we, according to Paul in 2 Cor, "naked."

There is a body/soul dualism -- not all dualisms are Platonic -- but as I say, that's an unnatural state induced by the fall.

The soul is a way of describing our faculties. I guess I'm old fashioned in that way. I still think we have a mind, a will, and affections. As I used to tell my children, "the soul is who we are without our bodies."

It isn't some gassy bubble that escapes at death to be absorbed into the ether or into the deity. It isn't the sole residence for the image, but it is a residence for or closely connected to the image.

We shouldn't shy away from the traditional Protestant language emphasizing the soul´s relation to the image, but we should also understand that the body is part of the image. I think this is the implication of Gen 9. We are body and soul. To inflict damage on the body is to inflict damage on the image.

We should also be very suspicious of some Doyeweerdian attempts to deny the existence of the soul per se by identifying it wholly with the body.

I am trying to understand problems like catatonic states, mental retardation, Alzheimers, comas, and demonic posession [sic]. Does lack of motor function effect the soul ? Do mentally retarded or autistic people feel like a soul trapped inside a body they cannot control ? Are they coherent and conscious within, looking out at a worl that does not understand them ? How does a demon possess a person ? Do they merely control their body, or can they somehow infiltrate some immaterial substance of the human soul ? Are they like a virus in the bloodstream to the soul ? Does Christianity even come close to having an answer for any of these questions ?

These are all difficult cases of different kinds. Difficult cases make for bad theology.

There may not be entirely satisfactory answers (depending upon what counts for proof).

My answer, fwiw, is that these are all humans made in God's image. The image does not reside in any one faculty or ability so that to lose one faculty does not disqualify one as an image bearer. These are humans and as such they are and have souls. The existence of the soul is not contingent upon ability or rationality, even though we have historically described humans as "rational souls."

I have no biblical or extra-biblical evidence to suggest, e.g., that the retarded are anything other than humans with diminished mental and physical abilities. They often have enormous emotional capacity however. There are few humans willing to love and be loved like the retarded.

To be diminished in mental or physical ability does not impair the soul fundamentally. If the older faculty psychology is correct, that "œsoul"� describes cognition, affection, volition etc, then to the degree one´s cognition is affected, one could say that the soul is to the same degree affected. I wouldn´t press this. The soul was certainly affected by the fall, and these would be extreme examples of the result of the fall.

The soul is not, however, a thing. It isn't material. Your questions seem to presuppose or imply that it is material. We've never described the soul as you suggest. We usually take soul and spirit as synonyms hence the doctrine of the immateriality of the soul.

rsc

Mark, if I may say, it seems to me that your theology tends to rationalism. You might give the possibility some thought.

I take that as a compliment. I would hate to have an irrational theology.

And I am not saying the soul is material, I am asking if it is substantial in a non-empyrical (epiphenomenal?) sense, like the angels are supposed to be. Are angels made of matter ?

The resurrected Christ said he was not a ghost, but the substance of His body was certainly not like ours. And I am not even sure we can relate the material of our souls with His resurrected body.

You are correct in saying I do not find the reformed confessions satisfying. They leave far too many questions unanswered that the medieval scholars at least thought about and proposed ideas for, even if they are wrong. (Like God's sustaining grace before the fall) How can a contingent being ever do what God commands without God's help ? ? The WCF idea that adam could obey in some strength of his own is beyond my comprehension. (I believe perfect and personal obedience is the exact phrase)

Could you explain the danger of rationalism ? Because at the end of the day all I have is my mind. My emotions, thoughts, memories, ideas, and dreams. I can never turn it off. I was reading in Locke about what the objects of the mind are when they are not unconscious. That didn't make sense to me. I have never been unconscious. Even in sleep I dream and my mind is still set on something.

The soul is used as the whole man in scripture, but it is also spoken of apart from the body. I am trying to understand the coinherence of the two. Some of your responses have helped. It seems like Christians of all people, should know more about the mind than anyone else. Our Lord went aroung casting out demons, and the apostles followed that miraculous work. Today we see many afflictions of mind and soul but seem to not offer anything but "read your bible and pray" remedies. (Not to downplay those things, but I feel helpless when faced with people like this)

I have never considered seminary, because, as you can see, I would probably be wasting the teacher's time all day with what they deem to be inane questions like these. I also do not hear some inner voice calling me to be an elder or pastor either.

Your idea of the imago dei not residing in one faculty is interesting. So our body as well as our soul bears the image ? When we say God is spirit that accounts for our soul I guess because He breathed into us some ontological essence and we became life giving spirits. (traducianism ?) But does God have a form ? Since our bodies are matter and form.




[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Saiph]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Have you thought about seminary? I know a really good school!

Mmmmmm....RTS Jackson....

Originally posted by Saiph

Why is it so heretical to say that Adam was able to obey God because of supernatural grace from God ?

There is no equivocation on human nature. God simply gave man over to disobedience at the fall. God ordained the fall of Satan and man because the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

Mark, did God create Adam good? If so, then he was intrinsically equiped to do good. It was not a withdrawal of grace but Adam's free choice which caused his fall. To say that Adam fell because of a withdrawal of grace, implies, to me at least, that man was created sinful and only God's gracious hand restrained him from falling.

I think you would also find it interesting that Augustine agreed with Pelagius that Adam, before the Fall, had the ability to obey God "naturally." Their differences arose on the effects of the Fall. Pelagius felt man retained his ability to do good. Augustine argued that as a judgment upon man, all his faculties became intrinsically corrupt. Unfortunately, I can't provide you the exact reference for this because I turned the book back into the library and it has been a couple months since I read it, but I believe it was in Augustine's book On Nature and Grace. You may want to browse through it again.

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by puritansailor]

Patrick, God's grace and adam's freedom are not incompatible. Adam fell by his own free choice. And Adam obeyed up until the point of lapse by his moral upright ability and the efficacious power of God's grace.

Ecc 7:29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.

So ALL reformed christians believe in prelapsarian pelagianism ? ?

Obviously, if Adam's good nature was enough to sustain him, he would not have fallen.

I take that as a compliment. I would hate to have an irrational theology.

Mark,

There's a distinction between "rationalism" and "rationality." We must use our rational faculty. Rationalism, however, is another thing. It refers either to the identity of the human intellect with the divine (this was Thomas' problem and that of G. Clark) or it can describe the attempt to use a single (perhaps collective) universal principle by which all other things are explained or levered, e.g., Modernist autonomous rationality. "If I can't understand x comprehensively, I can't accept it."

And I am not saying the soul is material, I am asking if it is substantial in a non-empyrical[sic] (epiphenomenal?) sense, like the angels are supposed to be. Are angels made of matter ?

To be best of my knowledge the soul is not empirically verifiable. It is not quantifiable, but it is.

The resurrected Christ said he was not a ghost, but the substance of His body was certainly not like ours. And I am not even sure we can relate the material of our souls with His resurrected body.

Perhaps you have Lutheran tendencies here. We´ve always said that Christ´s humanity is consubstantial with ours. There are differences since his humanity is glorified and ours is not, but it is still local, physical, true humanity.

You are correct in saying I do not find the reformed confessions satisfying. They leave far too many questions unanswered that the medieval scholars at least thought about and proposed ideas for, even if they are wrong.

The Reformed symbols weren´t a dialogue with medieval theology! They did consider and reject some medieval ideas. The symbols serve as a starting point in Reformed theology. They aren´t comprehensive and it´s not to say that we can´t discuss things outside them, but on fundamental issues such as you´re raising, they contain our basic convictions.

Before you reject them, you should spend some time reading classic Reformed theology, such as Wollebius (it´s in English) in the Beardslee vol. You need to read Turretin and Owen and the other fellows available. Have you read Richard Muller´s work or the Trueman/Clark vol on Protestant Scholasticism.

(Like God's sustaining grace before the fall) How can a contingent being ever do what God commands without God's help ? ? The WCF idea that adam could obey in some strength of his own is beyond my comprehension. (I believe perfect and personal obedience is the exact phrase)

The Reformed orthodox did comment on these questions. Could it be that you just don´t accept the assumptions on which the Reformed operate?

Could you explain the danger of rationalism ? Because at the end of the day all I have is my mind. My emotions, thoughts, memories, ideas, and dreams. I can never turn it off.

The problem is the "˜ism. The human intellect is necessarily finite, fallible, and dependent upon divine revelation for knowledge of God and for salvation. This is a catholic affirmation. I think we may be talking past one another here.

The soul is used as the whole man in scripture, but it is also spoken of apart from the body. I am trying to understand the coinherence of the two.

Yes, it's true (as I think I've said) that both things are said. We agree here. As to explaining the coinherence of them in detail, well, there are mysteries in the faith!

Some of your responses have helped. It seems like Christians of all people, should know more about the mind than anyone else. Our Lord went aroung [sic] casting out demons, and the apostles followed that miraculous work. Today we see many afflictions of mind and soul but seem to not offer anything but "read your bible and pray" remedies. (Not to downplay those things, but I feel helpless when faced with people like this)

I quite agree that Pietism is no answer to serious problems! You need to read some orthodox Reformed theology. Don´t convict RO for sins it hasn´t committed!

I rememnber J. Laidlaw, The Biblical doctrine of man being useful. You might also see A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids, 1986). He had some training in psychology and tried to address some of the questions you're raising. See also Sherlock, Charles. The Doctrine of Humanity. Edited by Gerald Bray. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996. See also: Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting. 2nd ed. Vancouver, BC: Regent College, 1995. Reprint, 1996. I found C. Plantinga's Not the Way It's Supposed to Be... stimulating also.

I have never considered seminary, because, as you can see, I would probably be wasting the teacher's time all day with what they deem to be inane questions like these.

These aren´t inane but perhaps beyond the ability of an internet discussion board. I´ll tell you when the questions get inane.

I also do not hear some inner voice calling me to be an elder or pastor either.

Well, we have students on campus who are not headed for pastoral ministry. One intends to go into medicine. Another intends to go into law. Another wants to be a teacher. Another wants to get a PhD. To be sure, these account for about 30% of our students. Most of our students are MDiv and headed for pastoral ministry, but sorting out vocation is long and difficult business. No one should imagine that it is automatic or magical or easy.

"¦ So our body as well as our soul bears the image?

Yes, that´s my reading of Gen 9:1-6.

When we say God is spirit that accounts for our soul I guess because He breathed into us some ontological essence and we became life giving spirits. (traducianism ?)

Not quite! We are analogues! You need to give this notion serious consideration. Try M. Horton´s Covenant and Eschatology"¦. An analogue/analog is something that is like things but isn´t those things.

We have no divine essence or substance in us. God is said to have breathed life into us, but he didn't deify us. Because of God's gift of life, we are said to have become a living being, but that principle, the soul, isn´t a divine spark or principle. Divinization (in creation, redemption or glorification) is not in the biblical scheme of divine-human relations

But does God have a form ? Since our bodies are matter and form.

We´re not Mormons. We´re Christians.

Reformed Christianity has not typically accepted the form matter dualism. Plato does not help us here. The soul is not the "œform."�

The body/soul dualism is not Platonic dualism. The human problem (once again) is not ontological. We do not lack being. We are not broken because we are finite or creatures. We are broken because we are sinful, because we broke the law in Adam and that sin was imputed to all and we all experience its effects. The matter is legal, not ontic.

To posit a body of God is to reverse the relations between original and analogy. We are analogues of God, he is not an analog of us. There are always disanalogies between the original and the analogue and all the more when the original is God and the analog is a creature.

As to the transmission of the soul, I understand traducianism, but I tend to creationism with Thomas and most of the Reformed. It´s not a matter of orthodoxy, however.

rsc

Dr. Clark, I will consider your book list. I will have to see if I can get them through the Prospector library system here.

The body/soul dualism is not Platonic dualism. The human problem (once again) is not ontological. We do not lack being. We are not broken because we are finite or creatures. We are broken because we are sinful, because we broke the law in Adam and that sin was imputed to all and we all experience its effects. The matter is legal, not ontic.

That was a very useful statement that helped me understand where you are coming from. I tend to view every aspect of anthropology from the ontological perspective, and maybe I shouldn't. You are correct in saying that contingency does not necesitate corruption I suppose. I have read Owen, Calvin, Hoeksema, Berkhof, and A.A. Hodge. I do not remember them getting to this level of understanding when writing about anthropology.

Christ dwelling "in" us is what then if not ontological ? I know when Jesus said we will be one as He and the father are one it cannot be ontological but covenantal, but what about the indwelling of the Spirit. How does that work ?

And how is it different from the influence of the Spirit in the O.T. ?

The answer to that might also answer my demon posession question.

P.S. I appreciate your patience with me here. I have been reading J.S. Romanides, Aquinas, and Augustine trying to figure this all out. And by God having a form I was not trying to be mormon. It is one of those paradoxes like the limitations of omnipotence. God shaped the world out of the formless and void because He is not tohu or bohu Himself, the created three dimensional world has symmetry and beauty. God must have some type of eternal order, logic, and symmetry that is not bounded by time or space. Maybe that sounds eastern, but all creation shows His glory, but no one seems to talk about how, and in what way ? He does reveal Himself as Trinity, and that three is a finite number of distinct persons, but also unified in one being. (I hope to afford Lethams book soon)