"Whatever is not appropriated is not healed." One thing came to mind that I need help understanding. Maximos states that "By disobedience, Adam brought into human nature a law of birth through pleasure that ends in death. Everyone born in this way inherits a condemned nature; even unwillingly, we're subject to death because our very conception is rooted in the fallen mode of pleasure." "Christ removed from His human nature the law of birth through pleasure." I have no idea what this might mean. Can you help?
Maximus likely has in mind a spculation floated by Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory speculates that procreation in Eden would not have been through animal sex or even birth. He basis this on the production of Eve, who is taken from Adam's side. For this reason, Gregory also speculates that perhaps God, foreknowing their impending Fall, gave Adam and Eve reproduction sex organs, so that they could continue to reproduce after leaving behind the life of angels.
The theory is echoed by Maximus, and I have no doubt that it sits behind the quotes you've offered. I know some take this to be the view of the Eastern fathers because it appears in Gregory and then echoes in Maximus. For my part, I do not. I do not think the view is ubiquitous amongst the Eastern fathers, and Gregory is plainly speculating when he offers the theory. So I do not see the echo in Maximus as a consensus of the fathers. I see this as theologoumenon.
If you're unfamiliar with the term, theologoumenon refers to theological opinions that sit within a grey area, neither dogma nor heresy, but a permissible view point. For example, on the question of whether angels can be redeemed. The majority of the fathers think so, and they consistently offer the explanation that angels are simple, so they cannot be unmade and remade if corrupt; hence their corruption is permanent. Others, however, hold a different opinion. Pseudo-Dionysius thinks corruption is never permanent, since it doesn't have a form to which it might conform and find stability and rest; Isaac the Syrian believes they can and will be redeemed; Nemesius of Emesa thinks they had a window to be redeemed before the Fall of man, but it is now closed. All of these represent acceptable opinions; none are dogma. But the first position on their lack of redemption is the majority opinion.
I see nothing in Gregory's speculation or Maximus' echo that rises above theologoumenon.
Dr. Jacobs
"Whatever is not appropriated is not healed." One thing came to mind that I need help understanding. Maximos states that "By disobedience, Adam brought into human nature a law of birth through pleasure that ends in death. Everyone born in this way inherits a condemned nature; even unwillingly, we're subject to death because our very conception is rooted in the fallen mode of pleasure." "Christ removed from His human nature the law of birth through pleasure." I have no idea what this might mean. Can you help?
Hey Jeff,
Maximus likely has in mind a spculation floated by Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory speculates that procreation in Eden would not have been through animal sex or even birth. He basis this on the production of Eve, who is taken from Adam's side. For this reason, Gregory also speculates that perhaps God, foreknowing their impending Fall, gave Adam and Eve reproduction sex organs, so that they could continue to reproduce after leaving behind the life of angels.
The theory is echoed by Maximus, and I have no doubt that it sits behind the quotes you've offered. I know some take this to be the view of the Eastern fathers because it appears in Gregory and then echoes in Maximus. For my part, I do not. I do not think the view is ubiquitous amongst the Eastern fathers, and Gregory is plainly speculating when he offers the theory. So I do not see the echo in Maximus as a consensus of the fathers. I see this as theologoumenon.
If you're unfamiliar with the term, theologoumenon refers to theological opinions that sit within a grey area, neither dogma nor heresy, but a permissible view point. For example, on the question of whether angels can be redeemed. The majority of the fathers think so, and they consistently offer the explanation that angels are simple, so they cannot be unmade and remade if corrupt; hence their corruption is permanent. Others, however, hold a different opinion. Pseudo-Dionysius thinks corruption is never permanent, since it doesn't have a form to which it might conform and find stability and rest; Isaac the Syrian believes they can and will be redeemed; Nemesius of Emesa thinks they had a window to be redeemed before the Fall of man, but it is now closed. All of these represent acceptable opinions; none are dogma. But the first position on their lack of redemption is the majority opinion.
I see nothing in Gregory's speculation or Maximus' echo that rises above theologoumenon.