What does everyone think about this...?

[Patristic]

I recently came across this statement while reading J.N.D. Kelley's Early Christian Doctrines where he discusses the East's view of mankind after the fall in relation to sin.

we shall find that the estimate formed of man's plight is relatively optimistic. This was partly due to the Hellenistic temperment, but partly also to the fact that the rival philosophy was Manichaeism, with it's fatalism and it's dogma that matter, including the body, was intrinsically evil.

 

[Philip]

I don't think I can comment without seeing more. Kelly's assesment of Manichaeism is correct. However, I am very reluctent to accept the claim that influenced Orthodox doctrine.

 

[Kripost]

Does not quite explain how and why is it different from the West, though.

 

[Philip]

As I think about it, it occurs that Kelly may be showing his Western heritage. Kelly is certainly a Western Christian. As such, he is more strongly influenced by Blessed Augustine than Orthodox Christians. Now, when we consider that Augustine came to Christianity from Manichaeism, we must wonder if his views are not at least slightly influenced by his Manichaeist background. Perhaps it is not that the Eastern perspective is a react to the rival Mani, but that the Augustinian view is drawn in by the fatalism of Manichaeism.

 

[Eusebios]

Perhaps, but eirher way, I don't believe it adversely effects the statement or the veracity thereof. Orthodoxy, with it's emphasis on the incarnation is clearly anti-manichaen in it's general outlook, where it seems the west, including Latin Catholicism, embraces the general beliefs regarding human nature, which is at best unbalanced and at worst gnostic.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[Philip]

Perhaps, but eirher way, I don't believe it adversely effects the statement or the veracity thereof. Orthodoxy, with it's emphasis on the incarnation is clearly anti-manichaen in it's general outlook,

I agree completely with this. What concerns me is Kelly's suggestion (at least as I read it) that the Orthodox position was a reaction to Mani. On the contrary, I would say that our position is our position, and the Manichaen position is a reaction to ours.

 

[Photini]

Can someone do a sort of "side by side" comparison of the Eastern vs. Western views on human nature for me?

 

[Philip]

Here is the 3 second version:

St Augustine: Man, in his natural state, is dead.
Pelagius: Man, in his natural state, is fine.
Sts John Chrysostom and John Cassian: Man, in his natural state, is sick.

 

[Photini]

St Augustine: Man, in his natural state, is dead.
.

Okay...define dead, and what effects does that have on how a person lives their life.

 

[Philip]

Okay...define dead, and what effects does that have on how a person lives their life.

A person can neither do good nor desire to do good. God must step in and heal ('regenerate' in Calvanese) the person even before they can believe.

Contrast this with the view of St John Cassian: Man is born sick and will die without God's help. Unlike Augustine, Cassian allows for the sick man to look for a doctor. If he finds The Doctor, he can be healed.

 

[MariaRegina]

As I think about it, it occurs that Kelly may be showing his Western heritage. Kelly is certainly a Western Christian. As such, he is more strongly influenced by Blessed Augustine than Orthodox Christians. Now, when we consider that Augustine came to Christianity from Manichaeism, we must wonder if his views are not at least slightly influenced by his Manichaeist background. Perhaps it is not that the Eastern perspective is a react to the rival Mani, but that the Augustinian view is drawn in by the fatalism of Manichaeism.

One thing I discovered when embracing Holy Orthodoxy is that the Holy Orthodox Church teaches that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. Our bodies are created good.

Augustine, on the other hand, taught that we battle the world, the flesh and the devil. I had that driven into me in elementary school: The flesh is evil. Where did that idea come from? Manichaeism! Manichaeism believes in dualism - that the body is evil and the spirit is good. Death was a release from this prison called the body.

During my Orthodox Catechumenate, I learned that our bodies are created in the image and likeness of God. That our bodies and souls are purified, sanctified, and illuminated. Our body and soul together will suffer glorification in heaven or condemnation in hell.

Anyway, our body is illuminated when it partakes of the Precious and Life-Giving Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. If we truly cooperate with God in our own theosis, then our body experiences the Transfiguration just like Christ - and the Light of Christ will shine forth from us.

This is normal Christianity, however, we are not normal but sick sinners. Christ came to save not the well but the sick.

Look at all our Holy Sacraments. They minister to our sick bodies to restore us in Christ.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us and save us.

 

[Patristic]

As I think about it, it occurs that Kelly may be showing his Western heritage. Kelly is certainly a Western Christian. As such, he is more strongly influenced by Blessed Augustine than Orthodox Christians. Now, when we consider that Augustine came to Christianity from Manichaeism, we must wonder if his views are not at least slightly influenced by his Manichaeist background. Perhaps it is not that the Eastern perspective is a react to the rival Mani, but that the Augustinian view is drawn in by the fatalism of Manichaeism.

This is what came to me mind for me as well. If I remember correctly, Augustine views were labeled Manichaen by his pelagian adversaries. I wish there was a book or short essay I could read which would line up Augustine's later teaching with that of the Manichaeans for the purpose of comparing them.

 

[countrymousenc]

Augustine, on the other hand, taught that we battle the world, the flesh and the devil. I had that driven into me in elementary school: The flesh is evil.

I'm checking for understanding regarding the Orthodox view (in contrast). We do not believe that the flesh is intrinsically evil from the beginning, but that it (along with all creation) was made subject to corruption through sin. That's why we struggle to get dominion over our own bodies. Anywhere close?

 

[Philip]

I wish there was a book or short essay I could read which would line up Augustine's later teaching with that of the Manichaeans for the purpose of comparing them.

Sounds like a homework assignment for our resident college students.

 

[Matrona]

Sounds like a homework assignment for our resident college students.

Aaaaaaaaaaagh! NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[Eusebios]

Sounds like a homework assignment for our resident college students.

I don't take summer sessions!
His most lazy servant,
Eusebios

 

[Patristic]

Sounds like a homework assignment for our resident college students.

I did a similar exercise comparing Gnosticism to Augustine so perhaps someone could do the same for Manichaeism.

 

[MariaRegina]

Sounds like a homework assignment for our resident college students.

I was taught that Augustine was changing his perspective as he aged becoming more orthodox, and was in the process of editing his previous works when he died. Too bad he didn't live long enough to complete the job.

 

[Patristic]

I was taught that Augustine was changing his perspective as he aged becoming more orthodox, and was in the process of editing his previous works when he died. Too bad he didn't live long enough to complete the job.

That's funny. I was taught that Augustine became more and more of a determinist as he aged. I wonder which story is true?