Thank you for the lectures, and thank you in particular for recording this lecture separately (the Owl occasionally made words unintelligible).
There is one thing that I am uncertain about as regards the distinction between Fallenness/sin and finitude. You say in this lecture that: "We live estranged from the divine ground of all we are. We are Fallen away from the un-fallen within us. We exist as created beings always in exile from the uncreated homeland in our souls, the Kingdom of God within us."
This seems to identify Fallenness with created-ness. However, as you have told me in a previous comment, "Fallenness is a contingency, not a created state."
Of course, one might say that true createdness is "uncreatedness" (in the sense that Christ is personally uncreated, and yet has both divine and human natures), and therefore sin is merely a defection in createdness.
However, this brings to my mind some questions:
1. In your view, if the Fall had not occurred, would every creature be equal to Jesus of Nazareth, insofar as concerns their participation in the divine nature?
2. Bulgakov saw an essential distinction between sinlessness and uncreated-ness. He viewed Mary, John the Baptist, and angels all as personally sinless, and yet draw a hard distinction between them and the uncreated incarnate Logos in Christ. Would you say he was wrong to do so, or am I misreading him?
In my simple-minded view, the idea of the Fall as a creation gone astray cannot be right. The only coherent view is that, as God is perfect, so is his creation—and it is the task of theodicy to explain why. One way of thinking about fallenness is as follows: The state of creation today is far from its end as God intended it, and so creation today is in a "fallen" state not in relation to its beginning but in relation to its end. In fact, it would be better to speak of creation as maturing or ascending from incompleteness to completeness (like the perfect gestation of an embryo in her mother’s womb). A creation of atonement is greater than a creation in which all was always at one with God. In any case and in any sense, fallenness is not an accident, but integral to creation, as is God's incarnation in it. God created the world fallen, and any meaning of Genesis 3 must be understood in a sense prior to actual creation.
Thanks for including the secondary audio, Plotinus seems to identify matter as non being even as evil, yet he also dicuses a kind of primal evil, it reminded me of Eriugina. Proclus being influenced by Christian culture was an interesting note. To know, as he knows us reminds me of Shankara saying all self knowing is the Brahmans self knowing. You tend to get asked the same 7 questions in different ways, It's really extraordinary that Origen and Plotinus (along with an Eusibieus) were such influential writers , all coming from the teaching of Ammunis Saccas,(Possibly only one aswell) Taylor's suggestion that Origen was a student and another Origen the Pagan was a peer seems unnecessary. Is the divine descent still need in this model? If the Suffering Servant is ever incarnate as the clearest soul one with God do those emotions imply a lack still in that mode as they will not be needed in the end. Transubstantion tends to boggle my mind, I just tend to quote Bulgakov that the body is everywhere n nowhere and the Eucharist is its realization.
A blessed relief to have DBH's "alternative version." Many thanks for taking the trouble to supply that! Alas, repeated strikes at the Owl using my audio equalizer and other audio tools could not resolve the Q/A exchange with Joshua Heath I really wanted to make out. If anyone with better ears than mine has that more or less transcribed, I'd love to read it. Happily no struggles with the Owl could after all much dampen the value of and my appreciation for these lectures. In fact, the slapstick and hapless preparations for audio reception by your hosts together with the Owl raised my struggle to hear to such a height of the tragicomic, that I kept hearing instead myself shriek with Ahab (as Gregory Peck, of course), "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering OWL; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned OWL! Thus, I give up the hearing aids! "
I was glad to hear from the audience a question about the implications of such a Christology for ecclesiastics. That it must be consequential leapt out immediately, especially as regards the Church's understanding of its own purpose as a temporal organization (a hospital for souls? a repository of theophanic symbols?) at this historical juncture. I am struggling, however, to form the needed concepts and articulate for myself--an interested outsider, not part of the Body--just what those consequences might be. I wonder if anyone else here has been thinking along these lines, and might have anything to share (please help!).
I am not sure the universal Church should be considered a temporary organization that will dissolve in the Kingdom. This is true only for the multiple institutional churches. At the end of times, the Church is supposed to comprise the whole of humanity (or, at least, if you are not a universalist, the redeemed humanity) and to become the Bride of the Lamb (i.e., to be fully hypostasized in Christ, who is its head and High Priest).
Thank you so much, Dr. Hart, for sharing this series of lectures and especially this last one. It's hard to overestimate the gift of such a clear and *beautiful* articulation of these strands of cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, and christology that are *there* in the tradition but rarely so coherently apprehended!
I am a long time reader of yours and a diligent, if incompetent, one of Bulgakov's, and it's striking me now that it's in hopes of seeing *this* vision that I've been putting in the time and effort.
Your correct to mention that speculative theology can feel a bit odious. So why stop at uncreated personhood? Origens view of two creations did answer part of Christ’s reasoning for recapitulation but Origen refused to speculate on how the first creation ‘fell’ in the first place. Was it ‘bad’ Sophia or her evil twin Lilith?
Can't wait for the book!
Dr. Hart,
Thank you for the lectures, and thank you in particular for recording this lecture separately (the Owl occasionally made words unintelligible).
There is one thing that I am uncertain about as regards the distinction between Fallenness/sin and finitude. You say in this lecture that: "We live estranged from the divine ground of all we are. We are Fallen away from the un-fallen within us. We exist as created beings always in exile from the uncreated homeland in our souls, the Kingdom of God within us."
This seems to identify Fallenness with created-ness. However, as you have told me in a previous comment, "Fallenness is a contingency, not a created state."
Of course, one might say that true createdness is "uncreatedness" (in the sense that Christ is personally uncreated, and yet has both divine and human natures), and therefore sin is merely a defection in createdness.
However, this brings to my mind some questions:
1. In your view, if the Fall had not occurred, would every creature be equal to Jesus of Nazareth, insofar as concerns their participation in the divine nature?
2. Bulgakov saw an essential distinction between sinlessness and uncreated-ness. He viewed Mary, John the Baptist, and angels all as personally sinless, and yet draw a hard distinction between them and the uncreated incarnate Logos in Christ. Would you say he was wrong to do so, or am I misreading him?
In my simple-minded view, the idea of the Fall as a creation gone astray cannot be right. The only coherent view is that, as God is perfect, so is his creation—and it is the task of theodicy to explain why. One way of thinking about fallenness is as follows: The state of creation today is far from its end as God intended it, and so creation today is in a "fallen" state not in relation to its beginning but in relation to its end. In fact, it would be better to speak of creation as maturing or ascending from incompleteness to completeness (like the perfect gestation of an embryo in her mother’s womb). A creation of atonement is greater than a creation in which all was always at one with God. In any case and in any sense, fallenness is not an accident, but integral to creation, as is God's incarnation in it. God created the world fallen, and any meaning of Genesis 3 must be understood in a sense prior to actual creation.
Thanks for including the secondary audio, Plotinus seems to identify matter as non being even as evil, yet he also dicuses a kind of primal evil, it reminded me of Eriugina. Proclus being influenced by Christian culture was an interesting note. To know, as he knows us reminds me of Shankara saying all self knowing is the Brahmans self knowing. You tend to get asked the same 7 questions in different ways, It's really extraordinary that Origen and Plotinus (along with an Eusibieus) were such influential writers , all coming from the teaching of Ammunis Saccas,(Possibly only one aswell) Taylor's suggestion that Origen was a student and another Origen the Pagan was a peer seems unnecessary. Is the divine descent still need in this model? If the Suffering Servant is ever incarnate as the clearest soul one with God do those emotions imply a lack still in that mode as they will not be needed in the end. Transubstantion tends to boggle my mind, I just tend to quote Bulgakov that the body is everywhere n nowhere and the Eucharist is its realization.
A blessed relief to have DBH's "alternative version." Many thanks for taking the trouble to supply that! Alas, repeated strikes at the Owl using my audio equalizer and other audio tools could not resolve the Q/A exchange with Joshua Heath I really wanted to make out. If anyone with better ears than mine has that more or less transcribed, I'd love to read it. Happily no struggles with the Owl could after all much dampen the value of and my appreciation for these lectures. In fact, the slapstick and hapless preparations for audio reception by your hosts together with the Owl raised my struggle to hear to such a height of the tragicomic, that I kept hearing instead myself shriek with Ahab (as Gregory Peck, of course), "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering OWL; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned OWL! Thus, I give up the hearing aids! "
I was glad to hear from the audience a question about the implications of such a Christology for ecclesiastics. That it must be consequential leapt out immediately, especially as regards the Church's understanding of its own purpose as a temporal organization (a hospital for souls? a repository of theophanic symbols?) at this historical juncture. I am struggling, however, to form the needed concepts and articulate for myself--an interested outsider, not part of the Body--just what those consequences might be. I wonder if anyone else here has been thinking along these lines, and might have anything to share (please help!).
I am not sure the universal Church should be considered a temporary organization that will dissolve in the Kingdom. This is true only for the multiple institutional churches. At the end of times, the Church is supposed to comprise the whole of humanity (or, at least, if you are not a universalist, the redeemed humanity) and to become the Bride of the Lamb (i.e., to be fully hypostasized in Christ, who is its head and High Priest).
Thank you so much, Dr. Hart, for sharing this series of lectures and especially this last one. It's hard to overestimate the gift of such a clear and *beautiful* articulation of these strands of cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, and christology that are *there* in the tradition but rarely so coherently apprehended!
I am a long time reader of yours and a diligent, if incompetent, one of Bulgakov's, and it's striking me now that it's in hopes of seeing *this* vision that I've been putting in the time and effort.
Many thanks.
Your correct to mention that speculative theology can feel a bit odious. So why stop at uncreated personhood? Origens view of two creations did answer part of Christ’s reasoning for recapitulation but Origen refused to speculate on how the first creation ‘fell’ in the first place. Was it ‘bad’ Sophia or her evil twin Lilith?
The Owl records like what you would see during a scene change during a Nickelodeon or Disney kids show in the 2000’s.
All though I bet there’s a bit of an age gap here and Dr. Hart hasn’t seen an episode of Drake and Josh, or Wizards of Waverley Place.