www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is the soul infused or generated?

Dear Andrew,

Christ is Risen!

Thanks for your reply (and for not taking over two years as I did to you ). I agree with your explanation. Thanks for helping me to appreciate this point about our souls. I didn't really get into the tripartite nature of man because I had already found a good article by Bp. Kallistos on this issuse. Therefore I just concentrated on the belief that our entire humanity is generated from our parents. The point of this was not to be dogmatic (as you wisely advised) but rather to make known this alternative understanding of man, held by many of our Church Fathers. I agree with you that our origin is still a mystery just as is what happens to us after life in this world. Good as always to hear from you brother.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar

p.s. My mom lives in Delaware. Next time we take a vacation out that way, maybe we can get our two little Isaac's together? They were born only a few days apart weren't they?

Thank you, Shestelle.

Dear usqueadmortem ,

Christ is Risen!

Thanks for your response and for sharing your argument about the Latin Church's teaching on this subject. If my memory serves, the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is known to be a very traditional Latin Church work) also leans this way while acknowledging that some Latin theologians have maintained the Generationism view. Certainly Creationism is now -by far- the dominant Latin teaching. This had a lot to do with why I presented the Generationist view. Most don't know that historically there is another view. If Latins have settled on Creationism, then this would be but another opportunity to explore how our doctrines (East ane West) can be seen to compliment one another.

I have long played Hopko tapes in my car on extended road trips.
My take on the issue of generationism vs. creationism has always been this:
As an issue, it is a transposition of the intractable "nature vs nurture" moral debates taken up into the spiritual realm, where generationism represents an emphasis on the effects of spiritual "nurturing."

I would think that both East and West would consider the issue as the subject of "secondary theological reflection" and thus not something to be condsidered a church-dividing issue when it comes to the prayed-for reunification of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Dear Durak (for Christ),

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this approach.

Perhaps what you post and propose, if applied to the three late dogmata, (Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and Infallibility Ex Cathedra), would substantially smooth the path for reunification.

With all due respect to the original pronouncements, I'm obviously proposing that the Catholic Church find some way to "de-dogmatize" them, realizing that this is not something to be done or accepted lightly. However, we could imagine the possibilities for reunification that that action would open.

They would remain teachings or doctrines held at the highest level by the Western part of the unified Church, but not obligatory for all members (i.e. the Easterners) of the unified Church.

In the risen and glorified Christ,
Andrew

Dear Durak,
I certainly would not frame the belief in generationism in the context of the nature / nurture debate. Generationism -properly understood- although at first glance may seem to favor the "nature" side (i.e. b/c it affirms that we are born with certain sins already in us), yet it does not because of this deny the "nurture" side (i.e. we can learn to be sinful from others). In reality, it allows for both. All generationism is saying (in regard to sin) is that we can be born with certain propensities to sin.

From the Orthodox generationist view (as it relates to the origin of our sinfulness) both sides of the nature / nurture debate are wrong, precisely because they abosolutize their position, e.g. our sin is either learned or inherited. Whereas, we Orthodox would say that both are true.

reply:
I would not presume to guess how Church leaders will approach our difference over this point. I'm sure its not our biggest difference or theological difficulty. My intention was simply to bring attention to this historic understanding of man which, I suspect, many have never heard of. I found the view intriguing, reasonable and Patristically supported. Hence my desire to make others aware of it. Thanks for your reply.

Ghazar

p.s. What does "Durak" mean?

Esteemed Ghazar,

You say,"All generationism is saying (in regard to sin) is that we can be born with certain propensities to sin."

Response: Generationism asserts that one's propensity to weakness/sin or holiness is rooted in the progenitors' actual greater weaknesses/sinfulness or holiness.
I simply can't fathom Fr. Hopko disagreeing with this.

Modern "nurture" adherents assert that one's propensity tends to follow the parentally conditioned context, be they living in sinfulness or in holiness. Thus, I stick with "generationism-(spiritually)nuturism" identification.

Note: Hopko explicitly asserts that the uniqueness of Mary is that she was the crowning fruit of the the building "holiness" momentum of her particular family tree by which her human nature (which we all share) was particularly nurtured. Still, she could have said, "No," to her Divine maternity. She was nurtured otherwise.
One *cannot* say, "It was not in her nature to say, "No."

What does "Durak" mean? "Fool." Make of that what you will.

Anyway, thank you for this most interesting thread.

Brother Durak,

You are not living up to your name. Btw, is that Greek?

When I wrote, "All generationism is saying (in regard to sin) is that we can be born with certain propensities to sin," I slightly mis-wrote. What I meant to write was, "All generationism is saying (in regard to sin) is that we can be born with certain propensities to sin PASSED ON FROM OUR PARENTS AND ANCESTORS."

I think generationism clearly applies to not only what we learn from our upbringing (nurture), but also from what we receive in our very nature and genetics. Fr. Hopko clearly affirms both of these in his lectures on our generation.

Thanks for your helpful input on this topic,

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar

Esteemed Wm. Ghazar,

I sense clarifications are necessary lest we continue to talk passed one another.

It belongs to our human nature to be created in the image and likeness of God.

The likeness was darkened by original sin and its wages, death, to which we are all subject.

(The image remains as original in each newly conceived human being.)

The propensity to move in the direction of the restoration -- or the further darkening -- of Divine likeness is "passed on from our parents and ancestors," according to Fr. Hopko.

This influencial "passing on" of a disposition to further darkening or holiness through the generations is what I understand as "spiritual nurturance."

I sounds to me like Fr. Hopko is asserting that some have passed on to them a greater propensity to "likeness unto God" than others, while others have passed on to them a "more darkened likeness."

I leave it to you how to understand the creationism position as the conviction that all persons born into the world share the exact same degree of "darkened likeness" and the same degree of propensity to holiness. The extent to which the likeness is restored is played out in the extent to which each person cooperates with the Divine Grace that calls each to ever greater likeness.

"Durak" is Russian for "Simpleton" or "Fool," the name of a very popular Russian card game.

I just read what I wrote, and would like to somewhat amend:

It seems to me that Fr. Hopko is asserting that people are born with varying amounts of disposition to sinfulness or holiness depending on the choices made by their parents and ancestors.

Creationism says, "Nope, we are all born with the exact same degree of disposition to sinfulness or holiness."

Dear Durak,

In reality we are no longer discussing generationism -per se- but rather, generational sin. Based on what you just wrote, I believe there is no divergence in what we are saying. Let me know if you think there is.

Hmmm. I think that talking about a varying degree of handed-down PROPENSITY(your term)to sin or to become more holy in the likeness of God is not talking about generational sin.

Well, the first part is (i.e. an inherited propensity to sin). Actually, "propensity" is not my term, its the Fathers' term, according to Fr. Hopko (see his quote in my essay). Generationism refers to the fact that our entire humanity (body and soul) are generated from our parents (see essay). Now if we are looking for the name of what a handed on propensity to holiness might be: that's a good question. I've never heard of one, but I guess we could call it "generational goodness." (that would be my term)

Dear Andrew,

I think your suggestions are very insightful. Infact the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby has written many books suggesting the same thing. The books, "We are all Schismatics" and "Ecumenical Reflections" come to mind.