Thank you for this extended explanation. Such excellent discourse enlightens the soul. I covet the opportunity to learn from those who I admire. You make many good points about the Cassian view. The few points where my reformed theological background tugs me back from understanding boil down to fundamental concepts about the degree to which humans have control over their sinful nature. That is the foundation beneath my views on dealing with passions like anger.
My difference with Cassian on some points is likely due to my years as a student of R.C. Sproul. In the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, Cassian’s teaching was presented as a “less flawed” middle ground position in Sproul’s teaching. That Cassian felt the church had gone too far in accepting Augustinian teaching as doctrine and needed to be pulled back. I understand and agree with Cassian’s position on some things, such as his refined view of predestination. I was never able to fully come to terms with his teaching about the interaction of human free will and grace. But I was a student of Sproul, not a follower. I was never able to fully come to terms with all of Calvin’s TULIP either. When it comes to the finer understanding of fallen human passions, I know I have room to grow.
This is my current understanding: Augustine posited that innate human passions like anger only became a dispositive aspect of human free will after the fall when sin became inherent in the nature of humankind. As a result, controlling or eradicating those passions can only happen via an act of grace by God. We can pray for grace, but whether or not we receive it is solely at the will of God. Pelagius believed that the original sin was Adam’s alone, and not passed along to humanity in in subsequent generations. Because he believed that people were basically born good (without sinful nature), he believed that negative human passions were a moral defect which could be fully remedied by enlightenment and acts of human will. Cassian believed that grace was required, but that whether and when grace could act was controlled by human will. Both grace and human will are required. So, the difference in beliefs is one of monergism vs synergism in the utility of grace. As it relates to dealing with passions like anger, so far, I have come to believe the more monergistic view.
While the manifestations of and freedom from original sin may be my core issue regarding what we can actually do about anger, it doesn’t address the stickier issue (stickier for me at least) of whether or not anger fulfills any useful purpose. I can see both sides of this question. I’m not sure I can clearly articulate my gut feelings about it. We might also ask what purpose is served by Christ leaving us to struggle with the sin within us instead or eradicating it after saving our souls from its eternal condemnation. The answer to that broader question on original sin is more clearly defined by widely accepted doctrine regarding sanctification. Perhaps it is the same answer for anger, but persuasive arguments can obviously be made for other perspectives.
As someone who has struggled with anger on a personal level, I have been drawn to the perspectives that align with the spiritual disciplines that have proven helpful to me in that regard. Your thoughtful writing has reminded me that every time I am led to dig deeper into the teachings of the early church fathers, it is a blessing. I’m looking forward now to studying Cassian further.
Anthropomorphic. Does God have eyes or arms or vascilations of love? Cassian gives his take on this (v consistent with others of this period) in this chapter.
God walked in front of Moses, did he not? Yes, he does have eyes and arms, even if they're not made up of matter like ours are. If God directly expressed his anger, why should we not understand that as literal anger?
It seems we have very different understandings of who and what God is. That does explain your take on anger, if you don't think God is capable of actual anger, I just think there are many, many verses you're ignoring.
At the risk of overstatement, there is not a single Christian writer from the New Testament forward who would attest that God has arms or legs, even of different matter, than ours. God is not matter (and that is by definition what God is) in that everything which is created entails matter, which means limits, decay, time-boundedness, etc. And so, when we read that God has arms, it's used as an expression of agency, not matter.
It follows then, that if God is not subject to what matter is, then all that pertains to matter---including the vascilations of emotion--to not pertain to God directly, but can be only understood by *analogy*. Again, this is bedrock Christian teaching from the first century forward.
The error that you're making is thinking that God and creation are of the same species. But God is the one who creates, and all else is created. As such, to ascribe human things to the only One who is uncreated can only be done by analogy, not identity.
I’m sorry that you think so. I’ve laid out very clearly why I think, along with Cassian, that language about God’s anger is only understood by analogy and not indicative of some change in God.
The Christian East would say the God walking before Moses was a Christophany. They would say that any physical appearance of God in the OT is Christ as only Christ is incarnate. I am inclined to agree.
The question of God’s bodiliness is a tricky one, particularly because of Christology. In light of Christ, we can never say that God is apart from creation, and yet, Christians have typically held that we approach the invisible God through Christ’s humanity. It’s a way of threading that needle but also a good reminder of that, God is not ultimately apart from the sufferings of the world.
Viewing God‘s presence in the old testament as Christophany is so helpful because it always reminds us that any relation we have to God is a mediated one.
I am not sure that Moses needs to have a full Christophany i.e seeing all of Christ. It seems very natural to me that Christ would veil his face to Moses. Especially in light of the personification of deities found in Egyptian pharos. It might have been best for God to keep his plan mysterious for Moses. But all this is speculative so take what helps and disregard the rest.
Gregory of Nyssa’s treatment here is excellent: he takes a similar approach, one which assumes a difference between creatures and God but one in which the distance—bridges by God—invites humans up into God’s own life which is marked by holiness and not the vacillations of anger.
It took me a while to understand that comment. Are you suggesting that it was Christ, but since he was not fully embodied, Moses could not look on Christ fully? If so, that feels like a fair argument. I'll have to think on that. Thanks for the insight.
Thank you for this extended explanation. Such excellent discourse enlightens the soul. I covet the opportunity to learn from those who I admire. You make many good points about the Cassian view. The few points where my reformed theological background tugs me back from understanding boil down to fundamental concepts about the degree to which humans have control over their sinful nature. That is the foundation beneath my views on dealing with passions like anger.
My difference with Cassian on some points is likely due to my years as a student of R.C. Sproul. In the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, Cassian’s teaching was presented as a “less flawed” middle ground position in Sproul’s teaching. That Cassian felt the church had gone too far in accepting Augustinian teaching as doctrine and needed to be pulled back. I understand and agree with Cassian’s position on some things, such as his refined view of predestination. I was never able to fully come to terms with his teaching about the interaction of human free will and grace. But I was a student of Sproul, not a follower. I was never able to fully come to terms with all of Calvin’s TULIP either. When it comes to the finer understanding of fallen human passions, I know I have room to grow.
This is my current understanding: Augustine posited that innate human passions like anger only became a dispositive aspect of human free will after the fall when sin became inherent in the nature of humankind. As a result, controlling or eradicating those passions can only happen via an act of grace by God. We can pray for grace, but whether or not we receive it is solely at the will of God. Pelagius believed that the original sin was Adam’s alone, and not passed along to humanity in in subsequent generations. Because he believed that people were basically born good (without sinful nature), he believed that negative human passions were a moral defect which could be fully remedied by enlightenment and acts of human will. Cassian believed that grace was required, but that whether and when grace could act was controlled by human will. Both grace and human will are required. So, the difference in beliefs is one of monergism vs synergism in the utility of grace. As it relates to dealing with passions like anger, so far, I have come to believe the more monergistic view.
While the manifestations of and freedom from original sin may be my core issue regarding what we can actually do about anger, it doesn’t address the stickier issue (stickier for me at least) of whether or not anger fulfills any useful purpose. I can see both sides of this question. I’m not sure I can clearly articulate my gut feelings about it. We might also ask what purpose is served by Christ leaving us to struggle with the sin within us instead or eradicating it after saving our souls from its eternal condemnation. The answer to that broader question on original sin is more clearly defined by widely accepted doctrine regarding sanctification. Perhaps it is the same answer for anger, but persuasive arguments can obviously be made for other perspectives.
As someone who has struggled with anger on a personal level, I have been drawn to the perspectives that align with the spiritual disciplines that have proven helpful to me in that regard. Your thoughtful writing has reminded me that every time I am led to dig deeper into the teachings of the early church fathers, it is a blessing. I’m looking forward now to studying Cassian further.
Your brother Coram Deo,
Greg Williams
www.christiansoldier21.org
Hmmm... What do you think of the verses that describe God's anger?
Anthropomorphic. Does God have eyes or arms or vascilations of love? Cassian gives his take on this (v consistent with others of this period) in this chapter.
God walked in front of Moses, did he not? Yes, he does have eyes and arms, even if they're not made up of matter like ours are. If God directly expressed his anger, why should we not understand that as literal anger?
It seems we have very different understandings of who and what God is. That does explain your take on anger, if you don't think God is capable of actual anger, I just think there are many, many verses you're ignoring.
At the risk of overstatement, there is not a single Christian writer from the New Testament forward who would attest that God has arms or legs, even of different matter, than ours. God is not matter (and that is by definition what God is) in that everything which is created entails matter, which means limits, decay, time-boundedness, etc. And so, when we read that God has arms, it's used as an expression of agency, not matter.
It follows then, that if God is not subject to what matter is, then all that pertains to matter---including the vascilations of emotion--to not pertain to God directly, but can be only understood by *analogy*. Again, this is bedrock Christian teaching from the first century forward.
The error that you're making is thinking that God and creation are of the same species. But God is the one who creates, and all else is created. As such, to ascribe human things to the only One who is uncreated can only be done by analogy, not identity.
You are making interesting assumptions of what I believe without addressing my points. I don't think this conversation is worth continuing.
I’m sorry that you think so. I’ve laid out very clearly why I think, along with Cassian, that language about God’s anger is only understood by analogy and not indicative of some change in God.
The Christian East would say the God walking before Moses was a Christophany. They would say that any physical appearance of God in the OT is Christ as only Christ is incarnate. I am inclined to agree.
The question of God’s bodiliness is a tricky one, particularly because of Christology. In light of Christ, we can never say that God is apart from creation, and yet, Christians have typically held that we approach the invisible God through Christ’s humanity. It’s a way of threading that needle but also a good reminder of that, God is not ultimately apart from the sufferings of the world.
Viewing God‘s presence in the old testament as Christophany is so helpful because it always reminds us that any relation we have to God is a mediated one.
That is a fair interpretation. I disagree because Moses could not look at his face.
I am not sure that Moses needs to have a full Christophany i.e seeing all of Christ. It seems very natural to me that Christ would veil his face to Moses. Especially in light of the personification of deities found in Egyptian pharos. It might have been best for God to keep his plan mysterious for Moses. But all this is speculative so take what helps and disregard the rest.
Gregory of Nyssa’s treatment here is excellent: he takes a similar approach, one which assumes a difference between creatures and God but one in which the distance—bridges by God—invites humans up into God’s own life which is marked by holiness and not the vacillations of anger.
It took me a while to understand that comment. Are you suggesting that it was Christ, but since he was not fully embodied, Moses could not look on Christ fully? If so, that feels like a fair argument. I'll have to think on that. Thanks for the insight.
Glad to see the impassibilists come out ahead
Was there ever a question?
For most of modern theology, yes.