The Nature-Grace Distinction as a Foundation of Macarian Spirituality (original) (raw)

The contemporary debate over 'natura pura' is as much a battle about ressourcement as about metaphysics. As theologians have sought to determine the limits and the potencies of human nature in light of the Fall and of grace, they have turned to the Fathers of the Church and the fontes of Thomistic thought in order to discover an authentic Christian anthropology. As is often the case, these conversations have tended to center on the inheritance of St. Augustine, whose anti-Pelagian writings have understandably dominated Western theological discourse. Yet, the problem of the nature-grace relationship also forms a central concern of the influential corpus of writings ascribed to Makarios-Symeon, which have the potential to broaden the scope of the present debate concerning the nature-grace distinction. This paper argues that a conception of 'natura pura' is indeed present in Makarios, for whom it is an important metaphysical foundation supporting his ascetical theology. Though Makarios rejects any dichotomy between nature and grace that would fail to make creation wholly dependent on God, he does not see the ultimate synthesis and continuity between them as absolute. The ontological dimension of the nature-grace relationship in Makarios centers on the basic intelligibility of human nature as a discrete reality distinct not only from God’s sanctifying and saving operation, but from the evil which permeates fallen humanity and haunts it even after baptism. This basic distinction, which grants to nature a kind of autonomy, is intended to preserve both the gratuity of grace and the ultimate integrity of human nature in the face of both deification and the indwelling of evil. For this reason Makarios adheres in his ascetical teaching to a conception similar to 'natura pura,' which grants to human nature a qualified self-determination and independence even before its Creator. The result is a spirituality marked by the possibility of a true union of human and divine in the deified, without however resulting in a confusion of natures. The integration of Makarios into the debate over natura pura has the potential to harmonize the extreme positions dependent, ostensibly, on the Greek Fathers, on one side, and the Thomistic commentators, on the other.

Grace, Natura Pura, and the Metaphysics of Status: Personalism and Thomism on the Historicity of the Human Person and the Genealogy of Modernity, Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 91, Philosophy, Faith, and Modernity (2017): 127-143.

Christian Personalists (such as Balthasar and Yannaras) have objected to Thomism's claim that humans could have existed in a state (status) of pure nature, on the grounds that this claim entails that historical states like grace do not give fundamental meaning to us, that these states are merely accidental, and that it led to modern secularism. I show that Thomism can affirm its traditional claims regarding grace and pure nature, while denying the first two implications, by developing the Thomistic metaphysics of status. On Thomism rightly understood persons develop historically through status in non-accidental ways and grace gives fundamental meaning to our lives. But I also argue that modern secular experiences (such as experiences of secularity, anxiety, and absurdity described by Heidegger, Camus, and Taylor) are natural to the human person, not merely the result of sin, and that this is rightly supported by the theory of pure nature.

Ontology of personhood and divine energy – a palamite corrective [Revista Teologica 96:4 (2014) 165-187]

The marginalization of divine being, who is the source of energies, makes Ioannis Zizioulas to actually ignore the divine energies in his Eucharistic and personalist theological vision. On the other hand, Christos Yannaras gives a certain importance to the distinction between essence and energies, but he comes to bound energies to person. While, one of the gains of patristic theology was to clearly link the energies to nature, both in Trinitarian theology field as well as in Christology and that of anthropology, while many heresies tied it of person. Therefore there is necessary to distinguish between hypostasis and energy: one energy in three hypostases. While the relationship of Palamite categories to the discourse of 'person' in contemporary Orthodox theology is still unclear, in our study we intend to show that the re-engaging with Palamite theology could help to balance the normative existentialism's of Yannaras and Zizioulas.

Natural Theology in the Patristic Period

Oxford Handbooks Online, 2013

The centrality of natural theology in this period and its inescapable formation of what succeeds are indicated by the multiple forms it takes throughout its extent in Hellenic, Jewish, and Christian philosophies, religious practices, and theologies. Commonly, the term, as used to refer to an apologetic or instrument presupposed by or leading to revealed religion and theology, makes no distinction between the forms of philosophy. Moreover, when those listed as “philosophers” in our histories touch on theological or religious matter, they are usually treated as if what they wrote was all “natural”, in the sense of coming from inherent human capacity, as opposed to what is inspired or gracious. Packing the natural theology of what we are calling “the Patristic Period” into such crudely undifferentiated lumps moulded by later binary schematizing destroys what it most distinctively accomplished. It not only produced the new language of metaphysics and the supernatural, but also thought through how nature and what is beyond it interpenetrated one another.

Loke, Andrew. 2019. ‘Theological critiques of Natural Theology: A reply to Andrew Moore.’ Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 61:207-222

In leading academic publications, Oxford theologian Andrew Moore has systematically developed new objections to natural theology based on Karl Barth's methodological arguments, historical considerations as well as theological considerations related to Scriptural passages such as Romans 1:18ff, the noetic effects of sin, whether natural theology leads to the God who has revealed himself in Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, and attitudes such as humility and self-denial. I demonstrate the inadequacy of his methodological and historical arguments and show that the numerous Scriptural passages cited by Moore do not really support his objections, and that Moore neglects other passages (e.g. Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-31) which contradict his arguments. I defend the value of natural theology as the first of a two-step approach which (1) shows that there is a Creator God (2) shows that this God has revealed himself in Christ.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.