Nature, Grace, and iconoclasm

[josephback]

I’ve been thinking lately about the questions of Nature and Grace and how beliefs on them affect life. My argument is this. Nature and Grace within Catholicism are complimentary to one another leading to a sifting process when the Church comes into contact with other cultures through evangelization. Thus many local elements which had a prior meaning are recast and incorporated into that region’s expression of Catholicism. On the other hand, Nature and Grace from Luther onward are opposed to one another, meaning that such incorporation of native elements is seen as the paganization of Christianity. Forever in search of the pure and original faith, this assumption of opposition between the two leads to a body soul dualism that rejects the goodness of creation post fall in favor of spiritual salvation. By rejecting Nature as depraved, the natural result is a smashing of the images, there being no analogy between God and man after Original Sin. What are the possible objections to this argument?

 

[joeybaggz]

I’ve been thinking lately about the questions of Nature and Grace and how beliefs on them affect life. My argument is this. Nature and Grace within Catholicism are complimentary to one another leading to a sifting process when the Church comes into contact with other cultures through evangelization. Thus many local elements which had a prior meaning are recast and incorporated into that region’s expression of Catholicism. On the other hand, Nature and Grace from Luther onward are opposed to one another, meaning that such incorporation of native elements is seen as the paganization of Christianity. Forever in search of the pure and original faith, this assumption of opposition between the two leads to a body soul dualism that rejects the goodness of creation post fall in favor of spiritual salvation. By rejecting Nature as depraved, the natural result is a smashing of the images, there being no analogy between God and man after Original Sin. What are the possible objections to this argument?

Genesis: And God saw that it was good… When it comes to nature as defined by “native elements” it isn’t nature that is corrupt, but man that corrupts nature.
If you refer to human nature, our nature is what we are, not what we do. I have heard too often some priest or teacher parrot the words, “man is a sinner by nature>” To me, that’s offensive. Tiger Woods was once asked a question of this sort; his answer was simply “golf is what I do, not who I am.” Sin is what I/we do, not who we are. God created man in His image and likeness, and though man fell from God’s grace, nowhere does God say that man in no longer loved by him; I think (and I’m going out on a limb here ) God still sees man in His image and likeness - in all things but sin - and loves us eternally for that nature.

The church established Christmas as the feast day celebrating Christ’s birth. Critics of the church say that the Church took a pagan festival and therefore the Church is in a state of apostasy. The pagan feast, Saturnalia, celebrated three days after the winter solstice, the rejoices in the sun returning to the world. Is that not the idea of Christmas, the light (the SON of God) returning to the world to spread warmth, truth, and love? The use of native elements, those things created by God that He sees as good, is a celebration of the Creator and His love for mankind.

My:twocents:

Shalom