On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, pgm wrote:
> No, the patristic idea of sin is not perversion, but rather a missing
> of the mark, a failure of vision even, a misalignment.
>
> pm
>
These are not totally incompatible definitions. Patristic authors used
all of the above. I specifically had in mind the theology, both Eastern
and Western, of sin as covering over, deforming, distorting the imago Dei
(see Gerhart Ladner, _The Idea of Reform_ [Harvard U.P., 1959; reprinted
Harper Torchbooks, 1967]). In _Confessions_ bk. 7 Augustine defines sin
as a swerving of the will away from doing things, using created things
toward God, a swerving toward using things away from God (hence my term
"per-versio" or "a-versio"; with its opposite "con-versio"). This of
course leads to his classic distinction between caritas and cupiditas;
his description of sin as curving the will in upon itself -- all of these
support the idea of per-versio, deformation. This is not, however, the
same as Calvin's or Luther's view of total depravity.
Dennis Martin
Loyola University Chicago
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|