The Christian System - Chapter 6
MAN AS HE WAS.
I. The original man was the rational and moral ultimatum of the mundane system. Naturally, or as he came from God's hand, he was the perfection of all terrestrial creations and institutions. In the elements of his constitution, he was partly celestial and terrestrial, of an earthly material as to his body, but of a spiritual intelligence and a divine life. Made to know and to enjoy his Creator, and to have communion with all that is divine, spiritual, and material in the whole universe, he was susceptible of an almost boundless variety of enjoyments.
II. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in [26] his own image created he him; a male and a female created he them." Gen. i. 26, 27. Man, then, was a companion of his Father and Creator, capable of admiring, adoring, and enjoying God. Having made the earth for him, God was fully glorified in all his sublunary works, when they made man happy, grateful, and thankful to himself. Man, then, in his natural state, was not merely an animal, but an intellectual, moral, pure, and holy being.
Read More...
I. The original man was the rational and moral ultimatum of the mundane system. Naturally, or as he came from God's hand, he was the perfection of all terrestrial creations and institutions. In the elements of his constitution, he was partly celestial and terrestrial, of an earthly material as to his body, but of a spiritual intelligence and a divine life. Made to know and to enjoy his Creator, and to have communion with all that is divine, spiritual, and material in the whole universe, he was susceptible of an almost boundless variety of enjoyments.
II. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in [26] his own image created he him; a male and a female created he them." Gen. i. 26, 27. Man, then, was a companion of his Father and Creator, capable of admiring, adoring, and enjoying God. Having made the earth for him, God was fully glorified in all his sublunary works, when they made man happy, grateful, and thankful to himself. Man, then, in his natural state, was not merely an animal, but an intellectual, moral, pure, and holy being.
Read More...
posted by Ken | 7:16 PM
12 Comments:
Maybe it's just me, but it looks like this entire chapter doesn't really say anything.
Anyone else have a take on it?
BOG
BOG,
I recommend reading once again . . . with sympathy and understanding.
AC, by having a chapter on "Man as He Was" and "Man as He Is" shows first of all that AC sees a discontinuity between the first created Humans and "us." Something has happened in between. That something is called the "Fall."
Man as He WAS was made specifically to know God. He was made not just as an animal but to be a moral being.
The "rank" or "position" of humanity was exalted indeed. Humans are "lord tennants." That is we were created to be rulers of God's creation, to rule in his fashion and in his stead. What a compliment to the human race that AC believes God has given to us (one in which I think AC was correct).
I think AC has said an aweful lot in this short delightful chapter. It is a reminder of what we as humans have lost.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/
My comment was directed at the "Spirit of God" post - Chapter 5.
I've yet to comment on "Man as He Was."
BOG
By the way professor
No "e" in awful.
BOG
I'm curious about the sentence in Chapter 6 in which Campbell asserts that there can't be happiness with some kind of law.
(That's a rough paraphrase.) It's in paragraph III, I think.
He doesn't offer any support for the assertion.
Is it true? If it's true, why is it true?
BOG
In order to freedom, virtue, and happiness, it was expedient and necessary to place him under a law; for where there is no law, there can be no liberty, virtue, or happiness.
The above is from paragraph III. He seems to be saying that without a law there can be no true happiness.
It sounds somewhat Jeffersonian, you know "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
BOG, thanks for catching my spelling error.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Got to thinking about this last night, and there are two things cause me to question this.
First, there's Romans 5:13 which says sin isn't imputed where there is no law. I know this is a verse that people have argued over, and I know it also says that sin was in the world before there was law, just that it wasn't imputed.
But if sin was in the world before there was law, then wouldn't that mean that sin was already present in the garden before God told Adam not to eat the fruit? And if sin was there, how does that relate to the supposedly perfect state of things?
Then I got to thinking about Kierkegaard, and specifically about Dread - the desire for that which we fear and the fear of that which we desire. According to him, this condition of Dread comes before sin. In other words, once Adam was told not to eat the fruit, then the possibility that he might eat the fruit was in his mind and was the cause of dread. And of course, once dread took hold, the actual sin followed.
So if that's right (I'm not sure it is) then maybe Adam wasn't so happy.
BOG
BOG,
The Bible does say that what God created was good. I guess what Campbell is saying that Adam was completely suited to the world God created. Of course, after Adam is placed in the garden (Paradise?) it said he was alone. Then He brings the animals and eventually Eve and He said she was "very good". I always assumed that meant that Adam would be happy in this perfect creation.
Well, getting back to Kierkegaard and dread, according to Soren, when God told Adam "Don't eat that fruit" then it put into Adam's mind the possibility of eating the fruit. And once it was in his mind that he could disobey, he had both a fear of disobeying and a desire to do it.
It's all very psychological, for whatever that's worth.
BOG
Did Paul say as much in Romans when he said that he does what he doesn't want to do?
I haven't read Kierkegard or Soren, but the idea of dread does sound reasonable.
I think that may have been sort of what Paul was getting at.
BOG
Post a Comment
<< Home