Free Will and Vicinal Culpability

7/30/2019 Free Will and Vicinal Culpability

1/32


2/32

150 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

demnation that characterizes the interface between free will

and disobedience as it manifests itself within the principle

of what I have elsewhere termed eschatological monism.5

These two concerns provide the reasons for Gregorys insis-

tence that Gods nal judgment is uniformly mercy, which

opposes the eschatological dualism that has come to domi-

nate Western Christian theology. This dualism has charac-

terized the Wests eschatological vision especially since the

inception of the schola augustiniana moderna, of which

Gregory of Rimini (c. 130058) was the brainchild when

he combined Augustinianism and the via moderna, and the

popularization of Luthers hyper-Augustinianism against

Johann Ecks moderatism at the 1519 Leipzig Disputation

and in his Chrysopassus (1514).6

By way of denition, therefore, Gregorys eschatological

monism opposes the belief that humanity is predestined, or

destined in any respect, to undergo a transportation to one of

two corporeal locations but rather proposes that the loca-tion, understood guratively as a great mystery,7 is actually

monadic and uniform, yet subjectively experienced multi-

fariously based on ones ontological composition in either

(passions)8 or(virtue).9 With this understanding,

the splendor of the divine emanations and mercy yield either

the painful purication of gehenna or the illuminating guid-

ance into apophatic darkness at the apex of the holy moun-

tain, which compels continued ontological, rather than mere

epistemic, participation in the divine energeiai (energies).10

In the nal analysis, Gregorys understanding and portrait of

the freedom of the human will provides a helpful framework

within which the response of divine mercy, accommodative

of an eschatology of hope as opposed to the anticipated re-

sponse of divine retribution, becomes explicable and indeed

the only viable course of divine action.


3/32

151Klager: Free Will and Vicinal Culpability

THE FREEDOmOFTHE HUmAnWILL

The Nature of FreedomRobert Jenson alleges that Gregorys initial spiritual guid-

ance is simple. Do you want to turn from bodily things in

order to be drawn to God? Just begin to do it.11 However,

this understanding of the freedom of the will, of so-called

free choice, lends itself to accusations of culpability and re-

sponsibility which permit a retributive backlash that is for-

eign to Gregory of Nyssas explication of free will. As we

will soon discover, Gregory is more inclined to admit that

there simply is not the innate condition whereby a human

being can, properly speaking, choose attraction (i.e., desire

or pleasure). In refusing to entertain the notion that God ma-

nipulates human destiny, Gregory concurrently rejects the

notion that the freedom of the will implies a facile consent to

virtue but instead defends quite the oppositethat the free-

dom of the will implies vulnerability and inevitable failure.This circumstance renders conformity difcult, and eventu-

ally compels God to become incarnate in co-suffering soli-

darity with and love for humanity.

Further, the freedom of the will is a divinely devised anthro-

pological maneuver designed to allow for at least the prospect

of emancipation from the tyranny of death by virtue of hu-

manitys mutability and susceptibility to progress in virtue.

Gerhart Ladner summarizes this notion: One might resume

Gregorys answer to this question thus: Only if man received

mutability, which is essentially linked to his bodily constitu-

tion, and the gift of sexual propagation, would mankind as a

whole be able to reach its pre-ordained pleroma, only thus

would it have the opportunity to return to God. Without the

mutable and mortal body man would have remained fxed

in spiritual aversion from God, together with the fallen an-gels.12 While God created humanity so that it is free to unite


4/32

152 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

ton, ortelos, the alternative, participation in evil and death,

is a very real, indeed inevitable to some degree, recourse due

to the lure of humanitys sensual setting. These disadvanta-geous circumstances are what cultivate divine mercy.

On the other hand, if the freedom of the will and appending

mutability were not part of Gods design, humanitys aver-

sion to God not only would be inevitable, as it is likewise

with the freedom of the will, but would be interminable as

well. Roman Catholic ressourcement theologian Hans Urs

von Balthasar very astutely explains this same notion as it ap-

pears in Gregorys thought, but with a consciousness toward

becoming and the immanent innite. He describes how for

Gregory, only the uncreated essence is unable to express it-

self in movement, whereas the created being of which hu-

manity is composed cannot escape movement by virtue of its

beginning to be. Therefore, within this framework, Since its

existence is, so to speak, a continuous effort to maintain itself

in being, its perfection consists of a perpetual effort towardGod13 (i.e., epektasis). Given the unenviable circumstanc-

es that humanity must endure, this is effort par excellence.

Broadly speaking, participation in some degree of both virtue

and evil is unavoidable to be sure, but the unremitting pro-

cess of supervising and governing this volatile human will

so that it can consist of a perpetual effort toward God, as

von Balthasar states, is certainly not lost on Gregory and has

profound implications for how he understands human culpa-

bility and the divine response to human transgression.

A renement of what exactly is meant byfree willis use-

ful not only because it allows insight into how Gregorys

apokatastasis necessarily implies the integral preservation

of mans free will14 but also so the aforementioned mishan-

dling of the freedom of the will can be avoided. In short,

Gregory describes free will15

in his De vita Moysis as theequidistant suspension between two prospective and latent


5/32


Evil One.16 Gods design includes the image and likeness of

God17 implanted in each human being and which reects his

own freedom, a freedom that places emphasis on the restora-tion of this image and likeness so that compliance with the

divine will truly derives from the heart and not any violent

coercion.18 As is readily evident, therefore, the freedom of

the human will is inescapable, but in rendering disobedience

to God and participation in death inevitable, it incites a di-

vine response of mercy and restoration, the only true mani-

festation of justice when taking into account humanitys un-

desirable and enervating conditions. Gregory describes the

suspension between virtue and passion by appealing to Holy

Tradition, which suggests that God appointed an angel with

an incorporeal nature to help in the life of each person,

in addition to the corruptor [who], by an evil and male-

cent demon, aficts the life of man and contrives against

our nature.19 While this may seem to imply direct contact

and coercion, Gregory is quick to point out that the angelmerely shows the benets of virtue, while the opposing

side shows the material pleasures in which there is no hope

of future benets.20 There is therefore no direct coercion by

one side or the other; the passions tempt, while the side of

virtue offsets the seduction of evil by showing the benets of

the alternate option, but both always from a distance.

However, on the one hand, virtue is voluntarily self-sub-

dued and non-encroaching or is innately so since it is by na-

ture love, which refuses to coerce, while on the other hand,

Christ has conquered death, which has thus been rendered

impotent inasmuch as it was defeated when Christ gained

access to it via his incarnation, thereby permitting his cru-

cixion and resurrection. That God intuitively does not co-

erce humanity to embrace virtue is demonstrated expressly

in a section ofDe vita Moysis that outlines the hardening ofPharaohs heart, wherein Gregory insists that God did not


6/32

154 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

divine will but that Pharaoh was delivered up to shame-

ful affections21 by God; in other words, God permitted, or

at most perpetuated, the sedition that was already an unaf-fected expression of Pharaohs heart, and hence does not co-

erce. Gregory is even clearer when he explains that if God

were to coerce in coincidence with the desire of his own will,

then certainly any human choice would fall into line in ev-

ery case, so that no distinction between virtue and vice in

life could be observed.22 Similarly, by invoking the plague

of darkness, Gregory explains that although the Egyptians

visibility was darkened and obscured, to the Hebrews it is

illuminated by the sun at the same time. Not only does this

seemingly anomalous circumstance, as a uniform occurrence

experienced multifariously, factor strongly into Gregorys

principle of eschatological monism and self-condemnation,

it also implies Gods refusal to coerce: It was not some con-

straining power from above that caused the one to be found

in darkness and the other in light, but we men have in our-selves, in our own nature and by our own choice, the causes

of light or darkness, since we place ourselves in whichever

sphere we wish to be.23

In this sequence, moreover, Gregory immediately before-

hand explains how when Moses stretched forth his hands

on the Egyptians behalf, the frogs were instantly destroyed.

This is, of course, a gure of the true lawgiver, Christ, who

stretched forth his hands on the cross.24 Gregory further

elaborates on the nature and function of Christs atoning

work by employing an illustration of Moses wooden staff

that parted the Red Sea as a gure of the cross also made of

wood, which destroys the Egyptian pleasuresthat is, the

passions that suffuse the soul.25 Elsewhere, Gregory claims

that the bronze serpent that Moses lifted up on the wood re-

jects passion, diluting the poison as with a medicine,26

employing medical rather than juridical language very typi-


7/32


8/32

156 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

ribution,33 Gregorys epistemological teaching on apophasis

and ontological teaching on epektasis, for which the purity

of the soul is requisite and theoria is its ultimately unat-tainable goal (at least in its completeness),34 add new lay-

ers of skepticism about humanitys capacity for obedience

and union with Christ. The central idea that at times domi-

nates Gregorys writings so much that it is merely taken for

granted is his apophaticism.35 When Gregory discusses the

incomprehensibility and ineffability of God, it is rst and

foremost because of the innity and inapproachability of

the divine essencethat the ascendancy of the uncreated

divine essence orousia itself precludes mere epistemic ap-

prehension through social analogies36 from the created or-

der, which instead demands direct contemplation (theoria)

by way of the purity of the soul.37 Gregory is clear on this

point when he describes Moses ascent of the holy mountain,

since that which is sought transcends all knowledge, being

separated on all sides by incomprehensibility as by a kind ofdarkness,38 at which point Moses came to know that what

is divine is beyond all knowledge and comprehension.39 But

even in this description there exists the recognition that hu-

manity is itself obstructed in its ascent, since anything that

humans can measure by the senses is marked off by certain

denite boundaries,40 so that the divine is there where the

understanding cannot reach.41 Moreover, Gregorys apo-

phasis is operative in deliberations not only about the di-

vine essence but also about the ineffable teaching of God

and mystical doctrines that Moses received from God on

the mountain,42 elsewhere designating godliness itself as a

mystery.43 Indeed, as Sara Denning-Bolle claims, Gregory

is here departing company with Plato, who believes that the

realm of the intelligible is where real knowledge resides and

is therefore knowable.44

But Gregorys apophatic approachrenders ultimately unknowable, certainly in any exhaustive


9/32


an emphasis on the elusiveness of the divine essence and the

telos of his salvic requirements, one begins to understand

why Gregory is slow to pronounce Gods wrath on thosewho reject Christ or apostatize.

But Gregory brings apophasis and the purity of the soul

leading to theoria together in a most interesting way that

nevertheless does not necessarily solve the problem more

than it describes the nature of a prospective solution, how-

ever demanding and burdensome it may be. To the extent

that one participates in the divine energeiai, ascends the holy

mountain, and unites with Christ, he places his own soul,

like a mirror, face to face with the hope of good things, with

the result that the images and impression of virtue, as it is

shown to him by God, are imprinted on the purity of his

soul.45 Therefore, the way to such knowledge is purity,46

and when he is so puried, then he assaults the mountain.47

The epistemological ramication of Gregorys apophasis on

humanitys ability to stand in virtue is clear: Religious vir-tue is divided into two parts, into that which pertains to the

Divine and that which pertains to right conduct (for purity

of life is a part of religion). Moses learns at rst the things

which must be known about God (namely, that none of those

things known by human comprehension is to be ascribed to

him). Then he is taught the other side of virtue, learning by

what pursuits the virtuous life is perfected.48

Gregory employs several images to depict this mutual reli-

ance between apophasis and theoria: the mysterious charac-

teristics of the cloud that guided the Hebrews in the wilder-

ness is an image of this apophasis that guides one into the

promised land;49 the revelation of the heavenly tabernacle

by way of a material imitation here on earth teaches that

God can be known only by analogy;50 and the incompre-

hensibleness of contemplating [] the ineffable se-crets is exhibited in the wings covering the face of God


10/32

158 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

wings of the cherubim that cover the ark in which the pres-

ence of God rests.51 By further framing this interdependence

between apophasis and theoria with incarnational concerns,Gregory explains that when Moses sees the back of God

(apophasis), this is actually alluding to Christs demand for

followers (purity of the soul), who would of course see his

back when literally following him; this is purity of the soul

by way ofapophasis.52

But how do these central themes ofapophasis and theoria

impact Gregorys understanding of human culpability? The

rst characteristic to consider is Gregorys understanding

ofepektasis,53 which is a direct outcome of jointly applying

his teachings on both apophasis and theoria. Paul Blowers,

for instance, underscores both the strong ontological and es-

chatological character of Gregorys epektasis, within which

human beings nd their true ontological and eschatologi-

cal stability through eternal moral change for the better and

ascent toward the immutable God.54

Gregorys concept ofepektasis also declares that union with Christ and ascent of

the holy mountain toward ineffable darkness is innite in

coincidence with Gods inniteness,55 and is therefore ulti-

mately, though not pessimistically, unfeasible, so that our

statement that grasping perfection with reference to virtue

is impossible was not false.56 Not surprisingly, Gregorys

epektasis underscores the same epistemological barrier that

his apophasis also exposes: that, as Albert-Kees Geljon ob-

serves, perfection of all things that are measured by sense-

perception is marked off by denite limits.57

The epistemological limitations that result from subjuga-

tion to sense-perception characteristic of human creature-

liness give way, of course, to limitations in human progress

in virtue itself. Indeed, the gnawings of desire are fre-

quently active even in the faithful.58

Therefore, while thefreedom of the will ideally places humanity in a position to


11/32


humanity is requested to perform the impossible. This is the

case because there exists a conict in us, for man is set

before competitors as the prize of their contest,60

while ul-timately free will [has an] inclination to evil61 so that it

was only to be expectedthat some would be lled with

lust.62 Progression in virtue is arduous because humanity is

at times enslaved by trickery,63 while Gregory describes

the passions as a erce and raging master to the servile

reasoning, tormenting it with pleasures as though they were

scourges.64 So much does Gregory sympathize with the un-

enviable situation within which humanity nds itself that the

only time he uses the word (blame) is in reference

to the devil, whom the history [for] producing evil

in men [which] leads them to the subsequent sin.65 Indeed,

as Alan Dunstone observes, Gregory stresses the culpabil-

ity of death.66 Another factor that Gregory introduces is the

inherent immaturity of humanity, a common anthropogenic

concept of the Greek fathers, especially Irenaeus of Lyons.67

The circumstances created by this immaturity and attenua-

tion of the human ability to ascend the mountain is further

strained by the many conditions Gregory places on human-

itys capacity for obedience, not the least of which is being

somehow favorably disposed to what is presented,68 while

someone who does not know the way cannot complete his

journey safely.69

III. VICInAL CULPAbILITy

Proximity to the Offense versus Dispassionate Choice

Gregory of Nyssa maintains a delicate balance between

the very real and immediate prospect of falling into sin and

humanitys inherent and created goodness. This tension cali-

brates any possibility of falling into an emphasis on the totaldepravity of humanity that is inconsistent with Gregorys an-


12/32

160 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

manity and its vulnerability to passions in balance, Gregory

readily acknowledges the inevitability of sin70 and Gods

commensurate refusal to enact retribution on humanity dueto that which cannot be avoided. If free will implies the nec-

essary rejection of God, at least for a time and to some de-

gree, how then is retribution a just response?

I wish, therefore, to advance the principle of vicinal cul-

pability to describe Gregorys explanation of the nature and

function of human blameworthiness, wherein culpability

is determined not by guilt or a neutral, dispassionate, and

preventable attraction to disobedience but instead by ones

proximity to the offensethat is, who is connected to or

in the vicinity of the offense. The purpose of culpability, if

so understood, is not to project guilt to elicit divine retri-

bution but merely to identify the offender, or perhaps more

appropriate for Gregory, the inrmed in need of healing and

convalescence. Gregory describes how a person is found in

proximity to the offense by following a succession from (1) (desire) to (2) (pleasure) and nally to the(3) (passions), variously described as that which in-duces desire as well as the offenses against God themselves.

By recalling these conduits between the person and the of-

fense, the offender can be identied not for divine retribution

or any punitive reaction but in order that this person might

be restored, healed, and reconciled to God. This is Gods

desire and is the solution to how God is indeed love, yet

simultaneously refuses to let humanity escape responsibility

for its transgressionsand, more important, is disinterested

in permitting anything that he created to remain dissimilar to

that which he ultimately desires it to be.

Using this same terminology to describe the dire circum-

stances that humanity must overcome, Gregory declares,

now having learned what great power for evil the diseaseof pleasure possesses, we should conduct our lives as far


13/32


some opening against us, like re whoseproximity causes an

evil ame.71 The trajectory through pleasure and eventually

ending in the passions is initiated by desire: i.e., temptation,or the beckoning of passion. Gregory discusses the role of

desire in leading astray those who are normally faithful to

God in the nal passages ofDe vita Moysis. Here, he de-

scribes desire as the very root of evil, while this desire

arises through sight,72 and is thus stimulated by temptation

and an attraction to that which is external, sensible, and eas-

ily perceptible. Desire is that attraction which arises when

one is placed within an environment hostile to virtue that

develops as a result of sins suffusing the fabric of the cos-

mos. While human beings as Gods creation remain good

and capable of cooperating with divine grace, their environs

have also decayed so that it enfolds humanity in an indis-

criminate blanket of seduction toward evil. Gregory portrays

this surrounding context as patently volatile, its capricious-

ness replicated in the actions of anyone (i.e., everyone)who comes into contact with it. Hence, Gregory observes,

Everyone knows that anything placed in a world of change

never remains the same but is always passing from one thing

to another, the alteration always bringing about something

better or worse.73 Elsewhere, Gregory relates how the rest-

less and heaving motion of life thrusts from itself those who

do not totally submerge themselves in the deceits of human

affairs and it reckons as a useless burden those whose virtue

is annoying.74

The desire and lure of disobedient behavior cultivates plea-

sure in the one who inevitably indulges. Gregory describes

this pleasure as evils bait, since it draws gluttonous souls

to the sh hook of destruction.75 While desire beckons,

pleasure is the attraction itself and assent to the temptation

that one realistically cannot refuse if it is an expression ofthe true nature of ones heart. In a way that is very consistent


14/32

162 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

es pleasure as a disease76 and even admits that pleasure is

an enemy of ours that is hard to ght and difcult to over-

come.77

We are beginning to see, therefore, that althoughhumanity possesses a free will, this does not imply that it

can consistently and continually choose virtue over passion;

rather, human beings make choices in compliance with the

complexion of their hearts, something that cannot be chosen

in any strict sense but can be sedulously molded through co-

operation with divine grace.

One gets the picture that human beings are analogous to a

feather blowing capriciously in the air this way and that by the

arbitrary thrusts of the wind, which is the decaying environ-

ment that engulfs humanity and is the outlying beckoning of

either evil or virtue. The feather responds in keeping with its

nature, being light and acquiescent. The feather is therefore

free, sometimes too free, but its choice (this word admittedly

being perhaps too imprecise and loaded) is always an expres-

sion of its own nature: lightness. St. Silouan the Athoniteoffers a similar analogy: Not all souls are equally strong.

Some are sturdy as stone, others frail as smoke. Those like

smoke are the proud souls. As the wind bears smoke hither

and thither, so does the enemy sway them whichever way he

will, for either they have no patience or else are easily de-

ceived. But the humble soul keeps the Lords commandments

and stands rm in them like a rock buffeted by the waves.78

There is a certain reciprocity between pleasure and the

passions wherein the passions can be inamed by some ex-

ternal force which can bring out the nature of the illness,

earlier identied as pleasure, whereas this pleasure itself by

way of the senses allows the passions to pour in upon the

soul from the dishonorable things which are seen.79 True

to form, Gregory is quick to point out that human nature

is especially drawn to this passion, being led to the diseasealong thousands of ways.80 But it must be recognized, as we


15/32


passions or away from the passions but rather delivers up

to passion him whom he does not protect because he is not

acknowledged by him.81

Therefore, desire, pleasure, and thepassions are, according to Gregory, inevitable obstacles that

combine to regulate the divine operations that address the

sedition and disobedience of humanity. As a disease infuses

a human being involuntarily, Gregory suggests eschatologi-

cal restoration rather than retribution, and this rst by way of

the co-suffering love of the incarnate Christ.

The Incarnate Christ and Co-suffering Love

The incarnate Christ gures prominently inDe vita Moysis,

particularly in portrayals of Moses as a type of Christ.82 The

inclusion of the incarnation as a subject closely related to the

ascent of the holy mountain is telling for at least two reasons.

First, Gregory describes the incarnation as a mechanism by

which God experiences the unfavorable circumstances with-

in which humanity unfortunately nds itself, and therewithis given cause to advance a pronouncement of mercy and,

by extension, a program of restoration. Second, it supple-

ments the historical account of Moses by underscoring its

spiritual and allegorical implications that Gregory routinely

introduces, which is very characteristic of his ultimate con-

cern: humanitys ascent of the mountain into the darkness of

knowing without knowing after the full revelation of God

in Christ, his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection.

Within a revealing exposition on the theophany of the burn-

ing bush, Gregory makes mention of the incarnation for the

rst time: For if truth is God and truth is light [of the burn-

ing bush]the Gospel testies by these sublime and divine

names to the God who made himself visible to us in the esh

such guidance of virtue leads us to know that light which has

reached down even to human nature.83

It is especially impor-tant to note with what high degree of clarity Gregory explains


16/32

164 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

ity for which he cannot but show irrepressible compassion.

Very soon after introducing the incarnation, Gregory claims,

although the divine nature is contemplated in its immuta-bility, by condescension to the weakness of human nature it

was changed to our shape and form.84 So much does God

kenotically identify with his creation that Christ became a

serpent, as too did the rod of Moses, that he might devour

and consume the Egyptian serpents produced by the sorcer-

ers,85 which Gregory earlier claimed is an image of wiping

away our inrmities before he again returned to his own

bosom the hand which had been among us and had received

our complexion.86 Therefore, while the father of sin is called

a serpent by Holy Scripture and what is born of the serpent is

certainly a serpent the Lord was made into sin for our sake

by being invested with our sinful nature.87 Eventually the ser-

pent is transformed back into the rod of faith supporting [sin-

ners] through their hopes and man, then, is freed from sin

through him who assumed the form of sin and became like uswho had turned into the form of the serpent.88

One image Gregory employs to demonstrate this sup-

port and co-suffering love is the manna that was sent from

heaven when the Hebrews were wandereding in the wilder-

ness. Again, with an acute awareness of the wildernessthe

unfavorable external conditions that disclose the inevitabil-

ity of human sin and disobedienceChrist again kenotically

descends to the level of humanity as manna. This corporeal

insertion into humanitys dire affairs compels the sinner to

purify himself of Egypt and the foreign life so that he emp-

ties the sack of his soul of all evil nourishment prepared by

the Egyptians.89 And purication is followed by restoration:

Neither ploughing nor sowing produced the body of this

bread, but the earth which remained unchanged was found

full of this divine food, of which the hungry partake. Thismiracle teaches in anticipation the mystery of the Virgin,90


17/32


18/32

166 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

ble divinity, which nullied any anticipation of retribution

on account of humanitys careless disobedience by instead

pitching his own tabernacle among us that we might behealed and have the image and likeness of God restored.

Gregory insightfully outlines the role of the incarnate Christ

to minister to the condition of those who had become ill

when he enlists Moses, as a type of Christ, to co-suffer with

humanity as one who even besought God for mercy on their

behalf.95 While the revelation of humanitys ill-conceived

priorities and indiscretions in the Old Testament is reected

in Gods presumed violent reaction to their apostasy, the full

revelation of God is understood as residing instead in the

person of Christ, of whom Moses is a type and who implores

God to be merciful and compassionate on account of his

identication with humanitys plight. In a brilliant maneu-

ver where Moses is at once both the pregured Christ who

desires mercy and intercedes on behalf of humanity and is

the humanity that has been transgured and restored by thismercy, Gregory observes, [Moses] did not rush to defend

himself against those who caused him sorrow; although they

had been condemned by impartial judgment and he knew

what was the naturally right thing to do, he nevertheless in-

terceded with God for his brethren. He would not have done

this if he had not been behind God, who had shown him his

back as a safe guide to virtue.96

Therefore, Moses is a gure of both Christ (intercessor)

and Christs followers (one who sees the back of God), for

which the restoration of humanity by means of Christs

mercy and compassion is a prerequisite.97 As Dunstone as-

serts, Humanity is thus pitiable, rather than culpable. There

seems to be little sense of deliberate disobedience to the di-

vine imperative and the resulting offence to the holy majesty

of God. There is thus an ambiguity in Gregorys referencesto sin and evil, which must colour his doctrine about the ex-


19/32


The Divine Response: Remedial Justice versus Juridical

RetributionSuch an emphasis on divine mercy should come as no sur-

prise. De vita Moysis, as with Gregorys other writings, is

replete with images of restoration, correction, purication,

and healing. What goes largely unacknowledged, however,

is the epistemological rationale that we thus far have been

exploring and for which restoration is preferred over retribu-

tion. The inevitability of sin is also an admission of the ubiq-

uity of sin, which is why Gregory famously teaches the nal

restoration ofallhumanity. Appropriately enough, Gregory

discusses this eschatological hope in a section on the harden-

ing of Pharaohs heart and, perhaps even more telling, in the

only passage on gehenna in which also appears the sole use

of the term apokatastasis in the entire treatise.99

Hope for the nal restoration of all humanity accommo-

dates images of purication and healing and is antitheticalto juridical measures that generate the reverse outcome.

Gregory describes purication as a means for accommodat-

ing guidance in virtue and a necessary step for permitting an

excess of virtue to take evils place.100 Elsewhere, Gregory

explains that purication is the obligation of the one who

wishes to approach the holy mountain,101 and is a prerequisite

for embarking on the apophatic ascent to the place where

his intelligence lets him slip in where God is. This, Gregory

continues, is called darkness by the Scripture, which signi-

es the unknown and unseen.102 The use of medical or re-

medial terminology is also very characteristic of Gregorys

soteriological and, by extension, eschatological reections.

He designates both pleasure and passions as an illness or a

disease103 and Christ, the lawgiver, as the physician [who]

accommodated the remedy to what the evil had produced.104

More graphically, Gregory illustrates how the physician


20/32

168 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

Moses is a type of Christ, perhaps the most vivid use of med-

ical language to describe Gods response to humanitys dis-

obedience is in Gregorys discussion of the brazen serpent.The entire passage is worth quoting: As a physician by his

treatment prevents a disease from prevailing, so Moses does

not permit the disease to cause death. Their unruly desires

produce serpents which inject deadly poison into those they

bit. The great lawgiver, however, rendered the real serpents

powerless by the image of a serpent. There is one antidote

for these passions: the purication of our souls which takes

place through the mystery of godliness. The chief act of faith

in the mystery is to look to him who suffered the passion

for us. The cross is the passion, so that whoever looks to it,

as the text relates, is not harmed by the poison of desire. To

look to the cross means to render ones whole life dead and

crucied to the world, unmoved by evil.106

The use of medical terminology, both purifying and heal-

ing, leads to an inquiry into what exactly is the target forretribution, for the act of purication implies the elimina-

tion of something undesirable and the act of healing insinu-

ates the recreation of that which God desires to persist and

survive. Dunstone suggests that both Gregory and St. Paul

are more concerned with the culpability of the disease and

with the misfortune of those who suffer from it.107 It must

be admitted, however, that Gregorys discussion of the nature

and function of punishment is indeed quite complex, espe-

cially if presuppositions have not been adequately addressed.

Notwithstanding this convolution, it is worth investigating to

the extent that it allows further insight into Gregorys empha-

sis on divine mercy and eschatological hope.

To this end, it is of signicant advantage to evaluate the

one instance Gregory uses the Greek word , which

denotes vengeance particularly on behalf of anothers honor.Forms of this word appear in the New Testament only three


21/32


his conversion (Acts 22:5; 26:11) and once more in Hebrews

10:29 to describe what the worst apostates deserve. Gregory

uses the word only once inDe vita Moysisin therst book, which describes the literal, rather than allegorical

and thus pedagogical, history of the life of Mosesto illus-

trate Moses reaction of breaking the tablets written with the

law in response to the idolatry of the Hebrews. It is a tting

word considering that Moses is reacting this way specically

to restore Gods honor in the face of an idolatrous substitute,

and is reasonably the only word Gregory could have used.

Notwithstanding this sole example, Gregory provides much

clarity in his allegorical rendering of this same episode,108

wherein he calibrates the literal interpretation much like

the author of the epistle to the Hebrews claries the one in-

stance in which he uses to describe what the worstapostates seemingly deserve by stating soon after that our

discipline is for a short time and for our good, that we

may share his holiness.109

Thus, in similar fashion, Gregoryproclaims, it is tting that one perceive the correction as

administered through love for mankind. While not all are

struck, the blows upon some chastise all to turn them from

evil.110 Consequently, Gregory, following St. Paul in his

second epistle to the Corinthians, calls the tablets of stone

human hearts111 that Christ through his incarnation assists

in regaining its unbroken character, becoming immortal

through the letters written by his nger.112 Moreover, in the

preceding section, Gregory cites the same passage from the

epistle to the Hebrews that its authorSt. Paul, according to

Gregoryuses to clarify and calibrate the one of three uses

of the word in the New Testament, as mentionedabove.113

Apart from this occasion, Gregory almost exclusively oper-

ates under the Greek term and its variants.114

While on its own delivers satisfaction for the inictor


22/32

170 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

itself, denotes a denite accent on correction for

the ultimate benet of the recipient, and etymologically sug-

gests the act of pruning or restraining. In this way, performs the function of purication that characterizes

Gregorys restorative emphasis. John Sachs concurs: [F]or

Gregory, as for Origen, divine punishment is not punitive

but pedagogical. God cleanses human nature and restores

it to its natural goodness as an image of God, according to

which it is naturally attracted to the innite goodness of God

and is capable of choosing and clinging to God. Finally puri-

ed in the eschatological ame and no longer impeded by

the sin and mutability of earthly existence, human beings

will persist in the good of Gods love eternally.115

Consequently, Gregorys understanding of punishment

replaces humanity as a target for divine vengeance with evil

instead as the intended victimthat is, the desire, pleasure,

and passions whose vicinal qualities permit identication

of the one in need of purication or.

Therefore,Gregorys use of the term when describing divine

punishment as purication and his extensive use of medi-

cal terminology bet the principle of vicinal culpability: to

prune and purify is to separate the offender from the offense

after the identication of the offender has been veried, and

is therefore the only appropriate response within a vicinal

paradigm that seeks to specify proximity to the offense.

To illustrate the altruistic character of Gods punishment,

von Balthasar observes, Sex and the passions, Gregory

tells us, are apunishmentinicted by God for the sin arising

from our freedom. On the other hand, he continues, it is

undeniable that, in the perspective of real becoming, these

passions, sexuality itself, are an undeniablefavorbestowed

on the spirit.116 This is the seemingly contradictory nature of

noneschatological ,

whether sex, the passions, evenfreedom itself, that in order to be receptive to restoration,


23/32


24/32

172 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

in Gregory of NyssasDe vita Moysis is seamlessly integrat-

ed into an anthropological and soteriological framework of

free will, creaturely limitations, divine mercy, compassion,co-suffering, forbearance, love, and the restoration of the im-

age and likeness of God. Gregorys apokatastasis demands

an eschatological response of universal restoration and heal-

ing, Gods propitiation being realized when all things are

subjected to him and when God may be everything to ev-

eryone,130 a matter for which Gregory devotes an entire trea-

tise.131 But Gregory could envisage the restoration of all God

had created because his understanding of human culpability

was not hostile to mercys precedence over retribution. The

inevitability of sin, of disobedience and sedition against God,

renders suspect and inconsistent any principle or ideology

that encourages divine retribution and does not adequately

account for the ineluctability of human disobedience and the

inexpediency of avenging that which cannot be avoided.

Just as it would be imprudent to exact vengeance on some-one suffering under an illness, the Great Physician effectuates

healing, which at times includes the pain of purication but

always entails, eventually, restoration and reconciliation with

the triune God. By keeping in sight the summit of the holy

mountain which lies ahead, Gregory spends the entirety ofDe

vita Moysis underscoring the arduousness of the escape from

slavery in Egypt, overcoming seemingly inviolable obstacles

such as the Red Sea; the monotony, insecurity, and uncertain-

ty of wandering in the wilderness; and the ascent of the holy

mountain itself. In doing so, Gregory enlightens the recipi-

ent of his treatise by underscoring the empathy and solicitude

that God learned when he himself kenotically descended to

our burdensome and disadvantageous circumstances by tak-

ing on esh and co-suffering with his creation, at that time

pronouncing the hope of a life in Christ to all humanity.


25/32


nOTEs

1

See, for instance, Andreas Andreopoulos, Eschatology and Final Res-toration (apokatastasis) in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximos the

Confessor, Theandros 1, no. 3 (Spring 2004): www.theandros.com/res-

toration.html; Georges Barrois, The Alleged Origenism of St. Gregory

of Nyssa, St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 30, no. 1 (1986): 716,

esp. 1416; Brian Daley, Hope of the Early Church (New York: Cam-

bridge Univ. Press, 1991), 8589; Jean Danilou, S.J., Lapocatastase

chez Saint Grgoire de Nyssa, Recherches de Science Religieuse 30

(1940): 32847; Morwenna Ludlow, Universal Salvation: Eschatology

in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner(New York: OxfordUniv. Press, 2000); John R. Sachs, Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology,

Theological Studies 54, no. 4 (December 1993): 61740, esp. 63238;

Michael J. Tori, Apokatastasis in Gregory of Nyssa: From Origen to Or-

thodoxy,Patristic and Byzantine Review 15, nos. 13 (1997): 87100;

and Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, The Concept of Universal Salvation in

Saint Gregory of Nyssa, in Greek Patristic Theology: Basic Doctrines

in Eastern Church Fathers, vol. 1 (New York: Eastern Orthodox Press,

1979), 4156.2

Sachs, Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology, 633.3 This refers to the fourteenth anathema against Origen (cf. NPNF2

14:318). This is a complicated issue, however, with scholarly opinions

that vary too much to explore in this essay. Sergius Bulgakov observed,

It has hitherto been thought that the doctrine of Origen was condemned

at the fth ecumenical council, but recent historical studies do not per-

mit us to afrm this, later mentioning that the doctrines of Gregory of

Nyssa have never been condemned and can be discussed in the very

least as theologoumena, or theological opinions (Sergius Bulgakov, The

Orthodox Church [Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press,1988], 185). Brian Daley believes that what was anathematized at Con-

stantinople II is actually an exaggerated misinterpretation of Origens

eschatological hope, that it was a radicalized Evagrian Christology

and cosmology, and a doctrine of apokatastasis that went far beyond

the hopes of Origen or Gregory of Nyssa (Daley, Hope of the Early

Church, 190). Elsewhere, Daley asserts that Gregory offers a cautious,

undogmatic support of the Origenist position (84). Georges Barrois also

defends an Orthodox interpretation where Origen perhaps goes too far,

or at least speculates beyond what is possible to know with any certainty:The canons condemning the errors of Origen ought not to be read as

t di ti iti t t t f O th d d t i (B i Al


26/32

174 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

leged Origenism of St. Gregory, 8). See also Henri Crouzel, Origen(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989), 178; G. Mller, Origenes unddie Apokatastasis, Theologische Zeitschrift14 (1958): 189; and Sachs,Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology, 639f.4 All English references are to Everett Ferguson and Abraham J. Mal-

hebre, trans., Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of Moses, Classics of Western

Spirituality, vol. 31 (New York: Paulist, 1978), hereafterVit. Moys. Allreferences to the original Greek will not be to the usual Gregorii Nysseni

Opera, on which the English translation is based, but will instead be to

the more accessible J-P. Migne,Patrologiae Graeca: S. Gregorius Nys-

senus, vol. 44 (Paris: Migne, 1863), hereafterPG. For the most part, Iwill simply use the divisions of Jean Danilous French translation Greg-

ory of Nyssa: The Life of Moses, ed. Jean Danilou, Sources chrtiennes,

vol. 1 (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1968), which were also adopted by CWS.5 See Andrew P. Klager, Orthodox Eschatology and St. Gregory of

Nyssas De vita Moysis: Transguration, Cosmic Unity, and Compas-sion, in Compassionate Eschatology: Apocalypse or New Beginning?

(Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2011).6 See Anthony Levi, Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual

Genesis (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 2002), 62; Alister E. Mc-Grath,Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Black-

well, 1999), 8287; Walter L. Moore Jr., Protean Man: Did JohnEck Contradict Himself at Leipzig? Harvard Theological Review 72,

nos. 34 (July 1979): 246, 250f., 256f., 263; Heiko A. Oberman, Four-teenth-Century Religious Thought: A Premature Prole, Speculum 53,no. 1 (January 1978): 86, 88f.7Vit. Moys. 2.242:PG 405B.8See J. Warren Smith,Passion and Paradise: Human and Divine Emo-

tion in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa (New York: Herder and Herder,

2004), 62f., 6872, 2046. On or the suspension of passion, seeJean Danilou, S.J., Platonisme et theologie mystique: Doctrine spiri-tuelle de Saint Gregorie de Nysse (Aubier: Editions Montaigne, 1944),63ff., 92103.9Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs

Seminary Press, 1995), 105f., 11119.10See Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

(Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1957), 6790.11Robert W. Jenson, Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, Theology

Today 62, no. 4 (January 2006): 536. See also Ernest Vernon McClear,The Fall of Man and Original Sin in the Theology of Gregory of Nys-


27/32


12Gerhart B. Ladner, The Philosophical Anthropology of Saint Gregory

of Nyssa, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (1958): 84. This notion is ex-

plicated most thoroughly inDe natura hominis 1,PG XL:521B524A.13Hans Urs von Balthasar,Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Re-

ligious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995),

37.14Barrois, Alleged Origenism of St. Gregory, 12.15The freedom of the will is a dominant motif in GregorysDe vita Moy-

sis and occupies much of his thought on human culpability as well as

his anthropology. See, for instance, Vit. Moys. 1.12; 2.3; 2.74:PG 301D;

328B; 348AB.

16See, for instance, Paul M. Blowers, Maximus the Confessor, Greg-ory of Nyssa, and the Concept of Perpetual Progress, Vigiliae Chris-

tianae 46, no. 2 (1992): 156; Albert-Kees Geljon, Divine Innity in

Gregory of Nyssa and Philo of Alexandria, Vigiliae Christianae 59,

no. 2 (2005): 162; Anthony Meredith, S.J., Gregory of Nyssa (New York:

Routledge, 1999), 24.17Vit. Moys. 2.318:PG 429A.18See Michel Ren Barnes, Divine Unity and the Divided Self: Gregory

of Nyssas Trinitarian Theology in Its Psychological Context, ModernTheology 18, no. 4 (October 2002): 481f.; David B. Hart, The Mirror

and the Innite: Gregory of Nyssa on the Vestigia Trinitatis, Modern

Theology 18, no. 4 (October 2002): 549.19Vit. Moys. 2.45:PG 337D340A. Cf. Sara J. Denning-Bolle, Gregory

of Nyssa: The Soul in Mystical Flight, Greek Orthodox Theological

Review 34, no. 2 (Summer 1989): 10811; Jenson, Gregory of Nyssa,

Life of Moses, 536.20Vit. Moys. 2.46:PG 340A (emphases mine). Cf. Vit. Moys. 2.56; 2.65;

2.216:PG 341BC; 344CD; 397BC.21Vit. Moys. 2.75:PG 348B. Cf. C. W. Macleod, The Preface to Greg-

ory of Nyssas Life of Moses,Journal of Theological Studies 33, no. 1

(April 1982): 187f.22Vit. Moys. 2.74:PG 348AB.23Vit. Moys. 2.80:PG 349AB.24Vit. Moys. 2.78:PG 348D.25Vit. Moys. 2.132:PG 365B.

26Vit. Moys. 2.277:PG 416AB.27Patrick F OConnell The Double Journey in Saint Gregory of Nys-


28/32

176 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

(Winter 1983): 309.28Cf. Vit. Moys. 2.2726:PG 413C416A.29

Vit. Moys. 2.125:PG 361D364B. See also Vit. Moys. 2.22:PG 333A.30See Jean Danilou, S.J., Introduction, inFrom Glory to Glory: Texts

from Gregory of Nyssas Mystical Writings, ed. and trans. Herbert Musu-

rillo, S.J. (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2001), 58f.

Cf. Vit. Moys. 2.187:PG 385C388A. For more on Gods grace and con-

tribution to salvation, see 2.34; 2.44; 2.138; 2.215:PG 336C; 337CD;

368BC; 397AB. For more on synergism and human cooperation in

salvation, see 2.118; 2.148; 2.17980; 2.241: PG 360D361A; 369D

372A; 384AC; 405AB.

31Cf. Vit. Moys. 1.18; 2.6566; 2.7476; 2.80; 2.89; 2.24344:PG 305A;344C345A; 348AC; 349AB; 352BC; 405BD.32Vit. Moys. 2.110111:PG 357BD.33See Sachs, Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology, 632.34 Theoria is the perception or vision of the intellect through which

one attains spiritual knowledge. The intellect, however, is not equated

with the rational faculties or reason (dianoia) but is instead the high-

est faculty in man, through whichprovided it is puriedhe knows

God or the inner essences or principles of created things by means ofdirect apprehension or spiritual perception. Theoria, then, is the direct

experience of God via the purity of ones soul and lifei.e., the purity

of heart, which, far from being the mere physical organ, Gregory calls

the foremost part of the soul (G. E. H. Palmer, et al., eds. and trans.,

The Philokalia, vol. 1 (London: Faber and Faber, 1979), 358f., 361f.;

Vit. Moys. 2.215. Cf. Vit. Moys. 2.43; 2.48; 2.136; 2.150; 2.153; 2.154;

2.156; 2.162; 2.169; 2.178; 2.180; 2.181; 2.200; 2.208; 2.219.35From the Greek word apophatike, meaning away from speech (Deir-

dre Carabine, The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tra-dition; Plato to Eriugena (Louvain: Peeters, 1995), 2. See also Robert S.

Brightman, Apophatic Theology and Divine Innity in St. Gregory of

Nyssa, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 18 (1973): 97114, esp. 111.36 Lewis Ayres, On Not Three People: The Fundamental Themes of

Gregory of Nyssas Trinitarian Theology as Seen in To Ablabius: On

Not Three Gods, inRe-Thinking Gregory of Nyssa, ed. Sarah Coakley

(Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2003), 17.37Gregory maintains that the sequence of intellectual contemplation

(theoria) includes the images and impressions of virtue, as it is shown

to him by God, [which] are imprinted on the purity of the soul. Vit.


29/32


38Vit. Moys. 2.163:PG 376D377A.39Vit. Moys. 2.164:PG 377AB. Cf. 2.16269; 2.176; 2.234:PG 376C;

381C; 404AB.40Vit. Moys. 1.5:PG 300CD.41Vit. Moys. 1.46:PG 317AB. Cf. 2.119. [T]he way that one is capable

of receiving (PG 361AB).42Vit. Moys. 1.56:PG 320D321A.43Vit. Moys. 2.273:PG 413CD.44Denning-Bolle, Mystical Flight, 1089.45Vit. Moys. 2.47:PG 340AB. Cf. 2.152; 2.163; 2.169; 2.189; 2.234:

PG 372CD; 376D377A; 380A; 388B; 404AB.46Vit. Moys. 2.154:PG 373BC.47Vit. Moys. 2.157:PG 373D. See also Martin Laird, By Faith Alone:

A Technical Term in Gregory of Nyssa, Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 1

(2000): 71. Lairds study, however, is less applicable toDe vita Moysis.48Vit. Moys. 2.166:PG 377CD.49 Vit. Moys. 1.30:PG 309C.50 Vit. Moys. 2.17273:PG 380C381A.51 Vit. Moys. 2.181:PG 384C.

52 Vit. Moys. 2.251: PG 408D. Cf. Jenson, Gregory of Nyssa, Life ofMoses, 535.53 Cf. Blowers, Perpetual Progress, 15171; Danilou,Platonisme et

theologie mystique, 30926; Danilou, Introduction, 5169; Geljon,

Divine Innity in Gregory of Nyssa, 15277, esp. 162f.; Macleod,

Preface to Gregory of Nyssas Life of Moses, 18890; Meredith,

Gregory of Nyssa, 13f., 22; OConnell, Double Journey in Saint Greg-

ory of Nyssa, 318f.; Smith,Passion and Paradise, 11f., 18f.; Balthasar,

Presence and Thought, 37f.

54 Blowers, Perpetual Progress, 156.55 See Geljon, Divine Innity in Gregory of Nyssa, 162.56 Vit. Moys. 1.6: PG 301A. Cf. 1.58; 2.220; 2.22426; 2.230; 2.235;

2.23839; 2.242: PG 300CD301B; 400AB; 400D401B; 401CD;

404B; 404C405A; 405B.57 Geljon, Divine Innity in Gregory of Nyssa, 162.58 Vit. Moys. 2.277:PG 416AB.59 Vit. Moys. 2.56. Cf. Everett Ferguson, Gods Innity and Mans Mu-

tability: Perpetual Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa, Greek Or-

thodox Theological Review 18, nos. 12 (Spring/Fall 1973): 71.60 Vit. Moys. 2.14:PG 329D332A. Cf. 2.276:PG 416A.


30/32

178 GOTR 55:1-4 2010

62 Vit. Moys. 2.299:PG 424A.63 Vit. Moys. 2.63:PG 344BC. Cf. 2.122; 2.297; 2.301:PG 361C; 421D;

424BC.64 Vit. Moys. 2.129:PG 364D.65 Vit. Moys. 2.279:PG 416BC.66A. S. Dunstone, The Atonement in Gregory of Nyssa (London: Tyndale,

1964), 11.67 Vit. Moys. 1.10; 2.1011; 2.5758; 2.81; 2.9192; 2.148; 2.260; 2.308.

PG 301BC; 329B; 341CD; 349B; 352C353A; 369D372A; 412A;

425B. See Andrew P. Klager, Retaining and Reclaiming the Divine:

Identication and the Recapitulation of Peace in St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Atonement Narrative, in Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identifcation

and the Victory of Christ, ed. Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin (Grand

Rapids Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 427f.68 Vit. Moys. 2.65PG 344CD. Cf. 1.13; 1.20:PG 301D304A; 305CD.69 Vit. Moys. 2.252:PG 408D409A.70 Vit. Moys. 2.299:PG 424A.71 Vit. Moys. 2.303 (emphases mine): PG 424C. Cf. 2.304; 2.318: PG

424D; 429A.72 Vit. Moys. 2.304:PG 424D.73 Vit. Moys. 2.2:PG 326AB.74 Vit. Moys. 2.9:PG 329B. Cf. 2.57; 2.243:PG 341CD; 405BC.75 Vit. Moys. 2.297:PG 421D.76 Vit. Moys. 2.301; 2.303:PG 424BC; 424C.77 Vit. Moys. 2.301:PG 424BC.78 St. Silouan the Athonite, St. Silouan the Athonite, ed. Archimandrite

Sophrony (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1991), 438.79 Vit. Moys. 2.71:PG 345CD. Cf. 2.122:PG 361C.80 Vit. Moys. 2.271:PG 413BC.81 Vit. Moys. 2.75:PG 348B.82 Cf. OConnell, Double Journey in Saint Gregory of Nyssa, 306f.83 Vit. Moys. 2.20:PG 332CD.84 Vit. Moys. 2.28:PG 333D336A.85 Vit. Moys. 2.33:PG 336BC.86 Vit. Moys. 2.30:PG 336A.87 Vit. Moys. 2.32:PG 336B. Cf. 2.275:PG 413D416A.88 Vit. Moys. 2.276:PG 416A.89 Vit. Moys. 2.138:PG 368BC.90 Vit. Moys. 2.139:PG 368C.91 Vit. Moys. 2.216:PG 397BC.92 Vit. Moys. 2.217:PG 397CD.


31/32


94 Vit. Moys. 2.175:PG 381BC.95 Vit. Moys. 2.261:PG 412AB.96 Vit. Moys. 2.263:PG 412BC. Cf. 2.251:PG 408D.97 Cf. Vit. Moys. 1.48; 2.182:PG 317C; 384CD.98 Dunstone,Atonement in Gregory of Nyssa, 10.99 Vit. Moys. 2.82:PG 349BC. Cf. 2.58; 2.78; 2.193; 2.206; 2.26970:

PG 341D; 348D; 389BC; 393CD; 413AB.100 Vit. Moys. 2.2878:PG 417D420B.101 Vit. Moys. 1.42:PG 316A.102 Vit. Moys. 2.169:PG 380A.103 Vit. Moys. 2.7071; 2.79; 2.303:PG 345BD; 348D349A; 424C.104 Vit. Moys. 2.278:PG 416B. Cf. 2.87; 2.172:PG 352AB; 380CD.105 Vit. Moys. 2.87:PG 352AB. Cf. 2.277:PG 416AB.106 Vit. Moys. 2.2724:PG 413CD.107 Dunstone,Atonement in Gregory of Nyssa, 16.108 Vit. Moys. 2.20218:PG 392D397D.109 Heb 12:10 RSV.110 Vit. Moys. 2.206:PG 393CD.111Vit. Moys. 2.215:PG 397AB.112 Vit. Moys. 2.216:PG 397BC.113 Vit. Moys. 2.193:PG 389BC.114 Vit. Moys. 1.25; 1.62; 2.91; 2.205; 2.308:PG 308C; 321C; 352CD;

393C; 425B.115 Sachs, Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology, 637.116 Balthasar,Presence and Thought, 78.117 Cf. Smith,Passion and Paradise, 80; Meredith, Gregory of Nyssa, 21f.118 Vit. Moys. 2.92:PG 352D353A. Cf. 2.93101:PG 353A356B.119 Vit. Moys. 1.62:PG 321C.120 Ibid.121 Vit. Moys. 2.15:PG 332A.122 Ibid.123 Ibid.124 Vit. Moys. 2.78:PG 348D.125 Vit. Moys. 2.276:PG 416A.126 Vit. Moys. 2.315:PG 428BC.127 Vit. Moys. 2.275:PG 413D416A.128 See Balthasar,Presence and Thought, 27.129 Vit. Moys. 2.193; 2.206:PG 389BC; 393CD.130 1 Cor 15:28 RSV.131 Gregory of Nyssa, When (the Father) Will Subject All Things to (the

Son): A Treatise on 1 Corinthians 15:28, trans. Brother Casimir, Greek


32/32

Copyright of Greek Orthodox Theological Review is the property of Holy Cross Orthodox Press and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Free Will and Vicinal Culpability

Documents

Transcript of Free Will and Vicinal Culpability