Non Duality and Christianity

[ACL777]

Does non-dual consciousness have any place in Christianity? I have found that some of Jesus words could be perceived as pointing towards a non-dual reality between us and God. However charismatic Christianity appears to have never really addressed the subject. Every book or teaching I have stumbled across seems to embrace concepts that can be found in eastern spiritual practices and broad paths towards God.

 

[Tobias]

Non duality -- as in we are already one with God?

Well, we were made in the image of God. But then there's the Fall of Man. Reconciliation through Christ could put us back into oneness with God, especially with the teachings of the Grace Movement.

I guess it all depends on which approach you want to take. If you find evidence for it in the Gospels, then it would be a biblical approach, right? That tends to work really well around here!

Present your theories along with the scripture passages you derive them from, and you will most certainly spark a lively discussion!

 

[Simon_Templar]

I'm assuming that by non-duality you mean the idea that we are one with God in a substantive way. Possibly the idea that the apparent differences between us and God are illusory etc.

The bible doesn't support this view and Christianity has never embraced such a view. There are often subtle differences in theology that have important, even drastic consequences. For example, Christianity teaches that God created everything, and that all physical creation is an expression of God. Thus we can see in creation the very mind and attributes of God revealed by what he has made. This can be a subtle distinction from pantheism or panentheism. But the distinction is important, even vital because it results in true worship which can be inspired by recognizing God's image in nature, and idolatry which result when nature itself is worshiped as God.

I suspect the same is true in non-dualism. Christianity teaches that God's intent for humanity was always for us to be united to him as family, sharing in the life of the divine family of the Trinity. This is a very deep, profound communion that the Ancients referred to as theosis, or deification. The idea that through communion with God we share in aspects of his nature. We become like him.

However, though this union is very real, and very profound, there are some key points of difference that distinguish it from non-duality concepts as commonly understood.

First, Christianity teaches that we as creatures, and specifically as fallen creatures are not capable of this communion. Thus it can not already exist. It can only be accomplished through Jesus Christ. The incarnation of God as a man becomes the necessary gateway for man to come into communion with God.

Secondly, though we can be transformed into the likeness of Christ, and in so doing we can share in the life and nature of God, there is no confusion of persons or substance. In other words, our personality is not lost by our communion with God, and we do not become God, nor do we cease to be human.

 

[ACL777]

@Tobias.I didn't want to post isolated scriptures as for ever scripture posted I could trawl the bible for one that supports dualism as well. I will if you want but I don't see it will help and I'm not trying to argue the non-dualist point but in some ways posted so it could be disqualified from my thinking. It's just something that's been bugging me. By non-dualism though I was thinking of Christ consciousness that as a result of the atonement we through a conscious development initiated by the Holy Spirit working with our spirits attain Christ likeness. As a result we become one with God and are interlinked . Basically as a result of Jesus sacrifice we are restored to our pre fall state of being one and one being in all. In otherwords Dualism being a condition that came as a result of the fall and is nothing more than an illusion.

@Simon_Templar. Thanks for explaining the difference. In many ways you have completely addressed the issue. I was looking for someone to highlight the subtle differences that I was struggling to identify .

Non-duality also often takes a meterphorical stance on the bible. I believe the bible is the inspired word of God and influenced by the Holy Spirit but is it possible that stories such as Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt are meterphorical as opposed to a literal happening that clearly defies the law of Gods science . Non-duality would also consider the bible to be a manifestation of collective cultural consciousness of the time rather than an absolute pattern for life to be preached from platforms.

 

[Simon_Templar]

@Tobias.I didn't want to post isolated scriptures as for ever scripture posted I could trawl the bible for one that supports dualism as well. I will if you want but I don't see it will help and I'm not trying to argue the non-dualist point but in some ways posted so it could be disqualified from my thinking. It's just something that's been bugging me. By non-dualism though I was thinking of Christ consciousness that as a result of the atonement we through a conscious development initiated by the Holy Spirit working with our spirits attain Christ likeness. As a result we become one with God and are interlinked . Basically as a result of Jesus sacrifice we are restored to our pre fall state of being one and one being in all. In otherwords Dualism being a condition that came as a result of the fall and is nothing more than an illusion.

@Simon_Templar. Thanks for explaining the difference. In many ways you have completely addressed the issue. I was looking for someone to highlight the subtle differences that I was struggling to identify .

Non-duality also often takes a meterphorical stance on the bible. I believe the bible is the inspired word of God and influenced by the Holy Spirit but is it possible that stories such as Lots wife turning into a pillar of salt are meterphorical as opposed to a literal happening that clearly defies the law of Gods science . Non-duality would also consider the bible to be a manifestation of collective cultural consciousness of the time rather than an absolute pattern for life to be preached from platforms.

Hi ACL,

regarding the bible, obviously your beliefs are your own and I'm not trying to tell you what to believe etc, but I wanted to give you some of the historic and in my opinion, correct/orthodox view of how scripture should be understood.

First, of course, the bible teaches a "supernatural" view of reality, rather than a naturalist or materialist view. God exists outside of and above created nature. As such he is not bound by the laws of nature or the physical universe. In fact, Christianity would generally hold that purely spiritual beings such as God and angels are not bound by the physical laws as we know them.

I point this out simply because there is a prevailing modernist bias against supernatural views and against belief in the miraculous etc. This view is a purely modern phenomenon and I don't find it to be particularly rational or logical.

Second, the historic, traditional view of interpreting scripture is that there are several senses or ways that scripture can be understood in. For example there is the metaphorical, the allegorical, the spiritual, the literal, and perhaps the typological sense.

A scripture could have intended messages in any or each of these senses. So one scripture may have an intended message in the literal sense and another intended message in the metaphorical, allegorical, spiritual, typological, etc.

However, the constant view of the Church historically/traditionally has always been that the literal sense is the foundation and source of all the others. In other words, even if you take an allegorical or metaphorical meaning out of some passage, you can't simply abandoned or ignore the literal sense.

This arises from the insistence of the Church that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Though it was written by human authors, God inspired them so that they wrote what He intended. As a result all proper exegesis, or understanding of the text must begin from the belief that God intended those specific words for a reason.

This doesn't mean that everything must be taken literally in the extreme sense that some people push. There are places where the text obviously intends something to be figurative, poetic, etc... and in those cases taking it "literally" in right understanding means to realize that those specific words were chosen for a reason and the reason they were chosen was to express a figurative or poetic meaning etc.

What this means is that nothing in the bible can simply be dismissed as "mere mythology" or just cultural expressions and so on.

An example of this is that Paul says in Galatians that Isaac and Ishmael were an allegory for the two covenants (Moses and Abraham). This is an example of typology. The story of Isaac and Ishmael illustrates typological/allegorical truths about the covenants of Abraham and Moses, and about God's plan of salvation. However, this in no way means that there wasn't a real Isaac, or a real Ishmael, nor that the biblical stories involving them can simply be dismissed as mythology. That would be to completely miss the point.

PS.
I wanted to add a post script about the relationship between physical and spiritual reality. Christianity and Judaism are significantly different than many other Ancient belief systems in this regard. It was common in other philosophical systems to view physical reality as either inherently bad, or as a hinderance, or as an illusion etc. Christianity and Judaism both reject this idea. They both insist that physical reality, the physical creation is very good (though fallen and damaged by sin). Further they both teach that, although spirit came first and it is in a sense superior to physical reality, the physical creation is an expression of the spiritual world, or spiritual reality. They are not intended to be distinctly separated or opposed. The tension that exists between the two is the result of sin and fallen nature.

In the Christian and Jewish (ancient Judaism, not necessarily all modern Judaism) view, the physical creation will exist forever. We will not exist forever in some disembodied spiritual state, but rather the physical creation that exists now, tainted and damaged by sin, will be renewed and transformed through Christ into a perfected glorified physical creation that will exist forever.

 

[ACL777]

Great post. I agree with what you've said or should I say understand your points. I actually feel my non duality question has been knocked on the head which is what I wanted rather than a long drawn out discussion with opposing views achieving no clarity.