|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Original Sin
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't want to derail the thread by going on a tangent about sacraments, I simply wanted to know what you were referring to.
If there's precious little scriptural evidence for sacraments according to your schema, then I find myself wondering how much scriptural support there is for church leaders to have military sounding titles, for people to march round playing tubas and banging drums in military style uniforms ...
Two can play at that game.
Your more pertinent point was about 'churchifying' the OT. I agree with that to some extent, it's a tendency we are all guilty of, not just the RCs.
It strikes me though, as this is Kerygmania, that the texts most commonly cited in support of an Augustinian view of Original Sin are chiefly NT ones - notably the passage in Romans 5 that has already been quoted.
How about OT passages to support the idea? We are making a big assumption if we assume the Jews understood the Fall in the same way as Augustine and subsequent Western Christians.
What OT passages might we consider in addition to the Genesis story?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of OT passages that explicitly 'teach' the doctrine of Original Sin unless we understand the Psalm reference Find sin my mother conceived me' in that kind of way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Well, first of all I would suggest that our penchant for uniforms and all-things military is not doctrinal or theological - it's missional/PR
Secondly, you won't find much about Heaven or Hell in the OT either. In fact you won't find much Christian doctrine there either. That's why there is a New Testament.
As gar as texts are concerned, I would cite Psalm 51 v 1 & 2 which says:
quote:
According to the multitude of your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
Transgressions = rebellion, deliberate chosen sinful actions
Iniquity = crookedness, not an action, but the character of an action. the corrupt inclination of the human heart.
Sin = failure to reach the required standard, the falling short despite our efforts.
The Bible does talk about the 'iniquity of my sn' which means the basic root cause of the wrong action - it's the crooked heart. The inate wrongness of character even before a sin is committed.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the Wesleyan emphasis, of course, the Orthodox regard that as the closest thing within Protestantism to their own take on these matters - they are a lot more comfortable with Wesley than they are with Calvin - although they'd part company with Wesley on various issues.
Wesley was steeped in Patristics of course. But then, so was Calvin, although with somewhat different conclusions.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Surely that's a bit of a hermeneutical leap, though, in the interpretation of that particular OT verse.
I've always understood it in the way you've outlined it there, however, is that an interpretation that is intrinsically in the text or is it one we are projecting back from our own Western Christian standpoint?
I mean, looking at those verses now it strikes me that they could be understood in several ways. They don't necessarily 'demand' the kind of interpretation thee and me both have applied to them ...
On the OT/NT thing - of course there's a development/expansion going on. I'm just intrigued as to which OT verses lend themselves to an Augustinian interpretation ...
I think you've made a good stab at it but it doesn't strike me that your way is the only way those verses could be understood. They could just as easily be interpreted differently, as simply a prayer for forgiveness for what the writer has 'done' rather than what they 'are'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, I can see that the prayer could indeed be because of his sinful activities with Mrs Uriah, but David does go ona bit about being brought forth in iniquity and acknowledging that God demands truth in the 'inward parts.'
He does also pray for a clean heart to be created within him, which rather suggests tat his heart was unclean. I guess the question would be, did his adultery and subsequent murderous action give him an unclean heart, of was the action because of his already unclean heart?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
It is highly problematic to read doctrine into the Psalms, their genre is poetry and such the literary genre lends itself to hyperbole and exaggeration, not intended to be read literally.
The Psalms speak of God as having nostrils, (Psalm 18:8). Surely we don't mean this literally.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure. As I say, it's possible to understand these things in various ways. I suspect it depends largely on which tradition within Christianity we've been steeped in.
If we are Western and Augustinian then we are going to be predisposed to interpreting David's prayers of contrition in a way that fits our theology.
If we were Orthodox then we might be less inclined to interpret it in that way.
We all approach these things through filters and lenses. There is no way around that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure. As I say, it's possible to understand these things in various ways. I suspect it depends largely on which tradition within Christianity we've been steeped in.
If we are Western and Augustinian then we are going to be predisposed to interpreting David's prayers of contrition in a way that fits our theology.
If we were Orthodox then we might be less inclined to interpret it in that way.
We all approach these things through filters and lenses. There is no way around that.
In a way, I wish some Christians would be honest about that in terms of their reading of Scripture, instead of insisting that their interpretation is the "right" way of reading Scripture.
The interesting question, is why is the doctrine so compelling that makes some Christians insistent that it's absolutely correct. I don't think a Protestant view of original sin, in either its Calvinist or Wesleyan interpretations, can be separated from PSA. Basically, the punishment effected on our Lord as a substitution for us can only be justified morally if we really were that bad.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure. As I say, it's possible to understand these things in various ways. I suspect it depends largely on which tradition within Christianity we've been steeped in.
If we are Western and Augustinian then we are going to be predisposed to interpreting David's prayers of contrition in a way that fits our theology.
If we were Orthodox then we might be less inclined to interpret it in that way.
We all approach these things through filters and lenses. There is no way around that.
In a way, I wish some Christians would be honest about that in terms of their reading of Scripture, instead of insisting that their interpretation is the "right" way of reading Scripture.
The interesting question, is why is the doctrine so compelling that makes some Christians insistent that it's absolutely correct. I don't think a Protestant view of original sin, in either its Calvinist or Wesleyan interpretations, can be separated from PSA. Basically, the punishment effected on our Lord as a substitution for us can only be justified morally if we really were that bad.
Erm... or needed a sacrifice or a ransom paid.
I don't see how only PSA is relevant to original sin.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure. As I say, it's possible to understand these things in various ways. I suspect it depends largely on which tradition within Christianity we've been steeped in.
If we are Western and Augustinian then we are going to be predisposed to interpreting David's prayers of contrition in a way that fits our theology.
If we were Orthodox then we might be less inclined to interpret it in that way.
We all approach these things through filters and lenses. There is no way around that.
In a way, I wish some Christians would be honest about that in terms of their reading of Scripture, instead of insisting that their interpretation is the "right" way of reading Scripture.
The interesting question, is why is the doctrine so compelling that makes some Christians insistent that it's absolutely correct. I don't think a Protestant view of original sin, in either its Calvinist or Wesleyan interpretations, can be separated from PSA. Basically, the punishment effected on our Lord as a substitution for us can only be justified morally if we really were that bad.
Erm... or needed a sacrifice or a ransom paid.
I don't see how only PSA is relevant to original sin.
Because PSA insists that the problem is guilt, guilt from original sin.
Punishment is related guilt,
cure is related to illness,
pardon of debt is related to debt.
Original sin in the western model is not that we just suffer the consequences of Adam's sin (the patristic and orthodox view), it is that we are plainly guilty in the same way that Adam is guilty.
Only PSA sees the cross as God punishing His Son, a penal theology necessitates a theology of guilt.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A PSA understanding of the atonement does, historically, have its roots in Augustinian theology - so there is a connection.
That doesn't mean that Augustine and Anselm and their successors in mediaeval Western Catholicism understood the atonement in the same way as contemporary evangelicals.
I can see how a form of ransom theory can be compatible with Original Sin. The Fathers seem to have held to various forms of that, but they didn't necessarily hold to an Augustinian view of Original Sin.
On the literalism thing, I'm not sure it's the case that RCs understand the 'chalice' reference in the Missal as literally as Mudfrog seems to suggest.
On the use of the Psalms to bolster doctrinal points, it strikes me that all Christian traditions use elements from the Psalms to make Christological points, something that has NT precedent of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
On the use of the Psalms to bolster doctrinal points, it strikes me that all Christian traditions use elements from the Psalms to make Christological points, something that has NT precedent of course.
I read last week of a new book which argues that the foundation of the doctrine of the deity of Christ is that early Christians read the Psalms as an inner dialogue between Father and Son within the Godhead.
I would be interested in reading how the author deals with Psalm 51 and Christ being the penitent.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Because PSA insists that the problem is guilt, guilt from original sin.
Punishment is related guilt,
cure is related to illness,
pardon of debt is related to debt.
Original sin in the western model is not that we just suffer the consequences of Adam's sin (the patristic and orthodox view), it is that we are plainly guilty in the same way that Adam is guilty.
Only PSA sees the cross as God punishing His Son, a penal theology necessitates a theology of guilt.
But a theology of guilt doesn't necessitate a theology of penalty.
[ 06. January 2017, 23:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Wesley was steeped in Patristics of course. But then, so was Calvin, although with somewhat different conclusions.
Must depend on how large a part Augustine plays in your tea ball. For some people he's the Alpha and Omega of patristics. There was a shipmate just a month or two ago claiming that anybody who didn't acknowledge Augustine as the third coming was a hypocrite and a liar and a poor judge of whisky.
Not saying Calvin was quite so simple-minded.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Righteous does not equal sinless.
Doesn't it?
quote:
1. in the broad sense, the state of him who is such as he ought to be, righteousness ; the condition acceptable to God
Yes, a condition acceptable to God - which can only be by grace and forgiveness. If I am acceptable to god it is because I have been justified, not because I have any inherent righteousness.
By grace are ye saved, through faith; and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God lest any man should boast.
?
That does not explain why Luke would point out three righteous people at the beginning of his gospel.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
OK, look at the verse in which Zacharias and Elizabeth are described as righteous:
quote:
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Luke 1 v 6
It was their outward behaviour, their law-keeping that was described as righteous and blameless -they evidently kept the ceremonial law as required, they had never broken the 10 commandments, forgotten to tithe, etc, etc, etc.
But that reminds me of another man:
quote:
touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Galatians 3 v 6
Yet he also recognised that inwardly he was far from righteous:
quote:
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
1 Tim 1 v 15
Add that to his testimony in Romans 7 v 15 - 20
quote:
15 I do not understand what I do; for I don't do what I would like to do, but instead I do what I hate. 16 Since what I do is what I don't want to do, this shows that I agree that the Law is right. 17 So I am not really the one who does this thing; rather it is the sin that lives in me. 18 I know that good does not live in me—that is, in my human nature. For even though the desire to do good is in me, I am not able to do it. 19 I don't do the good I want to do; instead, I do the evil that I do not want to do. 20 If I do what I don't want to do, this means that I am no longer the one who does it; instead, it is the sin that lives in me.
... and yo can see that the righteousness that was ascribed to Zechariah by Luke, and ascribed to himself by Paul was mere law-keeping and not personal heart-righteousness.
They all needed forgiveness by the grace of God.
And finally, if Zechariah was indeed righteous in the way you are claiming, why as an observant Torah-keeping Jew (and a priest at that) would he have cleansed himself ritually and made sacrifice?
Surely the righteous would not need such cleansing.
[ 07. January 2017, 10:36: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Eh?
Again, putting those verses together that way only makes sense if you have an evangelical hermeneutic. I'm not knocking that but it would be perfectly feasible to interpret those verses in Luke very differently.
This is the point I'm making about the lenders we wear. The Gospel account in and of itself says nothing about a difference between outward observance and inward heart conviction.
The whole point of Romans is Paul establishing that Gentiles can be justified on the basis of grace and faith, same as Israel - because ultimately the whole thing is the gift of God.
It's the whole thing about the Gentiles who don't have the Law being 'a law unto themselves'.
I don't see the need for a dualist dichotomy here. God accepted Cornelius's prayers and actions but he still had to hear the Gospel.
I'm not into filleting and segmenting these things into bite-size sound-bite chunks. That way lies Dispensationalism.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Doh! lenses not 'lenders'.
Of course, the whole tenor of Christ's teaching was about the need for inward conviction and for sincerity in religious observance.
No-one is doubting that nor suggesting we save ourselves by our own works or efforts.
But to combine those verses in an 'evangelical' way is no more neutral than RCs reading their particular ecclesiology or sacramental understanding back into the pages of the NT.
We both do it. We all do it.
Whether we are evangelical Protestants or sacramentalists. We all 'churchify' the scriptures. How can we not do so?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It's not an 'evangelical hermeneutical' interpretation at all - I honestly don't see what the problem is.
The bottom line is this: we sin because we are sinners; we don't become sinners by doing wrong things.
Neither do we become righteous by doing good things.
[ 07. January 2017, 11:21: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There are righteous people in the scriptures (both Old and New Testament e.g. Noah, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon) and Jesus tells us he came to save not the righteous but sinners so a blanket qualification that we are all sinners is not technically correct according to scripture.
I think the damaging thing about the doctrine of original sin historically is that it has emphasised the negative too much and forgotten that we were created Good and in God's image.
Christianity affirms both the glory and the fallenness of humanity IMO and experience confirms that.
Evensong, I don't think that's a legitimate exegesis. It's treating scripture as though it were not just a legal document, but a single one as well.
If I've got you right, you are saying that because in some places, some people are described as 'righteous', that means that all can't have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - because O look, here we have found some people who are described using a word which elsewhere might imply that they could not have done.
That also wouldn't fit your final conclusion, with which I 100% agree about both the glory and the fallenness of humanity, and how that fits our experience. You'd otherwise be saying that there were certain people who were just glorious and not fallen.
If that were so, presumably Simeon would not have needed to hope for the Messiah, or be inspired to have seen God's salvation.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
What comes through to me in this discussion on Original Sin is the question why I or others should incur the wrath of God for something I cannot avoid. It looks suspiciously like being punished for being human. That sentiment is reinforced if one believes, as I do, that selfishness and sinning by humans is an unavoidable product of the evolutionary process. Furthermore, I have great difficulty in understanding why the mighty God as presented in Job, for example, should be so sensitive and offended by my failings that he should threaten me with hell. It just doesn’t add up, especially if he is a God of justice, let alone love.
The only way I can make sense of God’s attitude to sin, original and otherwise, is that he is moved not by defending his amour propre but by the destructive consequences of sin both for the perpetrator and the totality of creation. Judgement is not a matter of condemnation but of diagnosis, and the sentence a matter of healing not punishment. I find it significant that when Jesus announced his ministry in Luke’s gospel it was to declare a jubilee, liberty to captives and sight to the blind, in contrast to the condemnatory tone of the Baptist. Similarly, St Paul emphasises the corruptive influence of (original) sin in order to arrive at the conclusion “for as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22), which, one might note, has more than a whiff of universalism. Let me quote Isaac Watts again: “Where he displays his healing power/ Death and the curse are known no more/ In him the tribes of Adam boast/ More blessings than their father lost.”
The doctrine of original sin gives a realistic understanding of human limitations, making me sceptical of utopian personal and social solutions, and makes me more understanding and forgiving of human failings; but at the same time it points to the Christian hope offered by the continuing work of the New Adam.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Funnily enough, I had the words of that Isaac Watts hymn running through my mind as I read through the discussion earlier.
I'd stop short of universalism, mind, but do believe that there's a recapitulation thing going on through the Incarnation and atonement.
The scriptures do strongly indicate though, that we are all under a curse, all under condemnation and deserving of wrath - but I don't see any indication that God condemns us simply for being human. As the Orthodox liturgy puts it, He is good and 'a friend of Man' (is humanity).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Remember the predominant model of salvation in the Orthodox understanding is sickness/cure.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, as I've said, the Wesleyan tradition is the one the Orthodox tend to feel is the Protestant strand that resonates most closely with their own position on these things, whilst acknowledging areas of difference of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, as I've said, the Wesleyan tradition is the one the Orthodox tend to feel is the Protestant strand that resonates most closely with their own position on these things, whilst acknowledging areas of difference of course.
What people might not realise is that whilst TSA describes itself as Protestant, we are neither Pentecostal nor Reformed (capital R).
We come from the Catholic Tradition via Anglicanism and then Methodism.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What people might not realise is that whilst TSA describes itself as Protestant, we are neither Pentecostal nor Reformed (capital R).
We come from the Catholic Tradition via Anglicanism and then Methodism.
All Protestant churches come from the Catholic Tradition. Pretty much by definition. And I don't think anybody who knows a pittance about the Salvation Army doesn't realize its relationship to Methodism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can see why the Salvation Army would wany to position itself as a distinctive movement or strand within Protestantism or indeed the Western Christian traditions more broadly, though, Mudfrog.
I'm not convinced they are as distinctive as they like to make out, but they are distinctive certainly. Essentially, of course, they are a subset of the Wesleyan Holiness tradition with a few distinctive practices. I don't think they represent any kind of 'Third way' if you like between Pentecostalism on the one hand and the Big R Reformed on the other as I'm not sure things break down in as binary a way as that, but I can see why they might want to occupy that space.
It all depends how on perspective. From.an Orthodox point of view I'd imagine Protestantism and Catholicism represent two sides of the same coin and perhaps there are some groups that form the milled edge in between ...
Some Anglicans would claim to do that, of course. I'm not sure about the Lutherans. They are as rare as hen's teeth here in the UK.
That doesn't mean I dismiss or play down the importance of the Salvation Army. They have had significant impact. But they are a subset of a subset of a subset.
But we are veering away from Original Sin ...
However, the clue to the Salvationist emphasis is in their title, of course. What they say on the label. They are all about saving souls and they do take an holistic approach to that. However we cut it though, that emphasis is bound to involve some kind of stress on humanity'd lost and fallen state, and the remedy in Christ, so it's hardly surprising that they are going to emphasise Original Sin, even if that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to adopt a kind of TULIP schema as the Big R Reformed tradition did.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It all depends how on perspective. From.an Orthodox point of view I'd imagine Protestantism and Catholicism represent two sides of the same coin and perhaps there are some groups that form the milled edge in between ...
Yes. Indeed, as you of all people no doubt realize already, that's exactly the phrase we use. The more cynical among us will add, "and the Pope was the first Protestant."
As to what's between the two sides, if anything, we don't much care, except as a matter of politesse between individuals.
[ 07. January 2017, 22:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
. and yo can see that the righteousness that was ascribed to Zechariah by Luke, and ascribed to himself by Paul was mere law-keeping and not personal heart-righteousness.
You are exegeting Luke via Paul here.
I'm totally with you that we use scripture to interpret scripture but using Luke to interpret Luke would be the better way to do that.
If Luke believes those he points out are righteous are not really righteous, why would he point them out? He says nothing about them "not really being righteous".
[ 08. January 2017, 09:55: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
. and yo can see that the righteousness that was ascribed to Zechariah by Luke, and ascribed to himself by Paul was mere law-keeping and not personal heart-righteousness.
You are exegeting Luke via Paul here.
I'm totally with you that we use scripture to interpret scripture but using Luke to interpret Luke would be the better way to do that.
If Luke believes those he points out are righteous are not really righteous, why would he point them out? He says nothing about them "not really being righteous".
They are 'righteous' according to Luke's own parameters and definition from the one verse. It's all about the law.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, Mousethief. I don't know why I put 'I'd imagine' as I know all too well that this is what the Orthodox say as it's been said to me many, many times over the last two decades!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Gamaliel, I don't believe that TSA is a Third Way on its own. It's part of the Wesleyan tradition which is, I believe that Third Way in British Reformation History.
You have Catholicism that either remained as the developing Roman Catholic Church.
But you then have the Reformed Catholic Church that we call Anglicanism (And let's add the Lutherans alongside them in Europe).
Then you have the Calvinists and Puritans who became Baptists and Presbyterians, etc. They're on the other side.
In the middle you have Wesley who, coming out of High Church Anglicanism added stuff like Catholic and Orthodox Piety to Moravian thinking and that Zinzendorf bloke.
Out of him came directly Booth's Salvation Army, influenced also by the Palmers and a little bit by Finney from the US.
So, if you have Anglican/Lutheran/Episcopalian on the right, Calvinist/Baptist/Reformed on the left, you have Wesleyanism in the middle.
We might not be a full TULIP but we are certainly T
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
More to the point, though, on the issue of people being 'righteous' or 'unrighteous' and whether righteousness is conferred in some kind of 'forensic sense' or 'legal fiction' and so on - us being 'declared righteous' because of Christ's finished work on the Cross and so on ...
Well, I can certainly see where those ideas come from in scripture, but there are plenty of material - particularly in the Gospels - that don't appear to fit that neat schema.
This is what I mean by all of us 'churchifying' or reading back into the NT whatever our ecclesiology or soteriology happens to be. Sure, we don't make it all up and then go looking for verses to 'prove' it - that's not how these things work ...
But I do think there is a two-way thing going on whereby we become convinced of something or other and then start to see it everywhere in scripture or else try to make things fit ...
I'd suggest that we all do that - the RCs, the Dispensationalists, the Reformed, the Pentecostals, the ...
At least with the RCs and the Orthodox there is the sense that they recognise what they are doing and that they are working within a Tradition / tradition ... not trying to make out that their particular interpretation isn't a tradition (small t) in any sense at all but simply what the plain-meaning of scripture teaches ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry - cross-posted with Mudfrog ...
Yes, I get all that and I don't dispute that the Wesleyan tradition is a Third Way in British Reformation history. I'm afraid I'd understood you to mean that it's a Third Way per se - alongside Protestantism and Catholicism. That claim has been made for Pentecostalism, of course.
So I apologise for that.
It's also a tradition I have a lot of time for, so I am not knocking it - but neither do I want to over-emphasise its importance, but rather set it in its rightful place alongside the other strands.
As far as Wesley's High Church Anglicanism goes, a lot of Anglicans back then were 'High' in the Church and King sense - there were High Church Calvinists too. We have to be careful not to regard pre-Oxford Movement 'High Church' Anglican in an overly sacramental or ritualised sense. I'm sure you are up to speed on all of that.
So, if Wesley was aware of Orthodox and RC emphases, then so were his fellow High Church Anglicans who may have differed from him on the freewill/predestination issue.
As I've said elsewhere, Calvin was pretty steeped in Patristics too - although he made no bones about the fact that he preferred Augustine to Chrysostom and Jerome and other Church Fathers.
I'm not convinced that Wesley added 'Catholic and Orthodox piety' so much as he brought with him an understanding of the more sacramental approaches of those Traditions as well as an awareness of some of their spiritual disciplines.
He was also influenced by the Puritans and I'd suggest that his methodical approach came from there as much as anywhere else.
And yes, I'd see the Wesleyan and Wesleyan Holiness emphases as they subsequently developed as small r reformed - with more small c Catholic and small o Orthodox emphases than might be found in some Big R Reformed traditions. But even that is too simplistic, the Big R Reformed folk can be far more 'realised' in their understanding of the Eucharist than the more pietistic and revivalist folk.
As Jengie Jon has often reminded us, the Arminian reaction against hard-line Calvinism - which, arguably led in turn to Calvinism becoming more hardline at Dort - was itself a subset of Big R Reformed theology.
There are fuzzy bits and overlaps all ways round. These things don't neatly divide into segments like an orange or tangerine.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'd hardly say that Wesleyanism is more Catholic than the C of E. What does it mean to say he "added" Catholic piety to his CoE inheritance?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
It's clearly allegorical. Surely no one believes it is factual.
Agreed!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Seeing this topic referred to in Perg, I thought I'd have a look - and, on a grey and gloomy Sunday afternoon have enjoyed reading through this very interesting discussion.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd hardly say that Wesleyanism is more Catholic than the C of E. What does it mean to say he "added" Catholic piety to his CoE inheritance?
No, I think what Mudfrog meant was that elements of Catholic piety filtered into Wesleyanism from John Wesley's High Church Anglicanism.
Which is based on a misunderstanding, I would say, of what it meant to be a High Church Anglican back in the 18th century.
One could argue that the Moravians were 'Catholic' in their piety to some extent as Count Zinzendorf's hymns and prayers are full of images and meditations on the sufferings and wounds of Christ - to an embarrasing extent by modern standards.
A Methodist historian once told me that Moravian and later Methodist hymnody contained the first post-Reformation meditations on the wounds and sufferings of Christ - and were very reminiscent of some aspects of 15th century Roman Catholicism.
One could argue that the similarity is more coincidental rather than direct, but there is an almost medieval emphasis on the blood and sufferings of Christ that emerges around the time of the revivals of the mid-1700s that you don't get among the 17th century Puritans or the Carolingian Divines and so on.
We have to be careful how we handle some of these terms.
17th century Anglican divines such as Lancelot Andrewes and the poet Treharne had views that wouldn't be out of place in an Orthodox setting - and they remain popular with Orthodox clergy I know - as do some of the writings of the medieval mystics such as Richard Rolle.
But that doesn't mean that they were on the same page as the Orthodox on every issue.
The poet George Herbert can be read in a mildly Calvinist sense as well as in a 'High Church' sense.
Wesley wrote some very eirenic letters to Roman Catholics and there was also the bizarre incident where he tried to absorb some Apostolic Succession from an visiting Orthodox priest (or bogus bishop?) which he could then pass onto his lay-preachers ...
Historians argue about what exactly was going on there. Who knows? The guy was pretty mercurial.
As I've heard Bishop Kallistos Ware say in relation to the incident, 'One could say that Wesley was acting in accordance with Anglican principles as he would have regarded the Orthodox Church in 18th century terms as some kind of sister-church that was non-Roman, but as for the Orthodox Bishop - what did he think he was doing?'
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Gamaliel, I am very interested to read of the "meditations on the wounds and sufferings of Christ - (that) were very reminiscent of some aspects of 15th century Roman Catholicism..."
Might I offer a couple of Salvation Army songs that you might feel are in the same mould?
O Love Upon a Cross Impaled
and
Silent and Still I Stand Before That Weeping Tree
These are very deep and almost mystic; and both of them written by an SA General in the twentieth century, not the nineteenth let alone the 15th!.
Host note: corrected typo
[ 08. January 2017, 21:13: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, but whenever he was writing he'd have been drawing on earlier material, whether post or pre-Reformation.
I'll try to find some references. Zinzendorf's hymnody on these points can be embarrassing by modern standards.
E P Thompson, author of 'The Making Of The English Working Class' couldn't stand Methodism and thought the emphasis on the blood and wounds of Christ were psycho-sexual and somewhat sick.
That might tell us more about him than early Methodism.
FWIW, I do find something icky about some mediaeval meditations on the suffering of Christ and some of the more exotic understandings of the 'blood of Christ' that can be found in the outer reaches of Pentecostalism and among some charismatics.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Perhaps this article can shed some light:
http://religionnews.com/2017/01/13/author-jesus-didnt-believe-in-original-sin-and-neither-should-we/
I wonder if the issue of original sin arose because we find it hard to deal with people who are either wonderfully good or terribly evil.
Original sin's attraction is the notion that all humans are essentially same, sinful, in need of God's grace.
If we imagine Augustine and Pelagius debating today, we might find Pelagius saying something like "Look at Mother Teresa, if you are not perfect like she is, it's your own fault, and God has every right to judge you for failing at your duty to be a good person."
Augustine might respond "We all can't help ourselves, we don't always do the good we want to do, our will is fundamentally damaged, we need God's grace to restore and perfect us before we can do good."
I think original sin can be a good doctrine if it reminds us of our reliance on divine grace and love. It's not all good however, if it's meant to demean or diminish our humanity.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think original sin can be a good doctrine if it reminds us of our reliance on divine grace and love. It's not all good however, if it's meant to demean or diminish our humanity.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that!
We must not diminish our value, our 'loved' status.
God did't sent his Son because he hated the world was cross with the world or despised the world; he sent his Son because he loved the world - could see what was worthy of love and, indeed, rescue.
Original sin does not mean and has never meant tat humankind is utterly evil or without merit.
Original sin simply means that for whatever reason (explained by myth or not) we stand condemned. I can't even say that it is God who is condemning us at this stage; bit what I can say is that God SO loves us that he sent his Son to be the means by which we can be fully rescued.
Original sin within is evident to those of us who have tried to not be sinners.
But it doesn't make us worthless.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Original sin does not mean and has never meant tat humankind is utterly evil or without merit.
Original sin simply means that for whatever reason (explained by myth or not) we stand condemned. I can't even say that it is God who is condemning us at this stage; bit what I can say is that God SO loves us that he sent his Son to be the means by which we can be fully rescued.
Why would God care if somebody else was condemning us? Our condemnation only matters if it's by God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Original sin does not mean and has never meant tat humankind is utterly evil or without merit.
Original sin simply means that for whatever reason (explained by myth or not) we stand condemned. I can't even say that it is God who is condemning us at this stage; bit what I can say is that God SO loves us that he sent his Son to be the means by which we can be fully rescued.
Why would God care if somebody else was condemning us? Our condemnation only matters if it's by God.
Nonsense; that's what redemption is all about: releasing someone from the control of another. Of course God cares about who is condemning, accusing, imprisoning, etc.
Justice is an attribute of God - he is just, of course. Our condemnation is brought upon ourselves, we are accused by Satan (the accuser).
It's not the only reason for our need of redemption, cleansing, forgiving, healing, ransoming.
The atonement is not all about getting rid of condemnation; but it has to be there somewhere.
The other models of atonement deal with other situations that deal with our lack of oneness with God.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I mean, why should anybody else's condemnation have any control over us, let alone over God? My next-door neighbor says "I don't like your kid." Fine. You don't like my kid. You don't have to. There's no need for me to do anything about it. Certainly not to die.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
Original sin simply means that for whatever reason (explained by myth or not) we stand condemned.
Condemned by whom? Not God, surely? Is it not bizarre to suggest that a just God would condemn a sinner for a condition for which he/she is not responsible? As John 3:17 reminds us: "God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world but to save it."
I mostly agree with Anglican_Brat's response of Augustine to Pelagius:
quote:
If we imagine Augustine and Pelagius debating today, we might find Pelagius saying something like "Look at Mother Teresa, if you are not perfect like she is, it's your own fault, and God has every right to judge you for failing at your duty to be a good person."
Augustine might respond "We all can't help ourselves, we don't always do the good we want to do, our will is fundamentally damaged, we need God's grace to restore and perfect us before we can do good."
I would, however, disagree that we are incapable of doing good without being perfected, but that we cannot be restored/ saved and perfected without God's restoring and sanctifying Grace. Perhaps the phrase "before we can do good" could have e been omitted, as it seems to contradict the earlier observation "we don't always do the good we want to."
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I mean, why should anybody else's condemnation have any control over us, let alone over God? My next-door neighbor says "I don't like your kid." Fine. You don't like my kid. You don't have to. There's no need for me to do anything about it. Certainly not to die.
Crickets.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
