|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Original Sin
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
What's your take on original sin? Genesis 2:4a - 3:24
More specifically, how do you understand the transmission of sin from Adam to us as newborn babes?
I've never really considered this deeply because I've always been of the opinion that a newborn can't possibly be a broken, fallen creature. But as I get older it rather seems to make more sense.
Are we born with things that require removal and healing from the grace of God? Or are we simply a tabula rasa and therefore learn by imitation (e.g. Pelagius) and our developing sins are simply a product of environment.?
Then there's those weird contradictory passages in the OT that say the sins of the fathers are visited on the children. ( that surely makes sense - imitation wise) vs the later exilic versions that speak of this no longer being the case, but that each will be accountable for themselves.
How do we square the transmission of original sin with such exilic passages from Jeremiah and Ezekiel and (from memory) Chronicles. ?
Are we born with "desires of the flesh" or our baser natures that require taming? I mean, surely childrearing teaches you that's the case (e.g. sharing, emotional intelligence - delay of gratification etc) ?
[ 08. April 2017, 08:08: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I think what happens is we learn to do wrong before we can know right from wrong. In fact, that not only happens to us as individuals - it happened to us as a species. Evolution is amoral, and has gifted us with some nasty habits as well as good things. And, I think, it's all down to being creatures; only God is perfect. Which is why the Incarnation saves us: it joins God and creation.
I think it's important to remember that Christians read "original sin" into the Genesis text. The closest the Bible comes to teaching it is in Paul, where he says "sin entered the world because a man sinned..." But even that passage can be read other ways.
Hopefully one of our Orthodox friends will show up - I believe they don't have the dogma of original sin, and that it's only a Western idea anyway. Jews certainly don't find it in their Bibles.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The writers of the texts themselves read all sorts of ignorant nasty stuff in to their reaching for the light. It's nobody's fault. Evolution in the light, to the light, thanks to the Light of the World has brought is through that this far: All will be well.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The writers of the texts themselves read all sorts of ignorant nasty stuff in to their reaching for the light. It's nobody's fault. Evolution in the light, to the light, thanks to the Light of the World has brought u{i}s through that this far: All will be well.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Our shipmate Amos, who was raised Jewish, gave this statement of the way Jews see the Garden of Eden myth.
We are poor because our grandparents squandered the family fortune. We did not do anything wrong, but we suffer because of their actions.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice, but the truth is that no one did anything wrong of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
otherwise known as the augustinian heresy. It's a libel on God as creator and on us as God's beloved creation.
We have a tendency to be less than we can be, that much is clear. It's the fundamental condemnation of our own humanity, specifically its physical and sexual aspects, which to me constitute the heresy. Either God didn't create our physical selves, but only some kind of spiritual essence, in which case God isn't the creator of everything that exists, or our creation as physical sexual beings is a terrible mistake on God's part.
The traces of this debate can be seen in the "innocent until....." - human sexuality is assumed to be unclean, need controlling etc.. We need to start from the assumption that sexuality is a gift of God's creative love, and re-imagine everything from there on. We can't go on assuming that it was a mistake - that way madness and paranoia lie.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
otherwise known as the augustinian heresy. It's a libel on God as creator and on us as God's beloved creation.
Sorry--which is the heresy--Original Sin, or denial of it?
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
otherwise known as the augustinian heresy. It's a libel on God as creator and on us as God's beloved creation.
Let's blame Augustine for the bits he's actually responsible for, shall we?
Many of the Greek Fathers believed that sexuality only entered the world after the fall. That Adam and Eve, if they had remained in the garden, would never have been sexually active.
Augustine disagreed. He thought sexuality existed pre-fall(*). He just thought that our sexuality is now sufficiently messed up that we can trace all the rest of our tendency to be less than we can be to the circumstances of our conception. (Larkin's: They fuck us up, our mum and dad, is literal.)
Now I think Augustine was obviously wrong about conception as the medium of transmission of original sin. But the thought that our fucked-upness is passed on before we are capable of choosing otherwise seems to me true. As obnoxious as that may appear to an individualistic society.
(*) As it happened Augustine thought that Cain must have been conceived post-fall, which meant that Adam and Eve must have fallen before there was time to get around to conceiving anyone. So they never had sex pre-fall. But that was, Augustine thought, a contingent fact of history, just the way things fell out.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
It's clearly allegorical. Surely no one believes it is factual.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Sex is one of those areas where ancient and historical ideas are simply foundationally factually wrong. And thus the ideas built on them must be thrown out.
Sex is the basis for most reproduction across species. Babies are not moral agents, nor are children until at least midteens. They had poppycock ideas way back when. We must reject the bad examples from the bible and church parents (far too few church mothers, ever since Paul).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Original sin has no necessary connection with sex, though popular culture thinks so. It has to do with the nature of human beings, and would apply even if every baby born was conceived in a test tube.
When I have to explain this (like in confirmation class) I usually use the analogy of infection or disease. There are certain diseases that can be transmitted from parent to child and have devastating effects on the child even before birth. I believe the point of the original sin doctrine is to emphasize that the human "problem," whatever we want to call it, is more than superficial. It goes all the way to the heart, and it affects life from its very beginning to its very ending. It's the spiritual equivalent of cancer or Tay-Sachs--not acne or worts.
(as for being a moral agent--I can say of my own experience that I certainly was one (and knew I was one) during primary school, and probably long before. And I caught my son lying to me, deliberately and knowingly, when he was preverbal, at eight months. (That was awkward--you don't want to encourage it, but I couldn't help laughing)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
The most practical definition of original sin that I have come across is from a rather unlikely source, Rev Ron Ferguson's book, Black Diamonds and the Blue Brazil:
“The churches of the Reformed tradition have a slogan 'Ecclesia semper reformanda' - the church in need of perpetual reformation. The Reformers well understood that unchecked, unaccountable, unredeemed power corrupts and corrupts absolutely, in the church as much as in politics or any other sphere. Cynicism and lies. The doctrine of original sin - mocked by the intellectually slothful as being some kind of melancholy religious pathology - has got nothing to do with literal gardens or snakes or fig leaves, and everything to do with the grain of humankind in the raw.”
Whenever I test that statement, it works, especially those last few words.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Original sin has no necessary connection with sex, though popular culture thinks so. It has to do with the nature of human beings, and would apply even if every baby born was conceived in a test tube.
When I have to explain this (like in confirmation class) I usually use the analogy of infection or disease. There are certain diseases that can be transmitted from parent to child and have devastating effects on the child even before birth. I believe the point of the original sin doctrine is to emphasize that the human "problem," whatever we want to call it, is more than superficial. It goes all the way to the heart, and it affects life from its very beginning to its very ending. It's the spiritual equivalent of cancer or Tay-Sachs--not acne or worts.
Yes. That's pretty much my take. And sex is irrelevant ISTM.
Apparently one of the main arguments on the issue was between Pelagius and Augustine. Pelagius thought original sin transmitted through imitation (after being born) whereas it seems Augustine thought it went deeper - so before that.
Is an analogy between genetics (ancestral inheritance ) and behaviourism (or the idea that we become what we are through our environment) relevant here?
[ 01. January 2017, 09:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Seems Purgatorial ter me! But what do I know?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
My take on this is that although there having been a state of grace in which there was no death, pain or need to work is impossible to reasonably sustain, I agree with Diarmaid MacCulloch in his History of Christianity that “Original Sin is one of the more plausible concepts of Western Christianity, corresponding all to accurately with every day human experience”. The notion of Original Sin, particularly the idea that there is something fundamentally morally flawed about human beings that is hard-wired into our nature, preventing us doing what we know to be right, summed up by Paul’s exasperated confession: “I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:19) helps us to make reasonable sense about human nature and the possibilities for the communities and institutions we construct. The challenge for modern Christianity is not to ignore Eden but to make sense of it to the contemporary world, and to rescue the biblical account from the shackles of arid literalism and to seriously consider its essential truths.
To my mind, the “originality” of of sin lies in our genetic inheritance. Evolutionary biologists have suggested that what we call “selfishness” was/is a quality essential to the process of evolution. Amongst creatures with no moral sense this inherent “selfishness” is associated with neither virtue nor vice, a state of innocence. The problem with the human species is that the development of consciousness, and self-awareness, leading to an appreciation of mortality and insecurity, impacting on an intrinsic “selfishness” can have harmful and negative consequences both for individuals and society. It can become dysfunctional to the survival of the species. From a Christian perspective, that mix of consciousness, insecurity and selfishness deep-rooted in our make-up produces a bias towards what we call sin. To my mind this is not too far from Genesis: “You may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden, except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. If you do you will die that same day”? I would suggest the “fall” (for want of a better word) is enacted in the development of all human beings: that we begin life as innocent babies and young children and only become sinful as we develop self-awareness and a knowledge of what is good and bad.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Humans are social animals. We require the pack to survive; hermits are never from birth to death unless their life is very short. That means we are all participants (technically co-creators) in human culture and human culture is compromised, partial and full of power struggles.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Seems Purgatorial ter me! But what do I know?
Host hat on
Martin, stop junior hosting.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eeek! Ma'am.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Apparently one of the main arguments on the issue was between Pelagius and Augustine. Pelagius thought original sin transmitted through imitation (after being born) whereas it seems Augustine thought it went deeper - so before that.
I don't think Pelagius believed in original sin at all.
It's hard to reconstruct Pelagius' views, since they're mainly transmitted to us by Augustine and others arguing against them. But the argument started off when Pelagius objected to Augustine's prayer for grace to follow God's commands. Augustine shouldn't need to wait for God's grace; he should just follow them, said Pelagius, and it was defeatist to imply otherwise. I don't see any room for original sin in a view that argues that all we need to follow God's commands is the resolution to do so.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
More specifically, how do you understand the transmission of sin from Adam to us as newborn babes?
Can this be understood? The essence of who we are? I think it is depraved innocence. As we gain experience the depravity accentuates and the innocence retreats. Quite small children can be calculatedly cruel and selfish. Quite old adults can be calculatedly kind and selfless. The potential in us IMV is not for goodness but for regeneration. As Paul says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and, Romans 7, "Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift". This regeneration is only understood if experienced..like the taste of chocolate.
This is what I believe ..but I do not understand it.
[ 01. January 2017, 18:23: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Kwesi, thank you for that. It fits what I believe about this. For me, it's driven as much by experience and observation as by doctrine. Back long ago, Original Sin was one of the things that drew me back to an adult faith. Christian teaching seems to fit how we are, how the world experiences itself, so much better than any other explanation.
It struck me, and still does, that without Christian faith, the real problem isn't where sin comes from. Why not just pursue self-interest and grab every advantage you can - whether for success or pleasure? Why not just be selfish? Why not exploit other people? The real problem is where virtue comes from. How was it that I found myself sometimes instinctively doing the right or unselfish thing?
It is self evident that unless we have managed totally to dull our inner moral sense, we all know that we are not as good as we feel we could be. We are inherently flawed. But that is the point. That is not all we are. We are a flawed version of something that could be better. That is one of the fundamentals of the human condition. It's part of 'our hearts being restless until we find our rest in thee'.
And, the more conscious we are of God's existence, the more obvious that gets.
It seemed to me then, and still does, that none of the other explanations have anything like the credibility of the standard Christian one. The alternatives are bland, falsely benevolent, don't explain where virtue comes from, don't recognise virtue, don't recognise moral responsibility or try to pretend the human will is just an illusion.
I'm not terribly bothered about how this gets into human nature or how its transmitted. Like it or not, by the time we're conscious, it's there. It's how we are.
Incidentally, I don't think 'total depravity' originally meant we're all just totally wicked, filthy rags and no more. That's a rhetorical abuse of something much more profound. It may be that the phrase was originally ill-chosen, or has become misunderstood. But what I think it actually means is that there is no part of human nature that is untainted. We don't have the opposite of an Achilles heel, a bit that somehow escaped being dipped in the dirty water. Even our reason, our conscience, our spirituality and our moral sense, even the bit that challenges us to wake up, each is flawed.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Augustine disagreed. He thought sexuality existed pre-fall(*). He just thought that our sexuality is now sufficiently messed up that we can trace all the rest of our tendency to be less than we can be to the circumstances of our conception. (Larkin's: They fuck us up, our mum and dad, is literal.)
My understanding is that Augustine speculated that the sexuality that existed before the Fall was without lust. Now, a generous reading of Augustine would say that his understanding of lust isn't what we might consider "normal sexual desire", but rather it refers to the excessive me-oriented, pleasure at all costs, drive within the human psyche that is the root of many evils.
Seen in this light, one could say that Freud's view of human nature is a secular version of Augustine's original sin. The infant, isn't born "good", but born with an emperor syndrome believing that the entire universe revolves around Him. It's not that the baby is EVIL, it's because that at that infant stage, he or she is unable to understand that other people exist and have value other than him or her.
Augustine's famous illustration of this in the Confessions where he uses the example of twin baby brothers who want to kill each other when they realize that the other is hogging all of mother's milk.
[ 01. January 2017, 19:38: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My understanding is that Augustine speculated that the sexuality that existed before the Fall was without lust. Now, a generous reading of Augustine would say that his understanding of lust isn't what we might consider "normal sexual desire", but rather it refers to the excessive me-oriented, pleasure at all costs, drive within the human psyche that is the root of many evils.
I suspect that the reason Augustine is particularly concerned about lust is the obsessive quality: the way it not only grabs your attention but then doesn't let go even when you would rather turn your mind to something else.
Though I suspect he would refuse the idea that the obsessive quality is separate from the me-oriented drive you talk about.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Augustine disagreed. He thought sexuality existed pre-fall(*). He just thought that our sexuality is now sufficiently messed up that we can trace all the rest of our tendency to be less than we can be to the circumstances of our conception. (Larkin's: They fuck us up, our mum and dad, is literal.)
My understanding is that Augustine speculated that the sexuality that existed before the Fall was without lust. Now, a generous reading of Augustine would say that his understanding of lust isn't what we might consider "normal sexual desire", but rather it refers to the excessive me-oriented, pleasure at all costs, drive within the human psyche that is the root of many evils.
Seen in this light, one could say that Freud's view of human nature is a secular version of Augustine's original sin. The infant, isn't born "good", but born with an emperor syndrome believing that the entire universe revolves around Him. It's not that the baby is EVIL, it's because that at that infant stage, he or she is unable to understand that other people exist and have value other than him or her.
Augustine's famous illustration of this in the Confessions where he uses the example of twin baby brothers who want to kill each other when they realize that the other is hogging all of mother's milk.
Interesting citation of the emperor syndrome, although Freud's actual phrase (written in English), was 'His Majesty the baby'. He also makes some interesting points about the baby's apparent exemption from natural processes:
"Sickness, death, renunciation of enjoyment, and restrictions on his own will shall not be valid for the child; the laws of nature, like those of society, shall come to a halt before him; he shall really be the center and heart of creation, His Majesty the Baby, as we once thought ourselves to be."
The interesting point about this, well, one of many interesting points, is that this is appropriate for a baby, but not an adult. I suppose some adults preserve it as an underlying attitude.
But the basic narcissistic stance of the baby is healthy and indeed, indispensable to survival, one would think. Most individuals are weaned off it, gradually. I'm not sure about the theological ramifications of this.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I should have said that that citation is from the essay, 'On Narcissism', in the Penguin Freud, Vol. 11, although I think Penguin have rejigged their editions of Freud.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Do we do wrong things because we are sinners, or are we sinners because we have done things?
Is it that we are 'neutral' - neither sinless nor sinful until that very first sin and then suddenly we are tainted?
I feel for Paul when he cries out 'I do not understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can’t. I do what I don’t want to—what I hate. 16 I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience proves that I agree with these laws I am breaking. 17 But I can’t help myself because I’m no longer doing it. It is sin inside me that is stronger than I am that makes me do these evil things.
Romans 7 v 15 - 17 TLB
It's the 'I do not understand myself at all' bit that gets me because similarly I don't understand me either!
If I do something - and habitually do it - which is the real 'me'? Am I the sinner trying in vain to go against my nature, wanting to be good, or am I the good person who often simply chooses to do the thing that is alien to me?
My doctrine says that because of the fall of my first parents who lost their purity, I am 'totally depraved' - which simply means that my whole being, in total, is affected by sin, and that is what causes me to fall.
Does original sin, therefore, not describe the inability we all have to live without sinning?
And is the provision of a redeemer, a saviour, only necessary if we are helpless to cease from 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:
And is the provision of a redeemer, a saviour, only necessary if we are helpless to cease from sin?
Not necessarily, Jesus as a Teacher, redeems us by teaching us the right way to live and shows us by example, the way to live in right relationship with God.
To say that salvation is only to be understood in the narrow forensic model of substitutionary atonement dismisses the entire ministry of Jesus.
--------------------
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:
And is the provision of a redeemer, a saviour, only necessary if we are helpless to cease from sin?
Not necessarily, Jesus as a Teacher, redeems us by teaching us the right way to live and shows us by example, the way to live in right relationship with God.
To say that salvation is only to be understood in the narrow forensic model of substitutionary atonement dismisses the entire ministry of Jesus.
Where did anyone mention substitutionary atonement?
And as for your first point about Jesus teaching us the right way to live and showing us by example how to live in right relationship with God - I would simply say that what you say is the work of Christ is actually the work of the Law. The Law reveals what is right, tells us how to live, gives examples on what is righteous and what is sin, but it is powerless to save us.
What is the point of knowing what is right and seeing the example of what is right, when we are powerless to do anything about it?
Jesus came to redeem us, to actually forgive our sins and empower us to be holy because not one of us is able to keep the law of follow the example that has been set.
We need a saviour, not just a teacher.
If that were the case, then all we would need would be Moaes.
--------------------
"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:
What is the point of knowing what is right and seeing the example of what is right, when we are powerless to do anything about it?
Jesus came to redeem us, to actually forgive our sins and empower us to be holy because not one of us is able to keep the law of follow the example that has been set.
We need a saviour, not just a teacher.
If that were the case, then all we would need would be Moaes.
I don't distinguish between justification, sanctification, nor do I separate the saving work of Christ on the Cross from the saving work of Christ as Teacher.
But then I am attracted to the moral influence theory of atonement which might reflect my skepticism of total depravity. Christ on the Cross changes our hearts, if our entire being is completely depraved, this would not happen.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
Where did anyone mention substitutionary atonement?
I agree with Mudfrog although, as he well knows, I disagree with on atonement theory. I didn't think his remarks on Original Sin necessarily imply PSA. If they do I think shipmates should indicate why that is the case.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
What is the point of knowing what is right and seeing the example of what is right, when we are powerless to do anything about it?
Jesus came to redeem us, to actually forgive our sins and empower us to be holy because not one of us is able to keep the law of follow the example that has been set.
We need a saviour, not just a teacher.
If that were the case, then all we would need would be Moaes.
I don't distinguish between justification, sanctification, nor do I separate the saving work of Christ on the Cross from the saving work of Christ as Teacher.
But then I am attracted to the moral influence theory of atonement which might reflect my skepticism of total depravity. Christ on the Cross changes our hearts, if our entire being is completely depraved, this would not happen.
The operative word in this post is "I" implying Walt Whitman's statement in the famous poem that one is the captain of one's own soul but there is also the question of what 'depravity' signifies in the sense Mudfrog uses it here. Does it suggest evil desires or merely the inability to live up to good ones? If it is the latter, then The gospel enables that since it is the power of God unto salvation. Ro1:16.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Can we please stick to the subject of the nature of Original Sin and its transmission? Isn't that enough to keep us occupied without discussing salvation, atonement, sanctification, or whatever? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... But then I am attracted to the moral influence theory of atonement which might reflect my skepticism of total depravity. Christ on the Cross changes our hearts, if our entire being is completely depraved, this would not happen.
My apologies, but you might not have notice that I did not say 'completely depraved'. It's my understanding that the whole of us is flawed. We are still in the image of God, but a cracked image. That does not make it impossible for us to respond, but we do require God's help to get there (i.e. we need his grace, his help, his favour, his assistance).
Going back to the OP though, is there any shipmate who claims that they are free of sin, and can do it all by themselves?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
What is the point of knowing what is right and seeing the example of what is right, when we are powerless to do anything about it?
Jesus came to redeem us, to actually forgive our sins and empower us to be holy because not one of us is able to keep the law of follow the example that has been set.
We need a saviour, not just a teacher.
If that were the case, then all we would need would be Moaes.
I don't distinguish between justification, sanctification, nor do I separate the saving work of Christ on the Cross from the saving work of Christ as Teacher.
But then I am attracted to the moral influence theory of atonement which might reflect my skepticism of total depravity. Christ on the Cross changes our hearts, if our entire being is completely depraved, this would not happen.
If there is not original sin or total depravity, if a human being can ever be born into this world in a neutral state that can choose to do right or choose to do wrong, then that human being is, in effect, sinless.
The Bible uses different terms for sin:
Sin that is our nature - it's iniquity.
Sin that is a falling short of the Glory of God - missing the mark - a moral failing, even though we try.
Sin that is trespass - those things we do deliberately, knowing we are rebelling.
As the liturgy says, "We have sinned against you through negligence, through weakness, through our own deliberate fault."
There is no health within us, and I would challenge anyone, from the Pope down to myself, to claim that simply by being a human being they have the innate ability to always live without sinning, to be able to exercise the choice in every situation to always think, say or do the right thing and never ever to give in to a temptation from wherever it might come.
The moral influence is a powerful atonement metaphor because it calls us to look and be impressed by the dying example of Christ, but in and of itself it cannot save us anymore than a child being impressed by the actions of a man diving into the river to save him can actually save the child. The rescuer has to be more than an example of bravery and swimming ability, he has to actually rescue the child by his own actions!
The Saviour we need therefore, because of our total depravity, cannot merely show an example of love in the face of death and hatred, etc, he's actually also got to forensically remove my sin (whether by substitution, sacrifice or ransom is a matter for another discussion).
If there is no such thing as a 'bent to sinning' or a sinful nature that is the fount of my sinful actions, then have to wonder why Jesus came to give his life a ransom for many, to redeem them, and as the Nativity stories relate, to "save his people from their sins", and "to you is born this day a Saviour."
I repeat that it was the Torah that was given to show what sin is.
But only the cross can forgive sin and sanctify us.
We didn't need another Jewish teacher who would expand on the Torah (and don't forget there is hardly anything that Jesus taught tat was not already taught by the Rabbis), we needed a Saviour from 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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
The idea of original sin is tied to free will and grace.
It seems historically there is a spectrum of we can turn to God on our own steam alone (Pelagius) to we can't turn to God alone at all without the help of God ( total depravity? - I admit I don't know much about this).
But the standard would seem we can turn to God (we still have some element of free will) yet we require the Holy Spirit to help us in our sanctification. Indeed that's the Holy Spirit's job. We can't do it alone.
I think the natural corollary to the idea that we are completely unable to turn to God with our own free will simply leads to double predestination. There can be no other explanation in the thought process. And most of us find that quite a difficult concept to accept considering the scriptures do mostly imply that we are capable of turning. Otherwise why bother proclaiming the good news that the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I quite like this answer of Marilynne Robinson's btw. I think it works in terms of original sin.
quote:
Do you believe in sin?
Well, it depends how you define the word. The way I would read Genesis is a phenomenon . . . what it describes is a human predisposition to what amounts to self-defeat — to be given a wonderful planet and find yourself destroying it. Or, to have a wonderful civilization and then engage yourself aggressively in ways that destroy your civilization and another besides. If you look at human history or practically any human biography, it’s very hard to say that people don’t incline toward harmful and self-destructive acts, whether they intend to or not.
So I believe in sin in the sense that people do harm. I believe in grace in the sense that we cannot make final judgments about the meaning or the effect of what we do.
Source
(Robinson is a Calvinist defender btw. Quite haven't got my head around that).
[ 03. January 2017, 10:35: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If we all can answer the question, 'why can I not escape my weakness and yielding to temptation?' then we will be on the way to understanding original sin.
None of us stand neutrally before a choice of right and wrong and are equally able to do one or the other. we all have a natural inclination towards the selfish, the disobedient.
How can anyone disagree with that?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I don’t see why a belief in Original Sin necessitates a belief in ‘total depravity’ in any common sense, empirically supported, meaning of the term. Original sin invites one to be sceptical about the purity of human motivation and the unattainability of perfection in individuals and institutions in this life, with the notable exception of Jesus Christ, but that does not imply that individuals cannot exhibit varying balances of virtue and vice, good and evil.
The problem that I have with ‘total depravity’ is that it fails to differentiate between the behaviour of one individual and another, which does not accord with experience, and seems to question the possibility of sanctification, whereby an individual might improve morally and spiritually. Similarly, while all human institutions are far from perfect some seem to be preferable to others in marked ways, particularly when we reflect on political institutions from a contemporary and historical perspective- St Paul was proud to be a citizen “of no mean city,” implying there were others of a lesser virtue.
I suppose one could dogmatically assert without offering evidence that humans are totally depraved so that if they exhibit any virtuous traits it is not of their own volition but that of God who has entered them uninvited. Equally, I could dogmatically assert without offering evidence that humans are naturally good so that if they exhibit any evil traits it is not of their own volition but that of evil spirits that have entered them uninvited. Personally, I prefer a theology that makes sense of the world I and others experience.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I don’t see why a belief in Original Sin necessitates a belief in ‘total depravity’ in any common sense, empirically supported, meaning of the term.
A technical term doesn't need to have a common sense meaning.
As said above, in this case, 'total' is a quantifier, not a qualifier. It means that all our faculties suffer from the effects of original sin, rather than that all our faculties suffer entirely. In particular, it means that the Platonic model in which we control disordered passions through reason is out. And that means that the political analogue in which an ideologically and morally pure governing class governs a sinful populace for their own good is also out.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
None of us stand neutrally before a choice of right and wrong and are equally able to do one or the other. we all have a natural inclination towards the selfish, the disobedient.
Does not a distinction have to be made between (a) action: doing right or wrong, and (b) motivation (selfish or unselfish)? One might do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for the right reason.
I think most individuals like to do the right thing because to do so induces positive feelings about oneself and invites the approbation of others. The problem, of course, is that much of the time individuals find it difficult to do good when it conflicts with self-interest.
The thought does occur that if individuals are “totally depraved” they would only get satisfaction by doing what is generally held to be morally wrong. I don't think that is the case with most human beings.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
If we all can answer the question, 'why can I not escape my weakness and yielding to temptation?' then we will be on the way to understanding original sin.
But the problem is your premise. The fact remains is that we do not always yield to temptation. Otherwise, all marriages would fail because no one would resist the temptation to commit adultery and our streets would be more littered with blood because no one would resist the temptation to strike back in violence.
Yes, all human beings struggle with the choice between good and evil, but unless there is an element of choice, there can be no accountability for sin. Otherwise every murderer and adulterer can simply assert "It's my nature" and God would be cruel to condemn someone who is unable to choose good.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog quote:
None of us stand neutrally before a choice of right and wrong and are equally able to do one or the other. we all have a natural inclination towards the selfish, the disobedient.
Does not a distinction have to be made between (a) action: doing right or wrong, and (b) motivation (selfish or unselfish)? One might do the right thing for the wrong reason, or the wrong thing for the right reason.
I think most individuals like to do the right thing because to do so induces positive feelings about oneself and invites the approbation of others. The problem, of course, is that much of the time individuals find it difficult to do good when it conflicts with self-interest.
The thought does occur that if individuals are “totally depraved” they would only get satisfaction by doing what is generally held to be morally wrong. I don't think that is the case with most human beings.
Kwesi, I think that is a better understanding of the reality we are talking about that I find it often unhelpful to label "original sin", primarily because the original Augustinian understanding gets conflated with the later Calvinist interpretation.
Good acts committed by humans may contain a taint of selfishness, i.e. the person who gives to charity out of a sense of moral superiority which is a form of pride. It doesn't mean that the good act wasn't "good", but rather it wasn't perfect, in the sense that God is perfect.
I like to think of Our Lord's perfect nature this way. Jesus' acts were wholly good, without the taint of self-concern or self-aggrandizement. In this way, Jesus' goodness I think is perfect in a way that our goodness is not.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat quote:
Kwesi, I think that is a better understanding of the reality we are talking about that I find it often unhelpful to label "original sin", primarily because the original Augustinian understanding gets conflated with the later Calvinist interpretation.
Anglican_Brat, I thoroughly agree. I allowed myself to get pulled down a Calvinistic path that I didn't wish to follow.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
To translate a well-known Cambridge man and former Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity in his work In praise of marriage:
"I have no patience with those who say that sexual excitement is shameful and that venereal stimuli have their origin not in nature, but in sin. Nothing is so far from the truth."
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Anglican_Brat quote:
Kwesi, I think that is a better understanding of the reality we are talking about that I find it often unhelpful to label "original sin", primarily because the original Augustinian understanding gets conflated with the later Calvinist interpretation.
Anglican_Brat, I thoroughly agree. I allowed myself to get pulled down a Calvinistic path that I didn't wish to follow.
I appreciate that as well.
An advantage to seeing it Augustine's way is that it makes sin a hereditary tendency. It is therefore possible that it is augmented or decreased with the passage of human history.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Dafyd quote:
Dafyd Originally posted by Kwesi:
I don’t see why a belief in Original Sin necessitates a belief in ‘total depravity’ in any common sense, empirically supported, meaning of the term.
Dafyd: A technical term doesn't need to have a common sense meaning. As said above, in this case, 'total' is a quantifier, not a qualifier. It means that all our faculties suffer from the effects of original sin, rather than that all our faculties suffer entirely.
The problem is that when technical terms become divorced from their common sense meanings their technical meaning can be misleading and confusing.
I wonder how your explanation might be applied to Romans 1: 18-32?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Perhaps "all-pervasive depravity" would be more accurate then? Because when you say "total depravity" it sounds like the quality possessed by someone who is "totally depraved" and it's hard to read that as anything other than "bad all the way through." As theological phrases go, it's screamingly, boneheadedly inept.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I am not a Calvinist - yet I believe in total depravity. That's because I am a Wesleyan. I believe that, as Scripture says, the heart is deceitful and we are all dead in trespasses and sins.
The claim above that belief in total depravity precludes the possibility of sanctification is false. Indeed, what is ironic about that assertion is that in Wesleyanism the possibility, in fact the availability of holiness here in this life is taught clearly as the antithesis of depravity.
You might quibble about the terminology, (and I beg readers not to veer off into the waters of perfectionism), but the opposite of 'total' depravity is 'entire' sanctification; the words 'total' and 'entire' having the same meaning in this regard - i.e. in the same way that sin affects the total person, so the grace holiness affects the entire person.
--------------------
"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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Yes. Total depravity has come to have a common usage meaning rather different from the theological concept.
IMHO there's a 'both and' here. It is clear that the creation is seen as a good thing, and human beings as very good, and however one reads the first few chapters of Genesis, that the consequences of human disobedience had a fracturing consequence which went well beyond its impact on the two humans immediately concerned.
Original sin is the belief that the fracture runs through every human person, and that it is closely tied up with our propensity to do what is wrong, or to fail to do what we ought to do (in thought, word and deed). It is something which we receive simply as part of being human, irrespective of anything we do or don't do - so it is there even in the newborn baby.
Total depravity is the belief that there is no part of our life which is wholly free from the effect of this sin. Not that all our actions are wholly bad, but that none of our actions are wholly good and untainted by sin.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
