|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Original Sin
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I thought the last pope abolished limbo.
So the souls in there just vapourized or deapparated or whatever totally annihilated souls do?
They go to heaven.
--------------------
"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
I know Kwesi has asked us to concentrate on the original state, as it were, rather than issues of justification and sanctification etc, but I have to chime in alongside Mudfrog on the issue of Christ as Saviour as well as teacher.
That doesn't obviate the moral exemplar atonement model - that's one of the various overlapping models available to us.
Interestingly perhaps, I had lunch with Fr Gregory a few weeks ago and he observed that the aspect of the Protestant schema that continued to resonate with him as an Orthodox Christian who had formerly been Protestant, was the whole thing of divine grace and divine enabling - the 'thine eye diffused a quickening ray' thing from the well-known Wesleyan hymn.
He doesn't go in for the TULIP thing of course, and as Mudfrog says, Wesleyans don't either.
But it strikes me that however we cut it we can none of us elide the need for grace and for God's initiative in Christ.
I wish we could come up with an alternative phrase for Original Sin. It wasn't a Jewish concept. It also tends to dualism and if we're not careful a somewhat paranoid view of sex and normal appetites.
But I don't think any of us can elide the idea that sin is all pervasive and affects every area of our lives.
'Who can deliver me from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Christ Jesus our Lord.'
--------------------
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 Mudfrog:
I do not believe that baptism removes original sin. Only grace through faith can do that. If a child cannot exercise faith in the grace of God then mercy covers that child until choice can be made.
I am familiar with the idea of an age of accountability, at which a child passes into, well, accountability. But where is this in scripture? I don't believe I've ever read a verse or pericope that lays out this thick black line.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I don't necessarily think anything "removes" original sin in the sense that people certainly don't stop sinning when they get baptized or when they say the sinner's prayer. Simplistically, both can get interpreted in terms of fire insurance, i.e. you are still a rotten sinner, but God won't turf you into eternal damnation after you die for it.
I still am waving a flag for moral influence theory, because Christ as teacher teaches us to master and deal with sin and hopefully over time, we can sin a bit less causing less harm to other people and to creation.
[ 06. January 2017, 01:29: 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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Anglican_Brat quote:
I still am waving a flag for moral influence theory, because Christ as teacher teaches us to master and deal with sin and hopefully over time, we can sin a bit less causing less harm to other people and to creation
\
Anglican_Brat, I don’t think this is quite right, and for me seems to miss the point. There is no problem in accepting Christ as a moral and spiritual example to which we aspire. All Christians, as far as I’m aware, agree with that. The difficulty, as Paul acknowledges, is that we find it impossible to reach those standards “ 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). That is an essential feature and insight of Original Sin. Simply by an act of will an individual cannot rectify his or her participation in the human condition., “wretched man that I am” (Romans 7:24). It is only through the healing spirit of Christ that this can be reversed, as Isaac Watts writes “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.” (Sadly, this verse from “Jesus shall reign…” is often excluded from the text these days). It is the saving work of Christ that is essential to rectifying the human problem so that “As in Adam all die, so in Christ willl all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15). I think we can agree to this without engaging in disagreement over various atonement theories.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have heard it said many times before that Judaism doesn't have a concept of original sin; but is that Judaism as has developed over the last 2000 years? i.e.pt sacrificial, post temple, synagogue Judaism? Or is it, as seems to be alleged, that the Jews never believed in original sin?
I am somewhat confused by the thought that basically Augustine invented original sin (much as he also invented the church understanding of the sacrament perhaps? But I digress...)
Anyway, if the idea of original sin means that we are all born predisposed to sin, having a sin nature that is inherent and that this was invented by Mr Augustine, then what do we do with St Paul and his assertion that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'? What about putting to death 'the old man'?
I've never read Augustine, but does that disqualify me from believing that the New Testament and indeed, the whole tenor of the Bible, teaches me that I am inherently a sinner and that all are sinners equally and that 'there is none righteous, no not one'?
John is quite clear when he says 'if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us'.
How does this not refer to this sin that we are all born in and with?
Did Augustine really invent OS as is conveniently thought? Convenient in that if it's his idea and not the Bible's we can conveniently forget it and choose not to believe it. Or is it not the case that it's actually in the Bible, very clearly taught, and that we would rather it wasn't there because it offends our pride?
--------------------
"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
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.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
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.
Righteous does not equal sinless.
Even Mary testified that God was her Saviour.
I am confused by your post; you say that Scripture does not say that we are all sinners but then you say that Christianity affirms the fallenness of humanity.
One cannot have it both ways.
And in any case, Scripture is perfectly clear:
'There is none righteous; no, not one... For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'
'If we say that we have no sin then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,'
You mention the righteousness of named people. I could mention another - Abraham whose obedience was counted to him as righteousness. And yet Abraham was a cowardly liar, passing Sarah off as his sister in order to save his neck. So righteous.
--------------------
"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
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
--------------------
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:
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.
[ 06. January 2017, 10:10: 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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're both right. We're sinless sinners. Our ongoing sinfulness i.e. helpless humanity, is not held against us. We are therefore righteous, pure in God's sight. In Christ's blood. We are His body, share, have His blood.
[ 06. January 2017, 11:02: 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I'm no expert on these matters from what I can gather, no serious theologian is saying that Augustine 'invented' Original Sin, but it is pretty much agreed that he largely shaped the viewpoint that emerged in the Western parts of Christendom from his time onwards. His influence on Eastern Christianity wasn't that great, his influence on Western Christianity considerable.
I'm not sure what you mean by him inventing the Church's notion of 'the sacrament' ...
Neither am I an expert on Judaism, but I think we make a mistake if we automatically assume that the Jews understood the Hebrew scriptures (our Old Testament, their scriptures) in the same way as we have done throughout Christian history.
We inevitably 'Christianise' the Old Testament as we see it through the filter of the New. 'The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed' and all that ...
From what I can gather, there were always a range of views within Judaism and a wide range of opinions were tolerated - hence the constant argy-bargying between the Rabbis. The same, I'm told, applied to Jewish views on issues like predestination and free-will.
Dare I say it, they also had - and still have - a very both/and not either/or view of some of these issues whereas we might neatly prefer to come down on one side or another.
As far as I understand it, the Orthodox Church has a view of Ancestral Sin, rather than Original Sin and yes, they do see the whole of human life being tainted by that - but in a different kind of way to how we commonly regard these things in the West.
The Fall is seen more in terms of a falling-short and a descent into immaturity - something that needs to be corrected and put straight - and that is happening through Christ - and will go on happening until the fulfilment of all things.
I suppose my own take would be that both views are two sides of the same coin and the view that comes most into prominence depends on which side we are most accustomed to looking at.
But that might just be me trying to be neat and tidy ...
![[Biased]](wink.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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
There is argument that Augustine misread Romans 5:12.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned
The Eastern Orthodox view as I understand it is that Adam's consequence of receiving death is what transmitted to human beings, not "original sin." Human beings then fearing death and absolute extinction committed sin.
It is not that we are sinful and evil, it is that fundamentally we fear and dread death, and out of this dread of death, we commit sin.
To me, that makes more sense than this whole humans are nasty business.
Understood this way, Mary's praise of God as Savior has to do with His deliverance of humanity from the chains of death, not simply forgiveness of sins.
It is death that is the enemy, not simply sin.
[ 06. January 2017, 14:37: 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's my understanding of the Orthodox position too but am I right in thinking that they still believe the imageo dei to be marred within Fallen humanity?
I have suggested to Orthodox priests that such a view might be, to adapt a Blairite phrase, 'soft on sin, soft on the causes and consequences of sin', but they don't see how that follows and insist that they have as much of a handle on human sinfulness as anyone else.
I have to say that I do find some evangelical preaching illustrations about the pervasiveness of sin to be misguided and far-fetched. I once heard a preacher insist that a baby crying for its mother's milk demonstrated how flawed and sinful we are ...
What?!
The baby can't speak for goodness sake ...
--------------------
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:
I'm not sure what you mean by him inventing the Church's notion of 'the sacrament' ...
There are those who don't agree with his definition of a sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.
That may (or may not be) unscriptural. I can't find any definition of 'sacrament' in the Bible other tan the Vulgate translation of 'mysterium' which is, according to Paul, simply 'Christ in you the hope of glory.'
There is nothing in any of the references to the last supper that suggest it is the outward symbol of a particular work of grace.
You said
quote:
We inevitably 'Christianise' the Old Testament as we see it through the filter of the New. 'The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed' and all that ...
I think we also 'churchify' the New Testament by reading church tradition back into it; a little like when the recent revision of the Catholic Missal translates the cup that Jesus used as a 'chalice'.
Seriously? Weren't the revisers on the set of Indiana Jones? Methinks they've picked the wrong cup!
[ 06. January 2017, 16:07: 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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Interestingly, Wesleyan teaching is more 'generous' about total depravity and original sin.
Whilst we follow Augustine's view about being dead in sin, etc, we do not follow his line (or that of Calvin) that we are totally incapable of choosing. We do not go as far as Pelagius and say that it's all down to our natural choice to follow Christ, but that all people have enough light from God to be able to follow Christ by his grace.
Yes, in Adam all die, but all (may) in Christ be made alive.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
I have to say that I do find some evangelical preaching illustrations about the pervasiveness of sin to be misguided and far-fetched. I once heard a preacher insist that a baby crying for its mother's milk demonstrated how flawed and sinful we are ...
What?!
The baby can't speak for goodness sake ...
The same analogy is used in The Confessions. Interestingly I have also seen it used by a Wee-Free turned Darwinian as evidence for The Selfish Gene.
IMO and IME babies are necessarily amoral and neither selfish nor sinful nor naturally innocent. I don't imagine that Jesus behaved materially differently to any other new born child notwithstanding Little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes. I think 'that younge child, when it gan weep' is bang on the money.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Callan quote:
IMO and IME babies are necessarily amoral and neither selfish nor sinful nor naturally innocent.
If a baby is "neither selfish nor sinful" I find it difficult to see why it is not "naturally innocent".
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Callan quote:
IMO and IME babies are necessarily amoral and neither selfish nor sinful nor naturally innocent.
If a baby is "neither selfish nor sinful" I find it difficult to see why it is not "naturally innocent".
Of course a baby is sinful and selfish - in potential; it just hasn't had the opportunity to act out its sinful nature yet.
As a baby, however, it is entirely blameless.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Have you ever -had- a baby? They are bundles of pure selfishness. They have to be, since they are not able to find food or change their own diapers. The entire process of babyhood and childhood is learning how to cope with one's own needs, and not rely upon one's haggard parents. It takes years.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Callan quote:
IMO and IME babies are necessarily amoral and neither selfish nor sinful nor naturally innocent.
If a baby is "neither selfish nor sinful" I find it difficult to see why it is not "naturally innocent".
Of course a baby is sinful and selfish - in potential; it just hasn't had the opportunity to act out its sinful nature yet.
As a baby, however, it is entirely blameless.
St Irenaeus, I believe, opined that Adam and Eve were basically "infant-like" when they sinned in the Garden of Eden, his theology of original sin, dwarfed by Augustine needs to be considered.
God did in fact love Adam and Eve, and I wonder if we are too quick to judge our first parents, harshly, because of their original mistake.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Have you ever -had- a baby? They are bundles of pure selfishness. They have to be, since they are not able to find food or change their own diapers. The entire process of babyhood and childhood is learning how to cope with one's own needs, and not rely upon one's haggard parents. It takes years.
You are making a moral judgement about a pre-moral entity. Babies don't think "actually I could sort this out myself, but it would be less hassle if I got mum or dad to do it" which would be appropriately described as selfish. They go "wah, wah, wah!" when they are hungry or need their nappies changed. Characterising them as selfish on that account is like denouncing the morality of rabbits popping into your garden and eating your lettuces. People who are able to make moral choices are capable of selfishness and St. Augustine's famous larceny of the pears could be construed as immoral but the behaviour of babes in arms or animals, IMO, cannot.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Have you ever -had- a baby? They are bundles of pure selfishness. They have to be, since they are not able to find food or change their own diapers. The entire process of babyhood and childhood is learning how to cope with one's own needs, and not rely upon one's haggard parents. It takes years.
You are making a moral judgement about a pre-moral entity. Babies don't think "actually I could sort this out myself, but it would be less hassle if I got mum or dad to do it" which would be appropriately described as selfish. They go "wah, wah, wah!" when they are hungry or need their nappies changed. Characterising them as selfish on that account is like denouncing the morality of rabbits popping into your garden and eating your lettuces. People who are able to make moral choices are capable of selfishness and St. Augustine's famous larceny of the pears could be construed as immoral but the behaviour of babes in arms or animals, IMO, cannot.
]
It would be funny imagining a world without a Fall, I suppose baby Abel and Baby Cain, instead of fighting over mother's milk, will keep saying "After you, my dear brother" back and forth, like proper, polite British children.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
