|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The incarnation and original sin
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
If we are all born with original sin, and therefore this is an unavoidable aspect of being a member of the human race, then why wasn't Jesus born with it? In what sense was Jesus fully human - in the context of this fallen world - if he had an automatic moral advantage over other people by virtue of his perfect and sinless divine nature?
The Scripture says that Jesus was tempted as we are, yet without sin. This implies a comparison with "fallen man", where we fail, but he succeeds. But if he could just fall back on his divine nature, then the comparison breaks down. Surely this comparison only makes sense if Jesus was subjected to the full force of sin which affects the rest of us and without possessing any kind of special advantage?
I am aware that some might argue that original sin is not essential to being human. But it is, if humanity is understood in a moral sense within the context of a fallen world in which every human being is born with this condition. If Jesus was not affected by original sin, then in what sense was he fully integrated into the human race?
The following analogy came to me earlier, concerning Christ's level of involvement with humanity. Suppose there are, let's say, fifty highly competent musicians who study together at music college. Forty nine of these students practice hard each day, and they acquire their skill chiefly through hard work. But one of these students is a naturally gifted virtuoso, who is such a genius that he actually never needs to practise much, if at all. He hardly breaks a sweat, and not surprisingly attracts the envy and resentment of the other students.
These students leave college and go their separate ways. Twenty years later they all meet up for a reunion. All the forty nine students who needed to work hard had struggled, but had nevertheless succeeded to varying degrees. Of course, the genius had had a stellar career, and didn't the others know about it! He sailed through life, because he could fall back on a level of natural giftedness that was denied to all the others.
Now my question is this: what sort of advice could the genius possibly give to the others as they cope with their struggles? What could they possibly learn from him? How could he really relate to their difficulties? Of course, he could not, because his natural advantage obviated any such empathy.
Now it is inconceivable to me how Jesus could be like this music genius. But yet surely he could fall back on his perfect divine nature to succeed in life, where others struggled, couldn't he? How is it possible for someone who is by nature perfect and incapable of failure to really fully and completely relate genuinely to the moral struggles of other human beings? Given that Jesus does show perfect empathy, it must be true that he endured intense moral struggles, and that implies the possession of a natural sin nature that had to be continually resisted.
It's a mystery, but perhaps the emptying of Philippians 2:7 is more radical than we think?
Any thoughts on this?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
You are illustrating the issue with original sin and the problem with thinking that Jesus was born without it.
There is no such thing as original sin. Rather, what the Bible says is that we all sin and have inherited a nature from our ancestors that leads us to sin.
Jesus had that same nature and He overcame it. That's what He came to do.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You are illustrating the issue with original sin and the problem with thinking that Jesus was born without it.
There is no such thing as original sin. Rather, what the Bible says is that we all sin and have inherited a nature from our ancestors that leads us to sin.
Jesus had that same nature and He overcame it. That's what He came to do.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Surely this comparison only makes sense if Jesus was subjected to the full force of sin which affects the rest of us and without possessing any kind of special advantage?
Yes, that's right.
My understanding of the "full force of sin" is that Jesus was attacked by the same "power of darkness" or "legions of hell" that attack all of us. His Divine nature cannot be subjected to this attack, but His human nature could be.
This is why He came into the world - to enter into this struggle and overcome this attacking power.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's a mystery, but perhaps the emptying of Philippians 2:7 is more radical than we think?
Yes, it is:
quote:
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
That is, He humbled Himself by putting on a human nature, in which He could be "tempted" or attacked by the hells. He was then obedient to His divine nature, or the Father, to the point of physical death - making everything physical in Him subservient to the Divine.
The significance of His victory in these struggles is that spiritual order was restored and human freedom was made secure. That's how I understand this.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The traditional Roman Catholic understanding of this would be, if I'm not mistaken, that the Virgin Birth sidestepped the implications of Original Sin ... but then they encountered a problem when it came to Mary - hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary was somehow conceived without Original Sin ...
This isn't a problem for the Orthodox as they don't have the same concept of Original Sin as the West has had - under the influence of Augustine and flowing in a line that you can trace through Anselm, Aquinas and on into the Reformers ...
Sooner or later, an Orthodoxen will come along and contribute their particular 'take' on this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Classical Christian orthodoxy has it that Jesus wasn't preserved from sin by his divine nature. He was preserved from sin by his human nature. Jesus really did have a human nature. The rest of us don't. We're not fully human. Sin isn't a force or a power, although it may feel that way. Sin is just being damaged. Jesus, as a human being, was undamaged.
I find the idea that Jesus overcame his sin by struggling harder than the rest of us do problematic. It implies that anybody could overcome sin by struggling. In particular, it implies that the neighbour whom I look down on could overcome sin if he bothered to struggle. Or else, that since I am struggling I must have overcome sin. I hope that the problems for both of those are clear.
If there's a problem posed for theology it must be posed for theology that puts too much emphasis on Jesus sharing our condition. That said, humanity being what it is, I personally find it harder to get my head round someone who struggles and overcomes having perfect empathy for those who don't struggle enough, than I do with someone who is well having perfect empathy for those who are sick.
For that matter, I think the idea that moral virtue consists in overcoming temptation is pernicious. It's certainly better to overcome temptation than not to overcome it, but it's even better not to feel temptation at all. The concept of virtue as overcoming seems to me to tie too much into a mindset that praises heroic and military virtues over more neighbourly communal virtues.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Adam was created without Original Sin, which (if it exists at all) only derives from the Fall. Christ is the New Adam, also without Original Sin. By putting on Christ, we are enabled to escape our inherited sinful nature. But it avoids all these complications if we jettison Original Sin entirely - there's nothing about it in the Creeds.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
Doesn't it depend on the extend to which we believe that baptism regeneration? If baptism frees us from original sin and gives us rebirth as children of God, then we are in a similar position to sin as Christ.
Whilst it was previously impossible for us not to sin, it is now according to Augustine: possible not to sin.
What is it about baptismal regeneration that frees us from original sin and makes it possible not to sin? We indeed come to share in Christ's genius, in terms of your analogy. We find this, for instance in Paul's Letter to the Romans.
"God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us." (Rom 5.5)
Chapters 5 to 8 describe how in dying and rising with Christ we come to share in Christ's resurrection and the same Spirit that rose Christ from the dead, so that we are no longer ruled by sin and death but live according to the Spirit and life.
I think that the Spirit pours into our hearts the love of God is key. We have been taught to be open to God's love and to let love characterise who we are and our lives. It is this love that replaces original sin and makes it possible not to sin. This is why the ethical guidance at the end of the letter emphasises love.
"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." (Rom 13.8)
quote:
It's a mystery, but perhaps the emptying of Philippians 2:7 is more radical than we think?
I think so and I think Wesley, as usual, got it right:
"He left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace—
Emptied Himself of all but love."
(And Can It be That I Should Gain?)
We should avoid making Jesus into a superhuman character. To do so is to undermine the implication of the incarnation. The Hebrews text says that Jesus was in every respect tempted as we are and so was subjected to the full force of temptation which affects the rest of us. There was no divine or moral advantage that made resisting sin easy. Jesus was not like the genius musician in your analogy, he would have broken a sweat faced with temptation. The gospels record just one such incident.
What makes Jesus different is that because of his relation to the Father he was sustained and guided by love and so chose what is right. Though Jesus' relation to the Father is unique, it is not exclusive. This love was something that we had in the beginning and was displaced through Adam but regain in Christ.
(Much of this argument reflects a theology and psychology of sin that says, sin is a failure to love and we sin because we turn away from love or fail to believe that we can or are loved.)
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
We have some idea as to what Paul understood by original sin, but what did Jesus understand by it? Did Jesus believe in it? If so, where is the gospel evidence?
When Jesus claimed he had “not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentence” was he implying that some people were righteous? Or did he hold Paul’s view that “none is righteous” (Romans 3:10)?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
In most of the various denominations I grew up with I was always taught that God would not allow people to be tempted more than they could be expected to cope with. This was something i heard time and time again in youth groups. Is this still a popular teaching? And if so would the same limit have been applied to Jesus?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
The evidence seems to me to be that Jesus located sin in our will whereas Paul located it in our nature.
Which is not to say that we were not born into a sinful world. It is to say we were not born sinners.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
I was taught that sin was about things that seperate us from God.
The biggest seperator is our own free will, which is the biggest tempter we have, the desire to do what we want and not what God wants.
Jesus was the only human who managed to follow God's will and not his own, 'yet not my will but your's' so Jesus is the only human who is sinless.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I don't think that we're born sinful, but that we're born with a tendency to sin which we may overcome by will and guidance. If Jesus was from day 1 obedient to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Jesus would be without sin. That didn't mean that there was no struggle with temptation. Far from it!
To use the 'gifted' analogy, we can see that gifted people often have problematic relationships and lifestyles. They have greater temptations. Jesus was sorely tempted, as shown not only in the wilderness but in his frustrations, and in the garden as he asked for the cup to be taken from him. The more we're given, the more responsibility we must bear.
The advice we still receive from Jesus is to persevere, to keep on struggling against the pulls of temptation, to listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The more we yield ourselves to God, the more of God we allow in, the nearer we will be to the humble Christ-like divine nature in which our own true natures blossom.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
I'm unconvinced that the doctrine of original sin is actually in the Bible. ISTM there is more of a case for original goodness.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In most of the various denominations I grew up with I was always taught that God would not allow people to be tempted more than they could be expected to cope with.
I would just note that, if this is true, God is a pretty poor judge of character.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Shamwari quote:
The evidence seems to me to be that Jesus located sin in our will whereas Paul located it in our nature.
Which is not to say that we were not born into a sinful world. It is to say we were not born sinners.
Thanks, Shamwari, that says it for me!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I find the idea that Jesus overcame his sin by struggling harder than the rest of us do problematic. It implies that anybody could overcome sin by struggling. In particular, it implies that the neighbour whom I look down on could overcome sin if he bothered to struggle. Or else, that since I am struggling I must have overcome sin. I hope that the problems for both of those are clear.
Very interesting point of view.
I like the idea that Jesus overcame sin because of His power and His great desire to do so. The idea that He is God come into the world to rescue us is very appealing to me. It is also what the Bible teaches.
Yes, this does imply that anyone can overcome sin by struggling - but every Christian knows that we have no power except from God, so we need to pray for His help in our struggles. Everyone also knows that not everyone who struggles succeeds, so there is no reason to think that struggle equals success.
As for the efforts of other people, I think that most people know that everyone has a different burden to bear and we cannot know another's position and struggles. It is wrong to judge others or to look down on them.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For that matter, I think the idea that moral virtue consists in overcoming temptation is pernicious. It's certainly better to overcome temptation than not to overcome it, but it's even better not to feel temptation at all.
The Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible translated "temptation" are about our trials and tribulations, the obstacles to success and survival, the issues holding us back from being decent and productive citizens.
Yes, it would be nice to have no issues like that. If you have them, though - and everyone does - you have no alternative but to deal with them. This is why we pray to God for help.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The concept of virtue as overcoming seems to me to tie too much into a mindset that praises heroic and military virtues over more neighbourly communal virtues.
That's one way to look at it. Others may see overcoming a lack of kindness as the issue we should be fighting for.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) I'm sure you understand, though, that the very fact that you are arguing a position in the apparent hope of changing people's minds means that you buy into the whole "struggling to overcome" mindset.
--------------------
"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
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In most of the various denominations I grew up with I was always taught that God would not allow people to be tempted more than they could be expected to cope with.
I would just note that, if this is true, God is a pretty poor judge of character.
--Tom Clune
Indeed.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Original Sin as something we "inherit" from our ancestors is Lamarckianism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Original Sin as something we "inherit" from our ancestors is Lamarckianism.
So funny you should mention that. I just listened to a Radiolab podcast that suggests that Lamarck may be right after all.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Original Sin as something we "inherit" from our ancestors is Lamarckianism.
So funny you should mention that. I just listened to a Radiolab podcast that suggests that Lamarck may be right after all.
Sort of. They're talking about turning on and off switches in genes that already exist. Lamarckianism goes WAY beyond that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Original Sin as something we "inherit" from our ancestors is Lamarckianism.
So funny you should mention that. I just listened to a Radiolab podcast that suggests that Lamarck may be right after all.
Sort of. They're talking about turning on and off switches in genes that already exist. Lamarckianism goes WAY beyond that.
Sure, but it amounts to the same thing.
Bottom line is that there is some truth to the idea that the actions of our lives have an effect on what we physically transmit to our descendants.
So I believe that the inherited tendencies to sin can be augmented or reduced over time.
--------------------
"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
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In most of the various denominations I grew up with I was always taught that God would not allow people to be tempted more than they could be expected to cope with.
A reference, I believe, to 1 Corinthians 10:13 - "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
I struggled with this passage shortly after becoming a Christian, being entirely convinced that my temptations were anything but common, and that God never provided a way out. But I came to realise that the power of temptation increases in direct proportion to one's willingness to entertain it. My temptations were no big deal (at least, to begin with) - it was what I did with them which made them irresistable. I considered them, dwelt upon them...and then inevitably acted upon them. I also found that God indeed provides a way out - it's in his word.
I guess my thoughts on the inherent component of sin focus on the free-will aspect. I see that - if we are to be more than automatons - we must have a capacity for choice....which is part of the human condition. With choice, comes the possibility of misuse - or sin, if you like. I believe Christ (despite his human qualities during the incarnation) consistently chose the will of God.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This thread makes me comment that we need a lot less expiation and a lot more emulation. More copying, less ransoming. Less of Paul and more of Jesus. Less of Augustine, Bernard, Anselm, Aquinas and a host of others. Maybe more of Abelard. But certainly more of Jesus. To behave more like Jesus, and to consider a lot less of our selves.
Yes, Jesus is interpreted by Paul and others to have been God's sacrifice for original sin and incarnated as the blood offering. But maybe we can dismiss this for all reasons usually given including a way of creating a credibility from history for the Romans who, who were Paul's interest as missionary to he gentiles, with its partly awful history of supercessionism . Thus Jesus was incarnate to show us how to live, and original sin is simply a statement of human general tendency rather than, as some of you have put it, a Larmarckian inheritance.
--------------------
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
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Man was not created with sin, man adulterated himself with sin in the Garden of Eden. A sinful man is less than a full representation of how we were created.
Christ, being born without sin, was more human than we are.
YMMV
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I believe in original sin - it explains for me the hopeless struggle against my nature and my good intentions.
The Bible is quite clear on the concept right from the Psalms -
'In sin did my mother conceive me.'
'I have been sinful from birth.'
To Paul who speaks about being rescued from 'this body of death' - and the whole rage/despair against his uncontrollable sinful nature.
We are told that God sent his Son 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' and made him 'to be sin for us.'
There is no way that we are born with 'original goodness' - if so, why the promise and the need of a Saviour?
--------------------
"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
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is quite clear on the concept right from the Psalms...
I find the notion that the Bible is clear on much of anything a seriously flawed hermeneutic. I think that you are right that some writers in the Bible express the view that you are claiming. But the Bible is clearly a centuries-long dialog about faith, not a single manifesto of what all right-thinking people must believe. The attempt to force the many contradictory lines of thought into a unity of belief just leads to reptiles of the mind. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The attempt to force the many contradictory lines of thought into a unity of belief just leads to reptiles of the mind. Or so ISTM.
I love that. "Reptiles of the mind." Good one.
But of course the basic premise that the Bible is the product of God Himself is a non-starter with that point of view.
I prefer to think that since God wrote the Bible it must be a perfect vehicle for all wisdom. Any contradictions are an appearance due to our lack of understanding. The thought that there is a unity of belief in the Bible is therefore important.
But you knew that I would say that. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I prefer to think that since God wrote the Bible
Do you have a good reason for taking that as a given?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
"Reptiles of the mind." Good one.
FWIW, that is a phrase from William Blake, not me. But I agree that it has real evocative power.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
"Reptiles of the mind." Good one.
FWIW, that is a phrase from William Blake, not me. But I agree that it has real evocative power.
--Tom Clune
That's very interesting. Literature and neuroscience coincide by happenstance, if we accept that the basal ganglia of the brain is the 'reptilian brain' still within our brains, following Paul MacLean's (think I have the name right) idea of the "tri-une brain" model of the evolution of the vertebrate brain. The "reptilian complex" (basal ganglion) is what I recall of this, which is basically the centre of instinct, aggression and other basic drives.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think what Freddy is saying when he writes that God himself wrote the Bible, is what the traditional view of Scripture has been since the days of the apostkes - that God uinspired the men who wrote, that the spirit of God himself carried these men along, as it were, so that under his influence - but never by-passing their gifts and intelligence - what was written was what God wanted to be written.
So, I agree with Mr Freddie ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We do not, of course, believe that God dictated every word - except of course, those passages where God has actually spoken and where Jesus himself spoke.
TBH, I can never understand why anyone would want to believe the Bible - in part or as a whole - if he/she believes it's just inspirational literature.
It's hardly worth trusting one's salvation to, is it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Mudfrog throws some 'proof texts' presumably in support of a Biblical view of original sin. While I hesitate to respond in a battle of texts, here are just some that indicate another point of view:
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God." (Genesis 6v9)
Where is original sin in Noah?
(Interestingly, a Jewish understanding of sin points to Genesis 6 as the crunch point, not the garden of Eden)
The Psalms are not the best place to form theology or doctrine - clearly poetic, perhaps written by someone with bi-polar disorder (certainly under stress at times) However, here are some indicators that suggest original goodness:
"Vindicate me, LORD, according to my righteousness, according to my integrity, O Most High" (psalm 7v8)
"For you have been my hope, Sovereign Lord,
my confidence since my youth.
From birth I have relied on you;
you brought me forth from my mother’s womb.
I will ever praise you." Psalm 71 v5&6
If you want to go to Paul, there is a view that what Paul was on about was not original sin as a result of Adam, but universal death. I could go on...I just find it harder and harder to accept that the doctrine of original sin has coherent biblical foundations.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think what Freddy is saying when he writes that God himself wrote the Bible, is what the traditional view of Scripture has been since the days of the apostkes - that God uinspired the men who wrote, that the spirit of God himself carried these men along, as it were, so that under his influence - but never by-passing their gifts and intelligence - what was written was what God wanted to be written.
So, I agree with Mr Freddie
We do not, of course, believe that God dictated every word - except of course, those passages where God has actually spoken and where Jesus himself spoke.
TBH, I can never understand why anyone would want to believe the Bible - in part or as a whole - if he/she believes it's just inspirational literature.
It's hardly worth trusting one's salvation to, is it?
Perhaps that's why I don't trust my salvation to the Bible, Mudfrog.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, you see this is what happens if people see the Bible as nothing but a collection of different, non-connected writings of human origin.
Instead of reading texts in 'group a' and then reading texts in 'group b', finding a variation, and then surmising that only one can be correct and thus basing ones theology on one's personal choice of 'group b' over 'group a'; should we not be saying these texts are not enemies but allies, not contradictory but complimentary.
I cannot divide the Bible up into 'this bit good', 'this bit bad' - it must be seen as a whole, as internally explanatory and interpretive.
Original sin is not precluded by the texts you quote at all.
For example, you quote the case of Noah who was righteous and blameless.
And yet he got drunk.
We are all called to be holy, to 'be perfect as he is perfect,' but even in our forgiven, sanctified state we cannot say that original sin has been entirely removed - that's not what holiness is.
One can still believe in original sin, still be a sinner even whilst being righteous and blameless.
It does not say that Noah was a sinless man.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, I agree with Mr Freddie
And I agree with Mudfrog.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
TBH, I can never understand why anyone would want to believe the Bible - in part or as a whole - if he/she believes it's just inspirational literature.
It's hardly worth trusting one's salvation to, is it?
Perhaps that's why I don't trust my salvation to the Bible, Mudfrog.
*sigh*
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Neither do I - the book won't save me, and I don't know anyone who thinks it does. My phrase was simple shorthand for saying that a Bible that is mere human construct is not worthy of containing the sure and certain hope of salvation that the Gospel speaks about. If for example, the words of Jesus are made up by a Gospel writer, if the Good News of salvation is not reliable, then I have no certainty that God's promises are sure, that his salvation is freely available, that he even loves me.
That's what I meant.
It was taken for granted that you would know what I meant; I mean, it's hardly ground-breaking theology!
--------------------
"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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think I disagree with you both about the bible. The bible is a human document in my reading, a story of faith and the journey of a people, with the generalities and basic thrust quite clear in that regard, and the specifics of various books within rather troubling, subject to subsequent errors, omissions, additions and translations problems.
But, that my reading of the bible differs from how you see it constituted, may or may not mean that I disagree with your ideas about what parts of it mean.
My view of the OT is that the Hebrews sat around campfires (probably burning dung in the desert for the first part and told their stories to each other. "C'mon gramma, tell us the one about Abraham, and make it really scary this time!" Eventually they wrote them down. Or wrote down versions of the events. Thus original sin may have been intended via the writer's emphasis or may not have. It took later interpreters to really decide what to make of it all, and we're dealing with the legacy of the guys I noted earlier, and Paul and Augustine are the two who I am most concerned about having quite likely emphasized things for human not Godly reasons.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Why are you able to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God without anything to prove that it is, but not that Jesus is the way of salvation without anything to prove that he is?
At some point you have an unprovable axiom.
I find it extremely difficult to believe in the divine authorship of a book that on the face of it advocates genocide, stoning to death for minor crimes, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, the execution of disobedient children and theocracy shored up by penalty of death for religious diversity, and describes a God who kills babies because of what their fathers have done.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
Mudfrog wrote
quote:
Yes, you see this is what happens if people see the Bible as nothing but a collection of different, non-connected writings of human origin.
Instead of reading texts in 'group a' and then reading texts in 'group b', finding a variation, and then surmising that only one can be correct and thus basing ones theology on one's personal choice of 'group b' over 'group a'; should we not be saying these texts are not enemies but allies, not contradictory but complimentary.
Despite MF's slightly patronising tone, I'm actually in agreement, which is precisely why I pointed out some variations which indicate there may be another way of understanding the human condition according to the whole Biblical revelation.
I am also in agreement with a previous poster, IMHO we need to get nearer to what Jesus said, and have less of Augustinian thought.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
M
I am also in agreement with a previous poster, IMHO we need to get nearer to what Jesus said, and have less of Augustinian thought.
So, sola scriptura then?
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why are you able to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God without anything to prove that it is, but not that Jesus is the way of salvation without anything to prove that he is?
Because without the Bible there would be nothing to say about Jesus in the first place. I believe Jesus is the way, etc, because the Bible says so. I trusted what God has said through the Bible, trusting in the One its pages describes, and have found him to be trustworthy.
The Bible itself, inspired and powerful, speaks words that give life.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And all the obnoxious things I referred to in the OT?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
A bit late in catching up
Question.
If Mudfrog has any children is he happy to believe that "in sin did my mother conceive me"?
So much for the sanctity of sex.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find it extremely difficult to believe in the divine authorship of a book that on the face of it advocates genocide, stoning to death for minor crimes, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, the execution of disobedient children and theocracy shored up by penalty of death for religious diversity, and describes a God who kills babies because of what their fathers have done.
I find it difficult to believe in the popular conception of what it means for the Bible to be divinely inspired. As KLB says, the OT gives us a god who seems thoroughly bloodthirsty and (key point for me) thoroughly at odds with 'turn the other cheek', 'bless those who curse you' Jesus.
I don't see how it's possible to marry up these two wildly contrasting images of what God is like, to be honest. So I've become convinced by the argument that says we need to view it all through the lens of Jesus - he is the ultimate revelation of what Yahweh God is like. Obviously this means the OT view of God is imperfect, to say the least, which does raise problems of its own...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find it extremely difficult to believe in the divine authorship of a book that on the face of it advocates genocide, stoning to death for minor crimes, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, the execution of disobedient children and theocracy shored up by penalty of death for religious diversity, and describes a God who kills babies because of what their fathers have done.
I don't see why any of these things should be an obstacle to belief.
You're simply misunderstanding the whole nature of the Bible.
The Bible is not a book of stories and teachings that tell us exactly what to do through example and plain truths.
Rather the Bible is an ancient document composed and collected during an ignorant and bloody era of the human race. It is written according to the chauvinistic and violent attitudes then extant.
Despite these seeming drawbacks, God provided that there be enough clear truth to enable the sincere reader to understand a set of guiding life principles. The rest, that is, the genocide, misogynism, etc. is formed as a huge, fascinating, complex metaphor that supports those same guiding life principles.
I think that Jesus explained this, so I don't see the issue with understanding and believing it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I have been wondering a lot about the atonement and the very idea of it being a centrepiece of Christianity. I am becoming more and more concerned the "by grace and via Jesus' sacrifice/blood" ideas, versus the requirement that we actually follow what Jesus said and did. I'm working on a slogan as well it seems, "less expiation, more emulation" or more copying of Jesus, and less concern about him ransoming us with a mean old god who would hate us except that he killed Jesus in our place but has us do it for him by proxy.
Maybe I am overstating it just now, but let me push it. We are to follow Jesus with faithfulness without regard to his possible atonement for our sins which ultimately means with a lot less focus on our selfish selves and our ticket to heaven. Ultimately, if this life ends with no eternity no heaven no nothing, follow Jesus anyway because it is right to do so.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am becoming more and more concerned the "by grace and via Jesus' sacrifice/blood" ideas, versus the requirement that we actually follow what Jesus said and did.
I think you are right on the money.
The issue is that we have an inherited nature that runs counter to what Jesus teaches us. So the point is to follow Jesus rather than our hereditary disposition.
This is why so much is made of so-called "original sin." It is not that God blames us for something that Adam did, or that any debt needs to be paid. Rather, generations of misbehavior induces a tendency toward more of the same.
The great message of Christianity is that this vicious cycle can be reversed, and the human race can be improved, because of the Incarnation.
[ 04. December 2012, 16:22: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is quite clear on the concept right from the Psalms -
'In sin did my mother conceive me.'
'I have been sinful from birth.'
To Paul who speaks about being rescued from 'this body of death' - and the whole rage/despair against his uncontrollable sinful nature.
We are told that God sent his Son 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' and made him 'to be sin for us.'
Just to add to the concept, there are many passages about the "darkness" that Christ came to dispel:
quote:
Psalm 18:9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down With darkness under His feet.
Isaiah 9:2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them a light has shined.
Isaiah 60:2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, And deep darkness the people; But the LORD will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you.
Luke 1:79 To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.”
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
The nature of this "darkness" is not exactly clear, but I take it to be both a transmitted culture and a hereditary nature.
The combination of culture and inheritance means that humanity changes slowly over long periods of time, for better of for worse.
The biblical pattern seems to describe a long period of decline, to be followed by an even longer period of improvement resulting from the Incarnation. From light to darkness, and then from darkness back to light.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I have been wondering a lot about the atonement and the very idea of it being a centrepiece of Christianity. I am becoming more and more concerned the "by grace and via Jesus' sacrifice/blood" ideas, versus the requirement that we actually follow what Jesus said and did.
I have been much the same. Until recently I discovered that blood is actually a sign of life in many of the scriptures:
quote:
When the Bible says that someone has blood upon them (see Matthew 27:25, Deuteronomy 19:10) or speaks of a city being “built with blood” (see Micah 3:10, Habakkuk 2:12) it means the people are guilty of murder. In cases like these, blood is a symbol of death. In other cases, blood does not mean death, but life. For example, in eating meat and sacrifices the people of Israel were always told that blood means life.
But flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat. (Genesis 9:4)
You shall not eat the blood of any kind of flesh: for the life of all flesh is its blood. (Leviticus 17:14)
Only be sure that you do not eat the blood: for the blood is the life; and you may not eat the life with the flesh. (Deuteronomy 12:23)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)
Thus in all the sacrifices and meals, the blood was a symbol of life. That is, it was not a symbol of taking away life, but of preserving or receiving life. Thus the blood of atonement was not a symbol of death or punishment, but a symbol of life. The same was true when Jesus spoke of His blood. It was not a symbol of His death, so much as of His life.
Then Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:53-54)
Clearly, Jesus was speaking symbolically, not asking us to eat physical flesh and drink material blood, but to receive His life, which is His flesh and blood spiritually understood.
- Quoted by dodgy reference . (Cos I can't be arsed to look up my scholarly ones at this time of night)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
