Original Sin - Time to break to taboo and have a chat

[Sobornost]

I'm not quite sure where 'Original Sin' fits in with the 'ologies': is it a matter of protology or soteriology? Anyway it seems to not have a thread of its own although it has already been discussed in other soteriology threads. Bird raised it in the PS thread and, because I wanted to get off the PS thread and get on with something else, I clarified something about ST Augustine’s view in her introduction. Well my posting it on an Introduction thread meant that a discussion started on here thread between Jason and I, cluttering it up for her.
JeffA has suggested someone starts a proper post about it so that we can get the gloves off and talk about it in the open, challenging each other’s view if necessary (in friendship). Jeff is either Welsh or lives in Wales - whatever way, the Welsh are far more direct than polite Englishmen like me (and historically have reasons to be suspicious of polite Englishmen who have managed to do some pretty horrible things to them down the years;) )
So what do you think of Original Sin? - the difference between the Eastern and the Western views, how these affect ideas of atonement and salvation etc.

There has already been good discussion of this on Bird's thread - (Thanks for the hospitality Bird ) and also at the end of the PS thread as its stands. Far be it from me to cut and paste ideas/thoughts form elsewhere - but if anyone is up for it I guess it’s OK for them to plonk ideas expressed elsewhere here). It's a hot topic

Yours politely and with Quaker reserve


Dick

[Sobornost]

I’d better write something to kick off (based on what I’ve already written elsewhere)_
The doctrine of Original Sin seems to be there in the Bible – but the Eastern Church share the same Bible but do not share this doctrine with the Western Church (which is curious). And the Latin fathers prior to Augustine do not expound the doctrine in the same relentless form found in Augustine.

In St Pauls’ Letter o the Romans’, Paul says: ‘Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.’ Augustine translated this phrase: ‘in whom all men sinned” And using a faulty Latin translation which left out the word ‘death’ translated as follows: Through one man sin entered into the world and through sin, death, and thus spread to all men, in whom all have sinned.’ (Contra Julianum – that is Julian of Ecclanum – and not Julian of Norwich).

So this is, arguably, where the doctrine of Original Sin comes from – we are born sinners and ‘creatures of God’s wrath’ because we carry the sin of Adam in us from the first. By way of contrast the Eastern tradition of ‘ancestral sin’ – as summarised by the hopeful universalist Timothy Ware - has it that:

The doctrine of ancestral sin means that we were born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good, easy to hurt others and hard to heal their wounds; easy to arouse man's suspicions, and hard to win their trust. It means that we are each of us conditioned by the solidarity of the human race in its accumulated wrong-doing and wrong-thinking, and hence wrong being..."

But that’s not the same thing as original sin. All of what Ware says is true but we are still bearers of the image of God ni this view – and children come into the world as blessings.

Augustine has had an enormous influence on Western Christianity – his doctrine of Original Sin has informed Penal substitution views of atonement (although this is a later development) and ECT (he was responsible for the horrible idea that unbaptised infants go to hell, an idea that had to wait for Aquinas to be mitigated to the idea of Limbo (recently abolished by the current Pope along with the doctrine of the damnation of infants)

Part of the Eastern view of sin is that it is a sickness to be struggled against and cured rather than an act of rebellion that needs to be punished. I’ve read that for this reason in the Eastern Church, people who were thought to be ‘demon possessed were treated with kindness and gentleness, as opposed to in the West in which they were often subjected to cruel ritual, punishment and imprisonment.

I’ve not thought through the Eastern view in detail – although I’m sure it’s pretty similar to my own view. Of course the Eastern view also entails ideas of punishment for sin – remedial retributive punishment for the minority but allowed Universalist tradition and pure retributive punishment for the majority tradition. And I need some help on this one - because I’m not sure how it fits the idea of sin as sickness in need of healing.

So any thoughts on Original Sins and the context of the development of the doctrine are appreciated. I’ve got a couple of other posts I can think of – one about Augustine and the Introspective Conscience and another in praise of bits of Augustine (because I don’t think he was totally bad and wouldn’t want to see him as a scapegoat). BUT will await and see how the discussion develops.

All the best


Dick

[Alex Smith]

Thanks Dick. I like the Eastern view, summarised by Ware, but must admit I haven't looked into this as much as I would like.

I think we live in an imperfect world & are born imperfect, generally rebellious, people, although still God's children, made in His image (implying inherent worth). I don't think we can get out the situation we're in without the Holy Spirit's help, often using rehabilitative punishment/discipline.

It's interesting that most Western Christians have softened Original Sin (e.g. children no longer just go straight to hell).

[redhotmagma]

I believe that we sin because we are mortal. Death spread to all men, on which, meaning the death nature spread, on which all sinned. I don't think that sin spread to all people, just the propensity for it because of our death nature.

[Cindy Skillman]

On a purely observational basis, anyone who has had or spent much time with toddlers has seen the natural human propensity toward selfishness. Is this sin? Well, I suppose . . . no law, no sin. Still, it's hardly desirable behavior. Is this a sign of innate, original sin? Perhaps not punishable as active sin, because of the little ones' inability to understand, but it's rare that you see a wee one whose natural inclination is self sacrifice and preferring others over herself. Yes, they are often very affectionate and loving -- so long as they're getting their way!

What does anybody think of this? What does it mean?

[BirdOfTheEgg]

I generally do not agree with the notion that children are selfish. "Selfishness" is, to me, a rather specific term that, from my experience, does not characterize how children perceive things very well compared to its application on adults. Survivalist instincts and protecting self from harm, as well as modeling, or conditioning isn't selfishness.

The selfishness as I understand it actually requires a mental state that can actively process costs and benefits in a conscious manner. The children I saw being "selfish" mostly do it in a reactive manner, i.e., they just do it, without thinking about it (and it has a lot to do with parenting - they learn that if you do X, parents will do Y).

The adult level of selfishness and evil is not approachable for toddlers simply due to intellectual limitations. And I have little interest in calling a toddler taking someone else's toys selfish than calling a wolf that's trying to steal meat selfish. Selfishness is a pervasive concept that only exists within one's consciousness of it (as pretty much all sins, I believe). Comparing toddlers to adult selfishness doesn't do selfishness justice. It's a much more pervasive and corruptive concept. It's incredibly easy for the toddler to replace their survival instinct with a sharing instinct if they do not feel threatened. That's why children are largely "safe" and "innocent", their mental state is completely different. Not to say you can't corrupt them, but a spoiled kid is simply a kid with a crooked view of the world, which is an informational problem.

By definition, animals, toddlers, and creatures of low intelligence/awareness cannot sin, IMO.

[JeffA]

Jeff is either Welsh or lives in Wales

I am both! (though with a strand of Somerset as well )

The only horrible thing the English have done to us recently is beating us at rugby (the nineties were difficult times for us Welsh rugby fans ).

Sorry to be OT.

Anyway here is another take (on topic) by Stephen Jones of God's Kingdom Ministries from his online book The Problem of Evil..

All judgment for sin is evil. God imposed death (mortality) upon all mankind when Adam sinned. This has been the root cause of all subsequent evil in the world that man has done as a consequence of this mortal condition or weakness.

Many do not understand this, and even Bible translators have tried to correct Paul's writings, thinking that he made a mistake. A key misunderstanding is seen in the NASB translation of Romans 5:12,

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

As translated above, it seems to say that through Adam, sin entered the world—because he was the first sinner. And then death came as a result of sin. Then, as Adam begat children, this death (mortality) spread to them as well—“because all sinned.”

We are left with the impression that Adam's children all became mortal because they sinned. The implication is that if they had not sinned, they would not be mortal. This is incorrect, and it is not what Paul was actually saying.

The Concordant Literal New Testament translates it this way:

12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed through into all mankind, ON WHICH [eph ho] all sinned.

The Greek phrase, eph ho, means “on which,” and is the equivalent of “therefore.” It does not mean “because.” This is crucial, because we need to know what caused what. Did mankind become mortal BECAUSE they sinned? No, it is the opposite. Mortality was passed into mankind ON WHICH they all sinned. Mankind sins because they are mortal. Mortality is their fatal flaw, their weakness.

So the order of events is this: First, Adam sinned. God imposed the death penalty upon him, which we know as “mortality.” From there, we find that all of his children were born mortal as well. This mortality made them weak and susceptible to sin. Therefore, all have sinned.

From another of his online books Creation's Jubilee he talks about Adam's sin being imputed to us in contrast with Christ's righteousness also being imputed to us (calling what is not as though it is)..

This tells us that through Adam, sin entered the world, along with its penalty, death. Adam's sin was then imputed to all of us, not only to His descendants, but indeed to all of creation, which groans in travail because of it (Rom. 8:22).

Adam's sin was imputed to us. That simply means, we were blamed for his sin, though it was an act done outside of ourselves. And thus, we all had to pay the penalty for Adam's sin, which is death. This is why we are all mortal. We are not mortal because WE sinned; we are mortal because Adam sinned, and his sin was imputed to us.

By the same process, the righteousness of Jesus is an act done outside of ourselves, but which is imputed to us. Thus, we benefit from its effect-life, or immortality. We may illustrate the principle like this:

1. Johnny steals a cookie.
2. The whole class gets blamed for it.
3. The class must pay back with 2 cookies.

The trouble is, no one in the class has any cookies, nor do they know how to make them. But suddenly a smart new kid named Ricky comes to class. What a break! He knows how to make cookies! So . . .

1. Ricky makes cookies and repays the debt.
2. The class gets the credit for it.
3. The class is free to go out and play.

Johnny and Ricky have something in common. By one bad deed Johnny brought guilt upon the whole class, and so they all had to pay the penalty. On the other hand, by one good act Ricky brought justification to the whole class, and so they all benefited.

[Alex Smith]

On a purely observational basis, anyone who has had or spent much time with toddlers has seen the natural human propensity toward selfishness. Is this sin? Well, I suppose . . . no law, no sin. Still, it's hardly desirable behavior. Is this a sign of innate, original sin? Perhaps not punishable as active sin, because of the little ones' inability to understand, but it's rare that you see a wee one whose natural inclination is self sacrifice and preferring others over herself. Yes, they are often very affectionate and loving -- so long as they're getting their way!

What does anybody think of this? What does it mean?

It seems to have similarities to Adam & Eve. Personally I think any intelligence that has the ability to make reasonably conscious/free choices will always eventually make selfish, rebellious (call it sin if you like) & unwise decisions. Any good, loving parent/God would want to help the being make better choices, even if it requires painful discipline. So Genesis, my children & artificial intelligence research all suggest to me the fall & subsequent UR

Thanks Jeff, the Stephen Jones article & the "Johnny and Ricky" analogy are both interesting.

[Sobornost]

Thought it was a good subject for conversation!

The Stephen Jones article cited by Jeff is very interesting (and seems to confirm redhotmagma's insight). Yes, I remember reading an Eastern theologian on 'the wages of sin is death' stressing that ‘death’ means our mortality and is not a threat of damnation. He - whoever he was - also went on to argue that fear of death is the primary cause of sin because it makes us anxious to preserve ourselves rather than give ourselves away.

Discussion between Alex, Cindy and Bird regarding children and sinfulness is also very interesting and has made me think. What is important for me is not that the Eastern view suggests that very young children are spotless and selfless (I'm well aware that they can be right little blighters and sometimes on an extended basis). Rather the point is that the Eastern view does not suggest that children are born into this world as creatures of God's wrath and detestable rebels against a mighty and fearful sovereign lord who have wills that need to be broken (this idea has informed the very terrible history of corporal punishment for children in the West). They are instead little blessings who bear the image of God, as well as little blighters who are already influenced by and part of a sinful world. I remember that one Eastern Father - St Iraeneus - interpreted Adam's sin as result of weakness and immaturity, and looked on the process of redemption as being, in part, a process of growing up (as with the history of the species, so with the history of the individual I say).

Finally, a Catholic sort of Protestant I may be, but I am still a Protestant and 'the Bishop of Rome' hath no real jurisdiction in my life. However I have a number of loving Catholic friends and relatives and I am so glad for them that Pope Benedict has lain to rest the nightmare of infant damnation and limbo. I know that in Ireland graveyards are sometimes discovered, often at crossroads, in which the unbaptised have been buried outside of consecrated ground. What terrible and inconsolable griefs these places must have known. (To give a balanced view, a far as I am aware, although the idea of infant damnation was first questioned in mainstream Protestantism in the late seventeenth century, before this time the Augustinian view was also the dominant and has remained so in parts of the Protestantism - although as Total Victory uniformed me on another thread, the Anabaptists - at least those of the Mennonite connection - have never believed in infant damnation; and blessings to them for showing the rest of us the way).

All the best

Dick

[Sobornost]

Correction: oops: it was We Are All Brothers who informed us of the Anabaptist teaching on infants and children. It's over at Ecclesiology on the Luther and the Anabaptist thread.

[Sobornost]

Just one final wee thing hwile I have th etime to putmit innto words. I've never met an evil/wicked baby. THey are helpless, vulnerable nad open bundles of potentiality. So where does the bad in children come from (and whether the badness is culpable or not, children can be just plain nasty sometmies from toddler age onwards and I think William Golding's novel 'Lord of the Flies' tells us an importaatn truth about childhood). ONe theory of learning has it that it come sfomr how we learn - we learn throgh imitation (for example, language skills) but in order to imitate we first have to desire whta we imitate. If the desire is reciprocated in a gving and receiving without rivalry then all is good (and most human experience/relationships contain at least some of this - and that's the image of God in us). However, if the desire leads to rivalry (you envy somone because they have seomthing you want, or you are jealous of soemone because they seem to be a threat to you by desring what is yours) that's where the problem starts.

All the best

Dick

[JeffA]

Finally, a Catholic sort of Protestant I may be, but I am still a Protestant..

Have you read any books by the Scottish Jesuit Priest Gerrard W. Hughes? I really like his books and though never stated after reading almost all of them I am pretty sure he's a Universalist.

[Sobornost]

Hi Jeff - have replied on your thread about Hughes to this question.

[revdrew61]

He - whoever he was - also went on to argue that fear of death is the primary cause of sin because it makes us anxious to preserve ourselves rather than give ourselves away.

Great thread, sorry I've been too busy to join in. I agree strongly with this statement about the crippling effect of the fear of death. I found a very good blog post on the subject here http://www.theocentric.com/theology/gospel/freedom_from_the_fear_of_death.html.
The author is Richard Vincent and he expresses the contrast between the Eastern and Western views very clearly. Here is an extract, but the whole article is well worth reading:

In order to fully appreciate the scope of God's redemptive work in Christ, we must reevaluate our perspective on death. Western Christians have inherited an Augustinian view of original sin that deeply influences our understanding of God's redemptive plan. We are often unaware of this influence. However, we must never underestimate the following fact: The way we describe our problem ("original sin") deeply influences what we perceive as the necessary solution to our problem. In other words, our view of salvation is primarily shaped by our understanding of what exactly is wrong and what needs to be put to right.

Following Augustine's lead, Western Christians generally assume that death is God's punishment for sin. In other words, death is God's doing. Stated in the starkest of terms, Western Christians generally assume that daath is God's judgment on guilty sinners - God's punishment for sin. Though we attempt to soften the blow by assigning the devil as God's chosen instrument of death, the implications remain the same: God kills guilty sinners. And God is justified in doing so because of the guilt of sin. The "wages of sin is death" because God vindictively punishes the sinner for his or her sins.[6]

The Eastern Orthodox view of our main problem ("original sin") and God's solution is markedly different. Sin is its own undoing; it contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Sin is the turning away from the divine life and love, and its ultimate consequence is alienation and death. God did not create death; we brought it upon ourselves through our sin. God warned of death because death is not God's will: "for in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:16). Rather, communion, obedience, and the sharing of divine life is God's will.

Good stuff! Perhaps I am orthodox after all

[Sobornost]

Hi Drew -

Yes, it is wonderful to ponder a sense that sin is its own undoing and Christ is Victor. I have a couple of relevant quotations from Eastern liturgy here -

Hell took a body and discovered God
It took earth and encountered Heaven
It took what it saw
and was overthrown by what it did not see.

O Death, where is your sting?
O Hell, where is your victory?
Christ is Risen, and you are destroyed!

St. John Chrysostom

He who first said to Adam,
"Where are you?"
Is raised upon the cross
that they who were lost might be found.

And descending to hell Christ proclaims:
"Come out from here my image! Come out from here my likeness!"

St Ephrem

Almost makes you feel quite romantic about Eastern Christianity - but I think we should be cautious; there's a lot in the history of Eastern Christinaity that is also inglorious - and I guess we need to work out our own balance of faith in the West, inspired by what is profitable from the East but not imitating this slavishly.

Och, I know you are Orthodox Drew – well you are certainly an orthodox Anglican. The hallmark of Anglican orthodoxy is Richard Hooker - the Elizabethan Divine that I've revisited recently in relation to the question you posed on another thread. Hooker was quite clear in his condemnation of the Calvinist Elect who - 'thought very well of themselves, but very poorly of their fellow men'. A lot of stuff in Hooker chimes with the Eastern view of things although ironically he is best described as a moderate Augustinian (that is his Augustine was softened by the Christian humanism of Erasmus - who was, in turn, influenced by Origen). He was a gentle soul but unfortunately - being a man of his times and a man of his church at his time – also advocated a moderate use of religious persecution ('the benign asperity of persecution' - as Augustine put it). So we always have to use our heroes critically.

Isn’t it funny how indebted to Augustine the Fundamentalists are? They claim to preach ‘scripture alone’, but are in fact unknowingly reading scripture with the lenses provided by Augustine. It’s not surprising – Luther and Calvin were both thoroughgoing Augustinians.

All the best

Dick

I hope Jason joins the chat – I’m sure he will but don’t know when he’ll be with us - because he has stuff to say about the Eastern view of retribution for sin. I also hope that Anthony AUniversalist joins in because he has very interesting stuff to say about Augustine and the Manichean heresy – he’s already said this on the PS thread but it’s not for me to cut and paste it here for him. IN fact he and Bird really started this thread off by introducing the topic on the PS thread.

[BirdOfTheEgg]

I generally believe conservative Protestants (and not only) are unofficial Catholics. The similarities are insane for a group that claims to follow the Bible only, and the distinct lack of the Eastern side is suspicious at best. One would imagine Protestantism should be a mix of things.

[AUniversalist]

I believe that from sin, grew doubt and hopelessness and these things are death. No longer could one walk confidently and do what is pure because they have doubt now about what is pure and as a result they are not confident they are doing the right thing any more.

Death was not a physical consequence of disobedience to God's command but a spiritual one. Spiritual death is not a dead spirit or destruction of the spirit, but is mindset in which one lives in perpetual fear. It is death because those who live in fear and doubt can never truly live. They die unsure, they die in fear, they die in that which they do not know, they are blind, veiled and constantly in anger and frustration.

The gospel is that what we don't know doesn't hurt us, in fact we can live by faith and not by sight and that perfect love has come and drives out all fear and we can walk confidently knowing that doing good and remaining humble has no regrets and that one would not want to do the things which brings us back into doubt and hopelessness anymore.

[Sobornost]

Hi Anthony Hi Bird Everything you both say makes sense to me. And thanks both for the thread idea

It's really interesting to hear people debate this one. I know there are some small differences but I'm amazed at the amount of agreement. I do hope we get lots more posts.

[Sobornost]

Drew - just read the site you recommended. It's excellent - and something else for me to absorb for Lent (it corroborates the discussion here perfectly and systematically.

Cindy and Bird - I don't think your slightly different perspectives on the naughtiness of toddlers are at all irreconcilable.

Alex – is there a difference between the terms ‘rebellion’ and 'disobedience’ when applied to ‘sin’? I think there is a slight difference (I feel more comfortable with the latter). But I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Goodnight All

[BirdOfTheEgg]

Death was not a physical consequence of disobedience to God's command but a spiritual one. Spiritual death is not a dead spirit or destruction of the spirit, but is mindset in which one lives in perpetual fear. It is death because those who live in fear and doubt can never truly live. They die unsure, they die in fear, they die in that which they do not know, they are blind, veiled and constantly in anger and frustration.

The gospel is that what we don't know doesn't hurt us, in fact we can live by faith and not by sight and that perfect love has come and drives out all fear and we can walk confidently knowing that doing good and remaining humble has no regrets and that one would not want to do the things which brings us back into doubt and hopelessness anymore.

I really like this, because this speaks to me a lot, and is part of how I got converted to Christianity.

I was, essentially, converted by Hebrews 11. It's a bit of an existential crisis vs crisis of morality. When you want to do X, Y, and Z, but those things appear to be illogical and not supportive of personal survival or pleasure. When you're trying to figure out what IS wrong, and WHY it's wrong, and your view is faded.

And trying to find a home.

I believe faith is a much more loaded word than just "Oh, I believe in God". It's more akin to what Lewis described as Joy.

[Sobornost]

Thanks Dick. I like the Eastern view, summarised by Ware, but must admit I haven't looked into this as much as I would like.

I think we live in an imperfect world & are born imperfect, generally rebellious, people, although still God's children, made in His image (implying inherent worth). I don't think we can get out the situation we're in without the Holy Spirit's help, often using rehabilitative punishment/discipline.

It's interesting that most Western Christians have softened Original Sin (e.g. children no longer just go straight to hell).

What Alex says here- at the beginning of the thread - speaks to me. We have to do the math and get the balance right on this one. One of the reasons that I am so interested in keeping this thread going is that when I first heard the full ‘shock horror’ about Augustine and his influence it was in the context of a rather heterodox Christian pluralist movement known as ‘Creation Centred Spirituality’ (CCS) and inspired by the writings of Matthew Fox (who was a Catholic Dominican, but is now an Episcopalian Priest). Don’t worry; I’m not going to start a long tale of betrayal and bewilderment about CCS here - that didn’t happen. I just note that although I certainly derived benefit from Fox’s book ‘Original Blessing’, and it opened my eyes to many things, the balance of the book ‘wobbled’ and, in my view, the balance of the CCS movement ‘wobbles’.

In ‘Original Blessing’ Fox tells us all the stuff that Augustine got wrong and saddled us with – original sin, total depravity, , religious persecution, hatred of the body and suspicion of the physical world etc. (although he doesn’t major on Augustine’s views of ETC – with infant damnation – or his views on predestination). There is a lot of truth here in my view; and Fox also makes good sense about Grace being implicit in God’s act of Creation through the Holy Spirit (rather than Grace being an act of rescue from Creation); in addition his emphasis on UR as a cosmic event – not just a reconciliation between human beings with God and with each other - all seems very profitable as the basis for an ecologically concerned spirituality.

And yet...leaving the side the issue of an uncritical religious pluralism in CCS, Matthew Fox advocates an alternative tradition culled from the Eastern Fathers, the Medieval Catholic mystics, the Protestant humanists etc whose religion he labels ‘Creation Centred Spirituality’ – that celebrates life in wonder -in contrast to the Fall/Redemption Augustinian tradition that is basically anti –life and anti-cosmic. There are a lot of issues here, so I’ll just sketch three –

• With the Eastern, view the cosmos is the wonderful, Gracious creation of our good God and reflects His glory, and the same is true of human beings; but both are fallen and, in a sense, unfinished. The second act of Grace is required for their renewal and completion – and this is the Redemption achieved and in process by Christ. Fox, in my view, misreads the Eastern Fathers (and the medieval Catholic mystics, and the Protestant Christian humanists)

• Because Fox is anti-Augustine he has to be pro-Pelagius. Pelagius was a Celtic Christian monk who Augustine bitterly opposed because Pelagius taught that we can actually do what is pleasing in the sight of God through our efforts and self-control because we bear God’s image(Fox , if I understand him rightly, sees Pelagianism as the antidote for Augustinian teachings on the paralysis of the will and total depravity). However, it appears that in Pelagian Churches you were far more likely to be excommunicated for minor sins than in Augustinian Catholicism where the same sins would be dealt with by the sacrament of penance. So Pelagius teaching was unbalanced too –but in the opposite direction - and Pelagianism seems to have resulted in some very ungracious, unforgiving attitudes.

• Fox’s critique of Augustine is so over the top that he lays all of the evils of the world at the Bishop Of Hippos’ door (and one day I will do a post saying a few good things about Augustine). Augustine becomes the scapegoat – he’s almost construed as the devil that we need to liberate ourselves from. However, I do detect something curious – concerned as it is with environmentalism there can be a tendency to almost reinvent Original Sin in some CCS authors inspired by Fox; human beings once again are seen as polluting blots bent on destroying the environment rather than Original Blessings. A dark hopelessness and apocalypticism seems to reassert itself.
So we gotta do the math –

All good wishes

Dick

[AUniversalist]

I really like this, because this speaks to me a lot, and is part of how I got converted to Christianity.

I was, essentially, converted by Hebrews 11. It's a bit of an existential crisis vs crisis of morality. When you want to do X, Y, and Z, but those things appear to be illogical and not supportive of personal survival or pleasure. When you're trying to figure out what IS wrong, and WHY it's wrong, and your view is faded.

And trying to find a home.

I believe faith is a much more loaded word than just "Oh, I believe in God". It's more akin to what Lewis described as Joy.

Indeed I agree, faith is far more than a belief in God. I pursued the knowledge of Truth for a long time but I found knowledge came sorrow and grief.

[Sobornost]

Dear Anthony –
I’m thinking about what you have to say about knowledge and would like to share something about it – I don’t take it as specifically aimed at me, but it has given me pause to thought on being a wordy Smart Alec. St Paul speaks of those who are ‘ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth’ and advises that ‘Love builds up, Knowledge puffs up’. Certainly the latter refers to those who feel that in this world in which all of us ‘see as through a glass darkly’ they have some sort of direct and clear insight into ultimate reality. Pretensions to this form of ‘gnosis’ are and always have been very scary indeed. I can only say that I have no such knowledge.

I think knowledge of another kind has brought me sorrow too. The way my journey has panned out I’ve been good friends and not such good friends with a large variety of Christians of all colours and hues. IT has always sadden me how much they have viewed each other with suspicion, have misunderstood each other, and have borne false witness against each other. So any knowledge I have and have wanted to have of Christian history has been because I wanted to be a peace negotiator of the middle ground – and for no other reason.

As far as my knowledge about Original Sin is concerned, this is informed by reflection upon real experience which has fed into knowledge of historical experience (and the knowledge is some combination of intellectual and emotional/imaginative – it’s all provisional and tentative and is not gnosis). For example, I feel a concern about how the doctrine of Original Sin has affected our treatment of children. That all begins very early for me. My Dad was sent to a Fundamentalist orphanage in the 1920’s where every Thursday the children were made to stand with their hands on their heads for two hours and when they showed signs of fatigue they were severely beaten – the explanation for this was that they were beaten not for anything they had actually done but as punishment for Original Sin – my reading of history has confirmed that this and worst has often been done in the name of Christ who blessed children. My Dad was on the surface a genial builder who protested his atheism and thought that ‘all churches should be turned into pubs’. However, from a very young age I was aware of his rage at a god that he claimed not to believe in – and it was this troubled awareness that was the goad that, ironically, lead me to convert to a very Fundamentalist form of Christianity when I was thirteen. Today, as a teacher who sometimes teaches excluded children, I am convinced that the way to tackle the ‘sin’ in children – which I know is there - is to speak to the Image of God in them and treat them with kindness and respect whenever possible.

Likewise I do reminiscence work with dementia patients – and it’s a privilege and a thrill to see someone often very fleeting glimmer of divine image/personhood in a very confused and distressed older person. I hope that in doing this work I am helping to change some of the harsh attitudes that are fond towards older people in the modern world that strike as being rooted in a secular version of ‘Original Sin’.

All ‘theology’ has practical implications – and I’m so aware that we have to ‘do the math’ about ‘Original Sin’ for many reasons; but primarily to give us a clear idea about how we should treat children, I prefer the word ‘disobedience’ for sin than rebellion. You can be disobedient to a loving parent because you actually don’t yet understand what is good for you – and you can often do it as much through ’ignorance and weakness as our ‘own deliberate thought’. Rebellion is a wilful act against an uncontrollably powerful sovereign lord (that’s why I think it’s important which word we use – I think when ‘rebellion’ has been used on this thread, ‘disobedience’ is the better word for the real attitude of the person that has used the word ‘rebellion’ – and that’s why it is good to discuss things to clarify these issues (I only became aware of the distinction when i was falling asleep last night!)

Finally, we’ve discussed the issue of Law and Grace theology and anti-Semitism on the PS thread. Again this relates to Original Sin – bad Christian attitudes towards the Jews have been informed not only by perceptions of them as ‘the Christ Killers’ but also by perceptions of them as people clinging to Law’ while still lost in ‘Original Sin’. Again the spur to me thinking about this has been sorrow - of having two Jewish friends who are third generations survivors of families who were largely wiped out in the Holocaust – and knowing something of the secrecy and fragmentation which is part of their identities. Yes I’ve read books on the holocaust and about holocaust theology – but the primary spur to re-evaluating my ideas about Judaism and how I read the Bible has been in trying to grieve with those who grieve.

Grieving with those who grieve can also, in my view, be a source of rejoicing with those that rejoice.

So that’s me – and I do think that knowledge about Augustine and Manicheanism (given on the PS thread) has taught you something very important and worth communicating.
Blessings (and thanks for being a spur to get me to think)

Dick

[Sobornost]

Anthony - just read your post on DiscussionNegative thread. See that you are thinking of knowledge as intelligence rather than knowledge as gnosis. Yes I agree, knowledge is a step on the road to the goal of ‘brotherly love' but not the goal. My view is that each step on the path Peter describes is taken up into the goal - as long as virtue, knowledge etc are at the service of the goal.

I hope any intelligence I have at the moment (and am aware that I may lose one day because of working with dementia patients) can be used to serve the true goal – although I am not perfect and need correcting (which I will take and have taken on this site when justified) and forgiving, and sometimes just letting be for being me (which is quite an odd creature).

I hope we continue discussion of Original Sin - I think it's important. My digression on Matthew Fox was because i am aware that he is known to many Evangelicals (some Fundamentalists have seen him as an agent of Satan, other Evangelicals have had perfectly sound reasons to criticise him). It's worth raising him in discussion to move beyond him (I think so in any way, and my digression was well meant).

Blessings

Dick

[AUniversalist]

Hello Dick,

I never said Knowledge was evil nor unnecessary. We are commended to seek knowledge more than gold, added to it. The issue is, it is a path of hardship and sacrifice because knowledge divides and sifts and this produces an emotional response in others who you may be applying your knowledge towards and though you did nothing wrong, you find yourself on a path of loneliness, or grief because of it. It is of my opinion, people who value emotion over the knowledge, will find in the days of turbulence, emotion is a weak anchor and they will be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine to regain that emotional stability. Those who took their time to establish their knowledge concerning the things of God going through the grief and sorrow of knowledge and wisdom, will like a rock and the waves and waves will come but they are able to stand up having their emotions stable. Emotion should be based on what is true not on fear but most people don't recognize where their emotions are coming from. It is my opinion and it has be proven over and over again. I can contribute to discussions but I have no need to convince anyone of what I learned.

Lastly, spiritual knowledge is comprehended by intellect. Therefore there is no separating gnosis from intellect.

This is a good discussion.

[Sobornost]

Thanks Anthony - I'd agree with you. Yes to base all on emotion is to build your house on the sand. I think we have to be in touch with our emotions but not use them reactively – and this takes ‘emotional intelligence’ I guess. Wow that is a process that is a lifetime in the learning (I know I have not arrived but press on - and I know that actually contributing to this site brings up all sorts of reactive emotions in me)

It would take the likes of Jason to give a clear view on this, but I reckon that those who are 'ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth' may be referring to those bogged down in the minutiae of the Law while not seeing its fulfilment/summing up in Christ. Likewise, gnosis may just mean intelligence rather than referring to the 'direct intuition of reality' as with the later Gnostic systems (and there is a very, very learned thread on these systems somewhere on the site). Finally, all or most references to completion/goal/fulfilment in the New Testament may be - as far as I know -translations of the Greek 'telos'; and if I understand this rightly the word has a sense of the end embracing the stages that have taken you there.

Will renew the post with a summary tomorrow - and do keep contributing because I, for one, learn from you - even when I misunderstand you.


All the best


Dick

[AUniversalist]

I am not perfect, nor claim to have obtained the knowledge of the Truth in it's entirety. We are fallible, mortal beings with a limited capacity to understand everything. Wisdom teaches us, some knowledge is subjective and not worth correcting because it knows it isn't essential knowledge in the first place. Wisdom seems to be knowledge operated out of grace.

[stellar renegade]

There is some testimony from an atheist who was saved from hell by Jesus that he was shown a few inhabitants of other planets and was told that some of them had gone in the right direction of continuing to trust in God and that when the Son came he simply reaffirmed and blessed them. Given the nature and seeming authenticity of the experience, I won't refute it. Who am I to do so?

But this, at least as a possibility, opens us up for some interesting questions. Meanwhile I remain largely agnostic on the subject.

[Sobornost]

Anthony –I think ‘Wisdom as Knowledge operated out of Grace’ is an excellent definition. If I ever misunderstand you it’s only due to communication styles – I’m just trying to get clarification, and I don’t think you think you are perfect.
Stellar that’s an interesting story. Where does it come from? Is it a near death experience or just a modern parable?
I can understand your hopeful and humble agnosticism here. Since I’ve been influenced by the Quakers it chimes with their emphasis on Christ not only as Saviour but also as Wisdom/Logos – ‘the true Light that enlightens everyone coming into the World’ (and Saviour and Logos/Wisdom are really two interdependent aspects of the same Christ).

I’m only really interested in posting on a few threads here. I’ve had a rather peculiar journey and therefore hope I can fill in some details and encourage some debate on matters related to UR that no one else at this site seems to currently know much about (which are also the only areas I know much about). One is this one –Original Sin - another is Universalism and the C of E, another is ‘Conversations with God ‘(because I think that New Thought is an example of Universalism reacting against Calvinism too extremely and losing its bearings) and the last one is Quakerism (I’ve been asked about this by Sherman, and the thread on the Inner Light as it stands could benefit with some more information). Regarding the Quakers – their humble doctrine of the Inner Light (which in no way is related to proud Gnosticism) is rooted in the Prologue to John’s Gospel and in the Wisdom Literature of the Bible (which seems to point beyond the Bible to a limited form of natural Grace). The Light is not the same as Reason – it is indeed ‘Wisdom as Knowledge operated out of Grace’. It is something within, something shard between, and something that is beyond all at once. The Light is discerned with great care in Meetings for Worship where worshippers are still to wait upon God as a still small voice (and many of the best and most gathered meetings I’ve attended have actually been completely silent).

One day I want to say more about their thinking and history because it may seem peculiar to mainstream Evangelicals – and I just want to inform without expecting people to agree. Suffice to say for the moment that the doctrine of the ‘Inner Light’ was handed on from the ‘Spirituals’ among the Anabaptists – people like Hans Denck and Sebastian Frank so important in the history of UR. They taught that there is an Inner Word (the Light) as well as an Outer Word (the Bible); and although it is best to have both, one can follow Christ by responding to the Inner Word. Both were great scholars but it seems they meeting a need with compassion for the common people in formulating this doctrine. The new religion of Protestant Biblicism was not open to the illiterate peasants in the sixteenth century who were often cast adrift by the suppression of Catholic sacramentalism in newly Protestant countries (and persecuted as heretics for misunderstanding stuff that they couldn’t possibly understand).

One of the problems with this doctrine today is that it can lead in the direction of an amorphous Unitarian type Universalism –
but this was not always so. If we look at some of the beautiful flowers of Quaker history – along with the dross – I note that their emphasis on the Inner Word enabled them to reject the Institution of Slavery – in the name of equality in the dignity of the Light – at a time when most other Protestants supported slavery from Biblical texts. IN the UK the Evangelicals caught up with them after a century or so and collaboration between the Evangelicals – who had far wider appeal – with the small communities of friends (along with secular radicals) managed to end the practice in the British Empire. IN the process some Friends became Evangelicals and Quakerism developed the splits we see today,

Why do Quakers worship in silence? Again this appears to have been inherited from groups of Anabaptist Spirituals. Concerned at the slaughter taking place in Europe between Catholics and Protestants and between different types of Protestants over the meaning of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper – they decided to suspend the practice in their community and meet in silence until the purity of heart retuned to all Christians that would enable them to see that Communion is a sign of Peace.

The Quakers might wobble a bit – as do all denominations. But their witness along with that of the Anabaptists (‘Spirituals’ and ‘Scripturals’) is an important one, and all are certinaly an important part of the history of UR (and you can see how the beliefs of the Spirituals and those of the Quakers fit in with a debate about Original Sin)
All the best


Dick

[Sobornost]

Oh yes - one last thing. Hannah Whitall Smith - one of the pioneers of Evangelical Universalism - came from a Quaker background. And despite an Evangelical conversion experience that made her journey away from the Friends, her eventual Evangelical Universalism betrays the strong of influence of Quaker thinking and concerns. So in this, and many other ways - including the fight against slavery - Quakers and Evangelical Universalists share a common history.

[Sobornost]

‘In my begging is my end’ and ‘We shall not cease from exploration/And the end of all our exploring/Will be to arrive where we started/And know the place for the first time’, wrote T.S. Elliot in ‘Little Gidding’. I believe that ,certainly in terms of the Bigger Story in which our individual stories are embedded, the beginning and the end are closely related and have practical consequences for the middle times in which we find ourselves.(although the end is not simply a return to the beginning as, for example, Origen seemed to suggest). To think wisely about Universal Salvation – and to do all of the necessary reimagining with ‘wisdom informed by Grace, and break some of those persistent bad habits – we also, in my view, need to think again about the Original Sin and the Original Blessing.

Eliot’s ‘Little Gidding’ culminates in the quotation from Julian of Norwich, ‘And all shall be well and /All manner of thing shall be well’. From the perspective of the end where ‘All shall be well’ the sin of Adam begins to look like a ‘Fortunate crime, which brought about our Redemption through so great a Saviour’. There is a tradition in the East that says as much which is echoed in the English Carol – ‘Adam lay ybounden’ that you can hear sung in many Anglican Churches at Christmas. From the perspective of the end this may well be true; but from the perspective of our middle times it can and should only be grasped, in my view, as a hope.

End of spiel. I’d like to kick start this debate again if possible – and leave it alone for a week (I said I’d leave things alone last week, and then this debate was accidentally started).
A thing that came about a lot in the early posts – from Alex, Bird and Cindy - was about sin and children. I’m reading between the lines but I actually think everyone agreed here. The middle ground for me is –


Children are indeed sinners – if you’ve been a parent or worked with young children you will know this all too well. However, to call them sinners is not to call them depraved and wicked as Augustine did – for Augustine we come into the world as creatures of God’s wrath’. Calvin in Augustinian mode would have us think’ ’We are born into the world as wretched rebels against a mighty and sovereign Lord’.

Alex used the word rebellion in his posts concerning the naughty behaviour of children– and I suggested that perhaps ‘disobedience’ is the better term (in fact I’m a hundred percent sure that Alex adn I mena hte same things, and this is why it’s good to think through Original Sin and clarify terms). I said earlier

All ‘theology’ has practical implications – and I’m so aware that we have to ‘do the math’ about ‘Original Sin’ for many reasons; but primarily to give us a clear idea about how we should treat children, I prefer the word ‘disobedience’ for sin than rebellion. You can be disobedient to a loving parent because you actually don’t yet understand what is good for you – and you can often do it as much through ’ignorance and weakness as our ‘own deliberate thought’. Rebellion is a wilful act against an uncontrollably powerful sovereign lord

That’s how I see it still. OK Dr Spock and the Baby Boomers approach was to indulgent and we need to draw firm boundaries with our children – for their own good and security. But..

The tradition of savagely beating children for no actual wrongdoing but in order to break their sinful wills, (wills depraved by Original Sin), has a terrible history. And I have seen it argued very cogently a number of times that the savage and wrathful God imagined by a Luther for example, and many others, is actually an imaginative construct formed first in the mind of childhood by a child being savagely assaulted without rhyme or reason by an adult who was uncontrollably powerful and whom the child also saw as their source of love and protection. Likewise I think about the crowds that turned out for revolting and savage executions a bit like children in a class with a bullying teacher laughing when the teacher picks on a vulnerable child (that sense of pity joy – of relief that. ‘it’s not me). All patterns of behavious formed by savage beatin sin childhood. (These days, in my opinion, we face similar temptations in the virtual world and by waging virtual wars - but that's another matter).

Luther wrote that –

‘This is the height of faith; to believe that God who condemns so many and saves so few is merciful; that He is just who at this own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that He seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and be more deserving of hate than love. IF by any reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just there would be no need of faith’
I rest my case (and marvel that good also sometimes came out of Luther and certainly out of the tradition Lutheranism).

And Jesus said –

Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10“Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

All the best

Dick

Hope to see some posts about little blessing and blighters

[BirdOfTheEgg]

Children are indeed sinners – if you’ve been a parent or worked with young children you will know this all too well.

Tbh, I'm largely not going to accept this. I do not, will not, view children (in the basic sense) as active sinners. Developmental processes do not make them sinners, because they do not control their own development, so saying a child is a sinner because they are going through an ego-centric phase is really not smart. I guess I'll make a thread on my view on sin sometime to explain. Child corruption is a special topic of mine and if you are going to call children sinners I assure you we are all doomed because we can barely get even there. There's a reason Jesus said that to children belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, because they're not sinners, and put in a proper environment, they would be fine. I believe children will stumble a lot, and not resist corruption very well, and that is their ancestral sin. But not the fact that they think the world disappears when they close their eyes, that's a developmental phase.

No proper study has been conducted on the topic of very, very young children and nature vs nurture, because such a study would be unethical. Yet, a child can be very strongly affected by parental response in the first few weeks. The vast majority of the children you will see are raised on the cry-give formula, and are therefore reasonably spoiled, hence resulting in evil children.

This is a pattern you do not really see, and nobody will want to tell you it's there. And nobody wants to hear it, because nobody likes being told they made their children evil.

Children are born innocent and pure in the sense that they can discern a lot of things correctly if you let them. How many times I've seen a child make a completely logical request and a parent shut them up. This breeds sin, and destroys faith. Parents raise them in their crooked way, and parents actually make most of their children very, very evil, because they give them false information, and lying creates evil. Lying to children is not cute. Then you have this evil kid who becomes an evil teenager and you have to have society whine about them and fix them.

That's the majority of kids out there. Go to a Ukrainian school and you'd see it all for yourself. That is what Lord of the Flies works with. It's a generated evil, not innate. Every evil child I've seen there was a foolish parent behind it.

There's a reason the Orthodox venerate the Theotokos, I guess. Raising the Son of Man wasn't all him, I guess.

[AUniversalist]

Indeed a child is born innocent but when a child disobeys, they disobey on lack of knowledge to the command that they were given. No different than Adam and Woman being commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, they had no idea what the command meant, nor did they have any experience on what it meant to die. The reason the command came was so sin sprang to life and that we can recognize what sin is.

Romans 7:9-13

Once I was alive, but quite apart from and unconscious of the Law. But when the commandment came, sin lived again and I died (was sentenced by the Law to death). And the very legal ordinance which was designed and intended to bring life actually proved [to mean to me] death.

For sin, seizing the opportunity and getting a hold on me [by taking its incentive] from the commandment, beguiled and entrapped and cheated me, and using it [as a weapon], killed me. The Law therefore is holy, and [each] commandment is holy and just and good. Did that which is good then prove fatal [bringing death] to me? Certainly not! It was sin, working death in me by using this good thing [as a weapon], in order that through the commandment sin might be shown up clearly to be sin, that the extreme malignity and immeasurable sinfulness of sin might plainly appear.

We all learn from our mistakes and once a person removes the ECT doctrine from their mental vocabulary, we recognize that sin is not an obstacle to our lives, but essential to the maturity of an individual. Jesus came to show us that what religion taught us about sin, has been wrong and He died to destroy the Mosiac Law that set itself against man and claiming to be from God. If you learned what sin was from a religious system, you probably don't realize we are already justified and sanctified and the punishment of the Law is not real.

Children are born innocent and pure in the sense that they can discern a lot of things correctly if you let them. How many times I've seen a child make a completely logical request and a parent shut them up. This breeds sin, and destroys faith. Parents raise them in their crooked way, and parents actually make most of their children very, very evil, because they give them false information, and lying creates evil. Lying to children is not cute. Then you have this evil kid who becomes an evil teenager and you have to have society whine about them and fix them.

You got it!

[BirdOfTheEgg]

Indeed a child is born innocent but when a child disobeys, they disobey on lack of knowledge to the command that they were given.

This implies disobedience is fundamentally negative. This is false by any method of deciding anything that I can possibly use. Blind obedience is the #1 (I'm serious) cause of all evil in this world. The Nazis were caused by obedience, of one ignoring the strife of another. Wars are caused by obedience, of the blind soldier and the spineless citizen. Various disgusting things are obedience of the flesh, greed is obedience to money. We are slaves of the one whom we obey, and we if obey anything but God we are led to evil acts, because all other authorities are faulty. The disobedience of God in favor of authorities with no authority is the evil.

There is only one authority, that is God. All other authority is void, this includes parents. Disobedience to parents is only relevant in relation to the world, hence the "obey your parents", but even that is on a structure where parents > world, and thus God > parents > world.

In my view, all humans have a conduit to God, that is the conscience. (I believe in theo-speak this is called prevenient grace) Children work on this, and by this they may disobey. By this the child will tell you something is unfair, or wrong, or strange, or weird, as we say "through the mouth of the child comes truth". Every child can give a list of various things that they were told that make no sense, and, unfortunately, a lot of that is going to be from parents, not just from the TV or the internet. And over time after being told over and over, that their consciousness is wrong, they'll put in the back of their mind, only to be awaken again later when something less permissible will arise.

Because look, the world tells child one thing. The world is where the immorality of all sorts come from, and the parents' job is to shield a child from the world, so the child is better to listen to their parents and detest the world. But the parents themselves, they are flawed, and the conscience is the discernment of the parents, and if the parents are unrighteous, then the child should detest the unrighteousness of their parents. Hence the message of Jesus: "He who does not hate his mother and father and child and friend and anything is not worthy of me," and he IS telling these to the Jews one of whose primary commandments is "obey your parents". Obey parents, until they supersede God; obey the government, until it supersedes God. And again in Ephesians Paul gives it yet again: obey your parents. But which parents? Christian parents. And even obey the unjust parents, because that is gracious in God's sight, but God is priority, and as God the child has the conscience - we're not born completely helpless.

And this disobedience is in obedience to God, be it from the conscience, or even from reading the Bible itself, like Jesus did, who said all he said from the law of Moses. And Jesus IS that child who did not ever supersede God and went against all in favor of God.

No different than Adam and Woman being commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, they had no idea what the command meant, nor did they have any experience on what it meant to die.

This relies on a rather literal reading of Genesis. I would want to have more details regarding Genesis before jumping to such conclusions. For me, Genesis is not significantly better than Revelation in terms of degree of metaphor.

Jesus came to show us that what religion taught us about sin, has been wrong and He died to destroy the Mosiac Law that set itself against man and claiming to be from God.

Jesus had no intention of destroying Mosaic Law. He quoted from it, and said it would not pass away. Instead, Jeremiah says it is to be written into our hearts.

The problem is not the Law, but the treatment of the Law. The Law was reduced to legalism, but that is not what the Law was meant to be.

There are also some complications regarding the Law because there's Law and law. You have the absolute given Law of God, that is largely summarized in a few shorter laws like the 10 Commandments and what not. You have the fences on the Law, which are the Torah, where a bunch of stuff got mixed in, both advice from Moses regarding things no longer relevant, such as how many shekels one must give for what; and random stuff like "if a woman touches a man's genitals her hand will be cut off", which is obviously law of man. Further, the Jewish law is extensive, and serves in large part to distinguish the Jews. The Noahide laws were for all people, and these were some of the absolute Law, which all broke. Obviously Jews are not distinguished anymore. The absolute Law is forever and doesn't go anywhere, and extensive descriptions exist to explain it. This is the law Gentiles would obey or disobey, not any other - how can possibly a Gentile know about some random ritual in regards to animal sacrifices? They never had to do those. I will expand on this in a new thread.

If you learned what sin was from a religious system, you probably don't realize we are already justified and sanctified and the punishment of the Law is not real.

No, I do not believe we are already justified and sanctified from my reading of the Bible. One is justified by faith, which is regarded as righteousness, and this saves. One is sanctified through baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit, which drives a person to avoid sin, and become without blemish, and these are the royal priesthood.

[Sobornost]

Look – I’ve come out as a bit of Quaker at heart and I really think that it is not want people think that makes them Christian or what specific grid they use to interpret scripture but what is in their hearts. So I’m always loath to jump into disagreements about scripture with guns blazing; there has to be some latitude of difference and tolerance here (Christians down the centuries have been quoting scripture at each other sure that the other has the wrong interpretation). But I am with Bird on this one and think her post is excellent. (And Anthony knows ha and I have differences on this one, which is fine)
In the Jewish Testament there is the ritual law with all of its strange sounding purity taboos. One of the functions of this is/was to pattern life, and sanctify and make it beautiful as an offering to God. The problem arose/arises when it became/becomes a fetish used as a method of exclusion and as a stumbling block against works of justice and compassion. Against this use of the ritual law the Prophets spoke –and Jesus our saviour was also a Jewish prophet in a line of Jewish prophets.
There are the Ten Commandments and the seven Noahide Laws – the latter of which the Jews see as binding upon Gentiles who wish to lie righteously. And there is also the legal code – especially as developed in Leviticus. The harshness of the Levitical code, even during the time of Jesus, was mitigated in the direction of mercy in the debates of the Rabbis by prioritising a horror at the shedding of blood and the bearing of false witness over the implementation of savage punishments.
Likewise the practice of summarising the Law – ‘Love God and your neighbour is the Law, the rest is commentary’, was common among Rabbis at the time of Jesus – and Jesus our Saviour was also a Jewish Rabbi.
The hastily convened, kangaroo court that condemned Jesus was rather like the court that tried to condemn the woman taken in adultery whom Jesus saved (and this perhaps is one meaning of the jibe of the crowd under the cross that, ‘He saved others but could not save himself’). Both courts were illegal, and the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus in panic over Roman power and retribution. Jesus was finally condemned to death not as a blasphemer under Jewish Law, but as a Rebel and a Traitor under Roman Law.

In Jewish Religion and Jewish Law God is always gracious and forgiving, and repentance is always possible.

It has been argued that the real issue about the Law in the letters of Rabbi Paul centres on the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Covenant in the fullness of time.

So yes Bird – do start a new thread on this one - and have a proper discussion about this, resepcting differneces and listenitng carfully to what is behind each others words.

The subject of the Law is relevant to Original sin in that the Eastern view of Ancestral sin is very akin to the idea o f ’First sin’ found in the Rabbis. Also, it is relevant to any discussion of passages from Rabbi Paul concerning Law and Sin.

All the best

Dick

Would still like some feedback about little blessings and little blighters .

[Cindy Skillman]

I remember that one Eastern Father - St Iraeneus - interpreted Adam's sin as result of weakness and immaturity, and looked on the process of redemption as being, in part, a process of growing up (as with the history of the species, so with the history of the individual I say).

It's cool reading this, since this is the view that's been growing on me for a while. It's encouraging to see that scripture and contemplation has led at least one other person in the same direction I've wandered into.

Children are sinful because, like most adults, their lives are sourced in the finite. There is a limited amount of time, stuff, attention, etc. to go around, and they're afraid they won't get what they need -- just like us.

I want to define sin. We see it as something horrible (and it is, because of its results in our and others' lives), however the word actually means "missing the mark." You aimed and you missed. You missed the point, missed the purpose, missed the goal. The little boy trying to learn to walk takes a misstep and falls down. He needs to try again. We miss the mark just as we've done ever since we were old enough to have any kind of a goal at all. We miss it until we can hit it.

It becomes a real and tenacious problem when we don't want to admit we missed it. We stubbornly refuse to back off and try something else. We've maybe chosen a different target; a target that isn't going to get us where we want to go, but we insist on persisting to aim at it. Problem is, no matter how good we may get at hitting it, it's still the wrong target and will never become the mark we need to aim for. The mark we all need to learn, to perfect, is the imitation of Christ Jesus.

Eventually, we will learn and learn well, and when we finally SEE Him, we'll be like Him because we'll see Him as He is. Until then, we see a bad reflection. We see in a looking glass made of polished bronze and likely somewhat oxidized, and we try to imitate. We're limited in our ability to imitate Jesus here in this material realm, but the more we learn to look into the spiritual realm, the closer we can come.

So where did original sin come in? We all know that it has to do with eating the fruit from the forbidden tree, and that this tree is reputed to bestow the knowledge of good and evil on those who eat of it. I believe it does do that. Clearly it does, for we are still eating from it to this day, and the majority of people at least WANT to be good. Even the blatantly evil want good done to them by others. But having the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil doesn't equate to having the power to do the good and reject the evil. Sure, we want to, but how do we do it? Oh wretched man that I am! Who will free me from the body of this death?

I think God, through our Lord, Christ Jesus! Jesus is the Tree of Life. When we chose the wrong tree, we chose to live by finite natural life, finite natural knowledge -- it was finite yes, but it was OURS. We could do it on our own. Stand on our own two feet; pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps; become self-made men; do it our way. We still idolize that mode of living because we are still eating from that tree.

The gospel, the true GOOD news is that we can be free from that rat-race, chasing the impossible dream to nowhere. We have another shot at the Tree of Life! We can partake of Christ and live! And so long as we're drawing our sustenance from the True Vine, we can live by the life of God, have all knowledge and all wisdom direct from His Spirit to ours. What we read and learn takes on a new flavor of life because it is interpreted through His Spirit dwelling in our spirit. We are the water made wine, the mundane made divine by partaking of His divine nature. We truly have been given the power to become the sons of God (yeah, even us girls)! The intellect and the emotions can be once again (as they were designed to be) the good and valued servants of the spirit. Things can be turned right-side-up again. We can be whole.

[Sobornost]

Well that’s really great – and here speaks someone with plenty of experience of children and with a radiant faith in Christ.

(Funnily enough there was a very mature and well balanced debate in the British press this weekend -even in the right wing press - about whether or not it should be legal to smack children –made me think of this thread. I think the consensus was that to allow smacking in law is tricky – because it can open the gates to the brutal. However, a Labour MP had made the point that it’s all very well for middle class parents not to smack their children when they live in safe areas, have plenty of resources, and send their children to good, fee-paying schools where discipline is tight. However, the total ban is a bit tougher on parents who live on sink council estates, rife with gangs and drugs, whose children attend schools where staff are overstretched; sometimes these parents may well need to smack their children in order to protect them. Reminds me of a story I once heard of a middle class Victorian Quaker – held up at one time as a saintly role model - who would give his children three strokes of a silk handkerchief for misdemeanours, and this was enough – I wonder how he would have fared on a council estate today, or in the Victorian slums? I don’t really want to turn this into a debate on smacking – but just to show I am aware of the difference between the brutal beatings administered in the past and a loving smack with minimum force administered by an anxious parent today. Another thing I learnt from the press exchange is that, ‘Spare the rod, and spoil the child’ is not actually in the Bible- it comes from an eighteenth century poem (although I know there are passages in Proverbs etc, that speak of chastising children).

Cindy’s closing reference to St Paul and her opening reference to sin as ‘missing the mark’ takes us to another relevant topic (and picks up things I have tried to hint at earlier). So I will take up the batten – although I don’t expect Cindy or anyone else to completely agree with what I have to say now.

Yes, I agree with Cindy, the New Testament Greek term for sin is ‘hamartia’, a term taken from archery - for aiming for the target but inadvertently missing it. So yes, the primary idea is that you aim for something good – the target – but you miss it (through inexperience, because of a gust of wind, whatever; but never, importantly, because you intend to miss it. As a very minor student of the classics (in translation) I am aware that this term that Paul uses for sin, is also the term used in Greek Tragedy for the actions of the tragic hero(ine); and Paul, as a Hellenistic Jew, was almost certainly aware of this. The action of the Tragedies follows the same relentless pattern. The tragic hero(ine) through hamarita wants to do the best possible thing but unknowingly does the worst possible thing (so there is an ironic frustration of their purpose). And at some point they undergo an experience of eye opening recognition where they realise exactly what they have done (which fills us with pity and fear for them as our representative). Sin can have this quality – that’s how I’ve often known it in my experience.

I once read an essay on Paul written by the Swedish Bishop and Theologian Krister Stendahl. This essay is entitled ‘Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’ and there is a good and balanced (and brief) critical discussion of his influential argument at the following site -

http://www.thepaulpage.com/the-apostle- ... -the-west/

Suffice for me to say that through Augustine a sense of ‘sin’ has become associated with morbid, introspective self scrutiny at one’s inner corruption and depravity. OK there are times for repentance in dust and ashes and sometimes Paul means this sort of thing by ’sin’. However, for Stendhal (who has influenced E.P. Sanders and N.T Wright in turn). Paul’s primary sense of sin is in the past tense – he loved the Law, the very best and the most beautiful that he knew, but the exclusiveness of his adherence to the Law turned him into a persecutor – and his Damascus conversion was like a tragic recognition scene, but the tragedy was turned to joy through the forgiveness of Christ.

The other way in which the Augustinian idea of ‘Original Sin distorts scripture (and lives) is its exclusive emphasis on individual sin and its ignoring of the influence of the sinful social structures o in which we operate (the Powers) upon us. Any thoughts? (this one is a real Christus Victor theme)

All the best

Dick

[Sobornost]

Rev Drew -

If you ever drop in on this conversation again - and I still think the article you recommended on the Eatseren view is wonderful - I wonder how a different understanding of 'Original Sin' has affected your view of baptism (or the baptism sermons you give, or the version of the rite you use, if there is a choice)? Thanks - that would be fascinating if it's not too time consuming.

All good wishes


Dick

[JeffA]

Proverbs 13:24

New International Version (NIV)

24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

[Sobornost]

Cindy –
It was obvious to me from your post on the Original Sin thread that you’d closely read what would be several pages of printed waffle (mainly be me) condensed these to the essentials in concise summary and pointed the conversation in absolutely the right direction. Respect!

Thanks Jeff - I stand corrected . The punchy little quotation 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' which is used as a mindless retributive slogan, like 'an eye for an eye', is actually from a rather saucy eighteenth century poem; but it is derived from the saying you quote from Proverbs. Since I want to always apply the 'measure of mercy', of minimum force through horror of violence, I'm always disturbed about the use of smacking - and I was never smacked by my Dad as a child, although the teachers at one of my schools used plenty of disproportionate violence - but the article this weekend by the Labour MP from an Afro-Caribbean background did make me think.

Dick

P.S. Have you got anything on sin in social structures? Piaidon recommended the 'Rebel God' website in another discussion and there is some good material on this that I've currently only skimmed.

[BirdOfTheEgg]

I believe corporal punishment definitely has a place but few people seem to know where that place is. For most people, corporal punishment becomes continual, while it should be an, at most, occasionally enforced. It's like the Hebrews never learned about positive/negative reinforcement and stuff, overall that Proverb reeks of the times. It was probably all they knew back then.

[AUniversalist]

I believe corporal punishment definitely has a place but few people seem to know where that place is. For most people, corporal punishment becomes continual, while it should be an, at most, occasionally enforced. It's like the Hebrews never learned about positive/negative reinforcement and stuff, overall that Proverb reeks of the times. It was probably all they knew back then.

I found something strange -

When a child is punished for doing wrong, but almost like an after thought are expected to apologize for the wrong 'after' the punishment, it actually defeats the purpose and the child will not apologize or admit wrong (since they already were punished for it). They will see the apology as an extra punishment instead of part of a learning process.

If the punishment includes admission of wrong within it, then the child seems to understand the reason why they are being punished is because of the wrong they did and they will apologize.

However, If someone continues to hold the offense against the child even after he was punished and admitted he was wrong, the child resents the one who disciplined them because they are being continually punished for something they already were punished for and apologized concerning and may even change their mind concerning whether it was wrong or not even going out of their way to do wrong (why? They keep getting punished for it even though they do not do it anymore)

Hence why I don't believe in Original Sin.

[Sobornost]

Anthony - I couldn't agree more with you. Yes coporal punishment does often have this self defeating quality in my view. Cheers

[BirdOfTheEgg]

What you're saying also applies to criminals pretty well. We tend to mark a criminal for life, resulting in essentially recurring punishment, and I believe this is a large factor in high recidivism rate: there's no reason to go back to being a law-abiding citizen of the society still hates you.

When I said continual, though, I was referring to the situation where the punishment had little to no effect, and the child continues doing wrong, and continues to be punished, and this goes on for 10 years.

A more major issue I've seen is punishing a child for something they cannot identify (i.e., they do not understand what they did wrong, or why something is bad).

[Sobornost]

I agree Bird - very much so; and that fits into somehitng that keeps 'hitting' me - that how conceive of the beginning and the end radically affects how we act now. What do we mean by punishment? As far as I can see, it's to do with actively inflicing bad/pain on someone (the lash for or verbal humiliation for example), or depriving them of something good (sweeties/their freedom - could be early bed time or prison) because -

It deters the person being punished from actnig inthis way again

It deters others from doing what they have done (which can't apply to the final judgement - I think?)

They deserve it and it is the state's or God's way of demonstrating this decisively (tricky in the case of the state which always has crime on its hands no matter how enlightened it is)

It is actually the consequnce of their own actions that people are punished fro by being handed over to these consequences-

because they are free agents and need to learn their own lessons - with support

because they are free agents and it is not possiblt to support them in the consequences of their actions because they have chosen wrongly

It is a remedial, corrective ,restorative process whereby people are maade to grow up by fully confromting the people they have hurt and making full recompense (a process that could take a long time and be very painful in the nakedness of final judgement)

It could by some combination of the above of course. And which do we think are compatible with the Augustinian exaggerated doctrineof Original Sin ?- and which with scriptual notions?

Cheers

Dick

[Sobornost]

Well my questions didn't spark anything so they can't have been very good ones. My answer would be that well, within the Augustinian Original Sin mindset punishment as pure retribution at first would seem to be the primary sense of punishment. However, it all gets rather confused because Augustine was the first strong exponent of Predestination - the inescapable love of God for the small number pre-elected to be saved, and the inescapable wrath of God for the large number pre-elected to be born to damnation (which is impossible for anyone from an Armenian background, like me, to get their heads around).

Mainstream ideas of retributive criminal justice have to be based in the notion of human freedom - you are punished for doing wrong because you were always free to choose otherwise, and it is essential that the right person be punished, and that mitigating circumstances be weighed carefully. Some of the strongest argument against the death penalty - for example - come from the retributivist camp; it is always possible (as we know) for there to be a miscarriage of justice and for an innocent person to be killed (and this argument stands in the Jewish tradition of horror at the shedding of innocent blood and horror at the possibility that justice may have heard from false witnesses). Justice for the purpose of deterrence is actually more compatible with Original Sin ideas - everybody is equally guilty and so if sometimes the punishment of an innocent person helps to keep the rest of us cowed with fear then so be it.

Regarding God's justice - 'Vengeance is mine', as it is written - and this is another slogan of retribution. However I take this to mean that we should leave vengeance to God who knows the whole truth and not carry it out ourselves. My instinct for what God’s justice means inclines towards ideas of restorative justice and of justice as a process of being handed over to the consequences of our actions (with loving support) - because our Judge is the same Christ who was handed over by Judas to the illegal Sanhedrin, handed over by them in turn (through fear and envy of Roman power), to Pilate (goaded by a crowd who, again, feared and envied Roman power), and then handed over finally to be executed under the wrath of Roman power. So the Judge has already stood in the place of wrath with and for us.

Any other thoughts on how this relates to the education of children? – There was another interesting article in the UK press today that chimes with Anthony’s insight (above) into punishment and resentment.
All the best

Dick

[Sobornost]

Did the above post a but quickly and have not made clear distinctions –

Lets’ put punishment in the context of justice – the setting of things to right (power, relationships etc)

There is justice at the beginning (the justice in the education and rearing of children )

There is justice in the middle (the justice of moral codes and of codes of criminal and civil law )

And there is justice at the end (the justice of Christ’s judgement on us – which is the fulfilment of the beginning and the middle).

Both punishment and acts of restitution/restoration will be a feature of all three.

For the moment I’ll just say that my comments about retribution and deterrence above concerned justice in the middle (I’m sure that people from an Augustinian perspective think they see justice in the middle in terms of retribution according to what is deserved; but my point above is that if they are consistent with their ideas of predestination their ‘justice in the middle’ has to be for reasons of deterrence.

If this is too complex for a thread I’ll change tack.

[AUniversalist]

Any other thoughts on how this relates to the education of children? – There was another interesting article in the UK press today that chimes with Anthony’s insight (above) into punishment and resentment.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/29/wh ... omar-khadr

The child who killed the American Soldier and now is in Guantanamo Bay is now a worse criminal and more fanatical jihadist than what would have happened had he been released and sent back to Canada. Now, instead, he will be considered the next leader of a Jihad Islamic Terrorist organization who has no resentment for what he did and will plan more.

[Sobornost]

Yes Anthony - I agree with you. The way I'm using ‘resentment’ is as feeling directed against itself rather than as remorse. It’s the feeling of wanting to get back, of wanting to be the one in power doing the hurting next time (almost a form of envy). Punishment if it causes resentment simply fuels the cycle of violence. The article I read argued that children are not born bad. They are not born wanting to harm, or hurt or steal. Circumstances do this to them - adults do (and I would add that the adults who do this to them had this done to them in turn). The author goes on to say - very relevant to our discussion - that 'Children are not monsters needing the 'evil' smacked out of them; reverse that, you might get closer to the truth. If you smack your child to teach them self control all you are doing is to show that you’ve lost control. They may do what you say at first – because they are afraid. But they won’t stay like that for long. Ultimately the fear will turn to anger, then to pity if you’re lucky, and to resentment if you are not.

So any punishment that real justice administers - that is God’s justice - would have to be such that it broke rather than fuelled the cycle of resentment.
Here we ponder – I certainly don’t know all of the answers. (Although I can feel a post coming about the notion of childhood innocence which I think needs clarifying)

All the best

Dick

[revdrew61]

Of course all that 'sin is missing the mark' stuff is right and we do all need the correction of a loving parent. But increasingly, I see sin, or rather, our sinful tendencies, as something we all need healing of and freeing from. Derek Flood's work over at the Rebel God blog, already cited on this thread, has been more helpful than I can say.
Dick, you asked me about how my theological metamorphosis has affected my practice of baptism. The simple answer is that I haven't really thought about it! Except that with all the sacraments I am more than ever aware of their value in encouraging and nurturing faith, and the fact that whatever we think we are doing is at best a pale shadow of God's transforming work in every human being.