Original Sin
Last week in our Anglican History Class, Lynlea and I got to sit in on a fun conversation about original sin. Now, as I understood it, we will return the subject this Sunday for a more in depth look on the Anglican position, although we may not and it could just be wishful thinking on my part. Either way, I hope that we all can begin a discussion here on this blog that will be edifying for all.
I was raised a firm believer in the concept of "Original Sin" but not so much anymore. It honestly escapes me how one can assert that human beings, as a whole, suffer from a moral/ethical/spiritual flaw that was inherited by the sin of Adam (not Eve, guys)
I was always under the assumption that because Adam (who I also assumed to be a literal historical figure) sinned and chose to rebel against God's will for him that all humanity was stained by his rebellion. Jesus, being the "son of God," was the only person to be born without this flaw. Because he, who was without sin, took on the sin(s) of the world, the Father "accepted his perfect sacrifice" and allowed him (Christ) to intercede for believers to Himself.
Now, I'm not sure that this theory would make perfect sense unless the 19th century concept of the Immaculate Conception of the Ever-Mary is taken as being true... and I can't accept that in good conscience. Also, the very underpinnings of this theological position are based , in my opinion, on ideas of the atonement that I find violent and unacceptable to the Christ of the Gospels. Substitutionary atonement really doesn't interest me that much and I would argue that it wasn't on Jesus mind either when he died on a Roman cross for "the sins of the World."
Now, I don't want to sound like I have studied this in too much depth. I have not. And maybe I should. But this is my opinion on the matter and I would love input, especially as I go back into my Anglican Studies Class later this week. We may be discussing this, we may not. Either way, I am wanting to learn more.
I was raised a firm believer in the concept of "Original Sin" but not so much anymore. It honestly escapes me how one can assert that human beings, as a whole, suffer from a moral/ethical/spiritual flaw that was inherited by the sin of Adam (not Eve, guys)
I was always under the assumption that because Adam (who I also assumed to be a literal historical figure) sinned and chose to rebel against God's will for him that all humanity was stained by his rebellion. Jesus, being the "son of God," was the only person to be born without this flaw. Because he, who was without sin, took on the sin(s) of the world, the Father "accepted his perfect sacrifice" and allowed him (Christ) to intercede for believers to Himself.
Now, I'm not sure that this theory would make perfect sense unless the 19th century concept of the Immaculate Conception of the Ever-Mary is taken as being true... and I can't accept that in good conscience. Also, the very underpinnings of this theological position are based , in my opinion, on ideas of the atonement that I find violent and unacceptable to the Christ of the Gospels. Substitutionary atonement really doesn't interest me that much and I would argue that it wasn't on Jesus mind either when he died on a Roman cross for "the sins of the World."
Now, I don't want to sound like I have studied this in too much depth. I have not. And maybe I should. But this is my opinion on the matter and I would love input, especially as I go back into my Anglican Studies Class later this week. We may be discussing this, we may not. Either way, I am wanting to learn more.
posted by -mike- at 6:34 PM
11 Comments:
Hey, I'm the first to comment. =D
Two things:
1)I think your reaction against substition being something out of line with the Christ in the gospels might be more of a reaction to a caricature of substitionary atonement than to the doctrine itself. If you're working on the idea that God was wroth and whatnot about our sins and Jesus, the one who is truly loving, is desperately trying to placate the Father by dying, then yes, I would say that's not the picture the Gospels present either. However, both John and Paul are unequivocal that God sent his Son into the world for love, not wrath or whatever. God's self-sacrifice was the most loving thing he could do, and yet was still substitionary.
Wright argues at length and in detail in his JVG about Jesus' identifying and living Isaiah 53 in his death, so you can refer to that if you want further argumentation; just remember that substitionary atonement is not some out of date fundamentalist belief to be shed amongst the others you may find yourself dropping behind as you cotninue your spiritual journey.
2) Original sin - I think that Paul believed in a literal Adam, and I view it as slightly arrogant to presume we know better now. Indeed, I have trouble keeping a "Second Adam" Christology if Adam is just a mythical device or whatever. Just my crazy fundamentalist beliefs. =D
- Rob
Good point, Roberto. I admire much of Wright's work and find few points of disagreement with him. This could be one of them, but I am not sure. I will be sure to read up on it...
Regardless if one believes in a literal Adam or not, the question of Original Sin will keep coming up and up again in light of the Scripture's witness to a good universe and the Christian tradition's (as well the Jewish) ideas towards God as being good in his essence and perfect in his being. I do not believe in a "literal" Adam, at least in the sense of my conservative Pentacostal up-bringing. Of course, there was at some level, a human couple that contributed to our genetic make-up and culture, at some sort of area, but I am not entirely convinced that this fellow's name was "Adam" and his mate's name, "Eve." I think these are literary devices and nothing more. But, again, I very well may be wrong.
Robert, how does your understanding of Original Sin affect your thoughts on your salvation and your place in humanity, before and after your commitment to the Christian way?
C'mon, man, it's mythology. Let it be mythology. Original sin isn't about some primordial man doing something naughty and then a god holding that against us. It's a story that teaches us about our alienation from God. Sin is a power over us - it's alienation from God and the working of death in our very bodies. We have existed as one kind of humanity, and Christ has made us into another, infusing his life into us though the atonement...
"Adam" is not a cause, but a description.
And if Jesus didn't bear in his body God's judgment against the nation, what the hell do you think he thought he was doing?
Kyle: That description of original sin doesn't sit well with many evangelicals. I'm sure you know that. We, as humans, sin and choose our wills over God's will all the time. We have done that since the beginning. But that doesn't mean that there is this thing, Original Sin, and that it is what's causing us to be "bad." That doesn't make sense!
About the atonement bit, I do think that Christ had the sins of Israel in mind as he died but I do not think that he thought that by his death people would claim his name and be set free of their sins, which were being crucified with our Lord. His death fulfilled the law and the prophets and ushered in the New Covenant. I do not think that while he was speaking to his disciples about these things (The Son of Man, Kingdom of God, "Last Days," Etc.) he was thinking same thing many 21st century christians in America think he was saying. I'm not trying to be confrontational! I'm trying to learn. And again, I could be very wrong. This is just where I am at right now.
Explain to me how Jesus understood his mission on the earth for God, Israel, and Humanity. I'll be the first to admit; I don't get it! I don't know how the atonement works, all I know is that I trust I am made new in Christ, because that's what he promised us.
Roman Catholic tradition:"There is a close link between the notion of original sin and the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, namely the Church's teaching that, in view of the saving power of the future death and resurrection of her son Jesus, she was preserved from this "stain" (i.e. lack of holiness), which affects others, that is to say, that she was conceived without original sin. Those who deny the existence of original sin thus profess belief in the immaculate conception not only of Mary but of every human being."
Eastern Orthodox position:"Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos."
"Human nature, before the fall was pure and innocent. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, they introduced a new element into human nature (i.e. sin and corruption). This new state prevented man from participation in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Orthodox believe that all people prior to Christ went to Hades (Hell or Limbo, which is understood differently than other Christians). When Christ became God incarnate on Earth, he changed human nature by uniting the human and the Divine; for this Christ is often called "The New Adam". By his participation in human life, death, and resurrection he sanctified the means whereby we could be restored to our original purity and regain heaven. This is what the Orthodox call salvation; salvation from the condemnation of the original sin of Adam and thus, the fate of hell. Christ’s salvific act worked retroactively back to the beginning of time thus saving all the righteous people who went to hell, including Adam and Eve."
Ok, I wanted to include these to statements really fast just to show that there is a difference between the Eastern church and the Western church. On this issue, I think I will have to agree with the East, as far as I understand it.
What's truth got to do with what evangelicals believe?
I really do love that guy Kyle, you know?
Anyway, I view Adam sin's as causing all of creation to fall into decay and corruption. Since we exist as a part of that creation, we are screwed from the beginning. this isn't to say that God isn't a good creator, or that his creation isn't good (And had much good in it after the fall, and has even more good in it now that new creation has begun), but that it's all twisted and we are born innately contrary to God. And when that sinful nature in us is completely erased by the Spirit on the day of resurrection, the whole creation will be freed from the curse. Man's fall messes up creation and himself, man's resurrection restores creation to freedom.
I guess that's my understanding of original sin.
Haha! So, I thought I should add one last bit to this. One thing I discovered in a conversation with a friend was that I needed to specify that I am speaking of a "protestant" idea of Original Sin, especially with the idea of "total depravity" in mind. That might help...
:)
Wainwright is fond of differentiating between "Original" sin and "Originating" sin.
I've struggled with the whole "Original Sin" thing for a while but sitting under Dr. Wainwright for Theology did wonders for my understanding. I'd suggest his book "Doxology" if you've not already read it.
I will be sure to check it out.
Thanks.
:)
I teach the 2-Year-Old class at my church.
I believe in original sin.
Post a Comment
<< Home