Yes, we are agreed about that. And confused, I would suggest also. Both as a former English language teacher (whose French isn’t that bad), and with a lowly masters degree in philosophy compared with your PhD in Quantum Philosophy.
Please forgive, Antoine, it’s been a tough week. For one, I ran into a wannabe-collective of “ERSers”, or at least some proclaimers and fans of “Evolutionary Science and Sociology: A New Beginning” in recent days. I’ll have to get back to your Teilhardian maneuvers on behalf of the future Vatican at a later time. May you find light anew after Theophany.
What is a monitum, anyway, Antoine? Do you at least acknowledge Teilhard was warned by the Vatican? I just want to make sure that you’re playing fair by acknowledging what clearly seems to be at least “inconvenient” to your proposal, and not merely exercising a “get out of jail free” card for Teilhard like a Monopoly game option, when actually, there’s a meaningful monitum on Teilhard’s works & Teilhardianism still today.
You seem to be pushing for the monitum on Teilhard to be lifted, is that right? That would thus be “the future Vatican”, since Teilhard’s monitum is still officially in place by the same Roman instititution.
We’ll see if BioLogos ever celebrates Teilhardianism whenever that monitum, if ever, is eventually lifted, as it looks they’re willing to overlook Teilhard’s heresies to get at the few “evolutionist truths” he dispatched during his lifetime as a Piltdown-forgery friendly palaeontologist. He was either 1) just close friends with the fraudster, or 2) was indeed a fraudster in the “practical joke” himself, as Steve Jay Gould and others have concluded.
Teilhard’s almost total silence about the Piltdown hoax about which he was so thrilled to be part of while it wasn’t yet exposed, is a rather loud ommission also by Teilhardians & their theistic evolutionary “woo” nowadays. But hey, no talk of “Teilhardian heresy” is allowed usually by Teilhardians, so the edges get rather leaky in a hurry when they’re in the conversation.
As for possible papal heresies and papal infallibility, let’s stay away from those, if we can. Agreed? Here’s a bit of Lutheran satire, which I hope you will take in a “good humour” way, and laugh along with “us”, in response to your question: “Are you trying to suggest that the present Pope Francis and the preceding one Benedict XVI should be considered “heretic”?” Umm, relax a bit on that one, OK? Frank the Hippie Pope - YouTube
Even if a Roman Catholic admits it is “theoretically” possible for pope Francis to say something heretical, the current pontifex has received no warning as yet like what Teilhard got.
I agree with why the Vatican issued the monitum on Teilhard, Antoine. Otoh, it seems that you now think the Vatican was in fact wrong to have issued it, is that correct? Thanks for clearing up your views of these surrounding issues about why Teilhard required a warning from those in charge of Catholic teachings and doctrines.
Let’s get more up close & realistic about Teilhard de Chardin than simply repeating some nice talking points about a “new Catholic theology” by a few rogue nuns, and some loose philosophizing that is trying to adopt Teilhard’s teachings for a contemporary audience, without apparently at all taking into account the possible costs of doing so.
He was banned from teaching. He was banned from publishing. He was exiled to China. He was implicated, directly or indirectly, in a scientific hoax.
1962 the Vatican warns of “the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his followers.” Is it supposed to be a boon for “theistic evolutionism” to follow a “new Teilhardian theology” nowadays?
Antoine seems to be trying to suggest that a “major overhaul of Catholic doctrine” would not be required if Teilhard were “rehabilitated” by the Roman Catholic church. Yet another Teilhardian gave a talk last week and said the opposite, indeed that "it would require major overhaul in doctrine”.
There are a LOT of people who do and would VERY strongly disagree with Antoine if that monitum on Teilhard is ever lifted, though perhaps not here at BioLogos, where “theistic evolution” is most widely promoted.
Again, I recommend highly that @aleo finally start a thread specifically related to the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin at BioLogos. There hasn’t been one yet. Why not give it a try & see how it goes? What’s holding back an OP specifically dedicated to Chardin at BioLogos?
In any case discussing Teilhard de Chardin is not the aim of this thread. So I would like to propose we focus on the issue of the “transmission of original sin”.
As said in a previous post, my explanation relies mainly on:
Here St. Thomas states that after the first human sin the whole human nature remained in a fallen state, which thenceforth became transmitted to all new human persons coming into existence. And, most importantly, this state (“original sin”) consist mainly in that God deprives humankind of those favors that He had accorded to “Adam” in the state of primitive innocence, when God placed him in paradise.
My explanation “Transmission at generation” simply tries to elucidate the possible reason why after the first sin God deprives each human person coming into existence (“the entire human nature”) of the original grace God bestowed on “Adam and Eve”.
I suggest a reason that makes it possible to unify the view that “the state of original sin” is the consequence of a “sin of the whole human nature” (Thomas Aquinas), and the view that it is the consequence of a “relational damage” (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI) or a “spiritual pollution” resulting from “Adam as the federal head of the whole humanity” ( Homo divinus model).
I would like to elaborate on this “reason”, as it seems to me it summarizes well the interesting discussion we had in this thread so far:
The key point is St. Thomas Aquinas’ tenet that the state of “original sin” consists mainly in that, after the first human sin, God deprives humankind of those favors that He had accorded to “Adam” in the state of primitive innocence, when God placed him in paradise. Thus, this state was caused by the first human sin, and thenceforth became transmitted to all new human persons coming into existence. This leads Thomas to state that the first sin damaged the whole human nature, which since remained in a fallen state.
11.[…] Moreover he [man] was free and self-controlled, being made by God for this end, that he might rule all those things that were upon the earth. […]
15.[…] if he should keep the commandment of God, he should ever remain such as he was, that is to say, immortal; but, if he should not keep it, he should become mortal and be dissolved to earth from whence his formation had been taken. […]
This teaching was adopted by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), in the Decree on Original Sin, Session 5, Canon 1:
The first man, Adam, when he acted against God’s command in paradise, immediately lost that holiness and justice in which he had been created
And informs today’s Catechism of the Catholic Church:
376. […] the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.
404. […] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
So, explaining the “transmission of original sin” amounts to explain why after the first sin God deprives each human person coming into existence of the original holiness God bestowed on “Adam and Eve”.
My proposed answer is that this is the case because God ardently wants to redeem the sinners and to this aim:
God lets the sinners on earth to give them opportunity to repent, ask forgiveness, and come again to loving God.
To facilitate the redemption of all sinners God deprives of original holiness all human persons coming into existence after the first human sin, according to Romans 11:32: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
Point 2) has been admirably expressed by Michelle Ols in this post:
Taking all this into account we are led to the following view of what “human nature” is all about:
All humans are bound by God’s love and mercy into “human kind in the image of God”. And this means that you cannot define humanity without reference to God’s mercy; it is God’s mercy which makes that all human persons are related to each other. To the end that, for the sake of redemption, God is led in his mercy to deprive of original holiness and justice all human persons coming into existence after the first sin. In this sense any sin would have provoked the “state of original sin”, if it had been the first human sin.
This makes clear that the views of the state of “original sin” as
“sin of nature” (Thomas Aquinas, Irenaeus),
“relational damage” (Ratzinger/Benedict XVI),
“spiritual pollution resulting from federal headship” (Homo divinus).
are all stating the same with different words.
Notice also that by depriving us of original holiness after the first sin, God let us in a state where our spiritual capabilities are submitted to the strong Darwinian tendencies governing animal life. But, interestingly enough, thereby these tendencies to “red in claw and tooth” themselves become a means to help us humans to love each other, according to the splendid statement by Richard Dawkins: “[…] one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives. […] We should not live by Darwinian principles.”
In summary, I think the view I am proposing as a result of the amazing discussion in this thread may help:
To unify the Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic views.
To better understanding why the “transmission of original sin” remains a corner stone of Christian Belief.
To show that even evolutionary science may contribute to this understanding.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
1477
But we have no idea what the dangers are do we? What Ledochowski’s six propositions were. Why not?
May Eastern Orthodox Theosis be a way to build a bridge to East forms of spirituality and religiosity?
In any case I would like to highlight three features of Buddhism that seem to correlate with tenets of Biblical Christian faith:
The importance of celibacy (as the XIVth Dalai Lama suggests) to understand that “relationships and sex can bring us abundant happiness if we deal with them with awareness, inner knowledge, and detachment”.
Buddha’s pragmatism regarding truth, according to which truths are really important only when they are useful for your salvation. A view which is upmost biblical!
To a certain extent, the idea of re-birth can contribute to solve the theological problem of the status of the child who died before being capable of acting freely and consciously, and without having received Baptism.
1 Cor 15:20-28
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
After Jesus has put all his enemies under his feet, then God will be all in all.
Those who turned and placed all their trust and love in Jesus and obeyed Him, will be united with the Father for ever.
When God created humankind in the image of God, the flesh was still without sin.
It seems fitting to assume that, if humans had not sinned, they would have entered the kingdom of heaven and be united with the Father for ever, as they would have done the will of Jesus’ Father who is in heaven.
One could also say that, if humans had not sinned, God would have destined them
That’s not important for me at the moment to think about. What is important is what Jesus did through His cross and resurrection, my death and new birth (new creation). It is through that, that the way of salvation from sin and the devil is provided.
It is more important than you know and you dismiss it too easily. It should be on your mind daily, if not every waking hour. The fatherhood of God is huge, especially in the NT.
And we are Jesus’ adoptive siblings. I don’t think it is overstating to say that God’s fatherhood, or his joy in it, is why he created the universe and us in it.
Being born again by the Father’s will is very important, it is my salvation.
What I was saying was, that what would have happened if Adam and Eve didn’t sin is not important to me at the moment. That is in the past, what they did affected me but what Jesus did through the cross and resurrection delivered me. I move on from the cross of Christ, and press forward towards the high calling that is in Christ Jesus and the final salvation that awaits at the resurrection.
Of course. That is what makes you his adopted child.
That is not the way what you said came across to me. I agree that it is not necessary information for you to know prior to your being born again into a new Family, to mix the two metaphors.
Thinking that God would have become flesh, even if Adam had not sinned (as we are taught by the great Father Irenaeus) may help us to better understanding what the state of original holiness and justice was all about, and thus why Adam’s sin caused that all human beings coming into existence after this sin are not endowed with original holiness and justice.
Thanks for your interaction. I don’t see that spoken about in the scriptures and at the moment I dont see the importance to think about it.
What is important to me is that i was a slave to sin and Jesus united me with Him in His death and resurrection to save me from my slavery to sin and the god of this age. So that is what I am setting my thoughts and affections on.