How rare is it for a person to understand it’s actually happening?
I think Nietzsche saw himself as superior to others (or the other) and failed to consider what it is to be absolutely alone. The same with Heidegger’s instinctive use of the plural pronoun. It would have been something if he considered the nothing as the unobservable cause that is unaware of its doing, its being in the world.
In the confusion where nothing makes sense, and people do not, the presence of Jesus is something truly wonderful to behold.
You wouldn’t happen to know of an English translation?
I would like to add that Nietzsche’s case may be interesting for elucidating what the state of original sin is all about:
At the moment when God made Homo sapiens into humankind in the image of God, God endowed humankind with original grace to master the selfish Darwinian tendencies encoded in Homo sapiens DNA.
The first sin entails the loss of original grace, so that thereafter the selfish Darwinian tendencies prevail and become human concupiscence, i.e. tendencies to rebel against God and “be absolutely alone”.
As you very well point out, it is “the presence of Jesus” in us that allow us to develop a relationship of love to him, and through him to God the Father, and the others. Humans of all times have felt the need to pray for overcoming existential loneliness.
There’s so little in the text to go off, but what’s there is helpful. Often I’ve looked at God creating man from dust and his breathing the breath of life as a single step. But it could well be two. The creation of man from determinate matter, evolution, and breathing life as a spiritual awakening.
That awakening may have been meeting with God and tasting how good he is. And in his presence, who knows we may have discovered the ability to speak with tongues of angels. When you meet God, it changes you.
A friend of mine wrote a book on tongues, and he made an interesting point that tongues are not supposed to be gibberish but advanced heavenly language. The gift of understanding and speaking difficult words. I think the baby talk is appropriate for newborns, relatively speaking, but it’s probably time we learn how to use our words better.
You got me to go back and reread Tremper Longman’s Confronting Old Testament Controversies. I vaguely remembered his comment on original sin and had been wanting to refresh my memory:
“It is important to point this out, because many have a contrary view that goes back to a grave misunderstanding handed down from Augustine. Augustine, the rightly revered theologian who lived around AD 400, was not so accomplished a Greek scholar. He mistranslated the Greek of Romans 5:12 so that it read (in Latin), “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, in whom [rather than “because”] all sinned . . .” This misunderstanding led to the idea that Paul explicitly stated that Adam’s sin is counted as our sin, that we inherit our sinful nature from Adam’s act.”
In my view, the two readings “in whom all sinned” and “because all sinned” can be reconciled with each other in the light of Nietzsche’s “discovery” of the “animal-individual”. And I would like to propose we discuss this possibility more in depth, as this can be highly useful to understanding the revealed biblical teaching.
In the light of evolution, it is fitting to assume that God created humankind in the image of God by calling and ordering Homo sapiens to share divine life. But then we can’t help acknowledging that the selfish evolutionary mechanisms triggering the survival of the fittest were encoded in the evolved Homo sapiens DNA.
Such evolved mechanisms would have become sinful propensities (“concupiscence”) as soon as the Homo sapiens creatures became human beings in the image of God called to act according the commandment of love. And so God could have been blamed for creating humans inclined to sinful behavior, that is, in a state with impaired free will.
So, it is fitting to accept that when God made humankind in the image of God and ordered it to share divine life, God endowed the human beings with the original grace for mastering the selfish evolved tendencies.
This endowment characterized the state of “original righteousness”, and it was the state in which humans were at the moment the first sin in human history arrived. This sin is referred to as the sin of “Adam and Eve”, but it could very well have been my (your) sin, if my (your) sin had been the first human sin. So, the original transgression of “Adam and Eve” means the first transgression in human history, and, in this sense, could very well have been your and my transgression.
Before continuing the argument, I would be thankful to know whether we may find common ground in these preceding statements.
One of the things I have appreciated about sound evangelical/reformed theology is the sense in which they get that the kingdom is now and not yet. That goes for our identity in Christ, now and not yet.
Yes. This has also relevance to discussions on original sin, as this caused our expulsion from the garden and commune with God, and with that our need to search for our human face - and Christ.
“In whom all sinned”
A mistaken interpretation would be: I am accountable for Adam’s sin the same way Adam himself was: If I had died after conception, I would have been damned to hell.
“Because all sinned”
A mistaken interpretation would be: “It is impossible in principle that a human being does not sin.”
By contrast, both readings can be rightly interpreted if one assumes that the state of original sin consists in the state of “lack of original grace” in the following sense:
God made humankind in the image of God by taking Homo sapiens creatures and calling them to share divine life. This call included the spiritual endowment with original grace to master the selfish evolutionary mechanisms encoded in the Homo sapiens DNA. Thereby the first human beings in the image of God were in a state of original righteousness (i.e., free of any concupiscence derived from the “survival of the fittest”).
This state of original righteousness (“paradise”) went necessarily lost at the arrival of the first sin in human history.
Now, God could very well have decided to cast the sinners out of the earth, so that on earth only people in state of original righteousness (“paradise”) remain.
As we know, God decided to let the sinners on earth and give them opportunity to repent and reach salvation.
In this light one can then rightly interpret:
“In whom all sinned”
A right interpretation would be:
For reasons to be elucidated, God considered that for the sake of Redemption it would not be fitting to let on earth people in the state of original righteousness who didn’t need redemption, together with sinners without original grace and in need of redemption. And so God decided that all human beings coming into existence after the first sin they do come into existence lacking original grace and in need of redemption.
This is the (badly) called “state of original sin” that:
The state of need of redemption where:
The state @MOLs brilliantly calls the “great equalizer”.
In summary, the state of “original sin” becomes transmitted because the selfish evolutionary mechanisms encoded in the Homo sapiens DNA become transmitted through biological reproduction and in absence of original grace pervert into concupiscence or inclination to sin.
“Because all sinned”
A right interpretation would be:
After the first sin in human history each one is conceived lacking original grace as if each one had been the first sinner. In this sense, I have been conceived lacking original grace as if I myself had sinned. But ( most importantly ) at my conception I was not accountable toward God for Adam’s sin the same way as Adam himself was accountable after his transgression. And therefore infants dying without baptism do NOT deserve to go to hell.
If the reading is mistaken, then why take it any further?
These are deep waters that I have but tipped my toes into. Before I say anything further, I probably need to pull apart a few pages in my theology books.
On a sarcastic whim, however, I have said to people who have not been convicted of their sinfulness, that Jesus came for sinners and not the righteous. So the righteous need not concern themselves.
I think you are giving here an excellent argument to explain why God has permitted “the state of original sin” and what this state is all about!
For the sake of redemption, it is not beneficial that sinners in need of redemption live together with people who may feel righteous and claim that they do not need redemption.
Now, God in his mercy decided to maintain sinners on earth to give them opportunity to repent and reach salvation.
So it seems fitting that after the first sin in human history people on earth come into existence in a state where they are not entitled to claim “I am righteous and do NOT need redemption”.
The state where people on earth are not entitled to claim they are righteous, is “the state of original sin”.
Last night I opened Berkhof’s Systematic Theology intending to see his view on original sin, but got sidetracked with his view on evolution, and then fell asleep reading.
It would seem that in Adam we are subject to the ultimate generational curse. The absence of God or the rational possibility of solipsism. So often being able to call it by name is the path to knowing. No doubt Adam was given the task of naming in the beginning.
As for guilt and damnation, on that I’m happy the Bible, as far as I can tell, says that we are only accountable for our own sins. Even though we can share in the consequences.
Having just now read Berkhof on the historical views of the origin of sin, I have to say that it was wonderfully succinct and informative.
From Ireneaus to gnosticism to Origen to the Greek and Latin Church fathers to the Reformers, Socinians and Arminians to Kant, Leibnitz, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, the evolutionist, and Barth.
Hmm… Berkhof writes, “That is what Paul teaches us in Rom. 5:12: ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned.’ The last words can only mean that they all sinned in Adam, and sinned in such a way as to make them all liable to the punishment of death. It is not sin considered merely as pollution, but sin as guilt that carries punishment with it.”
I wonder what Moo has to say about this passage.
Edit:
Moo third ways it.
Just thinking now about how I came to know my sin. There are any number of things I may not really know, like how to read Romans 5:12-21, but I am absolutely certain that I am a sinner. It wasn’t just that I had sinned, but the damning nature of it, was that I knew I would continue to sin.
In my view the Berkhof’s explanation you refer to misses a key aspect as it does not take “God’s mercy” into account.
I think we find common ground in that Romans 5:12-21 does reveal us which consequences Adam’s sin has for humankind, and suitably describes the state of humankind after the first sin in human history. So, to avoid misunderstandings, in the following I will refer to this state as “the state of Romans 5:12-21” and bypass the Augustinian label of “original sin” (unless required for clarity):
The state of Romans 5:12-21 clearly implies God’s will to redeem the sinners and make them capable of reaching salvation. This entails the important consequence that the circumstances accompanying this state, “physical death” included, should not be considered as something negative, a “punishment” aiming to produce suffering to the sinner, but rather something God wills in order to leading the sinners to repent and making them capable of divine life and eternal happiness. In other words, the state of Romans 5:12-21 may be considered worse than the state of original righteousness in which Adam was created (without being submitted to death and suffering), but it is undoubtedly immensely better than the state of the fallen angels in hell.
For the aim that all humans reach salvation it would have been counterproductive and awkward on the part of God to maintain on earth sinners in the state of Romans 5:12-21living together with people who could vaunt themselves as righteous and unimpeachable. Therefore, to rightly understand the state of Romans 5:12-21, one has to read this passage in the light of Romans 11:32, i.e.: “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” For the sake of salvation, it is quite beneficial for me that I don’t have the right to claim I am blameless. In other words, the state of Romans 5:12-21 (“the state of original sin”) is certainly caused by Adam’s sin but it is also the response of God’s mercy to this sin.
By creating humankind “in the image of God”, God called Adam to live according to the commandment of love, and ordered him to eternal life. Accordingly, God endowed Adam with original grace to master the selfish Darwinian mechanisms that underpin the “survival of the fittest” and are encoded in the Homo sapiens DNA, the flesh God used to shape Adam’s body. The state of Romans 5:12-21 consists mainly in the fact that after Adam’s sin the human beings come into existence lacking original grace, and therefore the selfish evolutionary tendencies degenerate in us into “concupiscence”, which opposes the commandment of love and becomes transmitted concomitantly with the Homo sapiens DNA. Because I carry “concupiscence”, I feel a strong inclination toward evil within me, but one should not equate “concupiscence” and sin: God makes me to feel “concupiscence” in order I realize that I am weak and can reach salvation only with the help of Christ’s grace. In other words, I always remain free of turning to God and pray: “Our Father in heaven, … forgive my trespasses, … lead me not into temptation”. God’s mercy invented the state of Romans 5:12-21 to move us to repent, and so he gave us the prayer of the Lord too.
Your ‘liked this’ to my last post stimulates me to propose the following points as a possible summary and (in my view) important result of the whole discussion in this tread:
Roman 5:12-21 is inspired Scripture that reveals us which consequences the first sin in human history (“Adam’s sin”) has for humankind, and suitably describes the state of humankind after such sin.
On the one hand, in the light of today’s evolutionary science, it is fitting to assume that (1) God used Homo sapiens flesh to shape Adam’s body, and (2) in the Homo sapiens DNA were encoded the selfish Darwinian mechanisms that result in the “survival of the fittest”.
On the other hand, by creating humankind “in the image of God”, God called Adam to live according to the commandment of love, and ordered him to eternal life. Thus, it is fitting to assume that God endowed Adam with original grace to control the selfish evolutionary tendencies, to the extent that Adam was not tempted to sin by any urge coming from tendencies innermost encoded in the flesh God made Adam of. Notice that this endowment with original grace comes from God’s justice: Had God permitted that Adam was urged to sin by the very stuff God made him of, God himself would have been the Tempter.
Furthermore, when God made humankind in the image of God, God in his mercy also decided that possible sinners were not to be immediately thrown to hell but allowed to remain on earth and receive opportunity to repent and reach salvation. Indeed, the state of Romans 5:12-21 has to be seen as part of God’s plan of redemption and the circumstances accompanying this state, “physical death” included, should not be considered as something negative, a “punishment” aiming to produce suffering to the sinner, but rather something God wills in order to leading the sinners to repent and making them capable of divine life and eternal happiness. Although the state of Romans 5:12-21 may be considered worse than the state of original righteousness in which Adam was created (without being submitted to death and suffering), it is undoubtedly immensely better than the state of the fallen angels in hell.
A crucial point in this respect is the following: For the aim that humans reach salvation it would have been counterproductive and awkward on the part of God to maintain on earth sinners in the state of Romans 5:12-21living together with people who could vaunt themselves as righteous and unimpeachable. Therefore, to rightly understand the state of Romans 5:12-21, one has to read this passage in the light of Romans 11:32, i.e.: “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” For the sake of salvation, it is quite beneficial for me that I don’t have the right to claim I am blameless. In other words, the state of Romans 5:12-21 (“the state of original sin”) is certainly caused by Adam’s sin but it is also the response of God’s mercy to this sin.
The same way that God’s justice prompted God to grant Adam original grace, God’s mercy prompts God to NOT grant original grace to the human beings coming into existence after the first sin in human history. One cannot define human nature without referring to God’s call to eternal life: God’s mercy and human freedom is the very stuff human beings are made of.
The state of Romans 5:12-21 consists mainly in the fact that after Adam’s sin the human beings come into existence lacking original grace, and therefore the selfish evolutionary tendencies degenerate in us into “concupiscence”, which opposes the commandment of love and becomes transmitted concomitantly with the Homo sapiens DNA. Because I carry “concupiscence”, I feel a strong inclination toward evil within me, but one should not equate “concupiscence” and sin: God makes me to feel “concupiscence” in order I realize that I am weak and can reach salvation only with the help of Christ’s grace. In conclusion, concupiscence notwithstanding, I remain always free of turning to God and pray: “Our Father in heaven, … forgive my trespasses, … lead me not into temptation”. It is God’s mercy that “invented” the state of Romans 5:12-21 to move us to repent, and so God gave us “the prayer of the Lord” too.
I would be thankful if interested contributors to this thread (in particular: you, @MOls, @Christy, @GJDS, @Dale, @Randy, @BoltzmannBrain) could review this interpretation of “original sin” as the state of Romans 5:12-21, and propose possible improvements.
xxxxxx
Edit 4 days later:
As apparently, the interpretation in 7 points I propose does not raise any particular objection, I think it can be considered a good result of this thread, and would like to warmly thank all who have contributed to the discussion, before the thread goes closed.
Here, by « original sin » and what it caused, you are referring to the state described by St. Paul in Romans 5:12-21, aren’t you?
As apparently, the interpretation in 7 points I propose does not raise any particular objection, I think it can be considered a good result of this thread, and would like to warmly thank all who have contributed to the discussion, before the thread goes closed.