But that would mean God pretty much EXECUTES that broadcast of corruption…
There is no quantum, physical or biological taint that can cause this corruption of our environment… it is not caused by toe nail clippings… it is not caused by brain waves.
And if you are fine with that … then I don’t think you need the Augustine view of Original Sin any more, right ?
The doctrine of original sin is central to Augustine’s understanding of both grace and free will. Original sin makes grace necessary. Original sin defines the bondage of the will. One’s view of grace and free will is inseparably related to one’s understanding of original sin. He who embraces Augustine’s view of original sin is compelled to probe his understanding of grace and the fallen will.
Augustine understood the will to be a faculty that is part of the constituent nature given to man in creation. Brain waves, toe clippings - no. It makes man a volitional creature and makes it possible for him to be a moral creature.
Creatures who lack minds or wills cannot be moral beings. To be capable of moral action, either virtue or vice, a being must be able to make moral choices.
For example, when a drop of rain falls to the ground, we do not regard this as a moral falling. A fall from the sky is not a fall from righteousness.
Gottfried Leibniz distinguished between several types of evil, such as metaphysical evil, physical evil, and moral evil.
Metaphysical “evil” refers to finitude or the lack of pure being (like that found in God).
Physical “evil” refers to natural disasters like floods or earthquakes. We think of such events as bad, but we do not attribute moral culpability to the water that floods or the earth that shakes.
Moral evil refers to the actions of volitional creatures.
Augustine regarded man as fallen and as a sinner, but he did not mean that in the fall man had lost his moral agency.
Indeed, it is because man remains a volitional being that he is culpable for sin. “There is … always within us a free will—but it is not always good,” Augustine says.
“For it is either free from righteousness when it serves sin—and then it is evil—or else it is free from sin when it serves righteousness—and then it is good.”
Augustine clearly affirms that man before and after the fall possesses free will.
The ability to choose, or the faculty of the will, remains in man even after the fall. Augustine insists we “always” have a free will. **The direction of the will, however, may be to either good or evil.
We can have a good free will or an evil free will.
Augustine defined free will as the ability to make voluntary decisions free from external constraint or coercion. It is self-activity. Self-activity refers to actions caused by the self, not to actions caused by an external force.
The person is not an inert object or a passive puppet. This freedom is a necessary condition or prerequisite for moral behaviour of any kind.
At times Augustine seems to deny all freedom to the will of fallen man. In The Enchiridion, for example, he writes: "when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost.”
How can we square this statement with Augustine’s insistence elsewhere that man always has freedom of the will?
The sinner sins because he chooses to sin, not because he is forced to sin.
Without grace, the fallen creature lacks the ability to choose righteousness. He is in bondage to his own sinful impulses.
To escape this bondage the sinner must be liberated by the grace of God.
For Augustine the sinner is both free and in bondage at the same time, but not in the same sense.
He is free to act according to his own desires, but his desires are only evil.
In an ironic sense, he is a slave to his own evil passions, a slave to his own corrupted will. This corruption greatly affects the will, but it does not destroy it as a faculty of choosing.
Thank you for that helpful clarification between:
Thank you , Paul, for that explanation. I am reminded that common perceptions are often quite different than how real theologians define things. Often we lay people only see a caricature of the real picture.
Thanks. Unfortunately, this still appears to mean he is unable to choose otherwise. A good father would not ensure his children were not able to choose good; he made their wills, after all.
Pelagius’ views can be a bit of a strawman, it seems to me. Isn’t it more likely that we should shed the presupposition of being born “good” or “evil,” and instead assess that we are born with evolutionary tendencies that are mainly to survive? It’s our forebrain that helps us learn (and our parents to teach us) how to bend those tendencies appropriately into situations where they are either advantages; or trim them down if they are disadvantages.
I once read the Irenaeus, who was only a few degrees removed from John through Polycarp, believed that sin was not a foundation of our being, but that God treated our impulses as a parent does?
Thanks.
Can you also clarify the “metaphysical evil” term? It sounds gnostic? One contrast between Judaism and gnostic Greeks was that the Jews affirmed that God had made the world, and it was good.
Thank you for your discussion.
In addition, the quotes that “man was continually” in evil, etc, are generalizations, just as saying a man is righteous is a generalization. Obviously, we do not continually do evil. In fact, as Lewis put it in the Screwtape Letters, one of the barriers to the devil’s influence is that there are so many really good things we can do. They fill up our minds, keeping us from doing bad.
To add up here.My view on this is that sin always existed we just "didnt know"until our fall.Hense satans rebellion
Hi Randy,
This is exactly the view of Pelagius and many believers.
I understand why people hold this view. I would suggest it is a sub-Biblical view.
In fallen humanity, there is still a little bit of good - that can do good works that contribute to our salvation. Whereas, others theologians there is none and we are dependent upon the work of Christ.
Can we shed Good and Evil?
Really good question, Randy.
When I was a University student I was also taught "good and evil’ are social constructs.
We evolved to the point at which we constructed our own ethical or moral culture; that is, what has evolved is a social environment in which individuals behave in ways determined in part by their effects on others.
Hence we are not innately good or evil nor do we have “an inborn need or demand for ethical standards.
Instead, as evolved humans, we are intrinsically nonmoral, the product of a nonmoral environment which in turn causes us to act in ways we call “moral.”
If we are essentially nonmoral, what then is the “good”?
The good, or rather those things we call good, are positive reinforcers, and those things we call bad or evil are negative reinforcers.
What determines what is good behaviour and what is bad?”
My secular university lecturer’s answer was that whatever the members of one’s culture find reinforcing as the result of their genetic endowment and the natural and social contingencies to which they have been exposed will be that culture’s value system.
In brief, a person’s culture determines what is right or wrong, good or bad; it makes such value judgments because it has been caused to do so by nonmoral physical causes, namely heredity and environment.
If we want people to be better “morally” we must proceed to the design of better environments.
Finally, the concept of God is a personification of what we think is good. A very ant-biblical position but understandable.
Randy, I think you are referring to- metaphysical dualism.
Gnostics construe the world in thoroughgoing dualistic terms.
Two realms exist, that of matter and materiality versus that of spirit.
The material world is evil or inferior, while the spiritual realm defines good.
The inferior and evil material world comes not from the high God of the spiritual realm, but from an inferior being.
Many gnostic myths function to explain the catastrophe of the creation of the material world.
I was referring to solutions to the problems of metaphysical (doctrine of) and moral evil that do not, in and of themselves, solve the problem of physical evil.
Or I can put it this way: the solution to the problem of metaphysical evil (i.e., evil is a privation) merely shows how evil is possible in a perfectly good, finite world created by an absolutely perfect God.
The answer to the problem of moral evil merely shows how good creatures could activate evil by freely choosing their own finite preferences above the infinite good of God.
But if you’re interested neither of these indicates why there are many physical evils in the world that do not appear to be the result of any free choices.
Why do many innocent people suffer from floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes?
There seems to be no connection with their own free choices nor any justification for their innocent suffering.
If nature were an independent entity operating autonomously apart from God, the theist might have ready recourse to an answer.
But the problem is made more acute for the theist since he believes God is in sovereign control of the natural world.
This leads to the Problem of Physical Evil
One of the most famous contemporary examples of an objection to theism from the point of physical evil can be seen in the example used from - The Plague by Albert Camus which coudl apply to todays pandemic.
The logic may be summarized as follows:
Either one must join the doctor and fight the plague God sent for man’s sin, or else he must join the priest and not fight the plague.
But not to fight the plague is inhumane.
And to fight the plague is to fight against God who sent it.
Hence, if humanitarianism is right, then theism is wrong.
Humanitarianism is right, and it is right to work to alleviate suffering.
Therefore, theism is wrong.
There are several assumptions the theist would challenge in Camus’s argument.
First, according to the Bible, one cannot conclude that people who suffer tragedy through a natural disaster are suffering because they are more wicked than those who are not likewise suffering (see Luke 13:3, 4).
Second, if the “plague” is viewed broadly as the curse of sin on the whole fallen world, then it might be better to describe it as what man brought on himself by his own free choice (Gen. 3:14; 5:12; 8:19, 20).
Third, it is not wrong for a theist to work against unjust suffering. In fact, because it was a man who brought the fall to the world (brought evil into the world), he can work to remove the effects of that fall (i.e., suffering) without being concerned about fighting against God.
Fourth, although the biblical theist is concerned for the plague’s victims, he works against the general plague of evil at the most effective level—the cause of the plague, not merely the results. Evil is the ultimate cause of plague, even physical evils, and the life-transforming message of the cross of Jesus Christ is the most effective cure for evil know to man. It is not wrong—in fact, it is good—to treat symptoms and put bandages on suffering men, but it is even better to treat and cure the disease that is causing the sickness.
Christian theism offers exactly what is needed—an internal change in man that enables him to overcome evil. I ramble
Thank you @Randy and @Paul_Allen1 for continuing this thoughtful and stimulating discussion. I find it good and helpful to think about these questions.
This makes me think of how when Jesus came into the world, one way that He demonstrated His power and identity as God was by healing the sick. His healing of the sick not only showed His compassion, but also showed His power to forgive sins.
Mark 2 (healing the paralytic)
9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
Matthew 9
11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Yes, perhaps you are right, calling sin an “equalizer” is not a good way of expressing what I am thinking exactly. Perhaps I should edit my top post, as well, but I am having a hard time putting the idea into words.
What I do appreciate in Paul’s writings are the sense of humility that faith in Jesus brings to a person. This humility comes from knowing that we are all sinners and thus we also experience incredible gratitude in knowing that God came into the world to pay the debt of our sin, that He loves us so much that died for us, because He wants a relationship with us.
Romans 3
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded.
Thank you. Yes, but humility also doesn’t require all fetuses and infants to be born with original sin, does it? It can come from recognition that God is God. From the time of birth, we respect and honor our parents for their discipline, love and guidance.
Every one of us that sins relies on God for forgiveness. We as Christians believe that it comes through Jesus Christ. Thanks.
From my very unclear understanding, Paul’s main purpose here was to point out to the Jewish and Gentile Christians that it has always been through repentance, never through the outward sign of the covenant (circumcision, etc), that we are reconciled with God.
Thank you for your reply. Would you kindly clarify this sentence? Is it that some believe there is a little goodness, and others none at all?
I want to clarify that the belief that a sense of good and evil arises out of genetics and conditioning does not negate the existence of God, nor of true good and evil. Justin Barrett of Cambridge, then Fuller Theological Seminary, studied cognitive science of religion, and examined the hardwiring we have for belief. In one of his videos, he and his partners commented that Dawkins would not be able to use CSR to argue against faith. It’s similar to the idea that evolution does not rule out God because we understand how creation came to be.
There is good evidence that the conscience is an evolved part of our psyche. It is not a universally correct “still, small voice.” We are not all the same in how we react, for example. My own children vary much from one another. James Dobson wrote on that, too!
It’s interesting how we can variously grow up to be the “over meticulous” (Wesley referred to those who were constantly worried about small sins and their salvation), to the socio-and psychopaths, who may have a genetic difficulty with the concepts of shame and guilt. I’m finding the evolution of shame and guilt particularly interesting, as it plays out in our Covid national consciousness. Here’s an article I have set myself the task of reading (but have not finished yet) The evolution of shame and guilt - PMC
I very much enjoyed your teaching on gnosticism and evil of various types. Thank you! So, would we consider pain an “evil” when it is not related to our actions?
I struggle with this concept. Surely Adam (whether allegorical or literal), who worked or cared for the garden, found some struggle, or “evil” there? Yet, with evolution, we see that death and natural pain occurred throughout history. Thus, this is not a curse, nor even “evil” in and of itself. Lamoureux describes the four Ancient Near East motifs of De Novo Creation, Lost Idyllic Age, Great Flood, and Tribal Formation (with a founding male). The thought is, as I understand it, that God used these motifs not as teaching points in themselves, but to convey His love of chasing after us.
I, too, struggle with the idea of God controlling everything, yet allowing so much pain. That is something I am going to have to ask God more about in Heaven. Thank you.
Hi Randy,
Just a few brief responding comments.
Pelagius - We have the ability or goodness to choose God.
Calvin - Ephesians 2:1 we’re dead in sin - dead people are unable to choose God
Conscience - you make an interesting point. I have read those reports on brain activity and belief. Possibly the same ones you mention.
My university philosophy lecturer - loved to ridicule believers in his class: regarding the falsity of conscience and the ghost in the machine; namely the soul is a manifestation of the brain and doesn’t exist. But he was most anti-catholic re: soul inseted from heaven etc.
Thanks for your comments. You certainly have much to teach me.
Certainly, everything we have comes form God–so that if we have a desire for God, the ability to do so presumably also comes from Him, ultimately. However, it seems like some in my tradition have told me that in order to have a free will, God made us unable to choose good. That seems to me to ignore the undistributed middle in which free choice would exist, and set God up for being rather unfair.
I am sorry. It sounds like you had a horrible experience. I purposely avoided philosophy and related classes in undergrad in order to avoid that sort of thing. I would personally want to stay far away from a ridiculing professor like you had.
Justin Barrett is a strong Christian. He argues how Christianity is reasonable and spoke for the Veritas forum. (It is on YouTube from 2011 and 2012, Justin Barrett - Why Would Anyone Believe in God? - Veritas at UC Davis - YouTube
Maybe you can help me discern the difference between Barrett and your prof. I have not read his books.
Barrett graduated from Calvin for his undergrad. Presumably, he’s a Calvinist; I would be interested to find what he thinks of this in relationship to Calvinism.
I’m not trying to argue for a given evolutionary perspective on shame and guilt. Rather, I am trying to understand how God can be fair, and how the doctrine of original sin might play out. I’m rather uncomfortable with this interpretation, as it seems that it predisposes God to not be fair.
Thanks again.
Just chiming in here to say that we recently had him on the podcast and there was a great discussion: Episode: Justin Barrett | Why Theology Needs Psychology - BioLogos
Forum Discussion: Podcast Episode: Justin Barrett | Why Theology Needs Psychology
Thanks for mentioning Justin Barrett. I’ll have to listen to that podcast that Hillary just mentioned, or watch that YouTube video you posted. Sounds intriguing.
Above in post #57: I had already responded to your concerns about unborn children, babies (that they go to heaven) and people who have never heard the gospel (God judges people based on what they know, and He works miracles to bring people to a knowledge of Himself)
The doctrine of the Fall, is a theological explanation (not an inherited physical condition) that tells us that all of humanity is corrupted in such a way that now we most often choose evil instead of good. God could have made us to choose good all the time, but that would mean we would be automatons, not agents with free will. In this sense, Original Sin, is not physically inherited, rather it is just part of the spiritual condition of being human in the present time (since the Fall). However, we are to be redeemed in heaven, as we choose to believe in the sacrifice Jesus made to save us from this fallen condition.
Thus, I do not believe the doctrine of the Fall or of Original Sin makes God unjust or immoral. Not believing in the the Fall or Original Sin would create the same questions of fairness as accepting those doctrines.
Is there anyone who does not sin, and thus would not need God’s forgiveness, which comes through faith in Christ?
Thank you. I am so sorry. I forgot. I appreciate your reminder.
I have to re think this, I think, if you have patience with me.
Thank you!
I keep thinking of the guy lost in the boonies and finding a wild-wooder and asking which way to go and getting the answer, “Well I wouldn’t start from here.”.
I’ve been having a similar discussion on another online forum, and I liked this comment that some else posted there:
The fundamental message of Christianity is that we are sinners & because of that Jesus came to save us. Exactly why we have a nature capable of sin, isn’t really that important (but may make for interesting discussion).
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.