Paul, Adam, and Salvation: maybe Augustine really did screw everything up and we should just move on

Faith & Science Conversation
21

George

I’d be hesitant to agree to the sentence simply because it seems to me possibly constructed to avoid the division in the Orthodox camp between the traditionalists and the moderns, though as an outsider it’s hard to be sure.

In other words, it possibly intends to be ambiguous. But I suppose at a minimum it means (a) There was an Adam and (b) his sin has some effect (death, or corruption, or punishment or something) on all mankind. Which amounts to some kind of doctrine of original sin.

i prefer people to spell out what they mean clearly, even if I disagre (woops, I’m turning into Eddie!).

22

So what?

I don’t believe evangelicals were victims. I didn’t mention them because I don’t hold them responsible for making up the doctrine of original sin.

So much the worse for evangelicals, if they’re such slaves to tradition in the face of reality. Fortunately that’s not my problem. Perhaps evangelicals can go back to believing in geocentrism, and witch burning. They have a lengthy tradition as well.

I don’t think that statement is connected with reality. But as I’ve pointed out, there are scientific reasons for rejecting Augustine which have nothing to do with evolution.

23

@Jon_Garvey,

I know that you have emphatically stated that I was wrong about the Orthodox Church regarding the Roman Catholic doctrine of Original sin.

And you have suggested that today’s Orthodox are divided up between Moderns and Traditionalists.

But I would certainly be surprised if today’s Orthodox community thought adopting a Roman Catholic doctrine like original sin was somehow a modern idea.

I think you should take at face value, the words the Orthodox Church pronounces regarding their own doctrines … including that the Orthodox Church rejects your version of Original Sin. The Orthodox Church does not assign collective guilt to all humanity … which Augustine explicitly proposes when he says that all humanity was “in Adam” when he sinned. This is a metaphysical position crafted by Augustine.

The Orthodox Church points out that the guilt belongs to Adam and Eve alone … but that the because God did not attempt to repeat the same test on each and every generation, the penalty incurred by Adam and Eve inevitably stings all humanity.

The terminology for all this can be troublesome. The Orthodox Church certainly admits that there was a first sin… but they do not believe that all humanity is also guilty because of what Adam and Eve did.

Do you follow the distinction?

George Brooks

24

Rom7:1-25 presents the Christian view of sin, law and guilt. The Orthodox position is this and is expounded to show we all bear the guilt and penalty of sin. If memory serves, Augustine elaborated on a way of seeing “all have sinned and bear the penalty of the law”, by arguing that this guilt is transmitted throughout the human race, and this has caused controversy, especially from those who want an evolutionary basis for their belief. However both Catholic and Orthodox teachings are consistent with universal guilt due to sinful human nature.

1 Like
25

@GJDS, aka “1st George” … I think you are putting a nice spin on those words.

The Orthodox Community certainly agrees that human nature is sinful.

But as posted above (and now below), they do not assign (Metaphysically or otherwise) Adam’s guilt to all humanity. But since the flesh is weak … there is more than enough opportunity for each human, inevitably, to make their own sins. This is consistent with an Evolutionary view that one could adhere to - - that all flesh is flawed.

“In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.”

Below is the link where this comes from:
[Orthodox Church in America aka: OCA.org ]
St. Augustine & Original Sin - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in America

26

I think you are seeing something that is not there - we all bear individually our own guilt for our own actions, just as Adam and Eve did for their own act. The consequences are present all around us - and sin exerts its power which is death. I recommend a careful reading of Rom 7 and a clear understanding of Orthodox teaching.

2 Likes
27

As long as we are talking about Luther. I wonder what @JustAnotherLutheran might have to add.

28

1st George… there is a distinct difference between the Orthodox position and the Roman Catholic position.

It’s pretty succinct.

29

I must save a more thorough response for tomorrow, but Gerhard Forde wrote something, which, as a fan of systematics, I wanted to offer (Theology is for Proclamation, 53-54):

“Since sin is original - there before us, yet historical in origin and so not necessary, and at the same time does not force but seduces so completely we do not will to escape it - it is hardly possible to encompass all this in a neat and coherent doctrine… It would seem that the ancient story of Adam and Eve interpreted in the light of the proclamation of Christ still provides the best vehicle for telling the story of sin. Finding ourselves ‘in Christ’ and consequently bound to him, we see and confess ourselves to be ‘in Adam.’ The story of Adam and Eve is our story. We confess to that when our lives are transcended by the story of Christ. The liberation exposes the bondage. Sin is recognized and confessed in the moment of its overcoming. Thus both the power and the ultimate powerlessness of sin are simultaneously exposed.”

(I wonder if I’ll ever have my own thoughts. Nothing new under the sun?)

3 Likes
30

George 2 - Before you teach George about what the Orthodox position is, you might recall that he is Orthodox, and you are not.

2 Likes
31

@Jon_Garvey,

How interesting. GJDS is a member of one of the Orthodox communions?

@GJDS, which group is yours? Or is Jon Garvey using the word Orthodox in some other sense?

Jon Garvey, how is it that you are so invested in the idea that the Eastern Orthodox community must believe in Original Sin as you perceive it?

George Brooks

Another quotation/analysis:

"True Orthodoxy tends to be the middle-way between the two extremes. This holds true also for the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’. “But wait!” I hear someone protest. “The Orthodox Church does believe in Original Sin!”

" I would hesitate to say so, at least without serious qualification. I would prefer to say that the Orthodox Church believes in the ‘Ancestral Sin’ (πρωπατορικό ἁμάρτημα). Is this mere semantics?"

" By no means! For anyone who says ‘Original Sin’ is bound to find themselves involved in the doctrine expounded by Augustine and ever since then by the Latin Church, and not that of the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I intend to illustrate that the Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin is a far cry from that of Augustine, and that, despite the fact that the Latin doctrine of Original Sin was never formally condemned as heretical in the East, it is, nonetheless, not that of the Orthodox Church."

32

They can believe what they like, with my blessing, so there’s no “must”. But having read Orthodox sources and spoken with Orthodox believers for years, I’m simply stating the situation.

The only issue here is whether the OP is correct in suggesting that Evangelicalism has a particular failing in taking from Augustine “the” doctrine of original sin. I’ve shown that all mainstream traditions, rather, took from multiple Patristic sources the doctrine of original sin. The particular doctrine of Augustine that David Bentley Hart objected to in his article was, actually, not original sin but original guilt - and even that is not restricted to Calvinits, or even Evangelicals, but is shared by the entire Western Church and some branches in the east.

I could also show, if it mattered, that original guilt is not crucial to Protestantism either now or at its inception, that the most important doctrinal teaching on original sin in Evangelicalism is the correuption of nature, which is shared with most Orthodox as well as all Catholics, Anglicans and so on. I could also show that Evangelicalism is based on a host of other doctrines independent of Augustine, and doesn’t stand or fall with him.

But I can’t be bothered because Jon has alread admitted that original guilt has no particular bearing on what matters here - the faith-science interface, so that the thread is just a free-floating attack on Evangelical doctrine for its own sake. Since we can pursue that elsewhere if we’re interested, it’s of no interest to me here. As for Orthodox Doctrine, if you don’t want to do any proper research, you could just await further word from GJDS. But accusing him of being “so invested with the idea that the Eastern Orthodox community must believe in Original Sin as he perceieves it”, as you have me, would not be wise - he taught me much of what I know about Orthodox spirituality over the last several years.

That’s my last word on this thread, having ascertained what it’s about.

1 Like
33

When you say “the OP” to whom are you referring? Because that wasn’t a point I made, or Enns made, or Hart made.

Calvinits. That was a lovely Freudian slip.

I cited the corruption of nature myself.

I don’t believe anyone said Evangelicalism stands or falls with Augustine.

That’s some serious spin. Firstly I didn’t “admit” anything. Secondly I certainly didn’t say that original guilt has no particular bearing on the faith-science interface. What I said was this.

The idea that Adam’s sin introduced concupiscence into the world, and/or introduced death into the world, are both contradicted by very basic scientific facts which don’t have anything to do with evolution whatsoever.

The point I made was that original sin is very much affected by the faith science interface. Thirdly this is not “just a free-floating attack on Evangelical doctrine”. Who do you think is making such an attack? Enns, whom I quoted? Hart, quoted by Enns? Me, for quoting Enns and Hart? Look at my original post in this thread. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about Evangelicals. I quoted one comment by someone else who pointed out that it wasn’t merely Catholics who were affected by Augustine’s inventions, but also Lutherans, Calvinists, and Evangelicals. So Evangelicals weren’t singled out by me at all.

I didn’t say anything whatsoever about Evangelicals in my second post either. And in my third post, yet again there’s nothing about Evangelicals. In my fourth post I even pointed out that I hadn’t mentioned Evangelicals.

1 Like
34

@Jon_Garvey, thank you for your explanations. I find it a little odd that you would characterize my question (“How is it that you are so invested in the idea…”) as an accusation.

And generally, I find your overall reactiveness to the topic to be a bit of a puzzle. Let’s look at one of your other statements:

“I could also show, if it mattered, that original guilt is not crucial to Protestantism either now or at its inception, that the most important doctrinal teaching on original sin in Evangelicalism is the corruption of nature…”

But of course it matters! That’s what the Evangelical opposition to BioLogos thinks makes the big difference!

You, and David Bentley Hart, seem quite determined to lift the guilt off of Augustine; I think your analysis is wrong, and even worse, ill-considered. It is my understanding that it was Augustine that made Original Sin into a metaphysical change in the very nature of Adam and Eve.

And this assertion is the one that must be set aside if the idea of a First Sin can be accepted as a Replacement to the idea of Original Guilt as it is usually constructed in the Protestant communities of the Non-Greek/Non-Orthodox world.

The “other” Jon is right… Original Guilt has no bearing … because it is the more reasonable product of the Genesis facts, with this guilt belonging to Adam and Eve instead of to all of Humanity.

[See his post immediately after this one for links to the discussion of Original Sin as it pertains to the Evangelical debate!]

Original-Sin-as-Original-Guilt is a useful clarification (compared to Original-Sin-assumed-by-Humanity), and helps explain the differentiation that the Eastern Orthodox communities have insisted on making for generations.

I think it is important that we understand the Eastern Orthodox objection to “Original Sin” … and make it part of our tool box for adjusting Christian pre-conceptions to the reality of an evolving Natural World.

George

35

I find the idea that original sin isn’t relevant to the question of origins and evolution to quite unrealistic. The opposite is very much the case, as evidenced by this.

A major issue in contemporary Christian theology concerns the relationship between an evolutionary account of human origins and the doctrine of original sin. - See more at: http://biologos.org/resources/project/original-sin-redux-a-study-in-analytic-theology#sthash.AcnNqNRK.dpuf

And this.

When Christians consider human evolution, the issues which generate the greatest concern usually cluster around the historicity of Adam and Eve and original sin. - See more at: http://biologos.org/resources/project/theology-of-original-sin-in-various-human-origins-scenarios#sthash.qe9duVSU.dpuf

And this.

Many Christians are concerned that evolutionary accounts of human origins can put key Christians doctrines under heavy strain – in particular, the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Goodness of God. - See more at: http://biologos.org/resources/project/configuring-adam-and-eve-exploring-conceptual-space-at-the-interface-of-theological-and-scientific-reflection-on-human-origins#sthash.8hf4hHzn.dpuf

And this.

JOHN: - the doctrine of original sin, which originates with Adam and with Eve, and that’s why death doesn’t come until Adam and Eve. And if there have been hominoids, or humanoids, or whatever has been evolving dying and being changed, and dying and being changed, then you’ve got death. And if you’ve got death before Adam, you’ve got sin before Adam, because if you don’t have sin, you don’t have death. So this isn’t even the first sinner, so what role does Adam play in the Fall of the human race? And what in the world is all this Scripture written by the apostle Paul about the whole race falls in Adam and Eve? We can’t trust what he says. I mean, the implications just don’t end. Evangelicals, Evolution, and the BioLogos Disaster

1 Like
36

It is important, for coherent and useful discussions, that we become fully acquainted with the subject matter, before we make sweeping generalisations on doctrine, be that Orthodoxy or otherwise.

I am aware of the differences arising from translations of some verses in scripture, and Orthodoxy emphasises a mode (or way) of life for Christians - thus the individual responsibility each of us bear for our choices and actions is of great importance. On the matter of ancestral sin, the collective view is that of human nature, corrupted by sin, so that we as a race of humans are “less-than” what God intended, and the power of sin (and that sin is what is contrary to the will and law of God) is clearly stated in scripture (I have on occasion placed lengthy posts on this site and will not repeat). No-one, be it Augustine, Patristic writings, or Protestant writers, disagree on this.

I am inclined to think that those on this forum who are keen on fostering disagreements, will look for any differences in the various traditions, and try to force an issue, simply for the sake of causing arguments.

If on the other hand, there is a genuine desire to understand Orthodox Christianity, there are many sources available, and blogs where you may post your comment and receive a considered reply.

1 Like
37

@GJDS

That is very helpful, 1st George.

Is there anything in particular with this quote that you think needs to be re-framed?

"True Orthodoxy tends to be the middle-way between the two extremes. This holds true also for the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’. “But wait!” I hear someone protest. “The Orthodox Church does believe in Original Sin!”

" I would hesitate to say so, at least without serious qualification. I would prefer to say that the Orthodox Church believes in the ‘Ancestral Sin’ (πρωπατορικό ἁμάρτημα). Is this mere semantics?"

" By no means! For anyone who says ‘Original Sin’ is bound to find themselves involved in the doctrine expounded by Augustine and ever since then by the Latin Church, and not that of the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I intend to illustrate that the Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin is a far cry from that of Augustine, and that, despite the fact that the Latin doctrine of Original Sin was never formally condemned as heretical in the East, it is, nonetheless, not that of the Orthodox Church."

38

Somehow I get the feeling that those who reject the BioLogos mission don’t seem to think it is credible that various old and legitimate Christian communities reject or never held the view of the old Church Fathers about Original Sin… where Adam’s guilt is somehow metaphysically transmitted to all the human generations … forever and ever.

And yet it seems quite natural and reasonable to me that a Christian denomination or sect could easily conclude that while Adam and Eve may have been the first sinners… that future human generations inevitably become guilty of their own sins … for the flesh is weak.

Is this really such a novel or unacceptable position?

39

I am forcing myself to keep my comments brief. From the standpoint of the Lutheran Confessions, you are right (and likely have little need for my confirmation) to say there is an intimate tie between our confession concerning OS and our understanding of the Gospel. Melanchthon, himself, testifies to this in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession: "Knowledge of original sin is a necessity. For we cannot know the magnitude of Christ’s grace unless we first recognize our malady. [The German translation adds, “As Christ says in Matthew 9:12 and Mark 2:17: “Those who are well have no need of a physician.”] The entire righteousness of the human creature is sheer hypocrisy before God unless we admit that by nature the heart is lacking love, fear, and trust in God. Thus the prophet says [Jer. 31:19], ‘And after I was discovered, I struck my thigh.’ Again [Ps. 116:11], ‘I said in my consideration, ‘Everyone is a liar,’’ that is, they do not think rightly about God.” (Ap.II.33-34) Should the foundation of our understanding of OS change, so, too, would our understanding of Christ and his work.

I offer with transparency, though with little-to-no qualification here, that I do not think Hart has dealt such a fatal blow to the doctrine of OS, so much as he has questioned an oft-unquestioned (in more symbolic circles, at least) interpretation of Rom. 5:12ff. A question demanding critical reflection. There was a great deal more I wanted to say about God electing, universal atonement, exegesis, The Bondage of the Will, etc. but my psychology demands I limit myself from the internet sometimes. Instead, I will offer a suggested reading for counterpoint - or at least a little push-back - to the exegesis of Rom. 5:12ff. from the article you posted. I’m recommending an article from (of all sources) Calvin Theological Journal. The article is by Peter J. Leithart and is titled: “Adam, Moses, and Jesus: a reading of Romans 5:12-14.” As to its availability, access to ATLA or Calvin Theological Journal may be the only means. If I have the time, I’ll try to read it again and give a sketch of his argument for those unable to access.

A Spirit-stirred Adventide to you and yours,
J

(I indulged myself and included some closing remarks by Cameron MacKenzie in his The Origins and Consequences of Original Sin in Luther’s Bondage of the Will:

"But why the world is the way it is, why God permitted Adam to sin, why God transmitted that sin through all generations, and why He continues to let Adam’s offspring suffer its horrible consequences, we do not know, nor should we seek to know. Without making very clear the grounds of his optimism, Luther believes that by the light of glory, we will all understand the justice of God in these matters even if at present we do not; nevertheless here and now, our proper response is simply to believe in the righteous justice of God.

“Humility in the face of divine mysteries is always the right course, and for Christians, the Gospel—God’s revealed will—is always the answer to the horrors of the human condition. Nevertheless, in this work, The Bondage of the Will, Luther forces us to face these horrors and to realize that at their center is a hidden God who in a strange way wills them, including our sin and death. Original sin is certainly ours, for prior to faith we willingly embrace all that it entails and even after faith, we are always wrestling with its aftereffects in our lives. However, nothing that we are or do changes the fact that God is always in charge. This may make us uncomfortable when we are discussing sin, but it is absolutely necessary for believing the Gospel.”)

1 Like
40

If you seek a deeper understanding of sin, repentance, saved in Christ, and Orthodox doctrine dealing with these matters, you need to follow my suggestion and participate in discussions available in blogs, Facebook discussions and various books - these resources are available from Eastern Orthodox and Catholic sources (and I add, also from Protestant/Reform sources), and I have found all of these instructive and within the foundations of Christianity, compatible (saying the same thing using different expressions at times). I have listened to very interesting presentations by Fr R Barron (RC) to mention one source, and Eclectic Orthodoxy, just to name two.

I will not be drawn into what to me appears like an infantile attempt to stir up controversy within the odd frame work of evolution, historical Adam and Augustine’s formulation of the sin of Adam and Eve.

2 Likes