(The doctrine of original sin affects theologies about human nature, sin and grace), [TRADITION] when it overturns the depths of YHWH Word. where do you stand?, and who (which MAN said it was YHWHS way) are have I walk in traditions of Man calling it a Holy Word?. The doctrine of Original Sin as put forth by Augustine and endorsed by the Council of Carthage is open to logical criticism for several reasons: the lack of continuity with Hebraic, Eastern Orthodox and early Christian tradition; the evidence of mistranslation of Romans 5:12 in the Latin Vulgate that affected its development; the possible influence of Gnostic philosophies about a cosmic fall; and the possibility that the doctrine developed as a response to support the church’s practice of infant baptism. The doctrine as constructed by Augustine causes more questions than it solves and has particularly been divisive in regards to questions of infant baptism. The notion of total human depravity at birth, without any interplay of choice and consequence is difficult for postmodern people to accept and I have experienced that it actually hinders many from receiving the gospel. This experience is also reflected by Wiley. “Moderns were closer to the intellectual orientation of Pelagius than that of Augustine. Like Pelagius, they felt the idea that human beings were born already guilty of sin was morally reprehensible. Their confidence in human goodness was matched by the conviction that human beings are responsible for their own wrongdoing. Persons are guilty – sinners in religious terms – for what they do wrong through their own moral agency and freedom, not for the violations of others. Moderns considered the doctrine of original sin unsound on ethical grounds, not only historical ones.” 23 In an attempt to honor the philosophical notion of “Ockham’s razor” which would seek out simpler explanations as more likely true, I regard the question of sin in a way that is more consistent with the simplicity of free will and relationship found in the Hebraic and early church tradition. This avoids altogether the debates associated with how sin is inherited, when the soul is actually created and how, and whether original sin as an inherited nature is worthy of condemnation in infants who have not performed any personal sins of free choice. Genesis chapters 1-3 reveal that humanity was created in the image of God, and that this was good. Part of this image is free will and another important aspect was the intrinsic need for relationship. For true relationship between God and man to exist, free will must exist. Without choice, love is negated and so is the primary command of God throughout scripture to love God and one another. Adam and Eve’s condition in the Garden of Eden before they made their first sin choice was perfect in the sense of relationship and intimacy with God. When they chose their own image over God’s they lost the positional and relational condition they had known. I reject the notion that their nature changed, because I find it illogical to believe either Adam or the serpent as created beings had the creative power to change the nature of what God had already created and called good. The serpent simply revealed what was already within the created nature of Adam to do: choose his image over God’s. I do not regard the fall as a devastation of our physical nature, but a devastation of our relationship to God. Adam and Eve were removed from the presence of God in the Garden of Eden. As all humanity now lives “East of Eden”, we share the propensity to choose sin that is a result of our lack of righteousness in the Hebraic sense of right relationship to God. In this way, we have inherited the universal positional result of Adam’s sin because we are led by our own desires and choose our image over the image of God. This condition can only be remedied by the original remedy, the presence of God. Additionally, though we are made in the image of God, with free will, we are not God. God always chooses righteously, but we do not. Without His presence, for which we were created, our choices are not consistently in accordance with His image. Jesus’ work on the cross and His resurrection offer redemption of our condition through the reconciliation of our relationship to God and the consequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit by Whom we now live in the tension of being “righteous sinners.” In the end of this age, Jesus will establish a new earth, we will live fully in God’s presence again and sin will cease fully. Scripture supports the viewpoint of sin and righteousness as issues of free will, choice and relationship. In the Old Testament, God established a principle that obedience or choice opens the way for God to dwell among His people. (Leviticus 26:3, 11-12) In the New Testament 2 Corinthians 6:16 reinforces the continuity of the same principle from the old to the new covenant. In his parables and teachings, Jesus reiterates the message that obedience is a key to relationship as we choose God’s image over our own. The linking of obedience as a free will choice and the experience of God’s presence is seen in context within Matthew 19:16, Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 27-28 and John 14-15. The difference between the old and new covenant is that through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, which is a gift of grace and not due to our own might or works, we are empowered to obey. We still sin, however, because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only a “downpayment” of the presence of God to which we will eventually be completely restored.(Ephesians 1:13-14) Where Adam enjoyed the being in the presence of God, through Christ, we are able to experience the joy of the presence of God being in us.The doctrine of original sin affects theologies about human nature, sin and grace. My hope has been to present a historical review of the doctrine’s development and present some aspects of that development that are open to reasonable scrutiny. [REASON] While I agree with the universality of sin and the universal need for redemption through Christ, my understanding of how we arrived at this condition is in accordance with the Church’s tradition before Augustine’s influence and the development of the doctrine of original sin. [TRADITION] I believe the biblical sources that refer to our choice to obey God, found in both the Old and New Testament, support the concept of sin as an aspect of free will and outweigh the biblical sources used primarily for the doctrine of original sin as inherited fallen nature - and included a mistranslation of Romans 5:12. [SCRIPTURE] Finally, my personal experience of God’s love, grace, mercy and redemption make it difficult for me to accept the notion of original sin as it relates to the condemnation of infants who have yet to make any free will choice to disobey God. [EXPERIENCE] Shalom
Posted on: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:57:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015