So life intrudes, you know. I’ve doing elder and husband stuff the last couple of days, all the while fighting an infection and pumped full of Cipro — which the doctor says in the drug of choice but which makes me so ill I long for the infection. The cure is truly worse than the disease.
So, anyway, I’ve not been able to keep up with the comments for a few days. And I must say I’m surprised at how many comments the post on original sin has triggered. I’m only covering it because it’s an essential step toward making sense of the age of accountability. Otherwise, it’s really not something I’d normally get into.
There have also been some excellent comments — on all sides of the issue.
Definitions
I suppose I could have been clearer, but as I said at the beginning of the post, I mean by “original sin” —
the idea is that Adam’s sin in inherited, so that even infants are damned until baptized
Some apply the term to the idea that humans are prone to sin, which is not particularly controversial. I don’t know of anyone who disputes this, although some prefer different nuances on what ought to be called “original sinfulness.”
The fact that people — except Jesus — all sin is quite different from inherited guilt, suffered without regard to personal sin. And that’s the doctrine that many (not all) denominations use to justify infant baptism. And that’s the doctrine that leads the Catholics to teach that Mary was immaculately conceived free from original sin, so that Jesus would not inherit original sin from his mother.
I obviously have no dispute with original sinfulness. We are all prone to sin. All who are old enough to sin do sin — except Jesus.
The humanity of Jesus
I affirm the orthodox teaching that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. I dispute the notion that temptation is the same as sin. By definition, temptation is what sometimes leads to sin, not the sin itself. Temptation precedes sin, but being tempted does not by itself make one a sinner.
The scriptures are very plain that Jesus was tempted. Regarding the peccability of Jesus — whether he could have sinned — is well addressed in this thoughtful post. I’m not saying I have carefully thought through this, because I haven’t. But this post sure seems sensible to me.
Sin inherited from just the father?
I suppose the idea that original sin (Adam’s guilt) is inherited through the father only was invented to avoid going the Catholic route and adopting the immaculate conception of Mary as a way to avoid Jesus’ inheriting Adam’s guilt. The theory would seem to be based on Jewish primogeniture — only sons inherited and thus no one inherited from their mother as there was nothing to inherit.
But while an Israelite could only inherit land from his father — only a son could inherit! — daughters didn’t inherit at all — so that the same logic that prevents children from inheriting original sin from their mothers also prevents daughters from inheriting original sin from their fathers!
Of course, I don’t agree with original sin in the first place, so there’s no need to persuade me who it’s inherited from.
Romans 5
I don’t believe this passage teaches original sin (inherited guilt).
(Rom 5:12-13 ESV) 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned — 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
(Rom 5:18 ESV) 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
To understand “all sinned,” we have to consider the theme in Romans of “all.” It’s not as clear in English as in Greek.
(Rom 1:5 ESV) 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
The first “all” refers back to God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations.
(Rom 1:16 ESV) For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
“Everyone” is the same word as “all” in the Greek — the emphasis being on the availability of the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.
(Rom 2:9-10 ESV) 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
(Rom 3:9-12 ESV) 9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
(Rom 3:19 ESV) Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
(Rom 3:20 ESV) For by works of the law no [not all = none] human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
(Rom 3:21-23 ESV) 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it– 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
(Rom 4:11 ESV) 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
(Rom 4:16-17 ESV) 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring–not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”–in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
(Rom 5:12-13 ESV) 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned — 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
(Rom 5:18 ESV) 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
…
(Rom 16:25-27 ESV) 25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith — 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
Context matters. The theme that begins with the very first verses and continues to the end of the book is that the gospel is for all nations, both Jews and Greeks. This is overwhelmingly how “all” is used throughout the book.
If we take “all” in chapter 5:12 to refer to infants, then “we get so death spread to all men (including infants) because all (including infants) sinned.” The point of original sin (inherited guilt) is that people are charged with the guilt of sin even if they didn’t personally sin.
Just so, v. 18 becomes: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (including infants), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (including infants).” But that obviously doesn’t fit the logic of the verse. Not all men are justified, infant or adult — only those with faith. Therefore, “all” doesn’t mean “every single human.” Rather, in context, “all men” means “all nations, the Jew first and also the Greek.” That fits.
Who goes to heaven?
Just to think about: are the only possibilities worth considering (1) that someone dies and goes to heaven for an eternity with God or (2) that someone dies and goes to an eternity of conscious torment? Does the Bible speak of other possibilities?
Fighting words
Phrases such as “wicked and satanic teaching” and “superstitious” to characterize your opponents’ views are out of place and won’t be tolerated. When you use terms like that, you will be heard to say that your opponent is wicked and Satanic and ignorant, even though you don’t intend that implication. Fighting words add nothing to the discussion, merely indicating the depth of your feeling.
As has been my policy for some time, fighting words get deleted. We can express ourselves forcefully without them.
Thanks for answering my question about inheriting original sin from fathers alone, Jay. I could not figure out where that idea came from. Your answer makes sense.
Thanks for the link to the discussion of whether Jesus was peccable or impeccable. I thought it covered the topic as well as anything of its length could have. And I do not believe I am saying that just b/c I agree with the conclusion of the author.
I do think it is important for us to understand the issue and the impact it has on other important facets of Christian doctrine.
Peace,
Randall
Jay,
Thanks for your balanced treatment of an issue that is not going to be resolved here but is worth discussing.
A glaring problem in my view is that descriptive terms mean different things to different people. So, for instance, when "original sin" is bounced about unless one remembered your definition in the post (I admit I did not) and used that meaning as a basis for discussion it really complicates and makes it much more unlikely that a discussion will solve anything.
I know myself, and I know others, who hold to the idea of "original sin" but not me or one of my friends believes babies are condemned any more than we would believe a mentally incompetent person is damned.
All of us should keep a cool head and give some grace. Unless all of us are discussing the same thing it's pretty much a waste of time. It is not uncommon for one group to attack another when they don't even know what the group being attacked really believes.
Thanks for the forum and for you kindness.
Royce
Jay,
I don't mean to be nitpicky and annoying about your definition of original sin, but from what I've read even the Catholics reject the "personal guilt" interpretation of original sin.
Here's a section from the *Catechism of the Catholic Church*:
"405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
Here's a quotation from John Paul II:
"Therefore original sin is transmitted by way of natural generation. This conviction of the Church is indicated also by the practice of infant baptism, to which the [Tridentine] conciliar decree refers. Newborn infants are incapable of committing personal sin, yet in accordance with the Church’s centuries-old tradition, they are baptized shortly after birth for the remission of sin. The decree states: “They are truly baptized for the remission of sin, so that what they contracted in generation may be cleansed by regeneration” (DS 1514).
In this context it is evident that original sin in Adam’s descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a “sin of nature,” only analogically comparable to “personal sin.” In the state of original justice, before sin, sanctifying grace was like a supernatural “endowment” of human nature. The loss of grace is contained in the inner “logic” of sin, which is a rejection of the will of God, who bestows this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute the supernatural enrichment of that nature which the first parents passed on to all their descendants in the state in which it existed when human generation began. Therefore man is conceived and born without sanctifying grace. It is precisely this “initial state” of man, linked to his origin, that constitutes the essence of original sin as a legacy (peccatum originale originatum, as it is usually called)."
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861001en.html)
Notice that John Paul II explicitly rejects the "personal guilt" understanding of original sin. So it's not this doctrine that leads to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, nor is it the doctrine which they base infant baptism on.
Jay " I dispute the notion that temptation is the same as sin."
Jesus " But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Who is your dispute with, Jay ?
Laymond,
What are you asking? Being tempted is not the same as acting on temptation (e.g. looking with lust)…
Well, you were not tempted then, you were presented with things that tempt some, but not you. I have been presented with what some call temptation, but was seen as contempt by myself. not the same thing.
Jay,
I’m trying to be generous in hearing you on Original Sin, but it seems like a very uncharitable definition to say that it simply means: “the idea is that Adam’s sin in inherited, so that even infants are damned until baptized”. The main idea of Original Sin is that Adam’s original sin is the efficient cause of the very fallenness you described—our tendency to sin, our separation (exile) from God.
‘Original Sin’, despite the multifarious understandings, is a perfectly good term; yet using it in caricature only promotes continued confusion and misunderstanding.
It seems, though, that we agree that children are not accountable in the same way that adults are for sin—the main concern I have with this whole conversation is that while we try to protect the innocent we end up blurring the nature of man. I’m curious as to how many here think that we are born good and/or neutral in relation to the prelapsarian state of Adam and Eve. Of course babies are good in the sense of being made in the image of God, but are they not also fallen??? This is the heart of the debate: one says that children go to heaven because they are good (or haven’t sinned), the other believes that God is gracious to the weak.
I’m a new member in the cofC, but I’m starting to doubt my choice (this issue keeps coming up here at home). While I respect the desire to uphold our personal responsibility with issues of morality and for our belief in the importance of adult baptism, this account of sin and salvation seems to diminish the sovereignty and the glory of God and the depth of our corporate fallenness. I certainly disagree with the exegesis of Romans 5 (for insofar as we are under the reign of death then we all need God’s grace—or sin is merely our conforming to the logic of the reign of death); and in light of Acts 2:22-39, I’m not sure why we have a problem with corporate guilt.
As someone else mentioned a few days ago, how do we avoid a Marcion-like view of scripture with regards to God’s punishment of cities and nations (which no doubt included children)…?
I have respect for a lot of Catholic tradition but the quotes above seem like fence staddling of the highest degree.
Laymond:
"LUST" is a sin; being "tempted" to lust is not.
Practically: If I go to the beach to watch girls in bikinis and imagine having sex with them, I am lusting. If I am sitting at home and think, "Gee, I'd like to go to the beach and lust after women" but I don't, I've been tempted but have not sinned.
For you and I to remain in fellowship together, I demand you accept my interpretation. 🙂
Laymond,
??? So Jesus wasn't tempted by Satan. He was just presented with things that tempt some, but not Him…??? I don’t follow…
JMF, thinking/planning to sin is sinning…???
Not sure why my last comment was blocked…did I say a magic word…?Jay?
Kona:
In my response to Laymond, I've stated lust as I understand. Basically, it being the dwelling on thoughts in a way that would end up leading to an unhealthy action.
(If you require that I state when that point is — I won't be able to. I think we each know that point, and I doubt it is the same for all of us.)
So in the context of lust, yes, I believe "thinking" about sinning is in fact sinning. But that "thinking" is the sin of lust. Just like my "thinking" that I am the greatest Christian ever, and God would be lucky to have me in Heaven would be pride. No, I've not acted on anything. The sin was inside my head…just as it is with lust.
If you have a different understanding, I'd love to hear it. I'm not hung up on my understanding…it just happens to be where I am at in this moment in time.
JMF,
This is getting too abstract for me (and too off topic), but let's go anyway. 😉
Let's think of something different–'killing' for instance. Thinking about killing someone is a sin–even though you haven’t done anything. Thinking about the topic of killing is not a sin. It's about our desires. Is our heart reflecting God's nature, God's will?
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The intent makes the difference. An unintentional thought passing through your mind is a temptation. Looking for an opportunity to lust is a sin.
I also read the post about the peccabilty of Christ and don't fully agree. Here's what I wrote in response there:
Amen AB! There's power in the blood or at least the Spirit. It's a popular social convention of our times that people really never change, only learn to manaage yourself, accept yourselft. We are basically powerless.
But HE has power. Thanks for waking us up!
Another note. It's a minor theme of the OT that God takes weakness and makes it strong. During the Judges, He keeps paring down the size of armies to meet the opposition. In the prophets, He can win with dry bones! Jesus took humanity and showed what the Spirti of the Living God could do with it. AB you are right, He embraced and took on the form of our humanity. Remember Jesus' favorite title for himself was "son of man". The RC tradition really misses this boat.
Anon, if Jesus was God, and god cannot be tempted by evil, what was Jesus tempted by, ?
It doesn’t say God cannot be tempted by evil beings, but that God cannot be tempted by evil – evil temptation has no power over God.
Micah,
Of course original sin isn't "personal guilt" in the sense that infants did not personally sin. But it's still guilt — inherited guilt — in Catholic theology. This is from the online Catholic Encyclopedia and uses much of the same language as John Paul II —
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Read through all that carefully, and you find that infants are born without grace and grace is essential to unity with God. Therefore, their souls are born dead.
Hence, when JPII says, "Therefore man is conceived and born without sanctifying grace," he says the infant is born separated from God. However, this does not mean that Catholics consider those born in original sin damned.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
Rather, many Catholics long taught that unbaptized infants find themselves in "limbo," separated from God but not in the torment of gehenna. However, the doctrine of limbo has now been rejected. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18025/limbo
In 2007 Pope Benedict declared unbaptized infants saved. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16159/pope-to-end…. Full text of the new doctrinal statement is at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c…. However, the salvation of unbaptized infants is expressed as a "hope," not quite a certainty.
So while original sin as the privation of sancifying grace remains Catholic dogma, the logic of original sin is rejected in favor of something very similar to the Arminian age of accountability, called "age of reason" and "age of discretion." The age of reason in Catholic thought is about age 7. However, for some purposes, a child isn't fully accountable until puberty. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm
Hence, the Catholic Church in 2007 adopted the Arminian view that children below the age of reason are likely saved, don't go to limbo, and aren't damned. However, once they attain the age of reason, they suffer the consequences of both original sin and actual sin.
The RCC teaches that infants should nonetheless be baptized because of both the greater certainty that baptism brings to the salvation and because of the other blessings of grace associated with baptism. And, obviously enough, because the child will attain the age of reason and become accountable unless baptized before then.
Augustine taught that unbaptized infants suffered eternal torment, but the RCC never fully accepted this conclusion, often preferring the idea of limbo. Theologians disputed the issue, many agreeing with Augustine, others holding out some hope of salvation, others preferring limbo. Until 1992, the RCC catechism taught limbo for infants. The teaching was dropped at that time while the question was restudied. Benedict has resolved the 1,500-year debate in favor of probable salvation for those below the age of reason.
Dear Anonymous
>blockquote>Jesus was a Man and He was the Son of God. Jesus was tempted, but He could not sin because God cannot sin. Jesus has been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin, Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus was holy, undefiled and separate from sinners.
What divides our understanding is how we interpret "sin" in this verse. You seem to argue from this verse that our Lord was free from original sin/sinful nature/fallen human conditions.
But, please, explain to me: Is original sin in our lives the result of temptation or the consequence of being children of Adam? I would assume you agree it is the latter. So we don't fall into our fallen humanity because of temptation.
This means that Heb 4:15 does not speak of original sin but of personal sin, because the writer connects the statement "without sin" to "being tempted". What is said is that our Lord resisted the temptations and did not sin. Not more and not less than that.
And Heb 5:7 shows very clearly that the temptations were real temtations for him, that he had to fight them with prayer, loud cries and tears. The way He reacted to temtation, the way He had to fight, reveals the same human nature that we have. He had to fight His flesh! In Getsemane it is so obvious that He – as a human – would rather avoid the cross. Is this an aspect of the divine nature? Or is it not rather a temptation from His flesh? The way we naturally sympathize with Him in the garden shows that His flesh is not a bit different than ours.
Again: This is very important for me, because then the account of His life in the Gospels becomes as important as His death on the Cross, because He kept Himself pure in order to become a pure sacrifice. So, whenever I see our Lord praying – I see this as part of my salvation. When He resisted the devil in the desert – it was for my salvation. He always could have chosen otherwise, and His flesh was not a bit different than ours. But He yielded to the Spirit every day of His life. This is so much more to praise Him than envisioning a divine person that cannot be tempted by evil walking on this defiled planet straight to the cross! And more: How can He call us to follow Him and to live holy lives, if we are incapable of doing it? And He only could live that way because He was incapable of doing otherwise? I mean, honestly, this does not make sense, does it?
If we confess Him as truly human, we must confess also the fallenness of His flesh. And that, my friend, makes me love Him all the more, because I come to appreciate His holy life, His struggles against sin all the more the more I look at these. So Heb 5:7 and Heb 4:15 are part of Christ's redemptive work.
Alexander
konastephen,
I use "original sin" to refer to inherited guilt because I want to discuss inherited guilt, as that is a doctrine that bears heavily on the age of accountability discussion. And while "original sin" has a broader meaning in the Catholic and many other traditions, the term is often used to refer particularly to inherited guilt in the Churches of Christ and the Baptist Church. I'm not trying to redefine the doctrine — just use a familiar vocabulary. You won't hear many CoC Sunday school teachers speak of the consequences of the sin of Adam as "original sin" — unless they are speaking of someone else's belief re inherited guilt.
The doctrine of the fallenness of man and the creation is not particularly controversial or disputed across denominational lines. Rather, the disagreements center around whether baptism is essential to the salvation of an infant or whether the baptism of an infant effects salvation.
I entirely agree that group penalties is a biblical doctrine, but I'm not willing to conclude that the Destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar necessarily tells us the eternal fate of the infants who were there. On the other hand, it certainly tells us that they suffered the penalties of Adam's sin other than damnation. Does that logic ipso facto extend to damnation? Well … I think we assume too much about the nature of salvation and damnation, because we think too much like Augustine and not enough like the Jews who wrote the Bible. We are too Greek in our thinking.
I intend to explore these thoughts as we go. I just think we have to add some additional ideas to the mix before reaching conclusions. And if I sound like I'm being coy, it's because I am.
Larry,
I have to agree. I turns out that John Paul II had begun the process of eliminating the doctrine of limbo and teaching instead that unbaptized infants who'd not yet reached the age of reason are saved — but he wasn't ready to make a formal announcement. Thus, in 1992 the doctine of limbo was quietly dropped from the catechism. And so it would make sense that JPII would have been reluctant to plainly declare the un-saved conditions of unbaptized infants pending his planned change in doctrine.
Alexander,
I see what you’re saying about Jesus also having a fallen nature, and how this allows us to be like him. I can see that saying that we are fallen can lead to us excusing our behavior. But this need not be the case. I guess I come from the angle that as we see more and more our lack, our sin (and how we fill that lack in less than perfect ways), that then our work begins. This makes me think about N.T. Wright’s new book – After You Believe, which is all about Christian formation and Christian virtue—our wrestling to act now what we anticipate to be the case after our resurrection.
Again, my worry with the view that Jesus was like us ‘in every way’ is that it means that anyone could have been Jesus, if only they chose to be good enough. I hear you saying, though, that Jesus was God; and because of His divinity, was able to overcome His flesh. On one level I can accept this solution, except I fear that it leads to a quasi-Gnostic dualism between the spirit and flesh. Mankind was originally made perfect and was called good—we were not designed to wrestle with our flesh as we do in our fallenness.
The non-religious world finds the idea of sin and in particular the idea of an ‘Original Sin’ repulsive, and so in a world where personal sin seems to be becoming less and less intelligible, I find the church to be the only place that acknowledges our own fallenness/sin, and looks to Jesus as the only solution. I agree with you that we need to act to imitate and emulate Christ—that we cannot revel in a helpless state of being sinful—but this does not necessarily preclude holding to a view of Original Sin.
Jesus was a Man and He was the Son of God. Jesus was tempted, but He could not sin because God cannot sin. Jesus has been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin, Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus was holy, undefiled and separate from sinners. Jesus could not have sinned, but He could be tempted, that is, He could have a sinful option presented to Him, yet Jesus would not have sinned because He did not have any desire to do evil. Though there was no desire in Jesus to yield to the devil’s alluring, James 1:13 “for God cannot be tempted by evil”, yet there was a temptation, in the sense of testing. Jesus did not have the inward craving for evil things, as you and I have, for that would be indwelling sin, and there was no sin in Him.
Jesus’ anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane was not against God, but that it was morally wrong for Him to be crucified, for He had done nothing wrong, yet He had to endured it for love and salvation of mankind as an atoning sacrifice. The desire of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane was not an evil desire but was a righteous desire, Hebrews 12:2 “looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
How did our Lord Himself describe the conflict? “Not my will be done but yours (Luk 22:42).” There is no indication in this passage that our Lord had a “theological conversation” with His Father whether it was “morally correct” to be crucified or not. He came into this world to be crucified – that was never an issue to Him. And whenever He looked at it from a spiritual perspective, He accepted it in love and submission (John 12:27). But it became an issue to His flesh, that did not want to be crucified. And so intense was the fight against His flesh that His sweat became like blood and an angel from heaven had to come down to strengthen Him! This was the toughst hour in His life, His whole mission could have failed in that very moment if He had given in!
A question on morality? Come on!
Our flesh does not want to be crucified either – and yet we are called to daily selfdenial, the very life Christ lived. Otherwise we cannot be His disciples.
And we can learn from Heb 12:2 that we also must focus on the results of our cross, this is our crown, eternal joy. Christ’s conflicts are ours the same way as He shared our humanity 100%. Christ’s glory will be ours if we live the same life of selfdenial that He did – I am sure you are aware of all these conditional statements in the NT. These statements are meaningless, if Christ did not fight the good fight under the same conditions as we have to fight it.
I’m not sure, whether you get it this time, Anonymous – it is quite a paradigm shift for any “Augustinian” …
Alexander
BTW: Do you notice that quite often your interpretations of scripture tend to put aside what is really written and emphasize an explanation that follows a theology? This last one is a pretty good example for that. Try to step back a little and look at the way you interpreted Getsemane – it does justice to your theology, but does it do justice to the text itself? Judge for yourself.
The issue of unbaptized infants being damned seems uncontroversial to me—I find the idea abhorrent. Augustine, of course, brought up this idea as a rhetorical flip to the standard view of his day: that we are good until we sin. The nominal Christians of his day, like ours, seemed to be sliding into a moral morass. Pelagius’ solution to this was to focus on one’s personal choice to live better (he was an ascetic monk). He was sort of like the Tony Robbins of his day.
Augustine, however, flipped things around: what if we’re not by nature good? What if we are by nature in trouble and need God?
I certainly don’t agree with all the details in how Augustine arrives at his view of Original Sin; however, interestingly, as Alan Jacobs’ notes, Original Sin leads to optimism in God, and is the most egalitarian view available (read the book 😉 ).
Jay, what scares me is not whether or not infants are damned but how the view you’ve professed can easily slide into full-bore Pelagianism. The standard view in my local church is that children are not born with a sinful nature—they are instead corrupted by culture. Some of the comments here suggest the same…
In the end, the bible says precious little about the application of baptism and children. Unfortunately we can’t all be adults who hear the Gospel out of the blue like in Acts 2. In light of the relative biblical silence on this subject, I find cultivation the spiritual formation of our youth to be of primary importance. How do our ideas about baptism help or hinder our kids grow in the faith.
In the end, I think the arguments for infant baptism are found unconvincing to most because we can’t or are unwilling to think outside of our modern views of ontology and of the Self…
You say, “Do you notice that quite often your interpretations of scripture tend to put aside what is really written and emphasize an explanation that follows a theology?”
Funny I thought the very same about you.
The verse Luke 22:42 is speaking about the cup, and that cup is our sins He bore, He was not talking about dying on the cross.
First you say, “In Getsemane it is so obvious that He – as a human – would rather avoid the cross.”
Does the text say that He wanted to avoid the cross, or is that what you say?
Then you say, “He came into this world to be crucified – that was never an issue to Him.”
Which is it??
When you step back and look at your interpretation, you can’t make up your mind about it.
And I don’t follow Augustine, I am a follower of Jesus Christ. It is sad to see someone act so immature.
Anyone who has read many of my writings or endured my class teaching knows I like to speculate about the boundaries. I am confident of the salvation or loss of adults but find scripture on the young to be very thin. I know I have not lost a young child or grandchild, and it would be comforting to be sure of their status. Finally, I just trust God. He has done so many things well, justly, and with mercy that I’ll trust how he handles the out of norm cases. An adult dies on the way to baptism, I’ll trust God. An innocent child dies, I’ll trust God.
None of this is to negate this discussion. It’s good to get a scripture feel of what happens when……. I have the intellectual curiousity and desire to understand God better. However, where I’m unsure, I’ll trust God.
konastephen,
Children are corrupted by culture only? Odd view. I mean, where did the culture come from if not from people who were corrupted by … what? No, we have weak, fallen, broken natures — which we inherit from Adam. To hold that man is innately good – but for a broken culture — is not only self-contradictory (because culture is a creation of man), but takes us to humanism: we can save ourselves by overcoming a broken culture through education and good government.
I must say I’ve never heard that viewpoint in church. I see it in politics every day …
Jay,
Yeah, I’m not sure where this view came from, but it appears to be the majority view. Luke 18:16 is used to show that children are sinless and that we need to be too. Your view of this passage being about humility (lack of hard-heartedness in the Markean sense) is much more consistent with the overall context.
I agree with your “too Greek” comment (made elsewhere). If we attenuate our Greek thinking, then perhaps we’ll lose a bit of our individualism, focus on going up to heaven, etc—all of which seems to frame this conversation about baptism. And doesn’t an ‘Age of Reason’ sound a little Greek?
I’m reminded of a friend who said he almost changed his mind on original sin when his first child was two. Never lied to, never witness to a lie, but he lied to his parents nonetheless. Where did that come from?
Jay,
I wasn’t denying that the Catholics view unbaptized infants as being separated from the supernatural grace of God.
What I fail to see is how the Orthodox view is substantially different than the Catholic view. The Orthodox often claim that there’s a difference between their view of Original Sin and the Catholic’s view of Original Sin, but some people hold that the Orthodox misunderstand the Catholic view.
(Here’s an extended article on this: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/)
Also, here’s what the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website says about infant baptism: “How are these young ones saved from the sin they have received from Adam’s race? They are saved through the regenerative power of baptism and the faith of the Church (i.e. the Christian faithful)….” (http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067)
It is not clear that the Orthodox’s justification for infant baptism is going to differ substantially from the Catholic’s justification. Terminology will differ (Catholics talk about “sanctifying grace,” which is a category Orthodox theology does not have). But this does not mean the doctrines differ.
Anyway, I don’t think this point is all that important to your posts, except possibly to the first post, where you say:
“Original sin is often associated with Calvinism, but in fact the doctrine is much older than Calvin and is taught by the Catholic Church among many other non-Calvinistic churches. However, the Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the teaching, while still practicing infant baptism. The Orthodox did not formally separate from Roman Catholics until about 1001 AD, showing that original sin did not become accepted doctrine until long after infant baptism.”
If Catholicism substantially agrees with the Orthodox on Original Sin, then this paragraph doesn’t have the argumentative weight it would otherwise have. Also, this paragraph does seem to place the Calvinist’s conception of original sin as being found in the teaching of the Catholic church. This is misleading, since the Calvinist conception of original sin is more “severe” than the Catholic conception.
–Micah
Interesing.
At the Lord’s Supper He connected the Cupo to the blood of the covenant for the forgiveness of sins,
In a conversation with John and James about places of honour He connects it with His suffering
The cup was connected with fear and trembling for Him
Partaking of the cup brings us in communion with is suffering.
So the Cup was about shedding His blood on the cross. To say, He is not speaking about dying on the cross, is – sorry – really off base. His agony in Getsemane had to do with the suffering, which was part of the cross – and thus of our salvation.
You do, what many theologians do, too: “This word or passage actually means …” – presenting one aspect of a more complex matter, while putting the others aside. Your presentation of Getsemane boils down to mere theology, Christ’s humanity almost disappears in that.
First: It was about moral correctness – a “theological/philosophical struggle”!
Then it was about “legal considerations” – he was not guilty, why should He die?
Anonymous: Jesus had all the answers to thes questions! He knew what He was doing! So, why did He pray that way? Because His flesh did not want to be crucified. His human flesh, Anonymous.
That’s not really hard to understand …
Alexander
“The verse Luke 22:42 is speaking about the cup, and that cup is our sins He bore, He was not talking about dying on the cross.”
“Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”
Anon. he did not ask for a portion of the cup to be removed, he asked for the complete cup to be removed. “the spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak”.
If what you say is so, what would be the purpose of Jesus death on the cross? God made the sacrifice, his son was the lamb. Look back to Abraham, and his son. God was willing to go farther than he would ask man to go. Because this lamb could not be replaced.
Micah,
I have to agree that the Calvinist view of original sin is much stricter than the modern Catholic view. Both are built on the work of Augustine, but Calvin pushed it to the limit, whereas the Catholics now refuse to accept the view that infants are damned because of the sin of Adam. There have been Catholic theologians who followed Augustine's and Calvin's views, but the RCC has clearly retreated from that position.
I have to point out that the post-2007 teaching of the RCC is not the same as what was once taught. It appears that the RCC and EO positions are now very similar, but until 2007, the EO could fairly say their views were different from the RCC, as the EO rejected the idea of inherited guilt and yet many Catholic theologians taught that infants were stained with original sin — and then followed either Augustine (they're damned unless baptized) or the limbo speculation (they go to a place that is neither heaven nor hell) — both of which are foreign to EO thought.
So it's not until 2007 that RCC and EO thought converge.
Returning to the comment of “too Greek”: it seems to me that our notion of ‘belief’ is also heavily westernized. An ‘Age of Reason’ should perhaps be better called an ‘Age of Reflection’, upon which one can reflect and start to doubt the direction one is moving in. However, belief (faith) is certainly prior to doubt. Again, to bring back the analogy of crossing the Rea Sea being like baptism (1 Cor. 10:1-2), certainly children also crossed the sea only to later grumbled in the desert (Hebrews 3:16). The churches of Christ rightly teach that one can lose their salvation. Being such, why are we forced to put baptism together with the ‘Age of Reflection’, barring a crossing into the kingdom until one could conceivably lose faith…? Again, to lose our Greek thinking, a child can and does have faith, trust, and therefore belief (e.g., in their parents). By extension, why can’t children share, even in part, with the faith of their parents? Why would we not baptize them? I can think of some practical reasons, but none theological. To play a little with the analogy between baptism and the ark (1 Peter 3:20-21), why would we want to put up a sign on the ark saying ‘you must be this tall to ride this ride’???
I don't believe Jesus was afraid of dying. Jesus knew that He would die and believed the Father would raise Him up from the dead in three days. He knew He would go back to heaven. Jesus never said He was fearful of dying. We following Jesus shouldn’t be afraid of dying knowing the glory that awaits us in heaven. Jesus had not changed His mind about obeying the Father. Our Lord’s submission to the Father is never a matter that is in question. Jesus’ anguish was over a specific cup.
Jeremiah 25:15 “For thus says the LORD God of Israel to me: “Take this wine cup of fury from My hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send you, to drink it.”
Isaiah 51:17 “Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, You who have drunk at the hand of the LORD The cup of His fury.”
Habakkuk 2:16 "The cup of the LORD’s right hand will be turned against you, And utter shame will be on your glory."
Isaiah 53:6 “And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”
2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
The cup is the wrath of God against sin. It is the cup of God’s wrath, poured out on our sins. Jesus did not seek to disobey God. Jesus speaks out His grief of what is to come upon Him. Jesus’ grief was not sinful. He knew what He was facing, He was about to drink deeply from God's anger against our sin, that was much more painful for Him that goes far beyond the cross. That’s why Jesus was speaking about the cup.
Jay,
Did Calvin teach that infants are born damned or simply depraved? I don’t know any Calvinists today (nor in the past) that teach infants are damned. Positionally they may be sinful, but practically they are sinless. The Calvinists I know seem to teach that scripture has little to say about the ultimate destiny of infants that die and they simply trust God to save them by grace just as they trust God to save themselves/us by grace. Is there something I am missing?
Hesed,
Randall
Royce,
I agree that John Piper does not consider non-elect infants damned. I guess this is a feature of neo-Calvinism. It seems to contradict Calvin's Calvinism and certain Augustine's teachings. That being the case, the neo-Calvinists would have to have their own doctrine of the age of accountability, as non-elect infants from pass from saved to damned as soon as they become accountable for their sins — and their situation would then become hopeless, I suppose, as they are nonelect.
Ultimately, though, the point remains. Unless you teach that infants are damned by virtue of original sin — as did Augustine — you are forced into some form of the "age of accountability" doctrine. As we've seen, even the Catholic Church has found itself in exactly that position.
Jay,
I believe that in the past you have described yourself as a classical Arminian, one that affirms in the doctrine of total depravity. It is my understanding that you believe in prevenient (prevailing) grace, that God gives 100% of us enough grace to overcome the effects of the fall i.e. total depravity, but we must cooperate with this prevenient grace.. (Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion.)
If this is the case, what does one who affirms total depravity (that is, you) believes is the fate of infants that die? How does it differ from a Calvinistic perspective, if at all?
Grace,
Randall
Jay,
I agree. There is no blanket "age of accountability", once size fits all. Because people mature differently. There must be though, a point in time when a becomes morally aware and responsible for their actions. That point in time is the AOA for that person.
If it is not this way then I'm unsure how a person becomes lost. Jesus made it clear to Nicodemus that those who had not believed on him were "condemned already". There has to be a time when condemnation comes.
In a real sense, as you have stated, because of a fallen nature, a propensity to sin, because we are flesh like Adam, we are by nature ungodly. There is the shocking statement "whatever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). Wow, if that is true, and it is, then all of us desperately need the grace of God in Christ Jesus. We are in a sad fix without Him.
Randall,
I've actually described myself as a Calvi-minian. I'm not really a classic Arminian, although my thinking is closer to Jacob Arminius than John Calvin. My views on prevenient grace are complicated — and laid out in the Search for a Third Way series from quite some time ago.
But none of this really affects the answer to the question. It'll take several posts for me to work through my views — at which time you might want to ask the question again.
Jay,
OK, I apologize if I have misrepresented your perspective. There have been many posts here and I could easily be confused. I thought you had recently (in the past year) affirmed total depravity and prevenient grace. Please accept my apology.
Hesed,
Randall
Anon.
Not all cups are one and the same. There is a difference between the cups of judgment on the nations, that is rightfully called a cup of wrath.
But the cup connected with the Cross is the cup of the new covenant and a cup of blessing (to us) and a cup of suffering (to Christ). You can conclude that His suffering had to do with God's wrath on sin – but that's only ONE theory of atonement (satisfaction theory). As for satisafction – death is the penalty of sin, so death would have been sufficient (e.g. a quick beheading). But the most cruel form of execution did not spring up from the fathers mind, but from Satan. That's why I would not connect the judgement verses you quoted with the cross; these verses have their fulfillment in Revelation (where they are quoted again – and where most people die a quick death).
I don't really understand your reasoning anyway: Why would He back away from the cross in Getsemane if it was not because of His weak flesh? I mean it makes no difference, which other interpretations you give this cup – its immedieate meaning for Christ was His death. And that's what the flesh (our human flesh) tries to avoid.
No, He spoke out of fear. And His fear was so intense that He had to be strengthened by an angel. He was asking for a different option: "Is it possible not to drink from this cup?" – I agree. that this question per se is not sinful. But it shows the desier of His flesh. It was a temptation He was struggling with – temptations are not yet sin, Anonymous. But He was tempted by His flsh, His human desires – and that's, my friend, is the reason why we have to acknowledge that His flesh was no diferrent than ours, which means: as fallen as ours. No He did not sin, but He had to struggle with temptations from His fallen human nature.
And this fact alone kakes Him an example to follow. If He had not had the same nature as we, we had every excuse in the world to fail and to sin: "Yeah, Lord, you could live a holy life, becuase you were so totally free from our corrupt nature! You never really walked in our shoes!" But Christ had the same human nature and the same divine nature that we have after our new birth. And thus we have no excuse, we can and shall live the way He lived.
Please understand, Anonymous, that this is not a theological question but a very practical one. A doctrine that denies Chtrist's full humanity (incl. His fallen nature) normally also says, a Christiuan is nothing but a poor sinner who connot but sin daily and has to live "out of His grace" (which is being reduced to forgiveness). This doctrine is discouraging, weakening and denies Romans 8 while overemphasizing Rom 7. It denies God's power through the Spirit in our lives.
Painting Jesus the way you do makes Him an example we cannot follow, so discipleship becomes a farce, the call to holiness a frustrating burden. This doctrine – in the end – produces compromise: Since we (supposedly) cannot live like Jesus, we try the best we can and acctept (!!) that there are some areas of our life we will never change. I won#t accept it: Every area in my life that is not submitted to God is an area where I did not fight hard eneough. How hard shall I fight? AS hard as Jesus: With tears and loud cries? How often did I fight that way … to my shame and ours: Hardly ever. Why? Because we were all more or less raised in the false doctrine that we will always be nothing but poor sinners …
Do you understand the big picture and its consequences, Anonymous?
God bless
Alexander
I don’t think that I personally know even one 5 point Calvinist. I do know about some rather high profile Calvinists, John Piper, Francis Chan, Mark Driscoll, Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, and others. To my knowledge not one of them believes infants who die are damned, yet each of them (I believe) believes in Total Depravity and the doctrine of original sin.
Total Depravity does not mean that individuals (including infants) are as sinful and as wicked as they can possibly be. It means they are as “ungodly” and estranged from God as they can be, but for the grace of God demonstrated in the worth and work of Jesus Christ. Every modern day Calvinist I have read on the subject would say anyone who is not mentally capable of hearing and believing the good news is covered by God’s grace. (Some of them might say that only the elect of those would be safe…Although I have not read that anywhere.)
I understand that you have a meaning in mind for “original sin” that I might not have. And, you might have a different definition of “age of accountability” than some others, so those differences are a problem. However, to broad-brush “Calvinists” as if they all believe the same exact things someone hundreds of years ago believed is just not appropriate and certainly not true. John Piper, as an example, disagrees with almost all of his Calvinist fellows about the gifts of the Spirit. And there are other important disagreements in the Reformed community of faith just as there is in the Restoration Movement. Neither we not they are all the same.
Royce
Alexander,
I'm not sure I follow the human side versus the God side that you ascribe to Jesus. If Jesus wrestled in the garden merely because His humanity, that His flesh was pulling Him to save Himself, then Socrates was more righteous than Jesus! For Socrates took an unjust death with stoic–to be anachronistic–calm and cool.
In my reading, Jesus wrestled in Gethsemane because He, more than anyone, since He already had intimacy with the Father, was about to taste infinite loss. His wrestling was a good part of His nature that we would/should share if faced in the same circumstances.
The early church martyrs (Steven for instance) seem to meet their death with great joy, however. For the pathway had already been opened; and for us, we are not meeting infinite loss, but ultimate gain. (Philippians 1:21)
While there is certainly continuity between us and Christ, there is also discontinuity. This need not, though, imply that we have an excuse to sin!!! In anticipation of the resurrection, we are to work out in fear and trembling in the now what we believe will be…
“The goal is the new heaven and the new earth…achieved through the kingdom-establishing work of Jesus and the Spirit, grasped by faith, participated in through baptism, lived out in love….Christian life [is] anticipating this ultimate reality through the Spirit-led, habit-transforming, truly human practice of faith, hope, and love…” from N.T. Wright's 'After you Believe' (pp. 66-7)
There are many people who died with dignity and seemed to be free from fear. But I think they are exceptions to the rule. And we don't see what was in their hearts. Soicism made it a rule to live without passions …
Christians, like Stephen however, who already were convinced of the resurrection sometimes (ot quite often) greeted the flames and kissed the hangman. We don't fear death. Our Lord also had this hope (Heb 12:2).
The point or the the question is – aside from Getsemane (which is just an example to illustrate this point) or from Heb 5:7 – how human was Christ?
I believe He became like us so we might become like Him.
So there is already an identity between Christ and us:
He was born according to the flesh, but begotten by the Spirit.
We are born by the flesh and begotten by the Spirit wehn we are born again.
If His flesh was any different than our flesh, then this would mean: We cannot live like Christ, because we are so handicapped by our depravity.
The second thing (the one you pointed to):
Christ was raised from the dead incorruptible and glorified.
We will be raised like CHrist incorruptible and glorified – thus we will be like Him in eternity.
But the first level of identification is crucial to undertstand our life today. What does it mean to be born again? What does it mean to overcome sin, to live according to the Spirit? Look at the way, Jesus lived and you have the answer – but only, when you see, that His flesh was no less corrupted than ours.
He became tired, as we become tired.
He got angry, as we get angry (but He did not sin)
He could have died any kind of death, but He was saved from many attempts to kill him before the appointed time
When He said we must not look after women lustfully, I think we can be pretty sure, that He also had to fight lustfuk thoughts – because He was tempted in ALL things as we are.
But where do these temptations come from?
We are tempted by our own desires (also by the world and by Satan – but most of the time by our own desires), which are in our flesh. Now – and that is very important and is being confused continually:
Temptation is not sin. The desires of the flesh may intice us to sin, but we still have the choice and the freedom to choose – as long as we are not slaves of sin. And here's a side-remark to the "age of accountability": We all sin sooner or later "in the likeness of Adam's sin" – so have our own "Eden-experince", when we willfully and knowingly for the first time transgress God's command. So – I think – we come to the knowledge of Good and Evil (as Adam and Eve received this knowledge AFTER their transgression).
If we believe, that children are innocent until this key-event in their lives, we don't deny the corrupt nature they (and we) are born with, but we make the difference between being free and becoming a slave of sin. Christ never sinned and never became a slave of sin. That's unique about Him, but it has a reason:
He was born/begotten by the Spirit. He was divine from the beginning, He had these two natures that we only have after our conversion. So His life shows us how to live as Christians in this world, because we (after our conversion) live under the same conditions as He.
I must admit, I never thought very deeply about it until I began meditating on this in the course of this discussion. I am thrilled, I am excited about it. Look at Jesus, and see how we can live! Amazing.
For us it is a process of growth, of course. We have to grow into the new life, into the "kingdom-habits", we continually have to take off our old life and put on Christ in faith. Maturity has to do with revealing Christ's life in us. But everything is there that we need to develop this.
Alexander
P.S.: I just recently stumbled over N.T. Wright and I think I like his approach in general. At least the calm and easy to follow way he speaks makes me enjoy listening to him. Here and there, though, I tend to disagree (but that's no big issue – he is doing a great job as servant of my Lord).
Alexander,
In general I agree with what you are saying. In particular, I can agree with the statement: 'I believe He became like us so we might become like Him.'
The only difference I see between what we are saying is that I'm trying to avoided building an antithesis to Calvinist/Catholic thought using their same basic categories. Namely, I'm not interested in whether or not the static ontological substance of our flesh is corrupt or not. Instead, and following Wright, I see 'flesh' (sarx) (depending on context) as a Pauline shorthand for an animating principle towards death and corruption, rebellion leading to decay.
In my view, we are born with a nature animated towards death. Our hunger for life is at root an animation towards death. Apart from the spirit of God we are heading towards ultimate destruction. It's not so much about what we are made of–our physicality–but what animates us. Jesus was certainly like us in every way, but by virtue of his relationship to the Father he did not have the same animation toward death…
If we let go of these categories of physical versus spiritual it still need not imply that we have an excuse to sin, and that we therefore can’t be like him. I just think that if we are going to adopt a more Eastern Orthodox approach to theosis, then we need to drop some of our western ideas about substance.
It's not so much about 'Is He like me so that I can be like Him?', but instead that 'He has shown me how to be who I am to be, and provided us with the help required to do so'.
In the end, I find it difficult to track with these questions about the nature of Jesus because it seems to be trying to answer questions from a standpoint that is too anthropocentric (too much 'how can I be' and not enough 'what has HE accomplished').
And that's basically all there is to "original sin". So, yes, we could drop that term and theology allogether, if we stick to this definition of sarx (with which I agree).
Exactly. The point is: He was not in a state where He could not have sinned, but by virtue of his relationship to the Father he did not have the same animation toward death… – this is the same living love-obedience relationship he showed in His life and requires from His disciples.
Agreed.
So, what I think it is sometimes our theological terminology that hinders us to understand such "basics", isn't it?
Thank you for the good conversation
Alexander
My thanks to the A & K discussion above.
My only difference is I know the Fall changed human address, apparently lifespan, and relation to God. I'm not sure the Fall changed human nature.
I think you two have a good grasp of Jesus' humanity and devinity. He could sin. He did not sin because He was absolutely faithful to His father. (Aided by divine nature?)
God is our father too, and we could live sinless, if we always thought of Him. It's probably the loss of direct (talking at evening in the garden) relationship to God, rather than a change in human nature that is our Fallen state.