Original Sin: Part II

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 8:54 PM

   Here is the second installment on original sin.  Much of what Augustin had to posit regarding original sin was a direct response to the maledictions coming from Pelagius on the same subject.  The lion share of Pelagian writings or assertions originating with Pelagius are preserved in the writings of Augustin.  You will see a stark contrast in Pelagius's formulation of an anthropological perspective and that of his superior, Augustin.  Their conceptions of original sin serve as a veritable ideological matrix for their doctrines of soteriology (doctrines of salvation).  Much of what Pelagius asserts is inherently anthropocentric and espouses a patent autonomy; both of which are practically incorporated into the so called semi-pelagian system, though not explicitly defined theologically.

    Pelagius’s position on original sin does not even begin to resemble the prevailing orthodoxy of his era. Even the infamous Pope Innocent writes of his desire for Pelagius to turn from error back to the true ways of the Catholic faith. Innocent’s letter is found amidst the Epistles of Augustin.  Much of what Pelagius propagated is found in the omnibus writings of Augustin repudiating Pelagius’s inventions. Parenthetically, Coelestius was Pelagianism’s most vociferous advocate while Pelagius, although its original architect, recoiled in a Synod at Palestine when held to account for his doctrines.

    According to the Pelagian construct, “Everything good, and everything evil, on account of which we are either laudable or blameworthy, is not born with us but done by us: for we are born not fully developed, but with a capacity for either conduct; and we are procreated as without vice; and previous to the action of our own proper will, that alone is in man which God has formed.”
    The idea of original sin is ineffectual and alien to his anthropology. Adam along with his actions were and continue to be isolated from the rest of humanity. His sin belonged to him alone. Their were no consequences or effects carried over into the following generations for, “Adam’s sin was injurious to him alone, and not to the human race.” With this fundamental premise Adam’s progeny are not beleaguered by any corruption or taint vis a vis the transmission of original sin. By implication all of humanity is conceived of and born in the same condition and state that Adam was created in. During Coelestius’s trial at Carthage he was accused of inculcating, through the recitation of his own words, “That infants at their birth are in the same state Adam was before the transgression.” By extension the system promotes that mankind has within its collective self the innate ability to live aright because, “evil is not born with us, and we are procreated without fault, and the only thing in man previous the action of his own will is what God has formed.”

    Moreover, according to the Pelagian system humanity enters upon the plane of history with a virtual tabula rasa for, “we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.” Bright eyed and optimistic then is the initial condition of man as its burgeoning consciousness awakens to discover, “the absolutely equal ability at every moment to do good or evil.” This essential freedom is never relinquished nor lost within the ideological construct of Pelagianism.

    According to Pelagius though Adam does indeed exert a malevolent influence upon his progeny through his isolated act of sin. This position enabled him to provide a subterfuge when being examined for his doctrines during a synod at Palestine when asked about whether Adam’s sin was injurious to the whole human race. He replied that it was without an exhaustive explanation. He could honestly say this because for him, “that primal sin was injurious not only to the first man, but to the whole human race, not by transmission, but by example.” The obvious prevalence of sin, according to Pelagius, is attributed to the increasing habit of sin which is augmented and amplified the more it is participated in. This reasoning leads to the contentions that, “men’s manners became corrupt” and that, “the habit of sinning too much prevailed among men.”

   Pelagius attributes an intrinsic quality to humankind that betrays the sacrosanct of scripture.  Because of this his views of salvation and sanctification are irrecoverably skewed and warped.  In his construct mankind still conceivably remains the master of their individual fate.  Even now, despite the effects of humankind's continual participation in the increasing habit of sin generally, man, individually retains a vestigial of  unmarred innocence from birth that could possibly remain in tact throughout life.  Consider the implications of this line of reasoning along with the devastation it would do to holy writ and the Gospel.  As stated above the semi-pelagian system preserves and promotes this element of man's innate ability to save themselves by choosing prior to regeneration. 
    Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Augustine of Hippo, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God. In Semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later. It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529.
    In contrast to semi-pelagianism, Arminianism teaches that the first steps of grace are taken by God. This teaching derives from the Remonstrance of 1610, a codification of the teachings of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609). Here are the 3rd and 4th articles of five to show how close it actually approaches traditional Calvinism, but still leaves man with a small island of righteousness, as it affirms that unregenerate man can think spiritual thoughts, perceive the beauty and excellency of Christ, create affections for Him and thus turn in faith to Him, apart from the quickening of the Holy Spirit. They affirm that God's grace is always resistable, therefore, when one believes, it is not grace which makes one to differ from another, but naturally produced faith. 
  This line of reasoning assails true doctrine's of grace while reducing saving faith and thus God's effectual and irresistible grace to a  humanly resistible act; salvifically speaking.  This much is codified in an article of the Remonstrance:

IV.That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].

  The general article sounds orthodox and legitimate with the exception of the clause in bold.  Interesting how a little heresy can be peppered into a statement to alter the meaning entirely.  Even in Arminian doctrine man possesses the power to save himself.




Credo ut Intelligam

 

Original Sin

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 9:30 PM

    Original sin is a biblically anthropological fact and reality. Paul wrote the Romans, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinner's," (Rom.5:12.19).  This Pauline phraseology, though succinct, is pregnant with theological, anthropological and sociological meaning.    
    How are we to understand the nature of this doctrine? How is original sin transmitted? How does it effect the warp and woof of humanity?  What is the difference between original sin and actual sin?  This "Achille's heel" of humanity has been elucidated by many erudite churchmen and many a heretic throughout history.  In the next three installments I will aim to give perspectival considerations from St.Augustine of Hippo, Pelagius, & St.Thomas Aquinas pertaining to this particular doctrine and then conclude.


Augustin...

     It is an undeniable truth that Augustin’s doctrine of original sin is paramount to his perspectives on biblical anthropology. Arguably, there have been variegated theological and doctrinal assertions provided throughout the post-Augustinian echelon relative to the precise nature of his fundamental schema including elements of Traducianism (or generation theory) and creationism along with aspects of Adam’s representative role in relation to humankind.

    Ostensibly, Augustin is somewhat amorphous to that end as he appears to vacillate between the former two to varying degrees. This he himself attests to in his Retractions as he comes to no unwavering conclusion. Despite his indecision pertaining to the origin of the soul he remains pertinaciously ardent in propounding the role of original sin and its privative characteristics throughout the successive history of the human saga. This emphasis is emphatically underscored with his constant references to Romans 5:12 for scriptural attestation which in his Latin translation reads, “Sin came into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, through one man, in whom all men sinned.”

    For Augustin sin is not substantive but privative. When Adam originally sinned it was a betrayal of the freedom of choice that was bestowed upon him. In Adam’s original state he was equipped and capable to live a life without sin (posse non peccare) as he was good and innocent thus possessing a proclivity or inclination to the good in contradistinction to the impossibility of sinning (non posse peccare). Adam, “lived in Paradise as he wanted to, and for as long as he wanted what God had commanded. He lived enjoying God, from whom, the Good, he was also good; and lived without lacking anything, having it in his power to live this way forever.”

    According to Augustin Adam was created with inherent potentiality that could have precipitated perfection. “Adam could go straight forward, develop himself harmoniously in untroubled unity with God, and thus gradually attain his final perfection; or he could fall away, engender evil ex nihilo by abuse of his free will.” Following Adam’s willful defiance vis a vis the external influence of the devils subtle connivance’s impinging upon him from without he fell from a state of unfettered grace and consequently incurred a wounded nature. Corruption intruded upon God’s good creation through the impetus of a recalcitrant act of malfeasance, that is willing to sin, “But that free will, whereby man corrupted his own self, was sufficient for his passing into sin.”

    In so doing Adam’s self-willed contumacy led to the degradation of the human condition vis a vis the soul’s deprecation, degeneration and incapacitation en toto. The latter effect is invariably under-emphasized when considering Augustin’s construct of original sin though it is a rudimentary facet underlying his thought. “Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man’s nature Why need he presume to much on the capacity of his nature? It is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed.” Though he staunchly maintained that humanity is in a state of depravity it was not absolute so much as it was permeated by an irrecoverable corruption or privation.

    This integral element is magnified through his usage of Physician/patient imagery. Augustin makes frequent allusions to the effect that mankind is malady stricken and overwhelmed by a contagion. Original sin is to be sure a virulent, rampant disease infecting all mankind and is of epidemic proportions. “Now from this sin, from this sickness, from this wrath of God (of which by nature they are children who have original sin, even if they have none of their own on account of their youth), none delivers them,” as Augustin proceeds to say, “except the Physician, who came not for the sake of the sound, but of the sick.” Elsewhere he makes reference to the wounded soul that needs healing and additionally speaks of sinners as being sick. In response to Pelagius’ position that man has the capacity to avoid sin without the grace of God Augustin retorts, “Faithful men say in their prayer, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” But if they already have the capacity, why do they pray?” Even after regeneration he maintains that mankind remains incapacitated to some extent thereby necessitating the need for aid. Thus, according to Augustin it is befitting that mankind is crippled in a state of sinfulness and corruption as a consequence of, “that free will, whereby man, corrupted his own self.”

    The foregoing (i.e. the radical corruption of human nature) is irrefragably true for the former Bishop of Hippo because mankind still retains a vestige of goodness amidst the corruption as he postulates, “That is still good which bewails lost good; for had not something good remained in our nature, there would be no grief over lost good for punishment.” The good nature wherewith mankind was originally bestowed has not undergone such a mutation as to be completely devoid of the original distinctive characteristics with which it was imbrued but instead is so embroiled in corruption that the nature of man is denigrated as Augustin posits,
“For man has such excellence [even after the fall] in comparison with the brute that what is a fault in man is nature in the brute. Still man’s nature is not changed into the nature of the brute. God, therefore, condemns man because of the fault by which his nature is disgraced, not because of his nature, which is not abolished through the fault.”

    Nature is debased and corrupted through sin yet it is not nature that is inherently evil, as the Manicheans advocated;instead it has been vitiated by sin. For Augustin nature is good and, conversely, it is nature’s corruption that is evil. Moreover, it is seemingly apparent that the corruption of the soul or man’s nature is more accidental in genre than causal. Originally, this deprivation was caused by temptation from without not from within albeit, he does acknowledge that, “man never yet proceeded to an evil work, unless incited to it by an evil will.” So, suitably after the fall Augustin could say, “although there was a fault present in nature, yet nature was not itself a fault.” Nevertheless, this fault continues to be a contagion present within the nature of our primeval parents posterity. For Augustin this dynamic of nature and its corruption is an inseparable reality that continues in perpetual succession throughout the propagation of human-kind. As  he posits,“No doubt the two are generated simultaneously – both nature and nature’s corruption; one of which is good, the other evil. The one comes to us from the bounty of the Creator, the other is contracted from the condemnation of our origin; the one has its cause in the good-will of the Supreme God, the other in the depraved will of the first man...”

    With the pathogenesis of original sin finding its inception with Adam (not Eve so much) Augustin maintains that all of humanity is infected and has become a massa perditionis, “the entire mass of our nature was ruined beyond doubt.” His copious references to Romans 5:12 evidently serve as the benchmark of scriptural attestations relevant to the transmission of original sin.

    Augustin seems rather ambivalent as to the precise nature of transmission teetering between traducianism and creationism. At times he seems to suggest that humanity was physically present in Adam when the first sin was committed and thus directly culpable as he asserts in one place, “because all men were in him when he sinned; and from him sin is derived from birth,” while in another place positing that it is transmitted through the simultaneous generation of the tangible element (body) and the intangible element (soul).

    Augustin does undoubtedly subtend that original sin is transmitted through natural generation. He writes that the nature of the human race is generated from the flesh of the one transgressor and that this “carnal generation” incontrovertibly holds every man. This condition continues its course of corruption in all persons ever conceived throughout the succession of mankind. Original sin, as it has corrupted the organic whole of humanity (massa perditionis), is an inescapable inevitability for Augustin as , “it [corrupt nature] has run on in this condition by natural descent through all, and is still running.” The capstone perhaps is that he refers to humanity as being in the loins of Adam (in lumbis Adami) to the extent that, “all men are understood to have sinned in that first man, because all men were in him when he sinned.”

    Inasmuch as this verbiage of “carnal generation” and “carnal begetting” is employed throughout his nomenclature I am not so much convinced as many are that his methodology inextricably propounds such a corporeal or materialistic transmission, especially when taking into account his phraseology when elucidating on the role of concupiscence in the context of sexual intercourse within the confines of matrimony.

    Augustin does not eschew the institution of marriage nor does he ascribe evil to it. Instead he maintains that, “The evil at which even marriage blushes for shame is not the fault of marriage, but of the lust of the flesh.” This lust expresses itself most in the connubial embrace as Augustin asserts, “that the connubial intercourse and lust are at the same time in action.” For Augustin marriage is “lawful” and the lust is “unseemly” as he pens, “it follows that infants, although incapable of sinning, are yet not born without the contagion of sin, –not, indeed, because of what is lawful, but on account of that which is unseemly: for from what is lawful (marriage) nature is born; from what is unseemly (concupiscence), sin.”

    The aforementioned notwithstanding, Augustin still proceeds to say that Adam’s progeny prior to birth are condemned to the core. He also invariably incorporates the role of penal or legal actions taken by God towards man: "Where God did nothing else than by a just sentence to condemn the man who wilfully sins, together with his stock; there also, as a matter of course, whatsoever was even not yet born is justly condemned in its sinful root. In this condemned stock carnal generation holds every man.”

    Hereupon Augustin arguably resigns the continuance of a “carnal generation” to a previously “condemned stock”. This is ostensibly reminiscent of Platonic and Neo-Platonic promulgations. Herein he evinces that man-kinds primordial progenitor stood as a federal type or representative. It stands to reason that it is possible for Augustin to be arguing that original sin pervades humankind and is transmitted through the more incorporeal reality that humanity is a continuation of Adam; perhaps copies, products or emanations of the original form of humanity.

    Regardless of how he resolves this quagmire he does unabashedly articulate the universality of sin. “There is no man” says Augustin, “without sin be it young or old.” He has such an extensive view of sin that, “the very stars are unclean in the sight of God.” This being so then, “how much more is a worm and corruption, such as are they who are held subject to the sin of the offending Adam?” Again Augustin seems to be purveying that the whole of the created order has been corrupted and he is conceivably viewing the warp and woof of the created order as a single unit or a whole that consists of many and thus the many are participants in the whole.

    Attention though is primarily infixed upon the effect of the first sin upon mankind as this “contagion” has permeated the entire strata of humanity not only in an immediate or actual sense but also in a potential sense. The latter point is true for Augustine because, “men are born with the fault of original sin.” and with this being so, “no one is pure from uncleaness, not even infants.” The ongoing program of progeny assumes to itself original sin so that those who have yet to be born are already conceptually fallen in nature albeit not actualized until conception.

    The perpetual continuum of creation remains good as it relates to God’s work yet it is also marred and debased in that sin has effected everything under the sun. Thus it is a disparaging truth that original sin confronts all of humanity as Augustine concludes, “It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin.” He further purveys that this doctrine is attested to by scripture, tradition and the Catholic church.

Quotes culled from:
See Augustin’s Retractions on De Anima et Ejus Origine, De Peccato Originali, and De Natura et GratiaAugustin, On Nature and Grace
Augustin, On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism
Augustin, "De Genesi ad literam",VIII
Augustin, On Original Sin
Schaff, Philip,"The Augustinian System: The Fall and its Consequences"
Augustin, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians
Augustin, On Marriage and Concupiscence

Credo ut Intelligam
Schaff, Phillip; "Augustinian System, The Primitive State of Man"

 

Wolves: The danger from within...

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 11:44 PM

    The most lethal danger to the local church is not danger from without; but danger from within. B. B. Warfield wrote extensively about this inauspicious truth. He was acutely aware of the flowering liberalism that had pervaded the citadel of the church abroad during his time. This was especially true within the borders of European evangelicalism as the philosophy of the Enlightenment had made inroads into its theology and praxis. This burgeoning threat posed an imminent threat within Western theology and praxis so much so that it was knocking at its door. Actually, much of that Enlightenment/liberal ideology was already coursing through the corridors of political thought in the  form of such notions as "democratic populism" for example; et al. Warfield was alarmed by this and sought to elevate the church's cognitive awareness of this danger. He was particularly concerned with the threat from within the church though. The danger embodied by interlopers outside the borders of the church was much easier to detect or discern. For Warfield the more immediate and harmful threats were posed by those who were recognized members within the church and by those who already had standing. These were people who had already breached the ranks of church "membership" and were regular practitioners; including clergy. For this reason and amidst this atmosphere he asserted:

"The chief dangers to Christianity do not come from the anti-Christian systems...It is corrupt forms
of Christianity itself which menace from time to time the life of Christianity."     

    What B. B. Warfield was speaking to was the presence and impact of  "wolves" within (Peter speaks of false teachers and false prophets arising from "among" the people, II Peter 2:1-3) the church who would ravenously tear, shred and mutilate the sheep (see God's characterization of Israel's religious leaders as wolves in Eze. 22:27), around them through the effects of their actions and pontifications as well as the implications of their hidden agendas. This is done through the guise of Christian verbiage and orthodox rhetoric. Of late and recent this has been coined as the "conservative drift." Ministers who fit this mold ostensibly appear to be orthodox and have conceivably accrued some "trust capital."
    However, this is a convincing masquerade used only to lull his/her environs into complacency. Their positions and esteem are used as leverage to infiltrate the minds and hearts of those in the same flock. Their orthodox language serves as a serpentine riddle of sorts to veritably hypnotize his/her prey; much like the Siren's song of Greek mythology. Truth be known though no matter how much you disguise or beautify manure it is still manure. A wolf remains a wolf despite their empirically disguised subterfuge.
   Christ's admonition is just as relevant to our day and to the Church as it was during His epoch.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly
are ravening wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits...A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit,
nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit," (Matt. 7:15-20).

   The operative phrase in this pericope is the one I bolded. Regardless of what the wolf claims to stand for or the alluring usage of orthodox and biblical phraseology the FRUITS of its actions are to be evaluated.  Many a sheep fall prey to the wolf's hollow persona. Persona by definition has the following meanings: 1.) The aspect of a person's character that is presented to or perceived by others.  2.) A role or character adopted by an author or actor. Recall the devil taking on the persona so to speak of the serpent in Genesis 1. Paul also describes false apostles promoting a certain persona. The true apostle opens chapter 11 of II Corinthians by saying, "I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and loving devotion to Christ." He was expressing concern that false apostles had cast a deception over the Corinthians in much the same way the devil did through the serpent. Shortly after Paul describes the characteristics of such malevolent interlopers; otherwise known as wolves.

12 "And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."

    Paul provides another characteristic or fruit that wolves, false apostles, false teachers, et cetera engender.  While they disguise themselves as apostles, they are braggadocios. Wolves will invariably boast on what they have done or what they have not done in order to garner veneration and trust. But to whom does their boasting point? Does it promote themselves and magnify their "persona" or does it promote Christ? In the chapter before the one cited above Paul opines, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord. For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends," (II Cor. 10:17-18).  
    I was recently engaged in an ordeal that effected the entire congregation I am a member of. During that period of time there was an exchange of emails between myself and another who was afflicting the flock. In that email he documented that he had years of experience, had planted multiple churches, had more years of teaching, had more credentials et cetera. He had compared that with my years of service within the church and that I have had only 2-3 years of seminary training. Here is the exerpt:

"Let me begin by stating unequivacbly that after the passage of 55 years, 30+ years of full time ministry, 20 plus of those years as a years of Pastoral practicioneer, 17 years of service as an academic professor, 3 church plants, and earning a Bachelor and Doctoral degree, please know that I absoluely have acquired more experiential knowledge and wisdom than him. (His) charge that I make that stand is true and without regret. (He) has neither planted or pastored a church, has been ordained by me for a mere 2 years, and only has one year of Seminary training is proof in point. " 

    This tactic and list of accomplishments was used to dissuade others about something he stated in response to a position I had asserted regarding a passage dealing with elders and accusations. There wasn't a repudiation by way of church tradition or biblical scholarship to disprove what I had stated. Just a list of his accolades to get those he sent the email to trust him. I had church tradition and scholarship supporting what I had asserted. Paul associates this practice with false apostles and in so doing says, "when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding," (II Cor. 10:12). Wolves are skilled practitioners of self aggrandizement. This of course is artificial and biblically without merit. If only folk would honestly judge the fruits.

  "By their fruits you will recognize them."

    In order to guard against wolves, the Church needs to look beyond personas and look to fruits. How does the person's actions effect the condition of the flock? Does the minister's demeanor and behavior reflect the portrait of an elder? ( cf. I Peter 5, Titus 1, I Tim. 3). Of course some wolves manifest at different times and under different circumstances though they may have been amongst the church for an extended duration.  As Paul wrote Timothy, "The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later," (I Tim. 5:24).  The true fruits of a wolf may not be palpably noticeable for a duration of time but they will manifest themselves inevitably. Their true identity will surface. Our duty as clerics and laymen is to not simply follow blindly by not dutifully acknowledging what a person is doing because they may have established trust or employ biblical phraseology. Instead, we are to evaluate how they steward that trust and how they use or implement the language of scripture and orthodoxy. If this is ignored blindness is rendered. And as Christ asserts the blind religious elite (Pharisee's and scribes of His day) will lead the blind into a pit, (Matt. 15:14; see also Matt. 23).

Credo ut Intelligam  

     

 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blogger Template by Blogcrowds