February 4
Original Sin is the most misunderstood doctrine in the history of religion. Augustine established the concept, Luther and Calvin revived it, and the modern Church is deeply divided between defenders and deniers. But do really think the majority of Christians want to remove this ugly piece of theology from ‘the books’?
DS
copywrite The Believer's Dilemma 2011 (http://www.believers-dilemma.org/)
________________
Dear DS
You are absolutely right that Original Sin is widely misunderstood. For the past few weeks I have been interviewing representatives from different denominations about Original Sin and its consequences. It is not a subject that is regularly studied in seminary or Bible School. Original Sin is not preached in sermons. It is seemingly absent from Christian thought and therefore questions about Augustine, infant damnation, Luther, predestination, Calvin and total depravity seem irrelevant.
While discussing Original Sin with men and women who devote themselves to full-time ministry I have been consistently surprised by their mystification at my line of questioning. Why does it matter what cavemen might have thought about God? Who can know the mind of God or how he revealed himself to people in remote times and places? The consistent response has been: We live here and now. This is the time and place that matters to us. Let us ‘rescue the perishing and care for the dying’ while we may.
The January 14 Believer’s Dilemmas Q+A (http://www.believers-dilemma.org/publicpages/answers/32 ) outlined the destructive impact of Original Sin in Augustinian, Lutheran and Calvinist theologies. January 28’s Q+A ( http://www.believers-dilemma.org/publicpages/answers/34) outlined the radically different concept of sin and salvation held by the Early Church. Original Sin is absent from the consciousness of modern Christianity yet its fallout is everywhere evident, as if a city has been rebuilt after a nuclear holocaust so that every sign of destruction was removed from the landscape while the streets are filled with damaged human beings who have forgotten the bombs and never think about the war that provoked the lethal assault.
Original Sin has created two damaged mutations of Christianity. One form struggles to defend Augustine’s innovation while the other struggles to deny it. Both fail. This observation raises hackles. It shouldn’t. It is not an attack on faith and not an assault on Christianity. It is a call to find a better remedy.
Those who struggle to defend Original Sin are often referred to as Fundamentalists. This is a pejorative term that is unhelpful. They do not think of themselves as disciples of Wrath or opponents to the Gospel of Love that was taught by Jesus. They call themselves Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Charismatics. They believe that sin is real and salvation matters, that Jesus offers salvation to the entire human race. This is the good news of the Gospel. They also believe that Jesus is the one and only path to salvation. This is where the Augustinian influence begins to turn ugly.
If we are all sinners and Jesus is the only means of salvation, what does that mean for people who are not saved in the name of Jesus? No one in the modern world agrees with Augustine that unbaptized babies remain condemned for eternity. Yet the condemnation of infants was not an unfortunate error in Augustine’s theology. It was essential to the inherent logic of Original Sin. Luther understood that Augustine’s theology required total depravity of human nature subsequent to the Fall in Eden so that human ‘freewill’ became hopelessly corrupted. Therefore only an elect few would be saved by predestined divine election. Why would God predestine a few to eternal salvation and countless multitudes to eternal damnation? Calvin could not make sense of this ‘horrible doctrine’ but declared that God had arranged it all ‘for His own pleasure.’
Modern defenders of Original Sin disagree with Luther and Calvin that we are helpless pawns whose fates are predestined. The modern world believes in freewill and personal responsibility to choose between good and evil. Augustine’s theology was ugly but logical. The theology of Luther and Calvin was even uglier but rigorously logical. Every soul was born totally depraved due to the inherited corruption of Adam; therefore God was fully just in condemning all sinners to eternal damnation. Luther argued forcefully that justice required universal damnation and that not a single person had the slightest grounds to complain of injustice. This ugliness of inherited condemnation was counterbalanced by unmerited salvation. God’s infinite love was demonstrated by extending unlimited grace to the undeserving elect. Calvinist theology was soundly logical and thoroughly Biblical. But the Jesus of Augustine, Luther and Calvin could not be the Saviour of all. Calvinism made his atonement limited to the sins of the elect.
Limited atonement on the part of Jesus and the total depravity of human nature are not widely accepted by modern defenders of Original Sin. Those regrettable doctrines have been filed away with infant damnation and double predestination as theological aberrations from the distant past. Salvation is now available to all. We are all free to choose Jesus as our personal Saviour and responsible for choosing... or not choosing. But who is choosing? Choosing what? And when?
Modern defenders of Original Sin agree with Augustine, Luther and Calvin that our eternal fate is determined in this lifetime. Some people will spend eternity in heaven. Others will spend eternity in hell. But who? And on what basis? This is where the question of the caveman becomes important. If salvation depends on knowing Jesus or obeying the Scriptures, then how could a caveman have been saved? How could someone who never saw a Bible be saved? Similarly, how would the eternal fate of a deceased child be determined? Augustine, Luther and Calvin provided answers to these questions that were ugly but clear and simple.
Modern mutations of Original Sin produce a theology that is the opposite of clear and simple. Its defenders are obliged to warn sinners that they must choose Jesus as their personal Saviour, yet they remain convinced that God in his infinite love and justice will not condemn anyone unjustly. But how would this work? By what unknown ‘rules’ could cavemen be saved or condemned? By what ‘rules’ could infants be saved or condemned? A multitude of problematic exceptions arise if salvation is a free choice which must be made during this short lifetime. Augustine, Luther and Calvin would have condemned this modern mutation of Original Sin for creating theological chaos by pandering to human notions of justice and freedom.
The other modern mutation of Christianity is a much stronger reaction against Augustine’s Gospel of Wrath. Moderate Christianity does not believe that human nature is totally depraved or that atonement is limited to an elect few. The question of the caveman is a stand-in for all the questions raised by the narrow God of Original Sin. How could salvation depend on Jesus if multitudes never heard of him? How could salvation depend on Scripture if multitudes never read a Bible? A universal God should have had the same relationship with all peoples at all times and places in history. But what was that relationship? Did cavemen go to heaven or hell when they died? Do infants go to heaven or hell? How do they exercise their freewill? These questions cannot be answered categorically and so the moderate Church leaves them open. If it is impossible to know who is saved, why be dogmatic? If it impossible to know who goes to heaven or hell, why make empty threats or promises?
Christianity that struggles to deny Original Sin is condemned by defenders of Original Sin as a liberal, compromising, vacillating Church. Many ‘liberal’ Christians do not believe the Bible should be read literally. Does it matter if Jonah did not spend three days in the belly of a literal whale? Does it matter if the story of Noah is not about a literal global flood? Does it matter if the waters of the Red Sea did not literally part for Moses to cross? Does it matter if the universe was not created in six literal days? Does it matter if Adam and Eve were not literally tempted by a talking serpent? Once this kind of question is permitted, some free-thinkers will ask: Does it matter if Jesus was born of a virgin? Does it matter if Jesus was literally raised from the dead? Does it even matter if Jesus literally existed?
For modern defenders of Original Sin, these are dangerous and heretical ideas, not sane and healthy responses to the ugliness of Augustine, Luther and Calvin. These ideas are seen as an attack on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Hence modern Fundamentalists defend literal Bible interpretation. As we saw a few weeks ago, while examining William Dembski’s book about Young Earth Creationism and the Fall of the Human Race, modern defenders of Original Sin require that all sin, suffering, evil and death originated in Eden. Defenders of Original Sin such as William Dembski acknowledge the role of freewill and personal responsibility in salvation; they do not teach that every baby is born totally depraved, but they do speak about the ‘transmission’ of sin and depravity as an inherited evil. Inherited from whom? And what are the consequences?
Modern defenders of Original Sin and modern deniers of Original Sin are united in their rejection of infant baptism, predestination, total depravity and limited atonement. They are united in their belief that God is both loving and just and that grace is a free gift that is freely accepted or rejected. Tragically, they are deeply divided over how to resolve the apparent contradictions and explain how all can exercise their will and be judged in some meaningful way.
Nowhere is this deep divide better illustrated than in the writings of Matthew Fox, a lightning rod for controversy. Matthew Fox was a Catholic Priest who in 1983 wrote a book called ‘Original Blessings’ which directly contravened the theology of Original Sin. In 1988, Fox wrote a public letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) entitled "Is the Catholic Church Today a Dysfunctional Family?" Fox was subsequently expelled from the Dominican order and joined the Episcopal Church (Anglican communion) in California.
Fox has written 30 books that question fundamental Christian beliefs which have been influenced by Original Sin. The issue is far from irrelevant or dead. It goes to the heart of what Christianity is and what Christians believe.
Matthew Fox is an inspiration for many moderate Christians, by daring to imagine a God who is not narrow, wrathful, exclusive, Patriarchal, sexist and homophobic. For staunchly conservative Christians, Matthew Fox encapsulates all that is New Age, neo-Pagan, occultist, goddess worshipping, environmentalist, spiritualist, universalist and cosmic lunacy.
The provocative tone of Fox’s critics can be seen in the following articles
Mathew Fox is still alive and is still an idiot. What has everyone’s favorite non-Christian-Roman-Catholic-turned-Episcopagan-goofball been up to lately?
Original Sin might be off the radar for most Christians but it is an invisible cancer busily eating away at Christianity and engendering deep animosity between sincere believers. Last week’s Q+A examined what Christianity looked like before Augustine inflicted it with Original Sin. Over the coming months The Believer’s Dilemma will examine how modern denominations struggle to defend or deny Original Sin.
Questions or Comments?
Tags: William Dembski, Matthew Fox, Original Blessings, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI.
No comments:
Post a Comment