I once asked a well-instructed Christian whether as humans we are basically good or bad. The question clearly startled the person and instinctively he replied “basically good”. Now it was my turn to be startled. I did not ask whether human beings are incapable of good or thoroughly bad ”“ it was a question about our basic disposition. I would have thought that the reading of Scripture and our church liturgy may have suggested that there is such a thing as original sin and that there is a tendency to evil which we share. Indeed, we only have to hold up the mirror of God’s law ”“ say the Ten Commandments for a start ”“ to recognise our constant failure to do what God requires of us.
It is a shallow view of human nature which suggests that as long as we choose the right we can accomplish it. In fact we are called the enemies of God, because our basic sin is the desire to worship anything or anybody rather than the true Lord of the universe. Sin is something which we are caught up in as a race ”“ individually and collectively. It has us in its grip, it corrupts our inner selves. Because of sin we have evil desires, evil thoughts, evil intentions. Such inner failures manifest themselves in words and deeds which are evil. Hedges is certainly right to warn us against any system or ideology which promises us a rosy future based on human effort.
Spot on. It was starkly stated in Mark 10 …
‘Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good?
No one is good but God alone.”‘
There is a very human tendency to believe, delusionally, that
we are basically good. That is a trap and a snare. On the other
hand, to believe that we are basically evil can lead to the equally
unhealthy view that we also are beyond the reach of Christ’s
redemptive power.
A few months ago, I noticed a bumper sticker proclaiming the
notion of Original Innocence, thus totally dispensing with the
traditional doctrines regarding original sin. The whole notion of
Original Innocence seems vacuous and shallow.
I agree that we are not basically good – but maybe the thinking of those that say we are is that, as stated in Genesis, God created the earth and all that was on it, including man, and said “It is good.” So God did create us and see us as “good” in our creation, because man was created by God (and thus “good” by definition). Then, through our disobedience, sin (Original Sin) entered the world and because it became ingrained in our being, carrying its stain through the generations, we all are tainted by Original Sin and can no longer call ourselves basically “good” because we are born with that Sin.
What then is the difference regarding original sin once a person is baptised? If it is wiped away, why does the person fall into sin once again? If, using the metaphor of Branford above, we wipe away the ‘stain’ rather than the fact of sin, what does this metaphor mean?
Terry Tee – my understanding of original sin and baptism (complete non-theologian that I am) is that original sin is a sin “contracted” not a sin “committed” – it is a state of sin, not an act of sin. Original sin underlies all other sins and undermines our natural abilities of knowing and loving as well as giving us an inclination to sin. Jesus Christ frees us from original sin and our own actual sins. In baptism, we share in the redemptive act of Jesus’ death and Resurrection, are freed from original sin, and strengthened against the power of actual sin. But an effect of original sin still remains, that is, our inclination to sin, which is why we need to stay in God’s Word and in His community on earth, the Church. (At least, that is my understanding.)
Branford, I appreciate your answer, and I write respectfully to say that it does not add up. You say that we are freed from original sin; on the other hand, our inclination to sin remains. It sounds like a contradiction to me. It seems to me that the notion of original sin was drafted in to the theology of baptism to make sense of infant baptism, to give a reason for it. (BTW: I am RC, not SBC, so I have no axe to grind in that respect.) I believe that the whole concept of original sin is not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, for whom baptism is the first and enabling step to growing in the image and likeness of God. It would be crazy for us to say that the Orthodox are therefore not proper Christians because they lack a concept of original sin. The latter is one of a very small group of doctrines that I believe out of faithfulness to my Church, but my head finds it difficult to explain what it means.
Terry Tee,
I’m not a theologian and so I can’t say I have a completely clear picture of the following, but it seems to me that Romans 6 and 7 are pretty much in line with what Branford is saying. Paul says in 6:2-3, “…How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” and then in verse 6, “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin…” So it seems that through baptism we participate in Christ’s death and are freed from sin which seems to me to be original sin, the state of being in sin that we inherit from Adam. Then later in chapter 7 Paul talks about though he is no longer in sin he still sins, verse 19 reads, “For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that dwells in me,” and in verse 25, “I thank God–through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”
Okay, so I don’t fully understand what to make of this, but I would submit that it appears to say that before being baptized into Christ’s death we are in sin and sin is in us in both spirit and flesh, but after baptism we are freed from sin and are now in Christ and Christ is in us but we still sin because we are still a part of the fallen creation and hence imperfect. Can any of you theologians give us a more clear picture of these verses and of original sin?
Original sin is described by the famous Sinatra song, “I Did It My Way.” I am usually guilty of that even though I was baptized a long time ago.
Below is Article 9 from the 39 Articles. It may be of help, as an Anglican “center” for the thread:
IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
[blockquote]He thinks that the new atheists and Christian fundamentalists are both guilty of utopianism – the belief that human beings can by their own strength create heaven on earth.
[/blockquote]
Where did that dig at “fundamentalists” come from? I come from a long line of fundamentalists and I don’t think I’ve ever heard one say they (we) were going to “create heaven on earth”. In fact, I would have thought that the belief in original sin was a sure sign of fundamentalism.
I thank the above blogsters. I am not much clearer. I DID like the Frank Sinatra reference. When I take funerals I have managed so far to ban the song which I once heard described as ‘every [illegitimate person’s] song of self-justification’] (you may substitute the appropriate word within the square brackets).
The best I can do to make sense of original sin in modern (not post-modern) terms is as follows:
1. We have a propensity to choose stupidly, selfishly and at times even wickedly – just as we also have the ability to love, to make sacrifices for others and to show compasssion.
2. Our human nature tilts us towards the former; the grace of God helps us towards the latter. Baptism opens the door to grace for us.
3. Traditionally this weakness is thought of as transmitted within the very act of conception itself, following Augustine. Perhaps we can think of it today as conveyed within our cultural and familial patterns, handed down, passed on down the generations.
A professor at the seminary once shocked us by saying that it was very difficult to give a traditional account of original sin without making it sound like a venereal disease. I mention this not to swipe at traditionalists, but to highlight the difficulties. The BCP reference above does seem to fall into this category.
#9… good question.
It’s worth noting first that this opinion is at least one step removed from Archbishop Jensen. AJ is reviewing a book by Chris Hedges, and the opinion about fundamentalists (if Jensen correctly understood it) is Hedges’ opinion. AJ isn’t even really reviewing a book — he’s making a brief allusion to it as a place to launch a discussion of Christian doctrine.
So if we really want understand for sure why Hedges thinks that I guess we’d have to go get that book.
All that said, here’s a guess as to what Hedges might have meant. By “fundamentalists” he might have meant some of the figures on the American Religious Right. For example, Jerry Falwell’s 1980s organization The Moral Majority was based on using human political power to create a kind of “City of God” in this world. The very name of the organization suggested a high view of human capacity for being good and moral.
In this sense, with great irony, figures like Falwell are very much like KJS, both believing (in their “working theology”) in human capacity to create good and just and holy lives and social structures.
A good book that explores this kind of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian heretical bent of American churches is “Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church” by Michael Horton. Horton is a very traditional conservative Christian, but at least half of the examples he gives are churches on the right end of the theological spectrum.
Jensen seems to be yet another black-and-white theologian. His denial that we are basically good, simply because we’re not unalloyed with impure motives nor incapable of [foul]ing up, is reminiscent of the old southern white one-drop-of-blood view of African-American ancestry.
As for Jesus dying “to save us from the consequences of our sins,” as Jensen puts it: It’s not at all clear that Jesus even had that in mind, let alone that he successfully accomplished it. The scriptural pronouncements to that effect are nothing more than wishful thinking; such evidence as there is, is overwhelmingly to the contrary.
RE: ” It’s not at all clear that Jesus even had that in mind, let alone that he successfully accomplished it.”
I completely agree. It’s not at all clear to those who don’t believe the Gospel about these matters.
#12 D.C.Toedt,
“The scriptural pronouncements to that effect are nothing more than wishful thinking; such evidence as there is, is overwhelmingly to the contrary.”
My guess is that you see lots of other areas of wishful thinking in Scripture such as Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the virgin birth and much of the Nicene Creed.
The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Those who were about to become Christians received one or more anointings with holy oil. The oil used on this occasion was that which had received the blessing mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, xlii). This anointing of the catechumens is explained by the fact that they were regarded to a certain extent as being possessed by the devil until Christ should enter into them through baptism”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07421b.htm.
I think this helps us understand the extent of original sin better and to see that the church does not see us as being born “good”.
Deacon Dale, the exorcism is certainly there in the Catholic baptism service. Do you believe that new-born infants are somehow demonically possessed? Really? How? What does this mean?And how would you explain it to people today in a way that would make sense to them? May I also draw your attention to what I wrote above, that Eastern Orthodoxy does not hold with this whole way of thinking. And they are no lesser sacramental Christians than the rest of us.
Terry Tee,
“Our human nature tilts us towards the former; the grace of God helps us towards the latter. Baptism opens the door to grace for us.” You made this statement in #10. You make it sound as if we are morally neutral. We are not born morally neutral. As Jensen puts it, we born an enemy of God because of original sin. This is not a very pretty picture of humans is it? There are only two sides. You are either on God’s side or you are on the Devil’s side. Choose this day. Look at the statement in our Baptismal Covenant. “Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? I renounce them”. Personally I do not believe the the leadership of TEC even believes in the reality of Satan as understood by the historic church. Watch for this in latter editions of the BCP under Holy Baptism.
Dale, you illustrate a major problem of our time: the tendency to quote religious texts and never explain them. Perhaps even there is an inability to explain them. I asked you what you meant by demonic possession of infants and how such a thing is transmitted. You did not and perhaps could not explain it. Surely, though, we can do better than that? I am afraid the same probably holds true of Jensen whom you quote so approvingly. Here is a challenge to you: next time you have someone in your baptism class, perhaps holding their six-month-old infant, tell them that their child is born an enemy of God. On the other hand, don not do it: it would be a good way to kill faith. As for renouncing evil, I am glad that I had someone do it on my behalf as an infant, and that I affirmed it as an adult. Indeed I do so each Easter. As for being morally neutral: read what I wrote again and you will see that I said that inherently we tend towards sin, and that it is the grace of God that pulls us back.
In sum: the language of original sin seems to make no sense, and perhaps has no meaningful place in our faith discussions today.
#18 Terry Tee,
“Surely, though, we can do better than that?” Yes, “we” can. But having read the following there is no real point is there?
“In sum: the language of original sin seems to make no sense, and perhaps has no meaningful place in our faith discussions today.” My guess is that you think the language of the resurrection and the Nicene Creed don’t make a lot of sense either.
Thank you for finally getting to your point and thank you also for playing “thread facilitator”.
Terry, I find original sin a difficult idea as well, But I think that is what Paul is saying in Romans 5.12ff, and as G K Chesterton (?) said, it’s the one doctrine we know directly, intuitively.
As a Catholic, you may be interested in listening to this lecture by an evangelical church historian on Augustine vs. Pelagius:
http://www.worldwide-classroom.com/courses/info/ch310/
Dale, you duck out every time. Perhaps there is no point because people like you are unable to explain what they say they believe.
Dale, just in case there is any doubt. I believe in the resurrection of Christ, even in a conservative way. I say the Nicene creed and believe it (indeed, as a priest, if for any length of time I could not believe it, the only honorable way would be to leave). And although a Catholic and not an evangelical, I have no hesitation in saying that Jesus is my Lord and Savior. But this does not rise or fall on the doctrine of original sin. If it were so then (one of the many points you have not answered) then Eastern Orthodox Christians would not be truly Christian.
Why is it that debate between Christians – on this site for example – so easily and quickly descends to a level not far removed from invective. Perhaps that is proof of original sin!
What we have in common as believing Christians is far more profound than that on which we disagree.
Terry, it seems that you need to do exactly what you are asking Dale to do and explain the scriptures in terms of your viewpoint. Romans 6:15-23 is probably a good place to start. Verses 17 and 18 say, “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.” These verses are telling us that we are created to serve a master and there are only two masters available: God or our own selves which equates to being a slave to our own sin. When we are made slaves to Christ we still sin but we don’t serve our sinfulness. That is what it seems to me is original sin: that we serve as slaves to sin.