Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)
PAGITT AND PELAGIUS ON HUMAN NATURE
It is apparent from the outset, that Pagitt has severely reacted to Augustinian theology, especially in regards to human nature. For Pagitt, Augustine’s doctrine of depravity was based on cultural readings and understandings of certain biblical passages; the doctrine of original sin isn’t biblical, it is cultural. ((Pagitt, Christianity, 127.)) In fact, after citing sections from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Augsburg Confession, and Book of Common Prayer on Original Sin, Pagitt asserts that these “versions” are “extreme theology” that do not fit the Christian story. ((Pagitt, Christianity, 123-124.)) The starting point for these confessions and explanations of human nature flow from a source (Augustinian theology) that started with a view of humanity born out of a Greco-Roman world that centered on dualism and separation from God.
According to Pagitt, this theology could not reconcile its assumptions of human frailty and limitations with the story from the Scriptures that said humans were created in the image of God. “So the theology of depravity made sense to people who held a view of humans as being something less than God had intended.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 128.)) For Pagitt, original sin was a cultural response to a wrongly held assumption that the current condition of humanity was less than the condition at which they were originally created. This false assumption about the starting place of human nature led to a “false doctrine” on how human nature is now, later resulting in distortions of the doctrine of salvation and judgment. Pagitt believes “the rationale for this view of humanity has expired, and so ought the theology that grew out of it.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 128.)) Because Augustinian theology begins with the false assumption that humans are now, post-Fall, different than they were intended at Creation, the Church should abandon it.
Pagitt insists we need to tell a better story, a story (read: theology) that explains we are still created in the unbroken Image of God as partners and collaborators with Him who are still His people; this story never loses “sight of what it means to be created in the Image of God.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 129-130.)) The Imago Dei plays a central role in Pagitt’s theology of human nature. He insists that the Story of God says the Imago Dei is the same as it ever was. While we were created to partner with God as Images of God, we are still that unbroken Image; the Image of God has not changed. Most Christians who hold to the historic belief of the doctrine of the Imago Dei believe that image is cracked, broken, and tainted at some level. Pagitt, however, believes nothing has inherently changed about that Image—about human nature—from the very beginning of Creation.
Referencing the Genesis 3 narrative of Adam and Eve, Pagitt says, “Their state of being did not change, their DNA didn’t change…This story never suggests that the sin of Adam and Eve sends them into a state of depravity.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 135, 136. Incidentally, this mirrors exactly the point Jones made on his blog, cited earlier.)) In fact, “we are still capable of living as children of God” because we can still regard human nature as being “inherently godly.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 136, 137.)) This strong belief in the original Imago Dei plays strongly into Pagitt’s belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity and capacity to choose good over evil.
Taking his cues from Celtic Christians, Pagitt believes that all humans “posses the light of God within them. That light might brighten or dim as a person lives well with God or moves away from God, but the light is never extinguished.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 141, 142.)) The chief end of humanity isn’t to simply glorify God, as the Westminster Confession suggests, but to “live like God,” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 143. (Emphasis mine.))) a capacity Pagitt believes is inherent within our nature. It is clear that for Pagitt, we are still good and can still choose to live godly. Nothing changed within human nature because of Adam, we are still the way we intended, though “we are invited to live free from sin and destruction, to seek lives lived in harmony with God.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 160.))
Like Pagitt, Pelagius begins with anthropology. His view of human nature can be summarized by a section from his letter On Chastity:
Reflect carefully then, I beg you, on the good which is yours if you always remain such as God created man from the beginning and as he sent him forth thereafter, when he had brought him into the world. Observe what a blessing it is to be always in the state in which you were created and to preserve the features of your first birth. For no one is born corrupt nor is anyone stained by corruption before the lapse of an appointed period of time. Every man is seen to posses among his initial attributes what was there at the beginning, so that he has no excuse thereafter if he loses through his own negligence what he possessed by nature. ((Pelagius. “On Chastity” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers, ed. by B. R. Rees. (Suffolk, England: The Boydell Press, 1991), 259. (Emphasis mine).))
For Pelagius, the original Imago Dei has not changed; God created humans good and uncorrupt, and they still exist in this good, uncorrupted state. We are to remain and live out of the originally created good nature by pursuing the virtues of God. Like Pagitt, Pelagius places great emphasis on the original Image of God after which humans were (and still are) fashioned together. We are still to measure the good of human nature by reference to its Creator, supposing He has made people exceedingly good. ((Pelagius. “To Demetrias,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. by B. R. Rees (Suffolk, England: The Boydell Press, 1991), 37.)) Pelagius (like Pagitt) reacted to any notion that humanity was corrupt and incapable of choosing to follow the commands of God.
Pelagius believed that God bestowed on His rational human creatures the gift of “doing good out of (the creature’s) own free will and capacity to exercise free choice.” ((Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 38.)) God the Creator gave humans the inner capacity to do good or evil. Even now we can choose to do either out of our natural capacity and ability. Embedded within us is a “natural sanctity in our minds which administers justice equally on the evil and the good and…distinguishes the one side from the other by a kind of inner law.” ((Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 40.)) Using this inner capacity, natural sanctity, and inner law, humans are naturally capable of living, in the words of Pagitt, “in sync with God” or “out of sync with God,” to choose honorable and upright actions or wrong deeds. The reason people can live in or out of sync with God is because nature does not determine their ability to do so. Instead, this “living” is a product of choice. Pelagius explains, “When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice?” ((Pelagius. “On The Possibility of Not Sinning,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers, ed. by B. R. Rees. (Suffolk, England: The Boydell Press, 1991), 167-168.))
In fact, it is God himself who presupposes our unfettered inner ability to choose good or evil. According to Pelagius’ logic, if God has commanded us to love God and love people—if God has commanded us not to sin—then we must by nature have the capacity to choose good. “No one knows better the true measure of our strength than He who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than He who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has He who is just wished to command anything impossible or He who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid.” ((Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 53-54.)) In typical Pelagian form, he insists that if humans are naturally incapable of being without sin, then there would be no command to be holy. Consequently, if God commanded us to be good, then we must be able to choose good; if we are able to choose good, then we must able to do good. Because God created us good we are good and are capable of doing good.
In summation, neither Pagitt nor Pelagius believe anyone is born corrupt or stained by corruption; human nature is not sinful. They both appeal to the original Imago Dei and the Creator as a defense for this belief. They believe God made us as good Image Bearers and our sin doesn’t change this good nature. Both insist that our inner nature (and according to Pagitt, our DNA) did not change after the Fall; we still posses God’s spark of godliness within us. Instead of the necessity of nature forcing us to sin, Pelagius and Pagitt insist that we sin when we follow the example of Adam and others into living lives of disintegration from God. The next post, we will further develop Pelagius’ and Pagitt’s understanding of sin.
A few parting thoughts and questions:
1) Every part of Christianity believes in original sin and the event of rebellion (aka The Fall). While the West has a strong view, thanks to Augustine, the East also believes in original sin, though a milder form. ((See Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002, 167), the twentieth century’s leading Orthodox theologian.)) Both traditions, East and West, presuppose an event, which occurred in space and time. Contrary to what Pelagius and Pagitt believe, human nature is fallen and by-nature rebellious because of Adam.
2) Both Pagitt and Pelagius do not believe humanity is not as God intended them to be. Pagitt asserts the idea that we are “less than God intended” is a view of humanity that has “expired.” (p. 128). For Doug, just like Pelagius, human nature is still as God intended it at the beginning of Creation. Can anyone tell me why this is devastating for salvation? For the need for salvation?
3) Question for Doug: What do you do with Romans 5:12-19, especially verse 12?
Here Paul describes the conditions of the justified and reconciled by comparing it with the status of humanity before Christ: sinful, condemned, dead. Paul explicitly says that Adam absolutely affected and determined the history of the Human Race. Something happened, shifted, ruptured. This is clear in verse 12: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and through sin death, and so death spread to all human beings, with the result that all sinned.” ((Translation Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 405.)) Watch the progression in Paul’s argument: The world ruptured because of Adam. Death entered the world through Adam. All die because of Adam. All sin because of Adam.
In short: Since Adam is the head of Humanity, all die “in him ” and all have sinned “in him.”
Verses 17 and 19 also make clear, in dramatic terms, the absolute enslavement of humanity to death and sin because of the “trespass” of the one man, Adam. ((Fitzmyer, Romans, 407.)) Adam is humanity’s first parent in the same way that Christ is New Humanity’s parent. Just as Paul universalizes the life of Christ to those who are rescued in Him, he universalizes sin and death of Adam to all humanity.
According to Paul, original sin is not a cultural construct, but an existential reality. Human nature is not untainted, the Image of God of which Adam is the head is not in its original form. Human nature is sinful, because Adam sinned.
Because 5:12 was the Scriptural fulcrum upon which the Church rejected Pelagius view of untainted human nature, an unbroken Image of God. Pagitt needs to explain how his view of human nature gels with Paul’s explanation in Romans 5. So far he has not.
4) Question for Doug: what do you do with 2 Corinthians 5:20? “So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old creature has passed away; see a new one has been created.”
Flowing from Paul’s discussion in Romans 5, he asserts that those who are “in Christ” undergo an experience comparable to the initial creation itself: a new creature has been created. “There is a new creation” presupposes an old creation, an old nature. The Event of Christ alters the very nature of a person to such an extent that they are made new; that the old creation/nature is removed, is identified with the very death of Christ (Rom. 6). Likewise, the new nature/creature is united in his resurrection, brought to life “in Christ.” (Rom. 6)
Paul presents a picture of an old creation/nature and a new creation/nature, a characterization that is consistent with Romans 5 in which there are two epochs: the Adamic epoch in which sin and death reign in the world and individuals; and the Christ epoch in which righteousness and life reign. Pagitt needs to explain how “a new creature has been created” if the old one was not damaged in the first place.
5) Believing in the fallenness of human nature matters to God’s Story of Rescue because it acknowledges the need for a Rescuer, someone to do something for us that we cannot do ourselves. That was Pelagius’ problem: he thought we existed in the untainted, unbroken original Imago Dei and could, by our own gumption and ingenuity, get back to God, apart from His grace. The same is true of Pagitt.
The problem is we can’t, because we are not the way we were supposed to be; we have changed. God’s Story insists that there is something wrong with us, that we need to be put back together again because of who we are, not what we do. This will become much more clear when we let Pagitt and Pelagius answer the question “why do you sin?” and also look at their views of salvation.
Inevitably, a proper view of human nature dictates our understanding of the nature of salvation, the nature of rescue. Unfortunately for Doug, rescue/salvation is pointless because we can live like God…all on our own.
Jeremy, your references to Paul's theology in Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5:17are insightful in that those texts presuppose *some kind of rift* in humanity. Regardless of one's hermeneutics of the Genesis Story (Chapters 1-3), we read of Yahweh cursing things right and left. If Pelagius and Pagitt are correct, i.e., nothing has ever actually altered in humanity (in the Imago Dei or our DNA), what's all the divine fuss about? BTW, you are a very good writer, but watch your spelling, e.g., possess.
John and Jeremy, as you know from having read my book, my issue is what is the affect of sin, not its originality. I go after the issue that sin does not change humanity, not that we are unaffected. Perhaps another, or first reading will make this more clear.
Some nuances to point out– though I wish to see the rest of your argument before commenting too much:
1) I find my reading of Paul's language in Romans quite compatible with forms of a "Fall" expressed other than sin. Paul speaks of death as something "coming into the world," and having "power over humanity." But he never goes to the fullness of trying to describe its genetic transmission. I find a disease/ecological contagion view of sin (as something present in the world, and inevitable for most of us) fully possible… but also leaving room for some sort of infant innocence as a possibility. Jesus' love for children, and own words of regard for the "little ones," and his strong warnings of those who lead them into sin, in fact lend some support for this from the Gospels themselves.
Of course, this idea can lead to terrible extremes in its "name" too… it could be used to justify abortion at all stages, for example. Shockingly, its been held up by contemporary "infant innocence" Evangelical quarters even – Lee Stropel, in his "Case for Faith" argues that God's genocide of children in the Canaanite Cities might be justified as an act of mercy– killing them before they lose their innocence in a sinful culture. I'm fairly certain the idea was actually used in the Americas, though I'm having trouble recalling a source off the top of my head. Las Casas may have referenced it in attacking the theological excuses thrown out by genocidal Spanish.
Still, it offers some comfort to families of infant deaths pastorally speaking and, in my opinion has arguable groundings in scripture, if also maintained with humility for the limits of our knowledge in this. In many strongly Catholic Latin American societies, grieving mothers have for centuries maintained an alternative folk theology– their tiny babies taken from them are in the hands of God, and seen as angels. The contemporary Catholic position, as seen in the Catacism moves towards this, while still leaving some mystery- "The Church entrusts these infants to the mercy of God."
Such a view in no way removes a strong argument for God's "rescue." The fact most people still fall into sin means that Christ's salvific action is vital and game-changing (regardless of one's theology of religions/hope for a greater breath of that grace for conscious adults, which is a whole other topic I'm not bringing up now).
2) Another issue, of course is how non-literal or allegorical views of the Garden of Eden, more or less demanded if one accepts evolutionary science are to handle the issue of Original Sin and Adam and Eve's role in it. As a phenomenologist in some sense, I observe the presence of Sin in the world makes it a moot point — at some point in human history we became conscious of an ethical worldview and yet continued causing terrible harm to our fellow beings. I've also learned alot from my studies and friendship with Native folks… many of whom seem quite adept at handling both their mythological worldviews intact while also believing in modern science. Many have parallel views of some sort of primal fall/mistake that changed the world (though rarely in clear "sin" terms, an alien concept in many American indigenous traditions).
While I realize you are dealing with Augustine and Palegius, you are also dealing with a post-modern thinker in the emerging movement, and it seems impossible to avoid some acknowledgment of the tensions of theology in the context of the science of our time… but if its not key to Pagitt's original sin arguments (I don't know his view of evolution/Genesis), I suppose it may be less important.
I personally believe we can continue dialoging with these ancient concepts even from non-literal understandings of Genesis, suppose I'm post-modern enough to see things in a sort of quantum dual-state. But as Augustine was himself deeply interested in the possible science of his time, we should respect him enough to at least expect he would have interest in these tensions too.
I do find it possible to even argue a direct inheritance model of Original sin that ignores his extremes on sex as innately sinful or a literal, physical transmission through the sexual act. Come across some claims his contemporaries in North African Synod's accepted his teaching while seeing some of these ideas as too extreme.
3) A final point is some interesting nuances of Paul's argument in Romans. I'm still taking some time to work through this letter, his densest for my own studies, but some of the most interesting theology I've read recently sets Paul in the context of what we know of rhetorical rabbinical techniques of his own time, and wrestles with his methodology as his fellow Jewish teachers might have. Its important to remember that not even every Christian teacher necessarily agreed with Paul on everything… the letter of James gently jokes that some of his writings are "very hard to understand," suggesting that there may have been circles of early, Apostolic Christianity who took a simpler stance on some things.
in 2:12-16 Paul adds some oft overlooked nuances — even a suggestion of gentle conscience/law of the heart which may "perhaps excuse" some when they stand before God judging people, independent of faith in Christ or Jewish Law… the thrust of his letter moves on to more sweeping views of Adam/death's power-entering humanity- but it doesn't seem to rule out POSSIBLE exceptions, hoewver rare — interesting nuances in tension.
Another interesting nuances is the passages Paul cities in Romans 3:9-18 to show the power of sin. It is interesting that these texts from Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Isaiah retain some of the Old Testament's complexity.
"All have turned aside/together they have become worthless (12)" Not a clear ringer for "original sin." Reading this in balance with chapter 5, I would argue Paul seems to be dealing with several things at once. Death as a power/curse entering with Adam (as promised in Genesis), but a view of SIN which separately upholds human freedom to follow or turn away from God as argued unquestionably across the Old Testament, and Paul's own innovative take on Law/gentile conscience operating in parallel.
Paul speaks of death spreading "to all because all have sinned." (5:12) The spread is definitively NOT linked from conception in that passage, but ongoing human sin. On almost has the sense of Death as a personified force/power (it has "dominion") which echoes Paul's spiritual cosmology in other places.
While I have not studied Augustine or Pelagius' takes on Roman's firsthand yet (and look forward to your examining them further alongside each other), my initial understanding is both drew on important points here, but may have downplayed other parts of Paul's thought.
Look forward to continuing to see where this leads.
Kieran, it's Peter, not James, who talks about some of Paul's writing being difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-17). Far from disputing what Paul says, Peter offers a context for the consideration of the validity of Paul's writing at the end of v16.
Jeremy, I find it interesting that you do not take on the points I make in the book on their own merit but simply suggest how I am similar to Pelagius, maybe that is the point of the post, but it seems the real work still needs to be done – you taking on my view directly. Perhaps it is enough for you to simply say "he is a pelagian" (which I am not), but that would certainly be a less than helpful endevour worthy of six posts or all this time spent. I hope you will take on the issues directly and not in the Augustine said and Pelagius said manner.
As you know the terms you use "Fall", "rescuer", "on our own", "good" are all metaphors.
The real issue for me, as you know, is that your view that people are less than God created them, and therefore less than human, is that when you claim your "new creationism", then you are now fully what God intended and others are not.
This perspective is simply out of step with with Bible, and the story of the faith, regardless of who has been suggesting such things.
The issue I raise is the affect and consequence of sin.
Here is section from the book, just so people can see the actual text and not only your interpretation and summation of it. But I should give a warning: I heard that Pelagius also read the actual texts and not just summations, so be careful of this Pelagian practice. Read at your own risk.
From page 157:
Jesus cared about the sin in people’s lives because sin kept them from being fully invested in life with God. Sin mattered because it was less than what God wanted for humanity.
Sin matters because it kills and destroys all of creation, not because it breaks some code. Most of us instinctively know when something is destructive or out of step with creation. We don’t have to be told when something is sin; we know when life is not in harmony with God. This is what Paul argues at the start of his letter to the church in Rome: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
We don’t need anyone to tell us that child abuse is sin. We don’t need anyone to tell us that rape is sin. We don’t need anyone to tell us that hate is sin. We know that such acts are not in line with what it means to live like God. We know we are better than that. The disharmony is recognizable in light of what we know should be there instead.
We feel the awfulness of sin because we can envision life without it. Frustration comes when we can see a possibility but can’t make it reality. People don’t get frustrated when they, say, can’t dematerialize and move through space instantly; we don’t see that as a reality to which we should aspire. We don’t feel frustrated because we can’t create a meal with a snap of our fingers like Samantha on Bewitched; we don’t expect life to work that way. We grow frustrated and angry with sin because we know we are capable of better. We cry out over the brokenness around us because we know that’s not the way it should be.
Sin isn’t a legal problem with God; it’s a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that’s what sin is—disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God.
Doug,
It seems a bit simplistic to say that for the most part we don’t need people to tell us what is sinful. You are correct that God is known through his creation–we have all the ‘evidence’ (so to speak) that God is there. Yet it seems to me this account does not go far enough.
Rape and child abuse may be the easy examples, but there are a whole lot of people that commit them to various degrees and would argue that they are not doing anything evil.
Our culture is fraught with ethical debates about what is right and what is wrong: example, we pretty much all agree torture is wrong but then we wrangle about “when is it torture?” We pretty much all agree murder is wrong but “when is it murder” –this applies for almost any ethical issue from animal abuse, to murder, to rape, to genocide.
I would argue we hardly know the case when something is out of step with creation. In the OT, the Baal worshiper was clearly out of step with creation–but he was exchanging the glory of God for something created–and he was quite comfortable doing so. Some would see eating meat as out of step with creation, others would see homosexuality as out of step with creation. It would seem to me that we should appeal to more than just our general sense of things.
Those who take an Augustinian stance of sin would not deny that man has a conscience–it is just that there is no part of the conscience that is not unstained by sin. Jesus tells us that even sinners love those who love them (they have a conscience) but it is disciples who love their enemies.
Given that in sin we all “suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness” it would seem to me both Biblically and empirically that we need more than just a vague sense that we are out of step with creation or not in harmony with God.
Thanks for the quote, Doug! What a great way to get to the heart of the matter! I didn't intend to read your book originally but I will now!
Jeremy, I find it interesting that you do not take on the points I make in the book on their own merit but simply suggest how I am similar to Pelagius, maybe that is the point of the post, but it seems the real work still needs to be done – you taking on my view directly.
Don't worry, Doug. Along the way at the end of the post I do take your points on and ask you questions along the way. At the end I'll have a final wrap-up post to take on each of these sections point-by-point. As I have said numerous times: I wanted to see if you mirror Pelagius, like your detractors have accused you. These posts will show that you do in fact closely mirror his theology. But as you said, the real work of taking on your views directly will need to be done. It will.
Perhaps it is enough for you to simply say "he is a pelagian" (which I am not), but that would certainly be a less than helpful endevour worthy of six posts or all this time spent. I hope you will take on the issues directly and not in the Augustine said and Pelagius said manner.
I would be curious, Doug, if you can explain why you are not a Pelagian. Can you articulate where and how you differ from Pelagius? As I said, I am taking on the issues directly, which is to see how you mirror Pelagius and explain why those views are devastating to the gospel.
As you know the terms you use "Fall", "rescuer", "on our own", "good" are all metaphors. The real issue for me, as you know, is that your view that people are less than God created them, and therefore less than human, is that when you claim your "new creationism", then you are now fully what God intended and others are not. This perspective is simply out of step with with Bible, and the story of the faith, regardless of who has been suggesting such things. The issue I raise is the affect and consequence of sin.
Can you explain from the Holy Scriptures how it is true that we are as we were intended when God created us? Can you explain 2 Corinthians or Romans 5? You have yet to do so, both of which I think fair to ask, not to mention crucial to this discussion. The reason I included these passages because I realize this isn't just about ideas and theology. It's about the Text. So can we both, you included, deal with the Text please? Please? Furthermore, can you explain why "this perspective" is out of step with the Bible and Story of Faith? You make such sweeping, bold claims, Doug, with zero historical, theological, Scriptural explanation or backing. That's quite baffling!
Here is section from the book, just so people can see the actual text and not only your interpretation and summation of it. But I should give a warning: I heard that Pelagius also read the actual texts and not just summations, so be careful of this Pelagian practice. Read at your own risk.
You might be surprised to know, Doug, that I actually resonate with much of what you say here. One of my problems is this: if we are still as we were intended to be, why is all of this the case? This "disintegration" and sin? You mention child abuse. Is THAT the way God intended us to be? To abuse children? (rhetorical question alert!) Your view seems fairly schizophrenic, Doug. On the one hand we are as we were intended. On the other we do thing that are out of sync, that are not as they were intended, but why do we do them then?
Anyway, thanks for jumping in and for engaging the dialogue. Hopefully as we progress this discussion will continue to be civil, yet searching.
Jeremy,
I guess I'm confused why you think an ontological change in nature is required. I'm quite certain you are a very different person now than you were 20 years ago. I'm also confident you'll be very different 20 years from now. That doesn't mean your DNA is changing necessarily, or that you're inherenting different natures of being all the time. You go through life, have new experiences, meet new people, find and lose love, have times of great celebration and great heartache, try new things, experience new jobs, think new thoughts, etc. All of these things will change you.
Why cannot the same be true of Adam and Eve, or all of humanity? They changed as a result of their experiences in less than helpful ways, and as time went on people became more and more "out of sync" with God. Now we're all born into a world that is heavily affected by sin, and we learn its ways as we grow up. We're certainly "different" as a result of these experiences, but its not because our nature is now less than human.
Greg, I am not arguing for the DNA ontological change. Augustine did. I think it is non-sense. I think the way you are stating it is much better, and I hope that is how I stated it. We are not fallen from the heights of humanity to a lowly state. But that is what the westminster catechism says. Not sure what "wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body" could mean other than that.
Here is just part of the westminster confession:
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptations of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit.
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation.
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
Now, I do not think you were "made opposite to all good" at any point. But there are those who hold this explanation as the truth, and I am trying to say that it is anything but.
Greg and Doug,
I don't think I have been clear, because you seem to think I believe there has been an ontological shift in humanity. When I and others speak of humanity being fallen or rebellious, it doesn't change the fact we are made in God's likeness, that we bear his Image. In fact in my book I insist that we are still fundamentally Image Bearers of God. We are still Eikons of God, yet that image is cracked. We are sinners and we have a sin nature. Because of that sin nature we do things that we were never intended to do.
While we are ontologically still Images of God, ethically we are not. The shift is ethical, with ontological consequences (though one could even suggest ontologically we experience diseases and death, which were never supposed to be part of our human experience). DNA has nothing to do with the argument, though I am sorry if I gave the impression that our sin turns us into something different than the Image of God. I do not share the sentiments of the 16th century Lutheran, Matthias Flacius, who argued our sin changes us into an Image of Satan!
We are not worms. We are the Image of God. That image is cracked and corrupted though, though, by sin which is why we act in ways that we were not intended to act, resulting in death that was never intended to be. Ethically we are morally rebellious. The ontological consequences of ethical autonomy that comes from that sin nature which Paul says we've inherited from Adam is Death (and I would also say Diseases, like cancer), but could also affect us at the DNA level. We don't know. But that is beside the point…
The point being is that before the Event of Rebellion, there was no shame, because there was no guilt over acting in ethically autonomous manner (aka SIN!). Before the Event of Rebellion there was no death (unless you are in fact arguing there was death before sin entered the world through Adam…Do you say that Death was part of Creation? Or Rebellion?). We inherit the Sin Nature from Adam, causing an "ethical shift" within the heart of individuals, leading to Death. In the words of Paul, we have all exchanged the truth about God for a lie, we have been given over to a depraved mind so that we do what ought not to be done, the one act of Rebellion led to condemnation for all. (Rm. 1; 7)
After reading over my posts and comments I can understand why I would have appeared to believe in an ontological change, though I never said we are no longer Images of God. Sorry for being so unclear and thanks for forcing me to clarify, Greg and Doug.
-jeremy
PS—Can you explain to me why you believe Augustine thinks there is an ontological change re: Humanity? I don't believe that is the case, which is why I am curious you believe otherwise. What have you read to suggest otherwise?
Jeremy, I would be glad to show how 2 Corinthians and all of Romans makes the points I am making. Counter to some assumptions, and as I told you, I am a huge fan of Paul and find our opinions on this to be the same. But, I will note that doesn't make me a paulinian. As you will be able to tell in this discussion I find the problem in the "ian" designation. Which is why I am not a Pelagian. Nor am I trying to get you to be a Pagittian. And wish you were not an Augustinian, but that seems a bit out of reach.
Not sure what the best form is for the Corinthians and Romans discussion, but I think on that. I am actually working on a plan for a "commentary on Romans" so that will be part of the thinking I do on this.
Now, let me take you to task on the "scripture" emphasis. I find your views, as they articulated in the paper you sent me, to not be from scripture, but from a particular ready and interpretation of it. Even your Rule of Faith is extra biblical. I am not judging that at this point, but I must say that your assumption that this is about the Text is at odds with the justification you give for your basis of critique of me. Your justification is that I do not hold to orthodoxy as you have interpreted it. So, it is your interpretation that is at issue.
On the question of why do we live at odds with God. A good one, and as you know I spend 3 chapters on it in the book. To be brief, sins reality does not require "human depravity" as articulated by you and Augustine to be powerful. I think Jesus could have sinned, but didn't. The issue was not his humanity and some notion of "Falleness". The point I am trying to make is that Augustine's anthropology, and I am afraid yours, is what is at odds with the Biblical story (read theology).
Now, you may conclude otherwise, but please be honest and recognize that as your conclusion and not the story itself.
Well, now I am off to a chili cook-off for Fat Tuesday. I will check in later.
Hey Doug! I know you’re not arguing for an ontological change in humanity – that’s why I tried to direct the question to Jeremy. Sorry if that was confusing at all. I like the way you state it in the book – its my favorite section actually. That’s why I was curious to hear Jeremy’s thoughts on why he thinks on ontological or DNA level change is required. Like you mention in the book, there’s no mention of a “spiritual death” or “the fall” in the whole of Genesis, and it doesn’t seem at all necessary for the story to make sense.
I think the idea of total depravity is problematic as well in that it makes basically the entire rest of the Old Testament superfluous. If the story is just that human beings are fallen and depraved and we need a savior, then one can just skip over everything from Genesis 4 on until the New Testament starts (and then if the issue is really just that a sacrifice is needed to atone for sin, we can skip everything in the Gospels except the Passion narratives and get right to Paul).
Hey Doug! I know you're not arguing for an ontological change in the nature of humanity – that's why I tried to direct my question to Jeremy. Sorry if I came across as confusing. I liked the way you talked about it in your book – it was my favorite part of the whole book actually! I'm curious as to why Jeremy seems to think that the ontological or DNA-level change is necessary. It isn't mentioned anywhere in the whole of the Book of Genesis (or, I would argue, the rest of the Bible), and it certainly isn't needed to make sense of the Genesis narrative.
Sorry for the double post as well!
Funny, Doug, you never answered my questions on how your view is supported by the Holy Scripture. If it is too long of an answer to post here, fine. Post it on your blog.
In fact, how exactly is "my" Rule of Faith "extra Biblical?" Can you please show me from the Text?
Or is this a conversation that is not governed by the authority of Scripture?
-jeremy
Jeremy, I have been reading this conversation, and I was also under the impression that this was more about being Orthodox than being "scriptural." That is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just a bit confusing. It seems that much of your view, Jeremy, was shaped by traditional sources of orthodox theology (creeds, confessions, councils, etc).
Perhaps we can make this like a sword drill from Sunday School. Whoever can find the most scripture references to support their position in a set amount of time wins.
**Double points for references from minor prophets
Hi Corey! I added the Scriptural interaction when I did the series separate from the original examination, because I think biblical studies and theology go hand in hand. Obviously anyone is shaped by particular hermeneutical/theological perspectives, so I don't doubt your "traditional source-shapping source" accusation is entirely unfair. But your final line is unhelpful and silly. Why are people so averse to dealing with the Text? Which should inform theological reflection?
I am trying to have a conversation that deals with both the Text and theological interpretations of the Text. Hopefully others are here for the same reason…
-jeremy
As you know, I have been removed from a church because I was not "biblical" in my beliefs. I tried to use the Bible to show them that I was, but apparently I was coming from a non-Biblical perspective when I used the Bible so my verses didn't count.
All I am saying is that "Scriptural" is usually a code word for "Orthodox"
Hey Corey,
I'm not sure I new that…I don't know your story, Corey. And I'm real sorry to hear that this was the case for you. I "get" that Scripture often times becomes the all consuming trump card. I'm just trying to say: HEY! How has the Church talked about this issue already? What does the Scripture say that informs this discussion? How has the Spirit helped the Church understand the Text?
I'm trying to have an honest conversation about theology and the Text, thats all…
-jeremy
I'm not sure if it is accurate to say "we don't need anyone to tell us X is sin". As one who believes in total depravity, I would affirm that unbelievers still bear the image of God and that unbelievers still have a conscience.
The problem is we do indeed have a whole mess of people arguing if X is really sin, or to what degree it is sin. So most "agree" in theory that torture is wrong but "when is it torture" or child abuse, or rape… etc. etc. The people caught in these sins will often agree sin X is wrong but then rationalize that they have not done X–the same is true of how all of us often handle sins. Again, without denying conscience, if all we have is disintegrated consciences then we have little more then the collective judgmentalism of the community to go–which can be little more than saying "might makes right".
I would wholeheartedly concur that when it comes to the knowledge of God–all people are without excuse: they should know the Triune God of the Bible and worship Him as such. We have all the evidence we need just by virtue of creation proclaiming his glory. However, I wonder if your comments miss out that apart from God's work in us we all then take what we know and suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness. This suppression of the truth dynamic is impossible to overcome in and of ourselves.
One quick question: Why do you pit legal against relational?
In Hebrew texts relational and legal are often intertwined. So for example Abraham believed God and it is credited righteousness & he is also a friend of God. Or consider Zechariah 3, we see both a legal setting and a relational setting. There is both verdict and transformation. Why not have a both/and not an either/or. Of course sin disrupts fellowship with God (relational) yet in God's grace he adopts us as His children and grants us an inheritance (legal).
In reflecting on Israel's history of rebellion from God primarily through idolatry (God) and exploiting the marginalized (humanity), Jeremiah writes about the need for a new covenant in which a new heart in humanity is needed empowered by the Spirit. Ezekiel expands this with a graphic metaphor of cardiac surgery–I will take out of them a heart to stone and put into them a heart of flesh. Jesus spoke of sin coming from the heart. Yes, heart is a Hebrew metaphor for the decision-making center of a human being. Paul became a salesman for the good news of the new covenant. My point: these biblical images cannot be diluted. Something inside us (nature, DNA , heart) was *altered* by sin and becomes the source of acts of sin. I agree with Doug that sin is not a necessary constitutional aspect of being human–Jesus was fully human yet without sin or sinning. I disagree with Doug that I am exactly like Jesus on my own without some radical newness offered me by God. If Jesus was just like us and we are just like him, why the heck a virgin birth? Why couldn't sinless Joseph and sinless Mary be the parents?
Jeremy,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding on ontology is that it is the study of being, or what something is at its most fundamental level. So if our inner nature is now inherently sinful from conception, that would be an ontological change from a fundamental nature that is not sinful. Your understanding of the problems seems to go beyond ethics. Its not just that we do sin; its that you seem to think we are inherently sinful, that when we sin we are acting according to our true nature, that we have been that way from conception, and cannot be otherwise. That to me sounds like an ontological change, a change in our fundamental nature of being. Is your definition different?
John,
I would agree with Ezekiel that, as we have learned sin, we are sullying our character and personality away from the image of God. What we need isn’t more ethical injunctions to follow, but an inner character change. Just like any rehab program must go beyond saying “Don’t do X” and must do the hard work of inner healing and transformation, the same is true with all sin. The issue isn’t the individual sinful acts themselves, but the thoughts and character and disposition that is leading us away from a life lived in the rhythm of God. The Jewish people have read that same text for thousands of years and have not concluded that we are inherently sinful. The idea of original sin is seen as unacceptable within Judaism. All Doug is really doing (to my mind anyway) is returning to the original Jewish conception of sin and away from the dramatic turn it took in Augustine’s theology, which would have been totally foreign to the Jewish mind.
I'm having trouble with the Romans passage, perhaps you could help me out here, Jeremy (I took Sys Theo 10 years ago!) . I grew up with the Augustine pre-supposition. So, I had to put that aside and read it from a more Pelagian perspective.
The passage may imply Original sin. However, it is not explicit. verse 18 states "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (ESV). This is beautiful because Paul has connected the hopeless situation of Adam to the hope-filled redemption of Jesus.
Here's the problem. "all" are condemned by the act of one man. But "all" are justified and recieve life through the righteous act of one man. Orignial sin tells us that the first all (condemned) literally means all descendants of the sinner Adam. However, the second all refers only to the descendants of the righteous Jesus. How does one arrive in the righteous lineage of Jesus? Clearly, it is not a blanket righteousness covering literally all people. INstead, we join the lineage through becoming his follower (repentance, faith, etc) or as Paul says "those who recieve (v. 17). If Paul is making a 1 to 1 connection between Adam and Jesus, then isn't our Adamic lineage defined by choice also? In other words when we all sin (verse 12 tells us we all do), we join the lineage of our father, Adam. When we join the Way of Jesus, we join the lineage of Jesus.
So, we choose to join the righteousness of Jesus and thus his lineage. We also join the lineage of Adam, not via a genetic curse but by a choice that we all make. Why do we inevitably make this choice? two answers – we're not God, we're like Adam.
I guess what I am saying is that though I tend to agree with the Augustinian perspective, I cannot state that the alternative perspective is non-Biblical. I think the Romans 5 passage at least leaves room for the conversation. I don't think you can simply say, "read Romans 5 and then you'll have to agree to Augustine's perspective." It is not there. Being "in Adam" can be seen in the same light of being "in Christ."