Article Series - My problem with TULIP |
This post will seek to examine and refute Augustine”s view of Original Sin and the ability of the will to choose to turn towards God. It was Augustine view, and the view of the reformers after him, that if one denies these tenants, then one is forced to adopt the views of Pelagius, namely that Jesus was just an enlightened man. I will employ three arguments to discount Augustine”s above claims. The first one involves a logical extension of the personhood of Jesus. The second argument demonstrates the need for a total free will as a prerequisite for sin. The third argument gives an alternate understanding of how God can cause faith and at the same time, faith can be freely chosen. Finally, an alternate view of soteriology will be given.
Augustine constantly condemns the following doctrine of Coelestuis and Pelagius in A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin:
“That Adam”s sin injured only Adam himself, and not the human race; and that infants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was in before his transgression (Augustine, “A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin”).”
In maintaining the above as false, one can state his position as follows:
Adam”s sin did not just injure himself, but the whole human race; and that infants at their birth are injured in the manner that Adam was after his transgression.
In chapter 45 of book II, Augustine maintains humans were fundamentally corrupted on the ontological level. This word is not thrown around lightly; this change effected the race”s very being. The nature of humankind ever since the sins of Adam and Eve has been corrupted. The effect has two major ramifications, original sin, and total depravity. By total depravity, I mean not complete depravity, which is the soul”s inability to choose anything good; but rather the idea that men cannot choose God on their own accord. Augustine echoes the same sentiments in The Confessions; he quotes Job 14.4-5 to demonstrate that infants are sinful. He then details examples of their greed and jealousy to support his view (Augustine, The Confessions 9). Elsewhere in The Confessions Augustine details how his malformed desires snare his will to the point that he is hopelessly mired in sinful acts. Augustine, in espousing these doctrines, condemns each infant born to Hell and denies the freedom of the will in choosing God. Since some humans are saved, God causes the conversion instead of the humans.
If one is to adopt Augustine”s line of thinking, one must accept that one has original sin. This original sin taints our very souls from conception. We have inherited this sin from Adam. As descendants of Adam, all humans are born with original sin. Adam, in his sin died spiritually. I know of no way he could pass this sin along to others. Is there some genetic malfunction? If so, let science isolate this physical defect and eliminate it from the gene pool. Was it transmitted by some unnamed, ineffable metaphysical device? Rather than speculate on how it might have been transmitted, consider the following: why was not Jesus tainted with this sin? Is not Jesus supposed to be fully human and fully God in Augustine”s eyes? If He is fully human, then He must be tainted with original sin. If He is tainted with original sin, He cannot be a perfect sacrifice. Since He is the perfect sacrifice one of the previous tenants must be incorrect. Since it is true that He is fully human, it must not be true that all humans have original sin. This is the argument in standard form:
1. Either all humans have original sin or no humans have original sin.
2. If at least one human does not have original sin, all humans do not have original sin
3. Jesus was fully human
4. A necessary condition of a perfect sacrifice is a lack of sin.
5. Jesus was a perfect sacrifice.
6. Therefore, Jesus was without sin.
7. Jesus did not have original sin
8. Therefore Jesus was fully human and did not have original sin
9. Therefore, no humans have original sin.
To sum up, there is no ontological difference between Adam and any other human being. The lack of sin in Jesus is further evidence that there is no such thing as original sin. In order to be logically consistent, one must reject the idea of original sin and replace it with an idea of free will that allows one to choose or not to choose God once they have the capacity to make that choice. The heritage of sin still needs to be explained. If it is not carried by a mysterious metaphysical device or via physical heredity, then there remains one alternative: it is learned. I would go further and say that we have the same free will that Adam had, we are not tainted with original sin, and that is why Jesus was able to resist sin throughout His whole life.
The second argument maintains that full free will is a necessary condition for the occurrence of sin. Augustine says as much on in On the Free Choice of the Will, “Our will would not be a will if it were not in our power” We sin by our own wills. (Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will 77)” One must draw the following conclusion from these premises:
1. We sin by our own wills.
2. Our will would not be a will if it were not in our power.
3. Therefore, one has the power to sin or not to sin.
This conclusion is inconsistent in conjunction with his explanations in his later works as detailed above. It too necessarily rejects the possibility of original sin because sin must be within one”s power to will or not to will. It is not the case that infants have the power to sin or to not sin; therefore, it cannot be the case that an infant can sin.
After giving an alternate and more satisfactory account of original sin, there remains the task of how God is the cause of our salvation and not our will. How then, can one explain how actions can be freely chosen and still be caused? The answer lies in the perspective of the questioner. When viewed after the fact, all actions have a cause.
Consider the following example. A man approaches a bus stop and begins to read his newspaper. A second man stands next to him, staring blankly ahead, anticipating the long, cold ride home. As the bus approaches, a young child, the age of eight, has wandered away from his parent and is standing in the path of the bus, frozen in fear. The first man bolts across the sidewalk and scoops up the child before it was too late. The second man congratulates the first and wonders to himself why he was not the one to be the hero. What was the cause of the first man”s actions? What was the cause of the second man”s inaction? Were they determined beforehand? Was each a free choice? This is the problem of free will: “Are man”s actions freely made, or are they subject to causes and conditions like everything else? (Kant)” If man is free to choose his actions, as most want to believe, then he is responsible for them. However, if man”s actions are determined, then how can one be made to bear the responsibility for those actions? The notion of freedom is so engrained in the values of our culture; that to suggest that all of our actions, from the basic decisions to major life altering choices, are all a fa”ade; is a very troubling notion.
Immanuel Kant summed up his version of the problem in the Prolegomena in the third antinomy in this way:
“Thesis: There are in the world causes through freedom.
Antithesis: There is no freedom, but all is nature. (Kant 75) “
The only two logical possibilities were that either freedom exists, or did does not exist and the world is purely casual. He proposed an interesting solution to the problem. He maintained that both could be true at the same time. This seeming contradiction is possible if each of the statements is applied to different worlds, the Noumenal and the Phenomenal. If this is correct, how does it play out? What is the structure of such a case?
Behind every possible choice that the will can make there are conditions. The man reading the newspaper at the beginning of this paper could have decided to do nothing. If he had decided to do nothing there would have been an array of causes and conditions that would have lead him to decide that choice. This principle is illustrated in the below diagram.
For each choice, no matter how small the probability that the choice would be made, there are causes and conditions that are actualized whenever the choice is actually made. Before the choice is made, multiple causes and conditions could be actualized by the will deciding what conclusion is reached. The will chooses which choice to make and in doing so, sets which causes and conditions determined the choice. This is how an active God prodding people to make the right choice can be considered to have caused their actions. In the actions where they do not choose to follow God, the cause is not God’s prodding.
It has been shown that the concept of original sin is not logically consistent with the personhood of Jesus or with the conditions necessary for sin. In addition, it has been shown that God can indeed be the cause of one”s salvation and it still is a free choice of the will. In doing so, is one compelled to accept Pelagius” notion that Jesus was simply a good guide and not a substitutionary sacrifice? Let one say that humans are born innocent. That is, they are born with a clean slate. One is sure of three humans that were born this way, Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Once they have the ability to choose right from wrong, they are able to sin. Adam and Eve ended up choosing to sin relatively soon after they had the ability to do so. Since then every human, save Christ has also chosen to sin, except for those that die before they are able to sin. It is most likely that there is culture of sin and that all humans have slipped up in once they have a choice in the matter. Christ was able to choose to sin or not to sin. He was then unjustly crucified.
Because He was crucified unjustly, He was able to be the perfect sacrifice that God’s justice demanded in place of our sins. God allowed Christ to bear our sin, rather than we having to bear the penalty for it ourselves, the very essence of substitutionary atonement. This view emphasizes the love of God, the justice of God, the humanity of Christ, the God-ness of Christ, and the struggle that it was for Christ to go through with it. This is an example of how one can deny not being original sin and still believe in substitutionary atonement. Therefore, one can deny original sin and still not have to hold to Jesus merely being an exalted man.
Bibliography
Augustine, Aurelius. “A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin.” 418 C.E. http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/. 17 10 2006 http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/augustine/TreatiseOnGraceAndOriginalSin.htm.
“. On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
“. The Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kant, Immanuel. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that will be able to come Forward as Science. Translated by Paul Carus, and James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2001.
13 Comments
I just read a bit on Augustine & Pelagius so this is an interesting topic. You do make a good point… Jesus was fully human…where was his original sin at, right?
I wonder what others have to say to this one in particular. I’m going to do some thinking now…
Edgar.
The reply is that he was a special case, or as the catholics say, Mary was given a one time exemption and that is why Jesus was able to be born w/o it.
I don’t buy either case, because he had to be fully human and that means he has the same nature Adam had and that I have, especially if He was to endure and be tempted in the same way I was.
I also want to note that this was just an introductory post. I plan on doing a much more detailed post on the topic.
Henry,
I do admire your dedication to your beliefs. Here’s some food for thought for you. Did you know that in the ancient Jewish societies, a child inherited his Jewishness from his or her mother? Jesus humanity came from Mary and Eve. Therefore the fallen state of Adam never really passed onto Jesus for that was of the father. Jesus’ father is as we all agree, I hope, God the Father. Jesus was Jewish and human because of Mary. Jesus was divine because of him being the Son of God. Jesus had a real humanity that could be tempted, but he was not tainted by Adam’s sin.
Christ, also, is the head of an entire humanity. We stand and fall upon the merits of Christ. We stand and fall in Christ and what he accomplished. The same thing is true of Adam, who Paul says in Romans 5:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 & 45-47 is the same head of humanity as Christ was and is a type that functioned as Christ did. We all stood as a race in Adam before God and when he fell, we all fell as a people. When God cursed Adam in Genesis 3, he cursed all of humanity. It seems that Henry’s argument doesn’t take this into account.
Thirdly, in eating the fruit, Adam and Eve sinned in Eden. The command was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By eating that forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve fell. They already had the aility to sin before the fuit. The fact that the choice was there proved that. I just wanted to correct your telling of the Adam and Eve story.
Your arguments denies some very important words of the Bible about the will. First, Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:5-6, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom. That which is bon flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.” Second, Jesus said in John 8:34, “Everyone who commits sin is the slave to sin.” Thirdly, Romans 8:7-8 says that the mind set on the flesh is hostille towards God, it doesn’t obey God’s law and is unable to obey God’s law and “those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Fourth, 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, “A natural man [unregenerated and not born again] does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolish to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised [discerned].” These verses indicate that Man has a will, but it is enslaved to his sinful flesh. It freely obeys the desires of the flesh. It freely rejects God’s law yet at the same time it is incapable of pleasing God. The will of a natural, unregenerate man rejects the Spirit of God and the things of God because in his natural state, they are foolish to him. Jesus said in John 8:47, “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do no hear them, because you are not of God.” One must be of God to hear God’s word. In our natural state we are not of God and do not hear his word to believe it and call upon the name of Jesus to be saved.
That is my two cents to your arguments.
HM:
How can guilt transfer spiritually? Because God through His Word says it does.
Thought I appreciate the vigor of your argument, it doesn’t flesh with the text that lays this concept out: Romans 5. Particularly verses 12-13.
Again, I go back to the same thought I had about the idea of ‘mysteries’ that I talked about with the doctrine of predestination.
The idea that we, as humans, inherit sin through Adam AND that for Jesus to be fully God [conceived of the Holy Spirit] and man [born of a virgin] and NOT have original sin, on the surface, seems like contradictions.
If they were contradictions, that would reveal that the Bible is errant.
The idea of original sin is a mystery, as opposed to a contradiction [which I feel you are trying to prove it is a contradiction].
A mystery refers to that which is true but we do not understand. It is easy to confuse mystery and contradiction. We do not understand either of them. All contradictions are mysterious. Not all mysteries are contradictions. Christianity has plenty of room for mysteries, but none for contradictions.
Henry, exegete Romans 5 for me…
Well logically I think your 6 step argument is chalked with unwarranted assumptions. (Thought we dealt with this already but you continue to make the same errors) It goes as follows:
1. Either all humans have original sin or no humans have original sin.
2. If at least one human does not have original sin, all humans do not have original sin
3. Jesus was fully human
4. A necessary condition of a perfect sacrifice is a lack of sin.
5. Jesus was a perfect sacrifice.
6. Therefore, Jesus was without sin.
7. Jesus did not have original sin
8. Therefore Jesus was fully human and did not have original sin
9. Therefore, no humans have original sin.
Sir, the problem again is your false dillema in point 2. I don’t know where you get warrant to make this assertion, nor have I gotten an answer from you when I brought this up before. Again that was why Christ was born a virgin, it wasn’t just a cool miracle with no intention behind it it was so that Christ would be born without the guilt of Adam on Him therefore He would have to be not of the seed of Adam.
You seem to have a problem grasping the incaration and will no doubt now try to assert if Jesus wasn’t born sinful THEN JESUS WASN’T MAN! Again sir you mistake, being born with sin is not a necessary condition to being a man, then we can say what God created when He made Adam was not a man again you assume these standards of what it means to be human and give no foundation for your standard we went over this before yet you are repeating the same errors.
As for the second half you put words in Augustines mout with your three step argument and misrepresent his understanding of the will. Yes we sin by full volutary act of the will however there is more to it than that because our decisions are not just isolated whimsical choices. We don’t just DO sin we are sin as Paul says in Ephesians 2 we are dead in our trespasses and sin (I wounder what that even means to you since OS is just made up).
Anyway I’ll cut to the chase, it seems like everything you are saying really is a repetition of the error of Pelagius in modern garb. You deny OS and assert that we are in no way bound to sin but can always choose the good, why then was the law insufficient Henry?
How is perfectionism an impossibility in your worldview? If we are born without sin and have no internal bent toward sin why can’t we be saved by our own spotlessness? Just keep the law.
I also echo HT what on earth does it mean to be a slave to sin in your theology? Also how in the world can you give a fair rendering to the following:
” Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned–
And
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.”
Maybe I am crazy but when I read a phrase like “For if many died through one man’s trespass,” I can only think that people are suffering because of ADAM’s sin.
Here’s another Q for you: What DID the fall do? The Bible sure seems to speak of the fall as though it has had a profound impact upon humanity my question is what DID the fall do? You OS denier are very adament about what it did NOT do but never actually state what the effect of the fall ARE.
Also I again ask you based on your repeated cavil that sin is not something that is transferrable: Was our sin put on Christ?
Ok, a few things.
First off, I have my second draft due tonight of a semenar paper, so I will leave my response for sometime next week.
This was just a short argument paper I wrote directed at refuting Augustine’s claims, so it is not an all-encompassing argument for or against original sin. I do plan on posting a much longer post (or series of posts) documenting the rise and development of original sin in Christian thought. From what I understand, it did not develop as a doctrine until after the east west split and only really gathered force until Augustine.
HT - If OS is passed via the father and that is why Jesus was exempt from it, then would it follow that if we were to create a baby from the genes of two women, would that child not have original sin?
Brad, I am not sure about the mystery thing. Not that mysteries don’t exist (see the trinity), but if I wanted to appeal to mysteries, I could just say that Romans 5 or any passage I did not like was a mystery. Again, this is not my official reply to your objections, I hopefully will deal with that later.
Bob,
I think that you are right in that the beginning of my argument could be phrased better. The conclusion that I get #2 from is that:
1) All humans have one nature.
2) This one nature either includes original sin or excludes original sin.
3 :. All humans either have original sin or no humans have original sin.
BTW, did you “sir” me? That is the sweetest and most polite curse around!
Also, please note that just because Christ did take on our sins at the cross, He was not the child of us all. So that transference of sin did not occur in the genetically spiritual way that HT describes. So then it does not follow that if one denies that sin transfers genetically that they must also deny that sin cannot transfer.
Also, why am I not guilty of all of my father’s sins, his father’s sins, and so on back thru Adam? If they do transfer through spiritual genetics, shouldn’t I be guilty of them all? Why just the one?
If you want to say original sin is just a tendency to sin, a weakened state that humankind finds themselves in as a result of the fall, that is fine. Jesus had the tendency to sin, the weakness that he fought successfully and therefore could be fully human and a perfect sacrifice.
Anyway, back to writing about miracles in the canonical and gnostic texts.
as a minor caveat, #2 in my first argument does follow from #1, the problem would have to of been there.
I am merely saying that although I think the Bible can stand up to most of those other forms of reasoning, you happened to choose another topic [your previous mystery topic was predestination] that I believe is also a mystery [the trinity is also another mystery].
I DO think the most of what is in the Bible IS NOT a mystery, this just happens to be another one.
I do feel you argument goes outside the bounds of healthy, solid exegesis and includes other forms of reasoning [science, logic, etc.].
In other words, my exegesis of the doctrine of original sin is where I start [studying and exegeting all pertinent scriptures about this doctrine]. If other forms of reasoning do not seem to support what the Bible seems to clearly state, the Bible trumps any other forms of reasoning and I determine this is a mystery. I’m not sure you start there. Not saying its not included, just not your starting point.
And with this idea of mysteries, the issue at stake is faith. It takes faith to believe in something which on the surface doesn’t make since. To belabor other forms of reasoning to refute or challenge something the Bible clearly states is noble but may lead to more confusion when the reality is it is simply a mystery.
As for this being a new doctrine that has arisen, I don’t think I would disagree with that. I would say the doctrine was always there but due to our sinfulness as a people [from Adam nonetheless, ha!], it was ‘hidden’ from us. I do think these type of ‘revelations’ are the exception to the rule. I would compare it to how the idea of slavery was an accepted practice, even by the Christian church, until certain individuals gave us ‘proper’ exegesis from Scripture on the idea of equality.
Wow. I really feel the heat coming back up in this topic. I almost feel sorry for HM because of the fire in this kitchen. But that is what I meant when I said I empathize and admire his dedication. In my doctrine class, I am the out spoken Five-Pointer and anytime a subject pertains to Calvinism, the whole class begins to pick on me. I really do empathize.
Henry you asked me, “If OS is passed via the father and that is why Jesus was exempt from it, then would it follow that if we were to create a baby from the genes of two women, would that child not have original sin?” I have three points in response. But before I get to them, I want to say: I never really thought of that. Good question.
Point 1: That very act is a sin and a hypothetical situation. Mere speculation and observation suggests that this would be done very similar to cloning, which is wrong and should even be done. Also, this seems to be the desire (I say again seems to be) of a homosexual relationship, which is clearly sinful. It is going outside the realm of how God mandated the procreation: a hetersexual marriage. That is how God genetically designed it. Now that has nothing to do with OS but I do feel that you are getting off a bit here.
Point 2: You seems to me to be reaching at straws here to preserve your argument. Yes it is a good question. But the Bible never even though in those terms. You are stepping outside of what the Bible speaks of to justify your position. If we want to understand what the Bible is speaking of, let us make sure that our thinking stays in the bounds of Holy Scripture. Therefore, while that is not thought of by the biblical writers, it was also impossible for them to have conceived of that idea, as is cloning.
Point 3: Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.” Notice whose offspring is in view here, Satan’s and Eve’s offspring. Jesus was not to be the son of Adam. He was to be the son of Eve. That is one more reason for the virgin birth. Hence Jesus is a human that can be tempted in everyway as we are tempted. Yet he is not tainted by Adam’s fall. Adam is held as responsible for his household. As we are children of Adam, he is our head as our father. Jesus is a new humanity, a heavenly humanity. Therefore he is both God and man. He is our head in the same way Adam is. That is why there is such parallel language between Adam and Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. They are parallels. Adam fell and that brought a curse upon the whole of his household. Christ stands so that all who are born in his house are righteous in him.
While I do “feel the heat”, I can take it. I have pretty thick skin. I have been called a lot worse than “sir” online and in person.
I agree completely on point 1. On point 2, I am merely trying to be consistent. I really don’t think I am grasping at straws at all. If sin is genetically transfered thru the male, then it should follow that humans made the genes of two women would not have the OS. Since this senerio might happen in the near future, I think it is very worthy of treatment.
I am not sure that point 3 follows in the way you describe. I need to get ready for section, so I need to cut this short.
I really enjoy talking about all of this, I hope you all don’t get to upset at my views.
I have an objection I want to raise in response to the actual post and I have two questions. The first question is simply this: Henry Michael, do you think the will is arbitrary? Let me quote from what you said that makes me feel like you do believe that.
I come away from this feeling that the will determines the causes that caused it to decide. But there is no cause as to why the will determines this. So I feel like you are saying that the will is arbitrary.
The second question is this: Henry, are you a Five-Point Arminian? The Synods of Dort were a defense of Calvin’s teachings to the five teachings of Jacob Arminius. I am just trying to get a certain feel for your stance on the whole issue.
The objection I’d like to raise is against the following statement: ” The notion of freedom is so engrained in the values of our culture; that to suggest that all of our actions, from the basic decisions to major life altering choices, are all a façade; is a very troubling notion.” This is a very troubling statement that I think that Brad is trying to make and that I made in the last round. Your views are not coming from a biblical view but you have actually said that because culture says it is so then it must be so, even if the Bible might not. That is dangerous and proves that your argument is unbiblical. By default your argument from a theological standpoint is worthless because it has no theological value. Original Sin and Total Depravity/Radical Depravity are not philosophical issues, they are theological. Thus your cultural philosophy does not apply here in this realm.
I’d like to answer one question you raised in your post with a passage of Scripture. The question you asked was, “If man’s actions are determined, then how can one be made to bear the responsibility for those actions?” I’d like to respond with the Apostle Paul’s words,
It is God’s right to unconditionally have mercy and to unconditionally harden. He has and exercises the authority to make vessels to be vessels of mercy prepared for glory and to make vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. That is the way God works. Paul spent the whole chapter trying to defend this position.
Consider also the words of Jonathan Edwards,
I guess I have a problem with your #1 premise: Either all humans have original sin or no humans have original sin. Jesus was fully human AND fully God. Because He was fully God, he doesn’t fit into a logical breakdown using this form of reasoning. He just doesn’t. Your whole argument breaks down there. This form of reasoning imposes upon Scripture something that isn’t there. As puritanbob said, being born with sin is not a necessary condition to being a man.
You made a small comment in one of your recent responses. You said you were ‘trying to be consistent’ in your arguments. I appreciate your attempt to be consistent. But again, with respect to mysteries that the Bible boldly states exist [transference of original sin, trinity, the Incarnation, etc.] and the faith it takes to believe in those mysteries, I think ‘being consistent’ in an argument will lead you to extra-Biblical reasoning.
Here are some questions:
-How would you summarize Romans 5?
-How would summarize Mark Dever’s post: Nothing But the Blood? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/9.29.html