To see humanity as inherently evil and steeped in original sin instead of inherently made in God's image and so bathed in original goodness, however hidden it may have become, is a serious mistake. It is this grave error that has dogged the Church in the West for centuries. In the fourth century Augustine developed his influential theology that the material world and everything in it was inherently evil and corrupt. This "fallenness" he said, was like a virus, and in humans was passed on through the act of sexual intercourse and conception. So from the seeds of Augustine's thinking, the doctrine of original sin was born. However, the Eastern Church instead followed the teaching of Irenaeus, who believed that all people were God's imagebearers and though flawed were, as he put it, like flowers in bud — slowly coaxed into full bloom by God's love.
-Steve Chalke & Alan Mann from The Lost Message of Jesus
I know this is a controversial subject to some but I am fascinated by the discussion. I am interested in the large overarching influences of western thought vs eastern as described above. I look at how we raise children and think about how one perspective would influence the overall child rearing tone. I wonder if this applies to much more as well, like self thought, ability to hope and believe in all things vs dealing with a general sense of hopelessness since all is fallen. I wonder what life could be like theologically and interpersonally if such a point of view was the center vs a rotten center that we have in our western view of mankind. I know there is plenty of evidence for such a view both within and without but the thought is still there nevertheless.
8 comments:
I would say I need more than a slow coaxing. But I agree that man's interpretation of the fall could be flawed, since every other part of him is. ;) -Matt
John Elldredge makes this point quite well in his book Waking the Dead. The story doesn't start with "The Fall" and original sin. It starts with God's creation of man, and woman, who were the bearers of God's image. We were created to rule and to share in deep fellowship with the one who created us. Unfortunately, the fall occurred where the choice was made to go one's own course, rather than follow the path the Creator had laid out. Now, everyone since, to some degree does the same thing. It's important to realize "original sin" and the fact that we all "fall short of the glory of God," so that we understand that we need His provision of salvation to come back into that right relationship and fellowship with Him.
That's my two cents!
I guess I am not being clear. I understand the arguments for original sin. I have been quite schooled in the Augustine's theological point of reference but I would be interested in reading more from a Irenaeus perspective, any help out there? I think a lot of this stems from my study on eschatology. Premillianials seem to have a negative, everything gets worse and worse view of the end and the others have the reverse view. One seems to believe in the eventual dominion and strength of sin more than the power and gradual dominion of the gospel. I wonder if ones view of soterology (the study of salvation) has a profound effect on ones view of eschatology (the study of last things).
Tha Shwe, the headman for the ruthless ruling military dictatorship in Burma recently gave a speech. A civilian said "It was beautiful, the problem is it doesn't work". A good friend of mine is Bahai, he believes we will all be united under one faith in God. It sounds lovely, but I don't buy it.
I am not sure what being "united under one God" has to do with my line of thoughts, unless you are saying you don't believe that every knee and every tongue will bow to the name of Jesus.
The scriptures if one holds them to be authoritative prophesy (see Dan. 2:31-35, 44-45 & Rev 11:15) that Christ does rule and will continue to rule until every enemy is brought under his feet.(see 1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
But if that isn't what you are saying, I need some clarification please.
I know that words of Jesus must have sounded absurd or impractical or even nonsensical to many hearing them for the first time. Anyone that would believe that love and good would win out over evil and hate must seem crazy. Who could believe that a kingdom(tree) built(grow) on nonviolence, humility and love could fill the whole earth?(see Matt. 13:31-33)
It seems like an impossible dream but I believe it is a dream worth laying ones life down for. It toppled the roman empire and its dust is blowing in the wind while the kingdom of God is growing still larger and larger.
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. Psalms 58: 3
I don't understand the Bahai perspective or belief exactly, I don't want to to tell you the truth, I have seen enough not to want to and think it is a lie. It might sound beautiful... But it is an Eastern perspective, they are very peaceful and loving and believe in the same God of Abraham like us and the Jews and the Muslims. They believe that the role of Bahai is to unite man under one religion that serves God, and that all religions aim for the same goal, to unite man with God. But it gets strange, they believe the second coming of Jesus has already came and that Jesus was not God but prophet... anyway. They also believe the world is destined for peace. Like I said I don't buy it. I told my friend one time that the Bible says that every knee will bend to Jesus, he about choked on his food, but didn't get upset, that's the nice thing about Bahai's, they are peaceful, but that doesn't make them right. I don't claim to understand the prophets exactly but I think we have yet to see the worst of the birthing pains. I also think one has to define the "world" carefully. Earth, man, satan... I recently read Watchman Nee's "Love Not the World", his perspective is good, I recommend it. One thing about the "fall" and Todd's comment, the Bible doesn't start with the fall but it get's there pretty quick and the rest of the book and humanity deals with it.
I don't mean to miss your question if I did, I might not have understood you correctly. But this stuff is surely real and I see it around us. I'm also certain we are fighting the same fight, however differently we might approach it or speak it.
I believe in Jesus the son of God. Not only with my feeble mind, but with all my heart and all my soul. And I don't even understand it! -Matt
Interesting topic. Enjoying the Calvinistic teachings, which are heavy in origional sin, and having been influenced by like doctrines all my Christian life, I find that even though I believe it intellectually, for the most part, I live as though things were going to get better and better. I approach all works of humanity with an optomistic attitude and I think we all rear our children to believe they can do things to make the world better, ripple effect. So I find my heart contradicts my head for the most part. I know we all are a mixture of good and evil but I approach a new acquaintence thinking they will be honest etc. I don't find myself looking at them as though they were mostly beast.
So even though doctrinally I have had little along the vein you have been reading lately, I think practically, I embrace it, though I wouldn't defend it. Weird huh?
Life is certainly easier to deal with when one considers they can make it all come out good in the end. Christians in the 19th century were filled with optimisim in there sermons about the future of America. Sad it hasn't exactly gone that way.
Seems like teaching along the vein of Irenaues could be uplifting. Let me know what you find.
Dad
Dad,
I believe that most of the Puritans were Postmillennialists or Amillennialists being reformed and all. Which may or may not mean anything to you but I found it interesting. Being that reformed theology is strong on the fall of man but yet they hold the view of the end that they do. Which as I study it more and see that postmillennialists are heavy on the sovereignty, power and victory of Christ and His kingdom, it is easy to understand.
Post a Comment