From: Troy W.
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003Ed
I was wondering if you can steer me to any critical resources on the history of the Doctrine of Original Sin. You know, how and why it came about. What its cultural context was, etc. Know any good books?
(I am currently in serious couselling post-walking away in 1999. It still sux and I am still suffering severe anxiety about it all. I was a trainee pentecostal minister here in Australia.)
Do you know of any support groups or contacts here in Australia? I am in Brisbane (Bible-belt).
Anyway, I will stop annoying you,
TROY
"Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales." -Bertrand Russell
From: Ed Babinski
To: Troy W.
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Subject: Original sin: General and theological observationsDear Troy,
Hope you're doing O.K. Here's my response on "original sin," since you raised the question below. As you can imagnie, I have lots to say.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Personally, I have no problem with "original sin" understood in a colloquial (non-fundamentalist) fashion. I mean even evolutionists teach that man is not a "tame" animal, and we still defend our mental territory with intellectual claws, just as his ancestors jealously defended their physical territory with clubs and spears. We make mistakes, we don't communicate very well with one another, we all have personal individual hopes and fears and joys as well as shared ones. These compete with one another and cause us all difficulties in life. Though on the other hand we are also social creatures and most of us recognize how joys shared are doubled while sorrows shared are halved --- and all without the benefits (or threats) of religion.My own studies of the teachings of "original sin loving" Christians like Augustine, Luther and Calvin have convined me that they were hardly worthy of emulation. And the craziness and severity of their teachings, teachings they sought to fully justify based on the Bible and claiming that the Holy Spirit lead them into truth, should in no way be confused with the truth. Sheesh! Augustine taught that unbaptized infants were "in the devil's power" and going straight to hell if they died before being baptized. He hated the idea of any place other than hell for dead unbaptized infants. But then Augustine even taught the world would be best off if everybody stopped procreating, because it would hasten Christ's return. Augustine also argued in favor of persecuting any church that wanted to be free of the existing church-state heirarchy, any free churches, like the Donatists. Luther hated every one but those who agreed with him, he hated Catholics, hated other Protestant Reformer's ideas, declared such teachings worthy of hell, hated Anabaptist Protestants, Jews, witches, and finally stooped to having everyone in Saxony forced to attend church and learn Luther's catechism, having the churches in Saxony examined, and any who didn't teach Lutheranism were run out of the country or worse -- if they kept coming back. Calvin did the same thing in Geneva, everyone forced to give up Catholicism, forced to attend church (or be fined a day's wage or worse), heretics and witches forced to recant, be exiled or worse, and in fact, if you disagreed with Calvin on any matter concerning the Bible you were considered suspect and exiled, or worse. If you doubted his theory of predestination, if you doubted his ideas of the Lord's supper, if you doubted his interpretation of Jesus' "descent into hell," if you doubted that the Song of Solomon was primarily about Christ's love for "the church," etc. Calvin and Luther taught and argued vehemently that it was the duty of civil magistrates to enforce Christian beliefs, and people should keep every idle word, idle thought, and doubt to themselves. A 13 year old girl was beaten in public for saying she wanted to become a Catholic. There was no organ music allowed in Calvin's Geneva, no singing in harmony, no secular songs allowed. There were a few religious plays and then even they were forbidden. So were many secular books. Geneva was turned into a huge printing press for Calvin's works to spread them throughout southern France and spread his particular brand of Protestantism there.
ORIGINAL SIN IN THE BIBLE
Theologically and biblically speaking, Jews don't believe in "original sin" staining the souls of every child born. They interpret Genesis 1 and 2 as simply the tale of the explusion from the garden. After that biblical episode it is simply up to people to choose between good and evil, i.e., now that we "know" them. "Choose this day..." as it says in the Old Testament.
Source: http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/Also, in the Old Testament, the prophets and the priests can be seen duking it out as to whether or not animal sacrifices are necessary to obtain forgiveness for sins. The prophets thought a repentant heart and good works were the most pleasing offerings to God, and that was the basis of obtaining God's forgiveness. While the priests thought it had more to do with spilling the blood of animals (as many ancient cultures believed, back then).
I found several Jewish works helpful in understanding "sin." Copies of their pages are in my files at home. If you want, I can send you the citations of the books and the pages, or even copy them and mail them to you. They helped me understand the differences between Christians and Jews more fully.
It has also been pointed by church historians of doctrine that Augustine made too much of something Paul wrote about how in Adam "all men sinned." Augustine actually went further than Paul, misinterpreting and stretching the meaning of Paul. Augustine is the one who firmly put the idea of "original sin" into the cornerstone of the building of Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant Christendom --- though the Orthodox Church (the eastern half of the Christianized Roman Empire) has it's own unique understandings of "sin and salvation" and is actually more interested in lifting man upward to become more like God rather than blaming humanity for being so low.
Here's a few book titles I found while searching on the web. I've read parts of the first one and found parts of it interesting and informative.
AUTHOR Tennant, Frederick Robert, 1866-1957
TITLE The sources of the doctrines of the fall and original sin, by F. R. TennantThese I haven't read or skimmed, they just happened to be listed here in the library at Furman.
AUTHOR Binion, Rudolph, 1927-
TITLE After Christianity : Christian survivals in post-Christian culture / Rudolph Binion [includes a little history on the history of the concept of original sin]AUTHOR Smith, H. Shelton (Hilrie Shelton), 1893-
TITLE Changing conceptions of original sin; a study in American theology since 1750
AMAZON.COM recommended this title:
Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meanings by Tatha Wiley
Editorial Reviews
Gerard Sloyan, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Temple University and Visiting Professor of Religion at the Catholic University of America
A splendid, deeply researched work.Lisa Sowle Cahill, Monan Professor of Theology, Boston College In a clear and methodical manner Tatha Wiley explores the many dimensions of the conflicting yet fundamental concept of original sin. She explores the Christian origins, patristic developments and medieval interpretations of original sin, then traces the emergence of the idea of original sin, the questions the idea answered, and the development of original sin as a Christian doctrine in the early centuries of Christianity. Finally, she brings the discussion to the present with the modern scientific, historical, and philosophical challenges posed to the doctrine along with contemporary reinterpretations of it. This book is valuable reading for theologians, university and seminary graduate students, and nonprofessionals who may be intrigued by this subject.
Reviewer: John D. Cornwell from Corydon, Indiana United States
Maintaining a firm foundation of Faith today is arduous. Contemporary knowledge and the rigors of disciplined logic render literalism untenable. Tatha Wiley's "Original Sin" was outstanding and repeatedly insightful. I found her exposition and explanation of the evolving concept of Original sin to be highly readable and understandable. Being a child of the (early!) twentieth century I have always had a problem with biblical literalism. Ms. Wiley's book gave me a great basis for understanding a very real concept of Original sin without having to check my brains at the door. Echoing a prior reviewer, my copy of "Original Sin" is copiously and rather wantonly highlighted in technicolor.
Reviewer: William L. Forst from Florissant, MO USA
I find Tatha Wiley's book very interesting. An attractive book for me is underlined, full of notes. This I have done with 'Original Sin'. It is rare book, for me, on a subject that I normally would not read. First she writes clearly and readable. She uses history -- She shows beautifully the difference between classical or metaphical theology and the contemporay theology that uses anthropolgy, history, and sciences. The classical with Genesis 3 upholds woman as being subordinate to man not equal. Souce of sin is man and many more classsical idea. The new understanding of original sin does not come with birth, but some how is a breaking of a relationship with God and with humans. At any rate, I found the book very interesting.The world today needs a different manner on looking at evil - we need a way in which war can be avoided. How is it possible to justify violence to human beings, terrorism, war is terrorism, through origianl sin? But 'holy men' are doing it every night on the news.
All for now,
Best, Ed Babinski
RELATED ARTICLES
Original Thoughts on The Original Sin
On the 'original sin' and the guilt associated with it, includes compiled quotes by Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Conrad Hyers and Edward Babinski.The Reformation In German Switzerland
Excerpt: "Moreover, the mysticism and docetism involved in such a doctrine were not congenial to his way of thinking. A still further difference between the two theologians was involved in Zwingli's rejection of the traditional dogma respecting original sin. Giving heed to the rational consideration that only moral personality can sin and incur guilt, he denied any ante-natal ground of guilt, and maintained that we receive from the fallen Adam simply corruption of nature."
Contemporary to Luther, Swiss Reformer Zwingli and his peculiar doctrines, including Bullinger and his influence on churches abroad.Blasphemy
Excerpt: "We read that our first parents were placed in a pleasant garden; that they were given the full run of the place and only forbidden to meddle with the orchard; that they were tempted as God knew they were to be tempted; that they fell as God knew they would fall, and that for this fall which He knew would happen before He made them he fixed the curse of original sin upon them, to be continued to all their children. Why didn't He stop right there? Why didn't He kill Adam and Eve and make another pair who didn't like apples?"
Robert G. Ingersoll at the Brooklyn Theatre in New York, in the nineteenth century, on the subject of blasphemy.Paradise Lost
Some Christians would say 'the death that Adam and Eve suffered on that fateful day in the garden has nothing to do with physical death', this is Ed's take on that fateful day in the Garden of Eden.Hell and Heaven, Satan, and Christian Superstition
Ben Franklin, Robert Ingersoll and Mark Twain on Hell, Heaven, Satan, and Christian Superstition.Controversies of Anthropology
The controversy which arose with the monk Pelagius from Britain. His doctrinal system were a denial of inherited corruption in the moral nature of man, a strong assertion of the freedom of the will, and a decided emphasis upon man's ability to work out his own salvation as opposed to his radical dependence upon divine grace.Pelagianism
Fifth century heresy advanced by followers who held a rejection of the belief in the original sin affecting newborns, alone affecting Adam. Man's ability to possess spiritual good apart from divine grace.
Article last updated October 22, 2005
Certified error free by http://htmlvalidator.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |