Why I Reject Augustinian Original Sin (and You Should, Too), Part IV

Preface

This section was originally contained within part III, but when the corrections were made in response to readers' feedback it became too long for facebook to import. So I decided to make it part IV. Point being, yes, if you feel like you've read this before you're probably right. In that case go ahead and jump down to the paragraph that starts with "OK, but what does all this historical context matter?" Thanks.

Romans 3:9-18, 23 (NASB)

(The first passage is too long to quote in its entirely. Please click here to read it.)

Two preliminary thoughts. First, look what Paul is quoting. It's the Psalms again, so keep the above comments about ancient Hebrew poetry in the back of your mind. Second, I would point out that Protestants have a long history of failing to interpret Romans in light of its original context. Just as they do with Psalms, they tend to read it like a systematic theology when, in fact, it's a letter (a rather new invention at the time, by the way) written in a specific cultural-historical context to address specific circumstances.

What circumstances? As a history major it kills me that most theologically-inclined, orthodox Protestants don't know the answer to this even while Romans plays such a pivotal role in their theology. Crikey.

There were major tensions within the Roman churches resulting from Claudius' 49 CE edict booting all Jews out of Rome and their subsequent return under Nero 5 years later. The Jews had gone from the overwhelming majority to a minority. Imagine what it'd be like if all the conservative, white Baptists were kicked out of the South for five years, all those congregations became black churches, and then the whites comes back five years later. You can imagine the hostility that would arise theologically, culturally, racially, socially, politically, economically, and so forth. That's the circumstances for which Romans was written. This epistle is about the healing the conflict between Jewish and Greek Christians in Rome. Along the way it both utilizes and reveals much basic christian theology, but Paul's intention was to address a very real, very practical situation in Rome. It was not written to be an abstract theological treatise like so many Protestants and Catholics seem to think. One ought not see Paul's epistle to the Romans as a precursor to Aquinas' Summa Theologica or Calvin's Institues of the Christian Religion, for example.

In light of that historical context, take a look at verse 9. Paul writes, "What then? Are we better than they?" Who is he talking about? Paul is a Jew, so the "we" he's referring to is the Jewish Christians and the "they" are the Greek Christians. He goes on, "Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin..." What Paul is doing here is correcting--if not rebuking--the Jewish Christians for their superiority complex and the resulting condescension toward the Greek Christians. All of this is happening amidst the ongoing identity crisis for Jewish Christians seen all throughout the New Testament.

Yet how often do you hear or read an advocates of AOS or ROS bring this up? Too often they jump straight to the tail half of verse 9, effectively ignoring the context of the whole book and interpreting this passage like Paul's purpose is to build a case for Original Sin. What Paul is saying in verse 9 is not intended as an argument for the doctrines of universal sin or Original Sin. Rather, he's articulating his theology in such a way as to deal with those tensions. Both Jewish and Greek Christians are equals because none of them have escaped sinfulness. The Jews were boasting in their righteousness because of their lineage, so in verses 9-18 Paul is laying the theological smack down on them. (Just had a mental image of Paul as a professional wrestler...) It'd be like telling the early, blatantly ethnocentric American settlers of the land west of the Appalachians that they're equal with the indigenous "savages." In telling the Jewish Christians that they're all in same boat, Paul was challenging the most revered sensibilities of a good, first century Jew.

Do you remember what it was like after 9/11? Everyone had this profound patriotism. All across the country people were banded together with this common sense of identity and purpose. Imagine a soldier who then went to Afghanistan. This is an imperfect analogy, but Paul's words to the Jewish Christians in Rome would be like telling the American soldier in Afghanistan that his sense of patriotism was causing him to be arrogant, proud, and condescending. Neither country is better or has a better standing in God's eyes. Both are imperfect and guilty of much wrongdoing. Ouch. Likewise, Paul was striking down the very thing that was most important to the Jewish Christians by telling them that their lineage in no way makes them superior, morally or otherwise.

OK, but why does all this historical context matter? What impact does it have upon our understanding of this passage? Even if Paul is writing to a more specific audience than most Protestant theologians have seriously considered, isn't Paul's underlying theology still transcendent--applicable in all places and times? To answer these questions I must first offer some comments concerning theological prolegomena.

This fall I was reading some evangelical theologians who made the observation that liberal, Mainline theologians spend so much discussing how to approach and perform the task of theology that they all too seldom get around to actually doing it. And the conservative, evangelical theologians serve as their mirror image, being so narrowly focused on doing theology that they rarely step back and assess their presuppositions, methodologies, cultural influences, and so forth. From my limited interaction with the writings of either camp, this assessment appears spot on. What I'm trying to do here, then, is back up theological process in order that we might seriously consider how and why we do theology in order that we might actually do it better in the long-run.

I'm admittedly not his biggest fan, but I like the charts below provided by D.A. Carson in an essay about the nature of theology. These charts illustrate three different general approaches to theology:

1. Theological Pyramid - This approach sees the various sub-disciplines as something of a hierarchy. Exegesis is the foundation upon which all else is built. Biblical theology is next, then historical theology, and with systematic theology positioned at the top. Whether implicitly or explicitly, this hierarchy suggests that systematic theology is the pinnacle to which all else builds and is aimed. There are some things I like about this, including the idea that exegesis is the foundation and that historical theology is an absolute necessity within good systematic theology. The problems with this approach are two-fold. First, the attempt to extract timeless, culturally-transcendent facts and principles from the biblical narrative in order to construct this pristine, perfectly objective system of theology is ultimately both futile and unbiblical. Futile because absolutely everything we do is historically and culturally bound. Unbiblical because God reveals His redemptive story in history and culture. Second, it creates this expectation that the purpose of a systematic theology is to figure out what the Bible was actually trying to say, which leads to this question: If the systematic works of such theologians as Aquinas, Calvin, Hodge, or Grudem tell us what the Bible is really saying, why read the Bible in the first place? This isn't just theory but the reality of the situation. A growing number of evangelical theologians are pointing out that rather than the emphasis upon systematic theology inspiring people to engage Scripture, it's actually driving them away. That's tragic.

2. Theological Circle - This approach is definitely a step in the right direction. Like the first approach it sees historical theology as essential, each of the disciplines as equally important, and that they all lead to one another. What this approach does better is that all the sub-disciplines are self-checking (e.g. systematic theology is checked by exegesis) and no one is more important than another. My biggest critique is that they aren't numbered to provide a specific order. Under this approach one could start with their systematic theology, which could potentially have a profound influence one's exegesis. For Protestants the doctrines one has been taught could create the mold for one's exegesis rather than the exegesis being the mold for the doctrines. For Catholics, under the banner of Tradition, their historical theology determines their systematic theology. In sum, this approach remains inadequate.

3. Theological Development with Checks & Balances - This is far and away the best approach. The development of theology starts with exegesis, which leads to biblical theology, which leads to historical theology, which leads to systematic theology. As the progression occurs, however, each sub-discipline is checked by those before it. In this way, exegesis checks all and systematic theology checks nothing. Exegesis is the ace that trumps all. Systematic theology is the final product of all the other disciplines, but it trumps nothing. If there's one thing I could change about this chart, I'd make each one in order visually smaller to demonstrate the decreasing significance. The biblical narrative is what's most important, both in terms of its authority and how much it should be emphasized. Systematic theology is good, valuable, and certainly has its role, but it's relegated to the position of pawn rather than its all-too-common place as king.

Side note: I hope it's clear that the reason I've gone into so much detail on theological prolegomena is because I think most people, although well-intentioned, approach the task theology incorrectly because they've not given much serious thought to how one should perform the task of theology. Consequently, they insert their systematic theology into biblical exegesis, generally confusing the two without even realizing when they're doing it. What I've tried to do here is a) illustrate a couple of the implicit approaches that people use to their theology, b) point out the weaknesses in those approaches, and c) offer an alternative.

Alright, so now both the historical context and my theological methodology are explained. What now? We're again back to the same sorts of questions. What practical impact does this have on one's interpretation of Romans 3:9-18?

Someone has suggested that all of this only matters if I hold "a previous desire to get rid of Federal Headship." Someone else commented that Romans 3:9-18 still affirms humankind's "general fallen state." Frankly, I disagree with both assertions based upon my theological methodology. Exegesis comes before, has authority over, and should not be influenced by systematic theology. When one is exegeting Matthew 3:16-17, she should not be talking about the Trinity. What we see is Jesus being baptized, the Spirit descending like a dove, and (apparently) God the Father's voice from heaven. While this passage may be quite helpful in constructing the doctrine, the author's original intent almost certainly was not to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. (More on this in the next post.) That's a doctrine from historical and systematic theology that people impose on the text. Likewise, I would suggest that even the terminology "general fallen state" implies a systematic doctrine that is not present in the text.

The "fallen state" is an explicit reference to the events of Genesis 3 and the actions of Adam and Eve. Yet I see no hint of those things in Romans 3. None whatsoever. From the historical context, we see that what Paul is doing is affirming that all people groups, including both Jews and Greeks, are sinful. (This illustrates why the historical context is important. Without it one is much more likely to poorly interpret the text.) Sure, this could be described as the general human condition but we ought not call it the "general fallen state." OK, why make that distinction? Aren't they the exact same? Yes in terms of universal sinfulness. No in terms of the implied temporal dimension. That is, the words "general fallen state" refers back to Adam, saying that the general human condition was received from and is because of him. But if you exegete this text carefully and without the injection of presuppositions from systematic theology, there's absolutely no temporal claims being made in this passage. What we know from this text is not from when (the fall) or where (Adam & Eve) humanity became sinful. All we know is that they are. Reading in the fall constitutes putting the cart before the horse--having one's systematic theology come before her exegesis.

"... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,..."

This verse is not used by advocates of AOS or ROS, but I think it's worth considering in the context of this discussion. It contributes to a significant list of passages about guilt and judgment that conflict with the common takes on Original Sin.

Notice that Romans 3:23 says, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and not "all sinned in Adam and fall short of the glory of God." (Shoot, within the context of this Jewish-Greek divide, wouldn't this have been a great time for Paul to appeal to their ultimate common lineage and write, "for all have sinned, both through your forefather Adam and personally, and fall short of the glory of God"?) I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of recognizing that while Adam hosed us all, no one has actually sinned or is guilty of sin until he or she actually does it. My view isn't rocket science or some sophisticated theological argument. It couldn't be more straightforward: No one is guilty until he or she actually does something wrong. I like how Huldrych Zwingli, one of the great Protestant Reformers, put it: "Original sin is thus a 'disease' but not a 'sin' because sin implies guilt, and guilt comes from a transgression or trespass." I would only amend this to say, "The original sin thus caused a 'disease' but not a 'sin' because sin implies guilt, and guilt comes from a transgression or trespass."

Romans 2:6-11 (NASB)

"But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God."

Pardon me for coming to this out of order. I found this verse right before I was about to publish the post and really don't feel like rewriting the above portion on Romans 3. Just know that all that stuff about the Jewish-Greek divide is, of course, the context for this passage, too.

Romans 2:6 fits squarely with Romans 3:23. God will "render to each person according to his deeds." Those who persevere in doing good in seeking glory, honor, or immortality will receive eternal life. Those who do the opposite will face tribulation and distress. This is true for both Jews and Greeks. Notice again that guilt or sinful nature from Adam is no where to be seen. Instead, what matters is people's individual deeds. Add this passage to the growing list showing that God's judges people only for their own actions.

This concludes part IV. The next post will pick up with Romans 5:12-19.

Why I Reject Augustinian Original Sin (and You Should, Too), Part III

Abbreviations

AOS: Augustinian Original Sin, which is also the historic Catholic view. See: part II.
ROS: Reformational Original Sin, which is more or less the historic Protestant view. See: part II.
POS: Propensity from Original Sin. My view. See part I.

Preface

Y'all have posed a lot of great questions. So many, in fact, that the task of addressing them was daunting to the point of strong anxiety there for a few days. What I've since come to realize is that no matter how much research I do, there will always more facts and perspectives to bring to bear as well as implications to consider. Not to mention the limitations of a blog format. Perhaps someday I'll get an opportunity to write a book on this. In the meantime, what you see here is my best effort to study up, explore the biblical narrative, and address your inquiries as straightforwardly and honestly as possible. Over the next couple posts I'll be exploring the relevant biblical passages. On more than a few points I offer strong criticism of commonly held positions and interpretations that will no doubt unnerve a few people and invoke strong emotional responses, but, as I said in part I, I hope my readers will read this in light of the humility with which it is written. As stated before, my intention here isn't to shock or offend, but I'm willing to rock the boat in my sincere pursuit of truth.

Two more things. First, it's been a while since the first post, so please refresh yourself if need be. I don't want people misunderstanding what I'm writing--for example, forgetting the distinction I made between a "corrupted nature" and a "sinful nature"--and getting angry about my interpretations. Disagreement is fine. Misunderstanding is not. Second, so as not to overwhelm everyone, I'm breaking this section into multiple posts. That means that this first post doesn't contain my interpretation of every pertinent passage. Please don't be that guy (or girl) who jumps ahead and says, "Yeah, but what about Romans 5?!" as if to get in a boo-ya! when I've only made through Romans 3. This isn't about enlightening the ignorant masses, winning a theological battle, or proving one's intellectual superiority. I hope we all approach this subject with spirits moored equally in humility, grace, love, and passion for truth.

Examining the Biblical Narrative

It's my belief that far too often people just assume that the ol' "In Adam's fall we sinned all" cliche is biblical. As heirs of the Reformation, isn't it time we seriously and critically look at what Scripture actually says? In this section I will examine the biblical passages that most pertain to Original Sin--both in its Augustinian/Catholic and historic Protestant versions--in their canonical order. My intentions here are to demonstrate that AOS/ROS cannot be proven by Scripture and to explicate those passages which I believe substantiate POS.

Genesis 3 (NASB)

(This passage is too long to quote in its entirely. Please click here to read it.)

I have to have read this thing 20 times trying to find anything that would suggest that Adam and Eve's guilt and sinful nature would be transferred to their progeny. I see a curse that will make all elements of their lives harder, but I see nothing whatsoever that would prove, disprove, or even suggests AOS/ROS. Picking up in Genesis 4 and going straight through Revelation I see the ramifications of Genesis 3 upon all of mankind. Yet in this chapter there is nothing about the means by which all of the first couple's offspring become/became sinful and guilty, whether in Adam's own sin or in their consequent individual failures. The text simply doesn't tell us anything one way or the other.

By the way, yes, I'm aware of the additional layer of complexity added by some theologians' assertion that Adam and Eve aren't actual historical figures. For the time being, I'm refusing to go there. The benefits of exploring that issue do not at the present time seem to outweigh the cost of angering people on either side in the very beginning of this post. (You know how I said in part I that if anyone brings up Calvinism vs. Arminianism then I'd delete their post? The same remains true, but add age of the earth debates to the banned list.) Call it being political if you wish, but I'm choosing to pick my battles.

Psalms 51:5 (NIV)

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Pretty airtight verse, right? Original Sin proven in a single verse. Minor problem: The NIV vividly demonstrates its translators' theological presuppositions in this passage. In the NASB Psalm 51:5 is rendered, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." That's quite the difference. I pointed this out to a preacher a few months back, and he summarized the difference this way: "The NIV is sayin' the baby's a felon 'cuz the momma committed mail fraud. The NASB is sayin' the momma got knocked up while stealin' the mail, and says nothin' about the baby's criminal status." It was an interesting and unexpected metaphor. I like it.

It's worth comparing the ways this passage has been translated to get a little more perspective. Here are a few of the major translations:

• NIV: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
• NASB: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
  
• NRSV: "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me."
  
• ESV: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
  
• NKJV: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
• NJB: "...remember, I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of conception."
  
• OSB: "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."
  

There are some significant difference there, but which if any is the best, most accurate translation? That, as opposed to whether this verse teaches AOS or ROS, should be an interpreter's key question. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers.

Let's exegete. "Behold" is pretty simple. It's a bit archaic, but that's the best translation from what I've seen. Some of the translations say "brought forth" and others "born." Both are inadequate. "Born" gets closer to capturing the Hebrew words' contained notion of writhing in pain or torturous suffering but "brought forth" captures the idea of being ushered in that is also present. The NRSV is the only version to use the word "guilt," which is potentially valid. But that Hebrew word can also be translated as perversity, depravity, iniquity, or punishment of iniquity, and there's no consensus among scholars as to the best word here. In the second part of the verse the Hebrew words for "sin" and "mother" align well with our contemporary English words, but "conceived" is weak. The word doesn't merely mean conceive, but also sexually hot or in heat among animals. Fertile. Horny. Sexually-charged. You get the idea. I don't know jack squat about Hebrew syntax, so I can't say which is better between "a sinner when my mother conceived," "sinful from the time my mother conceived me," or "in sin my mother conceived me." But as most of these translations above were produced by top-notch scholars, my guess is that all are potentially valid options. Bottom line: Certain translations are more favorable to AOS/ROS and some to POS, but ultimately a pretty good argument could be made for any of the above translations... Dang it, that was a lot of work to get nowhere.

What is more, even if the Hebrew was clearer I don't know how much weight one ought put in it for our purposes here. As a guy who continually harps on the fact that evangelicals are prone to misinterpreting the Old Testament because they ignore the foremost hermeneutical principle of interpreting a text according to its genre, I really need to heed my own warning. The Psalms are poetry, not prose. The words of David, and whoever else contributed to the Book of Psalms, should be understood as ancient Hebrew poetry--not merely poetic language, but a form of Ancient Near Eastern poetic language quite foreign to us.

To state the obvious, then, we ought not use it in a manner for which is wasn't intended. That includes Augustine's 6th century Greek philosophical approach to theology as well as today's all-t00-common scientifically-oriented, systematic approach. Let us also not forget the absurd persecution Galileo faced in no small part because the Catholic Church held that Psalms 93:1 and 96:10 taught a geocentric model of the universe. We now all recognize that this has to be understood as poetic language and not scientific fact. There's an important lesson to be learned there: ancient Hebrew poetry is ancient Hebrew poetry, so don't try to get it to function as something it's not. In the same way that I doubt David was teaching a geocentric cosmology, so I doubt David had any form of Original Sin in mind when he wrote Psalm 51.

Let's stop trying to squeeze systematic juice out of a poetic rock. In Psalm 51 David is lamenting the depths of his wicked rebellion toward God before asking God to forgive and cleanse him. Even if one is to translate Psalm 51:5 as David saying that he was sinful from the time of his conception such as the NIV does, he's not making a propositional truth claim about the grand human condition and the consequences of the fall. David just isn't writing a systematic theology or even an epistle that could be used in the construction of a systematic theology. Rather, he's expressing his remorse that he's been evil since a very young age. It's quite possible that he's utilizing hyperbole in much the same way I did when as a 16-year old I yelled, "It's impossible to learn how to drive a stick!" I wasn't making a truth claim regarding a physical or mental inability to drive a car with a manual transmission, but was using an overstatement to express the degree of my frustration. Is David doing the same sort of thing?

Psalm 58:3 (NASB)

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth."

It's not worth writing a whole lot on this. Most of what I wrote about Psalm 51:5 is applicable here as well. All I'll add is that people who use this verse for AOS and ROS are taking it out of context. This is a psalm of deliverance. When David writes about "the wicked" he's not talking about all of humankind, but about specific enemies who threaten him. His targeted subject is abundantly clear throughout the whole psalm. You cannot make this verse about the general human condition without ripping it out of its literary context.

Isaiah 48:8 (NASB)

"You have not heard, you have not known, Even from long ago your ear has not been open, Because I knew that you would deal very treacherously; And you have been called a rebel from birth."

Verse one of chapter 48 states what this passage is about: "Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are named Israel. And who came forth from the loins of Judah, who swear by the name of the LORD and invoke the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in righteousness." God is prophetically speaking through Isaiah to call out Israel on its self-righteousness and hypocrisy. It lay claim to the special position as God's chosen people yet their hearts had grown hard and idolatrous. As with those verses in Psalms, this passage cannot, or should not, be taken as speaking for the universal human condition within a systematic theology. Moreover, God through Isaiah is not talking about individuals but Israel corporately. The "you" who has been called a rebel from birth is not individual persons or everyone in the world, but the collective people of Israel. This passage is not saying that people have been found guilty at conception through mediate Seminalism or immediate Federal Headship. It's saying that the nation of Israel has been in rebellion since its inception, i.e. Abraham onward.

Ezekiel 18 (NASB)

(This passage is too long to quote in its entirely. Please click here to read it.)

Seriously. Read that passage. It is abundantly clear that people are responsible only for their own actions and not the sins of their father. I would suggest that this likely has immense implications for undermining AOS and ROS. As I've not had the time to thoroughly study it, however, I'm going to take the easy way out and simply quote certain areas that highlight this:

" 'But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness... if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully--he is righteous and will surely live,' declares the Lord GOD."

" 'Then he may have a violent son who sheds blood and who does any of these things to a brother... will he live? He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.' "

" 'The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.' "

Matthew 25:31-46 (NASB)

(This passage is too long to quote in its entirely. Please click here to read it.)

Let's keep this short and sweet. This passage is the most thorough account we have of Jesus' teachings on judgment. In it He says nothing of punishment for corporate guilt from Adam. Instead, he looks at the conduct of individuals. Adam is in no way present in this text, either explicitly or implicitly. Could it be that Jesus' view is that people are responsible for their own actions alone and not the actions of Adam as their representative? I see nothing in the Gospels to suggest otherwise.

Luke 1:35 (NASB)

"Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?' The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.' "

In response to part I someone referenced this verse to challenge my assertion that Jesus was born with a corrupted nature. Specifically, he mentioned the "holy Child" reference. It's a good challenge, but what is holiness? Isn't holiness, or righteousness, the state of being just and without guilt? If so, then wouldn't a lack of righteousness be the result of one's sins? And if one has not yet sinned, wouldn't that person still be righteous? Temptation toward sin is not itself sin. Temptation remains just that until one succumbs to it. To suggest that Jesus shared our burden from the fall--our corrupted nature that so strongly inclines us toward sin--isn't to say that He sinned. We all probably agree on this: the fact that Jesus was a holy Child doesn't contradict His real, true temptation.

It seems to me that the real issue this person's objection speaks to is the belief that we're not only guilty for our own individual sins, but also for our disposition toward sin. But if that disposition is not a sinful nature but a corrupted nature, then no one, Jesus included, is guilty at birth. A good analogy might be homosexuality. I contend that being a homosexual isn't a sin, but practicing homosexuality is. That is, being attracted exclusively to members of the same sex is not a sin, but lusting after or having sexual relations with a member of the same sex is. If Jesus was born with the same human condition we all are--the same propensity toward sin resulting from the fall--that doesn't mean his temptation stained his holiness. Again, the key is the strong distinction between His inheriting a corrupted nature and a sinful nature.

So why did the angel call Jesus "the holy Child," anyway? Perhaps it's because He was the only holy Child--the only child ever not to succumb to the temptation of the corrupted nature. That's speculative, but it makes sense to me anyway.

Addendum

When I first posted part III it included a section on Romans 3:9-18, 23. It was brought to my attention, however, that it ended rather abruptly and didn't really do anything to substantiate either my criticisms of AOS/ROS or my case for POS. It's true. Another fine critique. Yet when I went back and finished that section it made the whole post too long for facebook to import. So what I've decided to do is cut this section short and simply make my completely section on Romans 3 part IV. Click here to see that next section.

Why I Reject Augustinian Original Sin (and You Should, Too), Part II

FYI - This is not the forthcoming post examining the biblical evidence for/against AOS and my alternative view.

Clarifications/Corrections

I asked for feedback and critique to Part I, and I got it. Thank you. As I'm concerned about spreading incorrect information, I'm tempted to go back and re-write the whole thing and post it again. That could quite possibly drive me insane, though. So for the time being I'll just acknowledge my mistakes and move forward:

1. A lot of folks appear to assume that I started with the belief that babies can't go to hell, then worked backward and found a theology to fit. That's not the way it happened at all, nor is it the way I approach the task of theology. My exploration of this issue was prompted by what I found to be questionable historical claims, factual contradictions, hermeneutical inconsistencies, and apparent doctrinal presuppositions deriving from systematic theology that were trumping the meaning of the biblical text itself. In the same way that one should not believe in, say, evolution and then go back and interpret Genesis accordingly, so I don't believe in holding to babies' innocence and then finding a crafty way to read it back in with a revision of Original Sin. (Yet I do hold to an old earth and babies' innocence not in spite of but because of my concern for fidelity to the text. It's a matter of what is driving one's theological inquiry and development.)
   
2. A couple people said that I was psycho-analyzing Augustine and offering ad hominem arguments rather than dealing with the veracity his actual theology. My intention was to take seriously that theology is not done in a vacuum--meaning I make every effort to intentionally integrate history, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, and so forth in both my theological development and the eventual (tentative) conclusions. Any direct or indirect use of psychology that I offered was not used to disprove Augustine's beliefs, but I was being quite intentional in attempting to break the stranglehold AOS has had upon western theology. That is, I meant to dispense of people's absolute certitude, thereby creating an opportunity to present an alternative view. I contend that pointing out the limitation of perspective does not disprove a particular belief, but it does tend to provoke people to re-think issues and open them up to potential alternatives.
3. As I do with nearly all my posts, I attempted to interject this subject matter with humor. Serious content but lightened up for a blog format. Thus my "Stupid Augustine" comment. Some apparently didn't catch that I don't actually think Augustine was stupid. I joking shake my fist at things all the time and say, "Stupid..." For example, I shake my fist at the old building where I used to work and say, "Stupid Goody's." (Side note: We serve a good and just God. All Goody's stores have now closed, meaning I merely shake my fist at the evil's withered shell. It is satisfying.) To be explicit about this, despite my theological differences with Augustine I think the man was very bright if not brilliant.
   
4. If I in any way sounded as through I was pridefully boasting about having come up with a brand spankin' new view, I assure you that that was not my intention. Here's the deal: Most of my thoughts are original. By this I don't mean to imply that they're completely unprecedented, but that I came up with them on my own long before I encountered them formally. I'm not suggesting that no one in Church history has articulated my view before. What I'm saying is that I've not read or heard this before. It came just from me thinking about it. I genuinely have no concern for whether this stuff is truly a new perspective or not. My aim is not novelty and praise, but truth. A lot of people who are into theology seem to get hung up on this issue of always getting credit for their work and having their achievements and abilities recognized/praised. Frankly, that smacks of pride. We all have our own weaknesses so I won't imply that I'm better than them, but I will say that I don't struggle in that particular area.
   
5. This error was corrected within the first couple days of posting, but I originally mentioned that I was not writing the post "flippantly" when a much better word choice would have been "casually."
   
6. Honestly, because my reading rate sucks so bad I've not read as much Augustine directly as I would have liked. Not only that, he's not exactly an easy read in the first place, but with my dyslexia his logical arguments and infinite sentence fragments drive me nuts. Accordingly, most of what I know has come from secondary sources as well as courses lectures. I'm trying to read him more for the next post but I just don't have time to thoroughly pour through all of his pertinent writings. I'm going to continue this series while attempting to tread more lightly, and will continue to request correction if I misunderstand something.
   
7. I had an errant understanding of both the degree and specific actions comprising Augustine's sexual sin. Specifically, he was not a "sex addict."
   
8. I don't think I contradicted myself in terms of my delineation between "direct" and "indirect" biblical teachings, but I didn't spell out the difference as clearly as was necessary. That will be corrected that in the next post.
   
9. In an effort to concisely cover a lot of ground, I obscured some important distinctions. Make no mistake that both the Protestant and Catholic conceptions of Original Sin stem from Augustine's basic doctrine framework. However, whereas the Catholic view to this day basically aligns with AOS except for just a bit of nuance and further explication, the classic Protestant view has significantly diverged in some important ways. While my personal view aligns with neither the Catholic nor the historic Protestant view, the purpose of these posts is to explain why I disagree with Augustine. That shall remain my focus. But I'm yet to determine whether I'll address the historic Protestant view at all and, if so, how I'd do it. Should I choose to go that route, it still wouldn't be the essay's main thrust and I'd make an effort to precisely distinguish between the traditions as I'm working through the biblical narrative.
   
10. While I maintain that my basic understanding of AOS as expressed in the first post is accurate, it was a bit simplistic. Thanks to help from a buddy and couple of former professors, I've now come to a much fuller understanding of Augustine's views. Here's a brief rundown: As it has been explained to me, Augustine believed that the "fruit" in the Garden of Eden was a metaphor for concupiscence, which is yearning that leads to lust and other sexual sins. Some Protestants have said that Augustine believed that Original Sin is passed down genetically or biologically. The first one is, of course, impossible as Augustine had no conception of genetics and the second remains less than ideal. Perhaps the best way is to describe it is physically. He believed that it is through the physical act of sex that Original Sin is transmitted and all people become co-sinners with Adam, but he did call the exact mechanism by which that happens a mystery. This Seminal view of Original Sin is still held by Catholics and is contrasted by Protestants who tend to affirm the Federal Headship of guilt. The former hold to mediate, indirect imputation of guilt whereas Protestants tend to hold to immediate, direct imputation. Augustine's Seminal view also explains the necessity of Jesus' virgin birth in his theology. He writes, "...that every one who is born of sexual intercourse is in fact sinful flesh, since that alone which was not born of such intercourse was not sinful flesh." By the way, Augustine also believed that any sexual intercourse, even within marriage, not performed with the intention of producing children but merely for pleasure is a venial sin.
    
11. I remain dissatisfied by the term "Original Sin Spreading." My goal here was to revise or nuance Original Sin, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I affirm the idea that the original sin impacts all people and inevitably brings condemnation, guilt, and death. For that reason I tried to retain the basic "Original Sin" label while expanding it. Unfortunately, this seems to be causing a great deal of confusion--not what you want out of a label. If I were to suggest a crazy technical label that no one one would ever possibly use, a better descriptor might be "Original Sin Resulted in All of Mankind's Corruption, Which Then Leads to Everyone's Individual Sinfulness." I don't believe one is directly guilty because he or she inherited mankind's corruption nor do I believe they were legally imputed with indirect guilt. Instead, I hold that all persons will become guilty when they individually succumb to that corruption wrought by the original sin. Still the issue remains of what to call this view? How about this: Original Sin/Propensity (OS/P)? Love to get your feedback on this, or suggestions for an alternative, before writing part III.
    

As mentioned previously, my tentative views are a work in process. I hope my readers will forgive these misrepresentations and errors knowing that they were not intentional. Despite them, I stand by the vast majority of the content. Thank you to everyone who graciously corrected me. Isn't that would the task of theology should always be like?