conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

Powerful stuff that. Hard to talk about without inadvertently falling into heresy.

I remotely remember you blogging something about Pelagius' reputation as a heretic being undeserved, which might be true if like the Assyrians and the Copts it was all just a big misunderstanding.

I tend to favour the second view and see the first as a way out of the nastiest conclusions wrongly got from the second (total depravity and double predestination).

But if Idea One says we're born as imperfect people it seems to say the same thing really.

I think it's safe to say we're all still inherently good but also inherently wounded/flawed.

Of course I still remember sitting down and reading Genesis and discovering the two creation stories.

Science can't refute - rather it points towards - the conclusions that God made everything including man and some catastrophe (not necessarily to do with talking snakes) happened to the latter.

Also, at some point in creation, however it was physically done and however long it took, God the prime mover not only got the ball rolling but directly intervened and gave man a special kind of soul making him like himself and different from the animals... so unlike them man could consciously choose right or wrong.

(Or why your cats have no original sin on their souls.)

Great post. Well written and well thought out!

On original sin I tend to side with the Eastern Orthodox position (which dovetails nicely with what you have written here) that original sin is more of a disease that humanity has rather than inherited guilt (which is a simple way of explaining Augustine's view that damnable sin was passed down through sex like some sort of theological STD). To put it more simply, many Eastern Orthodox thinkers articulate that human nature has been corrupted by sin and that this corruption has screwed up our ability to make God-pleasing choices. The only way out is by being connected to the Incorruptible One (i.e., Jesus Christ), whose incorruptibility will fix our corruption.

Even if this view isn't correct (which it may not be, though I think it is the best interpretation of the relevant biblical texts), then we are left with intuition, which is where you started your blog. And who can honestly say that there's not something wrong with all of us? We all see it everyday, everywhere. As someone, somewhere, sometime said "the only demonstrable theological tenet is sin." So we have a problem; I think that most everyone could agree with that.

Interesting.

I think the concept of accepting Christ and achieving salvation is incomplete. Baptism is not sacremental in its ability to change us. It is a symbol of our decision to walk with God. And, as I mention elswhere, salvation has to be a process, not an event. I watched "There Will Be Blood" recently, and baptism is anything but salvific there. Neither the baptiser or the baptisee (?) were sincere about anything they were doing. So there you have a congregation that "feels" the Spirit, when it is clear that the Spirit is nowhere near that church on that day.

Salvation is a joint process between us and God. We agree to allow God to work in our life, and by doing that, we move toward salvation from our inclination toward what we label as sin, but what Miller and Campbell co-label as our nature. We do save ourselves, but we cannot really do it without God. So you may say that ultimately that only God saves us, but clearly, He cannot or does not want to do it alone. And because we are "backsliders" we must be reminded that we have God's help and we must decide again and again that we want to be better.

To me, the interesting conundrum is - what if you don't believe in God, but you live as Christ has taught because it just seems right. You can gain all of the benefits of what a Christlike life offers, except for the communal aspects of faith. You don't believe in an afterlife - you are just trying to make life on earth better. Does God judge you as flawed because of your inability to connect with the Spirit as we define it? Do you have the possibility of redemption in the sense that you find out you were wrong post-mortem and you say to God "Hey, sorry. Now it all makes sense." Thomas doubted, but was given the chance to see and accept. He isn't as blessed as the others, but he is still a disciple. In my mind, Thomas is the most useful figure in wrestling with faith.

Thanks for the comments, gang.

Rich, just so you know, there was a typo in your original post that the blog read as html code. So, it would not post at first. I had to copy and edit the "code" out and repost it. That's why the time signature is so much later than when you posted it. Sorry about that.

Thanks for taking the time to begin this, Tripp. You rock.

Upon my first reading of the post, it seems like you're blending "original" sin with regular old ordinary sin. Is there a distinction between them?

And is salvation mere self-improvement? That's a pretty strong word for a pretty diffuse concept.

Megan,

Sure. You were right to push me.

To answer your first question: I would say yes and no. The classic line is to say that all sin is an echo of the first sin. They all come from the first act of disobedience/free will contra dei. Heh. Jargon alert! So, they sound the same. All sin is essentially "missing the mark." So, the first is simply that, the original sin.

To your second point, I think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a psychological attempt to get at some of the same stuff that Genesis gets to theologically. Eventually, self-actualization is the goal. For the Christian, this will be defined as being Christ-like. So, maybe it is better to say that Maslow's notions is a subset of salvation. Psychological health is part of being human, one hopes. So, healing is healing...mental, physical or spiritual.

Yes, you are right...This is much more than self-improvement.

Well then, it sounds like perhaps you have a vocabulary problem.

Salvation/saving/that whole family of words requires that there be a Peril from which one is being Saved.

In the context of Christianity, that Peril is typically defined as condemnation to hell, which is the default setting for every human born after the instigation of Original Sin. THAT is the "classic line."

Regular old ordinary sins can be divinely forgiven with the sinner's sincere contrition, plus various sacramental arm-wavings if you're inclined that way. Original sin can't -- that requires baptism, sometimes more than once. :-)

So isn't a baptised person Officially Saved? If not, why not?

If so, why keep using the salvation/salvific/saving family of words, after the fact?

One can lose one's salvation. One can run to the "dark side." This, by the way, makes me a bad baptist to many. There are some strains of "once saved, always saved." I think that's bogus magical thinking. Take a bath and everything is good? Nope. God is far too clever for that trick, boyo.

That being said, I can post on Hell another time. We are being rescued from something, however, and that state is the exact opposite of all that is listed above. Some call it Hell. They make a cosmic place of it. "Outer darkness" etc. So there is peril. And it is the result of the opposite of what is good for us.

So then, the big question is, what do you believe happens after death?

If a person has as you put it "run to the dark side," then dies, what's the deal at that point? In your understanding.

Hey...Wow. That is a HUGE question and one I think is fairly individual. I'll see what I can do with it...though not today.

You know the passage about the wheat and the tares/chaff? I think we are all made of both. When we die, our souls encounter God in God's fullness...and what is chaff in us is burned off by God's "fire-y love." This can be seen as healing, purifying or cleansing (ala bubble baths, and not ethnic cleansing), reconciliation or even judgment. That all depends on how one thinks about it. I like the latter two myself. Healing is nice as well.

But there is also the chance that very little of us is left...the things we think we value like greed or gluttony and other such "cardinal" sins. There is a certain reflection of Christ that is asked of us. We are judged by certain standards.

I do not think that adherence to the world religion of Christianity as a sure pass. Nor is it the only path. But it is a path, and a damn good one.

Megan asked Tripp:

'If a person has as you put it "run to the dark side," then dies, what's the deal at that point? In your understanding.'

If I may add to Tripp's answer...

It is an entirely Catholic opinion to hold it's possible there are no humans in hell.

But a Catholic also must accept the possibility of going there.

Because we have free will, the right to say no to God. A person who has run to the dark side and stays there - dying in that state - has said no.

You seem to believe in purgatory, Tripp.

Do you believe our prayers somehow help those being cleansed?

Of course being of the 'right' religion isn't a sure pass. That would be magic/superstition. (Do the ceremony right and the god owes you one.)

Christians believe their faith is the one sure *explicit* path. Other faiths have elements of truth and their members may be saved but implicitly it's through Christ, say Christians. Which is what C.S. Lewis taught in the Narnia books where Emeth the worshipper of Tash was really worshipping Aslan all along but didn't know it.

Wow, missed this conversation yesterday. Not sure I am comfortable with either versions you put up there though I find your explanations or your working out of those two takes on sin compelling. One thing perhaps that is lacking is that at least as I understand the Christian tradition in the broad and orthodox sense Sin is also turning away from communion with God, so in some sense it is a denial of a certain spirituality, Rich. Though if one in fact lives as Christ taught and yet is an atheist one may have the spiritual connection and not know it.
Its amazing to me how much this conversation is actually dominated by and that even those in RC imbibed a certain narrow Protestant interpretation of these things. and that somehow we are still arguing with St Augustine. But he wasn't the only guy to write on this stuff.
Well those are some of my thoughts observations about this conversation.
Oh, BTW Tripp, does anyone actually teach that mere adherence to the world religion of Christianity is a sure pass? As I understand it even the "once saved always saved" folk, don't think all adherents of Christianity are saved.

So then, what's the point of attempting what you term "salvation" during this life? If the God you believe in is just going to get rid of the bad stuff after you die?

'So then, what's the point of attempting what you term "salvation" during this life? ***If the God you believe in is just going to get rid of the bad stuff after you die?***'

Good call!

We don't earn our way into heaven - it is a gift - yet we work out our salvation with fear on this earth.

Some sins on the soul don't extinguish the divine grace God has given it by faith. But they lessen it. Because God is perfect those venial sins are burnt/cleansed away.

Megan,

What if all that is left of you is the bad stuff?

Larry,

A few things...

First, some of my fundy brothers and sisters in the Baptist churches have a very Calvinist view of things...modified to fit the Damascus road conversion experience. But once you are in, you are in. And Adherence to your church community is everything. This is why they purge their seminaries and the like. The institution must remain pure. Also, for what its worth, they are the only Christians around. The rest of us are idolaters etc.

Second, what does turning away from God look like? I agree with your statement, but it must look like a thing or have its effect/affect. Fogey's illustration from Lewis is helpful. Emeth did not explicitly worship Aslan, but his actions and relationships, HOW he lived suggested otherwise.

Fogey,

I don't believe in purgatory. But I think I get what it's after. There's no atoning in my thinking. But there is reconciliation with God and all of Creation. That Reconciliation is enough judgment, I think.

I do pray for/with the dead though. I figure they aren't done living though they have gone on. I could use their prayers...and I am happy to offer mine.

Tripp, it's your belief system, so the question comes right back to you -- what if all that's left of the person IS the "bad stuff"?

What then?

Then there would be nothing left of them after they encounter God's Love. I also think, perhaps a little like Fogey, that there has likely never been such a person nor ever will be. We are created in God's image.

So, is fear the only way to motivate people to being closer to God?

One might think so, given the general unwillingness of any large church body to formally reject traditional visions of Hell. You can find theologians and laypeople in any faith who are capable of looking at Hell as the absence of communion with God, but the dogmatic imagery of fire and brimstone continues, even when 95% of the population could not tell you what brimstone is!

I like Larry's point about having the spiritual connection and not knowing it. Larry, how do you balance that against the faith tradition of needing to accept and acknowledge Christ to be saved? Are you in the "many roads to God" camp?

So there's no hell-esque punishment in your spiritual worldview, just blinking out of existence entirely if heavenly judgment finds no "good parts" left?

I have no idea about your fear question. I think the better job that people in your line of work do persuading lay persons of the positive, the less you would have to rely on the negative.

But most people I've asked have such a hard time explaining why they believe in a God at all, they never really build much of a case for why I should want that God to be a part of my life. And the first has to happen before the second has a chance.

Megan,

Why does persuasion have to be a part of it? I am beginning to think less and less highly of persuasion as part of proclaiming God. I am not sure that I need to worry about convincing people of God so much as to show God, to proclaim God, and to be faithful myself. God is not a set of suppositions or proofs. So, persuasion doesn't fit.

And I don't think that threatening people with punishment is a way to convince people to believe. They may adhere to certain moral or ethical criterion, but believe in God? That cannot be coerced.

If your ministerial goal is to convince people to believe, then yes, you have to persuade, convince, etc. You will be a lot more effective if you answer people's questions as they actually are.

If your goal is just to impress God with your trumpeting of God's being, then that's between you and God.

I know persuasion is incredibly difficult. It's difficult in my line of work too, so I sympathize. But I don't see a way around it for either of us.

Perhaps it is a kind of persuasion, but I see my job/responsibility is to help people to encounter God. That can be in worship, prayer, study, service or fellowship. I am not sure I'm supposed to prove God exists or convince somebody of God except to show them God.

Does this make sense? And would you call this persuasion?

Only if it works. ;-)

Persuasion is whatever it takes to, well, persuade someone.

That will be different for different people, as several items on your list point out.

I would discount prayer, and probably worship, as persuasive tactics. A non-believer wouldn't have anyone/thing to worship or pray to. So prayer and worship are likely to be compelling to believers but not to non-.

In my opinion and experience, the very first step towards "encountering God" in your terms, is to establish why you think there's a God there to encounter. Until you can satisfy the mind asking that question, you can't go further.

Interesting. I'm gonna have to muse on that a bit.

Of course I agree that you can't force somebody to believe in let alone love God.

The wicked being scrubbed into nonexistence has some appeal but the New Testament (including Jesus himself) is clear that eternal punishment, though it may never happen, is a terrifying possibility.

Then there's the appealing idea from an Eastern church father that God's inescapable, all-consuming love is experienced as heaven by the blessed and hell by the damned, which I imagine is how you might see the cleansing, with the blessed alive and happy when it's over and the wicked all gone.

Tripp,
My point about the once save all ways saved camp is that for them it isn't adherence to Christianity in general some vague belief but something else. My point was though that I don't know of any official teaching that says if you have some general adherence to the Christian faith then your in no matter what! Not that that I like that language.
As for what turning away from God looks like I think that's the tricky thing, because what were talking about is in part bound up in intention. One can say it looks like X, but in terms of but I want to say we should focus on what wholeness salvation human health (we forget that salvation and health are often linked concepts and are in fact so linked for Hebrew and Greek), look like according the the teaching and example of Christ.

So Rich, to answer your question, to be spiritual is to be Christlike, I think one can be christ like and not necessarily know it or without complete understanding. Its grace but so is my fuller knowledge and understanding. No I am not a many paths to God, there is one path that is Christ, but one can be on that path and not realize it. From my study this is a very orthodox and catholic understanding, and it is the affirmation that we know in the positive what is the Way and where we should walk if we are to be assured that the spirit we follow is one that will lead us into a relationship with God, and we may say what is certainly evidence of not being on that path, but there is also a good bit of gray because God want all to be whole and in relationship with God, and reveals God's self even when that revelation cannot be fully received. However, I believe and I think this is largely what it means to be a Christian, that Christ is the full and final revelation of God.

oh, gosh, this is such a huge topic, i don't even know why i'm commenting on it--what can i add to such an intelligent group! :) but it's so interesting, too.

so, i'm reading a lot of krsna texts, and i'm just amazed at how my education (as little as it is!) in catholicism/the bible coordinates with a lot of things in those texts. the idea of reincarnation is very similar to the idea of original sin--that we're born into the world with a certain burden upon us, which we can choose to undo or "change". and in that case, krsna is the spiritual guide--the one who leads people away from sin by doing good.

such a cool blog, tripp! i just found it, and i'm reading it like it's my job!