There's a great new article at Douglas Jacoby's web site by Michael Cameron. It takes on the common Christian notion about 'Human Nature' and the associated idea of original sin I suspect that many folks who call themselves Christians haven't thought much about original sin, but they may know and hold to the idea of the sinful nature. I certainly believed in the idea that, as humans, there's a part of us that is inclined to sin. It's the part of us that longs for sin, it's why we cannot help ourselves.
Michael Cameron's article makes the case that what's referred to as the 'sinful nature' could really be translated as 'the flesh' meaning a reliance on ourselves rather than God. He also says that this idea of humans having an ingrained sinful nature shares a common heritage with the idea o original sin. They both rely on the idea that we inherited the desire to sin from Adam and Eve. He makes the argument that it is really not consistent with the story in Genesis. What was passed down to succeeding generations is not an inborn inclination to sin but an environment of sin.
What do I mean? Adam and eve are tempted externally – by Satan. The idea of sin doesn't actually come from them first, but rather from outside of them. But the idea of sin is then transferred into the general environment (let's call this "the World") as humans pass it on to each other. We see this as Eve passes the idea on to Adam, and so infects his thinking with it, as he simultaneously also chooses to doubt God's goodness. The world now becomes the agent of Satan in infecting each successive generation with sin, as people also individually choose to doubt God's goodness, and so to rely on the false hopes of the world.
He goes on to show how sin is a result of our doubting God's goodness, but needing hope. We turn to the false hopes and temporary satisfaction of sin. This begins a self fulfilling spiral where sin produce guilt which keeps us from approaching God deepening our need for fulfillment and leading to more sin. Sin is like an adictive drug; it provides a temporary cure for our lack of love but leaves us empty and longing for more to satisfy our need.
Worldly influence towards uncertainty of God's goodness, and therefore worldly influence to sin is all that is required to pass this situation on from one generation to the next. This is enough to fully explain the situation we see in the world, so there is no need to find anything intrinsic in human nature to explain it. This also explains how Jesus death potentially breaks the chain reaction through providing a basis for certainty despite our sin and weaknesses.Here, for once, is a way of being forgiven and accepted that is dependent on God himself, on his decision to forgive - rather than on how we measure up to God's expectations.
What I love is how he goes on to show how this idea that we have a sinful side prevents us from feeling certain of God's love for us.
How does the idea of "human nature" in itself affect certainty? The concept of an intrinsic "human nature" and the related concept of original sin fights against certainty because they make one feel intrinsically ashamed, in a similar way that some people are made to feel intrinsically ashamed of their skin colour through racism. Another example is people feeling shame over being sexually abused as a child, or being abandoned by a parent, even though these things are not their fault. All of these phenomena dissociate shame from the actions of the one feeling the shame, making it a false, and very toxic idea of shame.
The idea of a ahuman sinful nature also works against the idea that Jesus was fully human and can sympathize with our weaknesses. If he was fully human, did he have a sinful nature too? If not, then was he truly fully human?
He bore our sin - that much is true, but he wasn't sinful in his nature, he was perfect, that's why he could be our perfect sacrifice. (2 Cor 5:21). But did he feel tempted to sin through the external environment he was in? Of course he did – exactly as we do, but he resisted (Heb 4:15). There is a good argument to say he was so empowered to do so largely because he was so certain about heaven, having just come from there, and so certain about God's love because he was God's only Son. This certainty would have helped him to block out the external influence of the world.According to the idea of a sinful nature, it is impossible to be both perfect in nature and also fully human. This begs the question of whether the idea really fits, and whether the one exception – Jesus, disproves the rule. In other words, the idea of a sinful nature doesn't fit both with Jesus' full humanity, and his total perfection. The idea of certainty versus external influence does.
If is was no sinful nature, then how do we explain the spread of sin?
Another common verse touted as a justification actually argues to condemn the idea that sin passes to the next generation by birth. Romans 5:12 says that sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin. Then the next bit is interesting. "And so, death spread to all men, because all sinned". It didn't spread to all men because all men were born, but because they all made the choice to sin, to doubt God's goodness, to rely on the flesh instead of on God's promises.
He nicely wraps up his argument here:
Some might say that I am missing the point entirely. They might say Jesus died on the cross and through this crucified our intrinsic sinful nature, destroying it on the cross, and setting us free from its power. But if the sinful nature is our intrinsic tendency to sin, and this has been destroyed, this doctrine leaves such people in the difficult position of having to explain why they still have this tendency at times– even as Christians. And this persistent contradiction would put doubts in their mind as to whether they really are saved after all, further compounding the problem in the familiar vicious cycle.If they say they no longer do sin however, (as some do), then they have a problem with 1 John 1:9-10, which says they are deceiving themselves, and calling God a liar. Here, at the very least we see that the doctrine of the "sinful nature" or "human nature", together with the doctrine of original sin, is a foothold for uncertainty, and therefore for Satan. It is also historically, the genesis point for a whole raft of other false doctrines that have relied on it.
For these reasons, it makes much more sense to say that sin is a choice we all make, because the environment we live in is strongly influential towards this, and it becomes emotionally compelling because of our uncertainty. Jesus' death gives us a basis for certainty, through knowing that our sin is paid for up front. As we believe, the addictive power of sin, uncertainty and emptiness drains away. We don't actually need sin any more - we have the real thing now, so we can progressively decide to discard all the substitutes as they become apparent, but from a position of security and confidence.
There's so much good stuff, there I have only scratched the surface anad frankly haven't done it justice. Please, go read.
I suppose it won't come as a shock to you that I find this analysis lacking. I'm always distrustful of a "new" take on sin, especially one that effectively discounts the Church's historic teaching on "original sin." The history of the church's theology of sin reveals different ways of how that sin affects us or to what effect it takes, but the orthodox view has always been that the first man's sin passed on "genetically," as it were, the state of sin to future generations.
Sin is not just a choice; it's not just behavior. It's who we are before Christ. Apart from that understanding, the Gospels don't make much sense. Jesus doesn't save us from bad behavior; He saves us from being bad people.
I think Cameron's perspective here owes more to psychology than to the biblical theology.
I also think this is a poor read of Romans 5. Take a look at Romans 5:12-15 in context. Verse 15 is especially a capper: "For if the many died by the trespass of the one man . . ."
That clearly places an emphasis not just on our choice of sin but on the origin of our sins in Adam. One man's trespass caused us to die. Seems fairly clear-cut to me.
Paul's teaching elsewhere also seems to speak directly for the orthodox understanding of original sin.
I'd also mention how unsatisfying Cameron's emphasis on certainty vs. uncertainty is in the last paragraph you cite.
If my sense of security in salvation hinges on my choosing not to sin anymore (because I don't need to or whatever), I will always be insecure. Not only does his view not explain our continuing propensity to sin ("the environment influences us," I'm sorry, is not a biblical conclusion), it makes me less secure because it places my security on the things I do.
Instead, I trust that the Bible teaches that God is working in me and through me, despite my sin, that God is actually refining me. This is sanctification. We still sin because we live on this side of the second coming. But we are sinning less because God is sanctifying us.
The moment I attribute my not sinning to my good choices I am boasting in myself rather than Christ. And self is no security.
Jesus didn't die to modify our behavior. He didn't die so that people making bad choices can make good ones now. He died to give life to dead people.
I suppose it won't come as a shock to you that I find this analysis lacking.
Nope. In fact, I've been anticipating your response. :-)
First, I have a feeling this may be another long and educational conversation, I sure hope so. I also suspect that some of my assumptions or understandings of the doctrine of original sin will be corrected.
I am not one to take the fact that it has been taught for centuries at face value. Tradition does not equal truth. Frankly, I am skeptical of claims that "original sin" is the historical doctrine of the church, meaning back to the beginning. I agree that of the past centuries it has been a part of many churches' doctrine, however, as I understand it, and I'm sure that you know more of this than I do and will correct me if I'm wrong :-), the doctrine of original sin has traceable roots. In other words, it's beginnings can be discovered, and they are hundreds of years after the beginning of the church. It is not clear that this is a part of the foundations of the early church. Furthermore, in my mind, if this were a fundamental aspect of sin, it would have roots in Jewish teachings far before Christ. Is there evidence that the Jews understood sin to work this way?
I don't see this passage (obviously :-) ) as that clear cut. Looking at the paragraph in question I see a plea to believe that salvation can be brought, as unbelievable as it seemed to them, by one man. After all, one man got us into this mess, why shouldn't one man, especially God's son, get us out of it? Further more, just as verse 15 taken alone seems to be a slam dunk for you, verse 12 seems to seal it for me: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- " Sin entered through Adam, but death came "because all sinned". It is our own sin that condemns us, not Adam's.
Have you read the entire article? If not, I would encourage you to do so. The last paragraph on certainty is built upon through the entire paper, which I've only quoted maybe a tenth of what he's written. I think that if you read the entire thing you'll understand his point better and be better able to appreciate it.
His point, and a powerful one I think, is not that a lack of sin or proper choices give us certainty. Rather it is God's goodness that gives us certainty. In our sin we substitute a whole line of things for God, temporary fleeting pleasures, when it is God that we truly need. The more we sin the more guilt we have and the harder it is to approach God. I agree with you that reliance on a lack of sin or on proper choices is a hollow and hopeless thought, and I don't get that is what Cameron is saying. Rather, through Jesus we have a direct, certain line to God, where our sin doesn't matter, it's taken care of, and we can look to Him, remain focused on HIm and rely on Him. I'm not sure I'm doing it justice still.
What I appreciated about this paper was that it made the concept of sin relatable to me. In other words, the pattern he described fits the pattern of my own life, I can see that at work. It also better fits the concept of a loving God. Original sin makes God out to be one who punishes those who have done nothing wrong. It leads to the conclusion that we are guilty at birth ad die apart from him condemned to Hell from moment one. That does not square at all with a just God, a loving God, defender of the helpless and hopeless.
I don't have time now, but I'll share my fuller thoughts tomorrow (including requested references from the OT and the church fathers). In the meantime, though, I'd encourage you to take still another good look at Romans 5 -- again, looking at the full context, not just how one or two words sound.
Let's go beyond vv.12-15, as well, and look at the remaining portion of the chapter. In particular, check out Romans 5:18-19:
One trespass = condemnation for all men.
One man's disobedience = many were made sinners.
Two more things before I leave you alone: If all that was passed on to us is an "environment of sin," why is the biblical language in terms of our "nature" and our "flesh"? If we do not inherit a sinful nature, how does the logical conclusion of that -- our inner potential for goodness -- square with Paul saying "There is none good"?
More tomorrow.
Thanks for this workout! ;-)
Okay, I lied (but the devil made me do it! ;-). I've jotted down some notes, but I'll get back to you with more tomorrow (Wednesday). Sorry, man.
I'm back. I wrote this this morning, and it ended up being longer than I wanted it to be and saying less than I wanted it to. If that makes sense.
Anyways, I really just sort of responded to the ideas of Adam's sin passing on sin to us (original sin) rather than Cameron's essay per se, because the original sin thing is something we've discussed before and because I think it's really the point.
So here goes . . .
You're right that the early church's expression of original sin dates several hundred years after Christ. But the reason for that is that most all of the Church's official theological articulation didn't begin until there was a need to respond to heresies. For many years, beliefs were common or objections were scattered or not pressing enough to require a systematic development and full defense of the orthodox position. The Church first really articulated the view of original sin in about A.D. 400, and it was in response mainly to the heresy of Pelagius, who, get this, was teaching that people weren't born with sinful natures, but were born "free."
From the time after the New Testament's writing until 400, the development of the doctrine of original sin was variegated and in various stages of articulation and maturity. But even as early as 140, Irenaeus was writing that in Adam's sin all humans sinned. Tertullian said essentially the same thing circa 160-220. Ambrose in the fourth century wrote that all humans sinned in Adam. By the time of Augustine (354-430), the great Church father, really the patristic who birthed the Reformation and whom evangelicals today owe a lot theologically speaking, the idea of "original sin" became the mainstay.
It is not an unimportant point that original sin was not articulated definitively until the fourth century, but I don't think it says anything significant about what was believed before that. Four hundred years (actually, closer to three hundred from the time of the writing of the last book in the NT) is a long time, but it does not indicate that the Church departed from the biblical teaching on sin all of a sudden. The reason we can only trace extrabiblical teaching on original sin to Augustine and A.D. 400 (if we don't count the early contributions, like Irenaeus mentioned above) is because it simply wasn't articulated before then. The development of that theology hadn't occurred until then, probably because there wasn't a need for it to (until Pelagius' challenges). We can't trace it to earlier because there's nothing to trace it to.
Unless you count the New Testament.
Romans 5 is an important text, as we've already discussed. I think the context really needs to be key there, but even vv.12-13 alone don't seem to me to say what you think they do. But once you get to vv.18-19, the implication seems clear to me – "Adam's disobedience made us all sinners."
Reducing the presence of sin or our inclination toward it to merely a response to outward stimuli (Cameron's "environment of sin") is not in keeping with the predominant vocabulary of sin in the New Testament. "The flesh" and "sinful nature" are used frequently, and both of these refer to an inner quality. (Look at Ephesians 2, for instance, where Paul writes about us being "by nature, objects of wrath.") Elsewhere in Romans, Paul writes of vessels prepared beforehand for destruction. And he connects salvation and reprobation (whom God loves and whom he "hates") not to anything we've done or our own will but to God's mercy and sovereign choice (before Jacob or Esau were born, before they had done anything good or bad…).
Even Jesus' teaching assumes an inner quality of sin in his audience. The Sermon on the Mount is not about changing behavior so much as it is about transforming the heart, the character of a person. Jesus says if we just think about a woman lustfully, we've committed adultery. That takes the idea of sin from something "done" externally – an act – and places it inside us as something "done" internally – a state of being. Sin is not just something we do; it is who we are, and I believe the New Testament's entire teaching on sin testifies to the notion of original sin. I take comfort in knowing that the majority of Christendom, whatever the differences in how it affects us or how it can be overcome, believes we are born sinners.
You wanted some OT evidence for original sin, as well. Frankly, I'm not sure why there should be some dichotomy between the OT and the NT. The NT illuminates what was only shadows in the OT. You'd be hard pressed to find teaching on the Trinity in the OT, although I believe some evidence is there. But you won't find a systematic theology in the OT like you do the NT, and you especially won't find it in the early chapters of Genesis, which is not a formal theology but a Story, really.
Here are a couple of verses from the Psalms that indicate the doctrine of original sin:
"Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies." – Psalm 58:3
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." – Psalm 51:5
In any event, surely we can agree that when the New Testament teaches something, it is to be believed even if we cannot find clear teaching of it in the Old Testament. (I don't mean at this point that you have to agree the NT teaches original sin – I just mean that, generally speaking, we agree that if the NT teaches something, it is a biblical teaching).
I think that's a lot to look at, but I'll stop. We could examine more passages more in depth, but that would take more time and energy than I have these days (and you, probably, as well). This stuff is sort of fresh on my mind, though, as I just finished reading Iain Campbell's "The Doctrine of Sin" and have been fooling around with David Smith's "With Willful Intent: A Theology of Sin." You've caught me at a time ripe for verbosity. ;-)
Anyways, as a supplement, check out Jollyblogger's recent series of posts on TULIP, particularly the two or three on Total Depravity. He goes into more detail on original sin, albeit from a stronger Reformed perspective, than I have here.
Hope this makes sense!
Jared,
I'm not ignoring you, I've jsut been busy with other things. I've got a pretty busy weekend ahead of me too ('Tis the Season, don't you know), so I might not get to a response until next week.
Oh, it's no big deal.
Even when you do respond, it's unlikely I'll be able to respond adequately to you. We're going out of town next week and have lots to do before that.
Maybe we should let both of ourselves off the hook for a while? ;-)
Wow, this has been sitting waiting for me for a month! I want to get back to this becasue I hate leaving things unfinished. Hopefully I will, but I'm not sure.