"But God hath introduced Man to be a spectator of Himself and of His works; and not a spectator only, but also an interpreter of them. Wherefore it is a shame for man to begin and to leave off where the brutes do. Rather he should begin there, and leave off where Nature leaves off in us: and that is at contemplation, and understanding, and a manner of life that is in harmony with herself. See then that ye die not without being spectators of these things." -Epictetus
No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9
We find Epictetus being lenient in his golden saying XIII. Epictetus argues for a better quality of life to be had if we observe God and his works. As noble as this might seem God demands more of us and we have the obligation to make ourselves like Jesus. Jesus was without sin and though all man has sinned we must still make the effort to be sinless. And luckily God's mercy and grace and his son's death is powerful enough to so. Epictetus, whom I have much respect for, was not given the Gospel and so did not realize his own personal sin that had to be dealt with. So he merely recommended that we look to God as an example for our lives. He did not say that it was required.
He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high . . . Hebrews 1:3
And it is this that we should be, but are not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Do you believe in original sin?
Nope. I see where you might have supposed that, though. Do you?
Let me clear it up. All man has sinned not because we couldn't have done otherwise but because we are too stupid to not sin. In the same way that Christ "could" have sinned but "wouldn't". It is not his nature as pertains to the blog post.
Gunn, I get the impression you actually do believe in original sin, but you call it something else and label another, similar concept as "original sin". I'm curious, how would you define original sin?
I did not eat of the tree. Therefore, I do not get blamed for that disobedience. I did not commit my father's sins. Therefore, I do not get blamed for that disobedience. I believe that we are only held accountable for our sins and and being a stumbling block if we intentionally cause another to sin.
So how would you define the concept of original sin? The reason I'm asking has to do with your recent posts on my blog referring to Catholicism; I personnally found the Catholic textbook-definition of original sin and its implications to be different than I had expected. I'm curious to see if you would actually agree with it.
Original sin is the idea that since we are all descended from Adam that his guilt for disobeying God and eating of the tree we all share the guilt of the act. It is completely unbacked in my opinion.
Hm...well allow me to throw a wrench in your works: I think I agree with you. However, given a different definition I do believe in original sin.
The difference being the difference between inheriting guilt and inheriting consequences. For example: generations before ours built a bloody rift between the people of the United States and the natives who used to live here. Now, we did not inherit the guilt for committing those atrocities, but we have inherited the resulting animosity between American Indians and the U.S. Government. In the same way, we did not inherit Adam's guilt directly, but Adam's sin did jeopardize the harmony between mankind and God. Man was, and is, the steward of creation, a creation that has now been subjected to futility and requires a full and total redemption. This propensity toward futility and animosity against the Giver of Life is what we have inherited from the first man, who made himself an enemy of God. Would you agree?
So God is holding on to a bitterness with those he loves?
Not at all. But sin has greater consequences than hurting God's feelings, and therefore requires a greater act than mere forgiveness to rectify its disastrous results. Restitution needs to be made. If forgiveness from the heart were the only thing needed to redeem mankind from Adam's sin, there would have been no need for Christ's sacrifice. As it is, God promising the Messiah immediately after Adam's sin shows His willingness to forgive from the outset, but also it shows the precarious state that Adam had placed his entire race in.
So are you saying that the knowledge of good and evil is bad?
Adam sinned by disobeying God's command, specifically in order to attain a divine state (the serpent: "You shall be like God"). God wants us to attain to His nature, but not by our own endeavors. What I am claiming is that Adam's affront to the holiness and sovereignty of God placed everything under his stewardship (including his "fruit" with Eve which was to "fill the whole earth") in a state of rebellion against God until such time as they can be redeemed through atonement. This does not mean that every man will be accountable to God for Adam's crime, but only that we are all born into a world that is bent toward confusion, futility, and ultimately death by default of no longer being in harmony with the Logos who is eternally living. This is the concept I understand to be Original Sin. Does this make sense?
To be honest I think what you just described does not count as original sin. Perhaps you may have your own personal idea of it but it doesn't link with the Catholic Church's notion.
What I assent to is that we inherited the knowledge of good and evil from Adam. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think that by having that knowledge of good and evil that we are always spiritually separate from God and cannot do anything about it. I think that it is man's personal sin that rips him asunder from His presence. Not the futile world that God made it.
Well actually, I'd say that if my explanation had included something about man's tendency to drift toward sin rather than away from it, it would be spot on what the Church teaches:
Catechism 404 (on Original Sin):
"...that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"--a state and not an act."
405:
"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called 'concupiscence.' Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."
But here lies the problem, I don't believe that infant baptism does anything magical. I don't believe that straight up baptism does anything magical. I think it is a statement of your faith that holds you accountable to other Christians. I don't think infants are capable of knowing that.
And I understand where that comes from for you. From what I can tell many Protestants or non-Catholic Christians in general have combined the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation into one important life event, and I think that's valid. The idea here is not that baptism does anything magical since original sin was not seen as an element of individual guilt: instead its an outward sign of God validating Christ's sacrifice by removing from you the status of original sin and placing you under the implications of Christ's merit, the proper response of which is one's individual commitment to God being made public (Confirmation).
Your last comment didn't say anything explicit that I disagree with. But there are implicit things I disagree with that I can't quite accuse you of. I will leave it at that.
God Bless.
God bless brother.
Post a Comment