Do you agree with the traditional doctrine of original sin?

[fhansen]

The mistake in Catholic theology is assuming that sin and grace are incompatible, everything else flows from that theological mistake.

I'm not sure what that might mean but sin and grace should be incompatible in the sense that evil and God are incompatible, or that sin and love are mutally exclusive. Christianity is not about making peace with sin in any case: a sudden about-face for God like the US potentially caving into Putin's demands. It's about His patient work of overcoming sin in us, restoring justice to His creation, forgiveness being the first necessary step in that.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure what that might mean but sin and grace should be incompatible in the sense that evil and God are incompatible

Are they really? It seems to me God is present everywhere, despite the fact that there is evil present in the universe. It seems to me that good vs. evil is more of a problem for human beings, than God.

, or that sin and love are mutally exclusive.

Again, I don't see how that's really true. Even parents love their children when they do horrible things.

Christianity is not about making peace with sin in any case: a sudden about-face for God like the US potentially caving into Putin's demands. It's about His patient work of overcoming sin in us, restoring justice to His creation, forgiveness being the first necessary step in that.

Isn't it consistent with medieval Christian theology to see evil as a privation, and not real, substantial thing in itself?

At any rate, Jesus related to sinners without becoming a sinner himself, so it certainly seems based on the biblical account alone, it's possible for grace to be given to sinners freely.

 

[Lukaris]

I pieced together certain developments that I believe compelled St.Augustine to draw a line in the sand. These were undermining the very core of salvation by grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10). From groups like Donatists, Arians, extreme Pelagians ( I think were a bad offshoot not Pelagius himself although his doctrine was weak)etc. There was social upheaval in all of this. While I don’t agree completely with St. Augustine, I appreciate and am thankful to him for contending for our need to know of salvation by grace.

 

[Teofrastus]

You know, both Lutheranism and Catholicism claim to understand something of God's revelation-our understanding being the purpose of that revelation, of course. A difference could be summed up in an alternative understanding of your last sentence. The law condemns us in our sins while the promise of grace means the abililty to overcome them, rather than simply remain in them. Augustine:

"The law was given that grace might be sought; and grace was given that the law might be fulfilled." (De Spiritu et Littera)
Lutheranism doesn't teach presumption of grace in that manner you suggest, even if the moral theology doesn't look like Roman Catholicism.

There are ways of living in the world that are difficult to justify as a Christian, despite the generous liberty inherent in the Gospel. However, Lutheranism doesn't pretend to define those boundaries in the starkly rigid and legalistic manner as Roman Catholicism. Instead, the Law condemns us in our sins and points us to the promise of the grace of God in Christ as our only consolation, not in our own good works or obedience.

Lutheran theology teaches that salvation, while declared complete through faith, requires ongoing dependence on Christ. This ongoing nature suggests it's not purely a forensic (legal) declaration.

This creates a theological tension: while sins are fully forgiven through faith, serious unrepentant sin can indicate or cause loss of faith. Thus, Lutherans navigate between extremes by maintaining that the Law continues to convict believers of sin, while finding comfort only in Christ's grace, thus avoiding both casual presumption of grace and legalistic boundaries.

 

[fhansen]

Are they really? It seems to me God is present everywhere, despite the fact that there is evil present in the universe. It seems to me that good vs. evil is more of a problem for human beings, than God.

Well, then I'm not sure why Jesus would've bothered to come, let alone sacrifice Himself in the manner He did if His only message was not to worry about sin-'it's no big deal, my Father really should've left Adam & Eve in Eden after all, in fact-and not banned them from the Tree of Life as well', etc. And I doubt that victims of the worst kind of atrocites, that most think are directly opposed to God's will, would necessarily agree with you there either. If God and sin aren't opposed then should heaven be any better than hell?

Again, I don't see how that's really true. Even parents love their children when they do horrible things.

Love is forgiving and accepting of sin, despite that sin. That doesn't mean that it condones, let alone creates or authors, that sin. A good parent knows the potential of their child to become responsbile and seeks to draw them into that. It doesn't always work and that's why we see so many people living the result of sin-gernally not happy campers. Jesus is like a good doctor who desires to heal us, not to leave us in our sins. He begins with a sacrifice ending in a prayer: "Father forgive them for they know not what they're doing". He gives us the revelation to know and the power, the grace, to overcome so that we might choose light over darkness, love over sin, rather than to blend them into some kind of shade of grey.

Isn't it consistent with medieval Christian theology to see evil as a privation, and not real, substantial thing in itself?

Yes, because God created everything good and any privation of that good results in real-life consequences Ask Ukraine, or the victims of genocide in Africa, or rape victims whose lifes are changed forever, the children of drug addicts whose lives end up mimicking the desparation and ugliness and poverty of their parents. Why should any goodness be detracted from? Would that be that God's will?

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, then I'm not sure why Jesus would've bothered to come, let alone sacrifice Himself in the manner He did if His only message was not to worry about sin-'it's no big deal, my Father really should've left Adam & Eve in Eden after all, in fact-and not banned them from the Tree of Life as well', etc. And I doubt that victims of the worst kind of atrocites, that most think are directly opposed to God's will, would necessarily agree with you there either. If God and sin aren't opposed then should heaven be any better than hell?

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe Catholicism is this shallow., as if our estrangement from God amounts to just a forensic problem of accounting of debts, or a metaphysical puzzle to solve.

Study any of Luther's hymns, or Bach's great choral works. There is a great exchange present between God and humanity in Christ. It is not merely a forensic declaration, but also a marriage and covenantal promise that brings hope to an estranged world, and opens the possibility of joy in the midst of our suffering. This is good news indeed.

Love is forgiving and accepting of sin, despite that sin. That doesn't mean that it condones, let alone creates or authors, that sin.

Lutheranism certainly doesn't teach anything like that.

A good parent knows the potential of their child to become responsbile and seeks to draw them into that.

Catholic theology doesn't teach that God merely draws us into responsible behavior, but threatens the Christian conscience in very harsh terms unless our behavior measures up to certain arbitrary standards based on human reasoning and conjecture.

It doesn't always work and that's why we see so many people living the result of sin-gernally not happy campers. Jesus is like a good doctor who desires to heal us, not to leave us in our sins. He begins with a sacrifice ending in a prayer: "Father forgive them for they know not what they're doing". He gives us the revelation to know and the power, the grace, to overcome so that we might choose light over darkness, love over sin, rather than to blend them into some kind of shade of grey.

Humanity's plight is far worse than that. Due to sin, we are dead to the idea we need a doctor at all, without the Law enlightening us to our own sinfulness. What's worse, Rome acts like the insurance middleman in that relationship- all treatments must be pre-approved and deemed necessary first. And sometimes it suggests some treatments of its own divising.

 

[fhansen]

Lutheran theology teaches that salvation, while declared complete through faith, requires ongoing dependence on Christ. This ongoing nature suggests it's not purely a forensic (legal) declaration.

Those quotes were actually mine, of course, not FireDragon's. Anyway, the declared salvation of Lutheranism depends solely on faith either way, whether a one-time or an ongoing act.

This creates a theological tension: while sins are fully forgiven through faith, serious unrepentant sin can indicate or cause loss of faith. Thus, Lutherans navigate between extremes by maintaining that the Law continues to convict believers of sin, while finding comfort only in Christ's grace, thus avoiding both casual presumption of grace and legalistic boundaries.

And yet, once justification/salvation are divorced from righteousness, from interior righteousness with right action following due to a righteousness "apart from the law" now given, and with grace amounting to forgiveness of sin only for all practical purposes, then presumption tends to hold a stronger place than any other disposition that's left as I see it.

 

[fhansen]

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe Catholicism is this shallow., as if our estrangement from God amounts to just a forensic problem of accounting of debts, or a metaphysical puzzle to solve.

Forensic? It amounts to a sickness which is most aptly described as separation from God. Reconciliation means grafting back into the Vine where this sickness is healed, along with it's result which is sin, even if personal struggle is also involved in that. Why glorify sin?

Lutheranism certainly doesn't teach anything like that.

Only if that means that sin and grace aren't incompatible, as you maintained-because that very incompatiblity is all I was defending and describing there in different terms.

Catholic theology doesn't teach that God merely draws us into responsible behavior, but threatens the Christian conscience in very harsh terms unless our behavior measures up to certain arbitrary standards based on human reasoning and conjecture.

The threat is very biblical: man reaps what he sews, to destruction or life. And Catholicism didn't create the concept of hell.

Humanity's plight is far worse than that. Due to sin, we are dead to the idea we need a doctor at all, without the Law enlightening us to our own sinfulness. What's worse, Rome acts like the insurance middleman in that relationship- all treatments must be pre-approved and deemed necessary first. And sometimes it suggests some treatments of its own divising.

It's more than the law enlightening us, of course. Without grace we won't respond in any case-we'd only be left convicted of sin at best with no answer to it- with no way out of the dilemma. So God calls and awakens us with His revelation and grace and we still may or may not care -and respond. Either way, again, the purpose of grace is more than the forgiveness of sin but the means to overcome it as well. Jesus doesn't intend to leave us dead in our sins.

As far as the RCC, the church's place has always been to introduce us to and establish relationship with God while informing us of His will and then nurturing that relationship through to the end. As with Lutheranism, we baptize at the beginning and gather with each other at church to celebrate a more initimate communion with God via the Eucharist, as two examples. As far as other teachings, most hang on the basics: that God offers the grace to not only forgive us of sin but to also change us into the people we were created to be, as we will. Those who care enough about that will draw nearer and nearer to Him-while others won't. Many, many people down through the centuries have done so, producng great amounts of good fruit in the process. Others, including leaders, have abused and exploited church teachings for gain, or sat doing nothing, complacent in their forgiven state, I guess, while burying their talents. But the wheat and the tares grow together and, either way, impeccabilty is achieved by absolutely no one in this life.

Humility and true piety demand that we're not only convicted of our sin, but also that we strive to overcome it, now with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit that's given us for that very purpose.

 

[Teofrastus]

... Humility and true piety demand that we're not only convicted of our sin, but also that we strive to overcome it, now with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit that's given us for that very purpose.

The Catholic emphasis on mastering our sinful nature is problematic. How can we "strive to overcome" something we cannot fully comprehend? Sin is like an invisible enemy—we cannot know its true nature. As Paul notes, "Sin deceived me" (Rom. 7:11). Sin parasitically attaches itself to what appears good and desirable.

Therefore, the solution isn't striving to overcome sin, but rather being mastered by Christ. We overcome sin not through our own mastery, but by focusing on Christ rather than on sin. Any attempt to fight sin directly leads to self-deception.

The Christian calling is not to pursue moral perfection, which itself can become sinful pride. Rather, we are called to be faithful citizens while trusting in Christ's work. The pursuit of perfection often masks spiritual pride.

 

[fhansen]

The Christian calling is not to pursue moral perfection, which itself can become sinful pride.

And that can become an excuse not to persue moral perfection as if moraltiy was a bad thing now and sin was superior. Or as if righteousness was a matter of pride, while, in fact, true righteousness only comes about via humility- while the essence of sin is pride. Or as if God can't possibly truly justify the ungodly but must only pretend that they're just when they're not. God didn't create man, or anything else, to sin, so perfection is nothing more that how we were meant to be. We just have to get on board now that we know, and now that the deceitfulness of sin has been revealed. And that knowledge is meant to blossom, and to produce something:
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." john 17:3

To be in Christ is to overcome sin-if we're not then we're not truly in Him. That's simply the path we're intended to be on, a journey that leads to perfection even as we might stumble and fall again now and then in the process, and even if the process won't be completed in the absolute sense until the next life. It's to be perfected in love to put it best, That's not only salvation but the very purpose of man. It's about a partnership, recognizing, again, that 'apart from Him we can do nothing', but that 'with Him all things are possible'.

 

[FireDragon76]

And that can become an excuse not to persue moral perfection as if moraltiy was a bad thing now and sin was superior.

Anybody who has seriously studied psychology realizes that moralism can be used to abuse and manipulate other people, and as a tool of oppression. That is what Luther is concerned about.

In addition, there's just the sheer amount of psychic energy potentially wasted on what amounts to human-made religious illusions and a hall of mirrors. As @Teofrastus rightly pointed out, we don't even understand the depths of our own sinfulness.

Lastly, Rome assumes that reason isn't affected by human sinfulness. But today we know that's a ridiculous notion through human psychology and social sciences. Motivated reasoning is a very real and widely understood phenomenon, whose consequences are all too obvious. Reason is ever the servant of passion, as David Hume pointed out many centuries ago, and everything we have learned about how the human minds works seems to confirm this. If we are ever going to get a hold on something like the responsible use of reason, we must admit our own fallibility, self-dealing, and impure motivations first.

 

[fhansen]

Anybody who has seriously studied psychology realizes that moralism can be used to abuse and manipulate other people, and as a tool of oppression. That is what Luther is concerned about.

Ok?? Like that's some kind of revelation? Yet morality is supported and exhalted all throughout the bible while the very thing you object to, legalisic and perhaps hypocritcal scrupulosity for example, is also denounced in the bible in favor of a real thing that's revealed. Maybe Luther suffered from the former? IDK.

In addition, there's just the sheer amount of psychic energy potentially wasted on what amounts to human-made religious illusions and a hall of mirrors. As @Teofrastus rightly pointed out, we don't even understand the depths of our own sinfulness.

Can be-and yet the Christian faith reveals much that we don't know without it. Either way I've met numerous phonies and false pietistic types in denominations I've attended; I've also known far too many of the opposite kind, the real thing, changed by and following God, It's not about some deep intellectual understanding of all things human but about an encounter with the living God-and allowing our hearts to be changed by it.

Lastly, Rome assumes that reason isn't affected by human sinfulness. But today we know that's a ridiculous notion through human psychology and social sciences. Motivated reasoning is a very real and widely understood phenomenon, whose consequences are all too obvious. Reason is ever the servant of passion, as David Hume pointed out many centuries ago, and everything we have learned about how the human minds works seems to confirm this. If we are ever going to get a hold on something like the responsible use of reason, we must admit our own fallibility, self-dealing, and impure motivations first.

You're only telling me that people often override reason, believing what they prefer to believe about themselves. I see that all the time, in myself as well. But I'm sorry if you haven't met or been impressed by anyone who's been humbled and improved by grace, whose egos have been stilled or reigned in to a high degree, who truly rest in God and authentically begin to do His will. Love is the key-and some simply respond to and embrace it well. I like Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop here in a somewhat related quote:
“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.”

Fallen man may be a real putz in so many ways, but he's not meant to be, and he's not irredeemable. It's a pride issue, mainly.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok?? Like that's some kind of revelation? Yet morality is supported and exhalted all throughout the bible while the very thing you object to, legalisic and perhaps hypocritcal scrupulosity for example, is also denounced in the bible in favor of a real thing that's revealed. Maybe Luther suffered from the former? IDK.

Can be-and yet the Christian faith reveals much that we don't know without it. Either way I've met numerous phonies and false pietists in denominations I've attended; I've also known far too many of the opposite kind, the real thing, changed by and following God, It's not about some deep intellectual understanding of all things human but about an encounter with the living God-and allowing our hearts to be changed by it.

You're only telling me that people often override reason, believing what they prefer to believe about themselves. I see that all the time, in myself as well.

It's not that we override reason. Our reasoning ability itself is dependent on intuition and experience.

But I'm sorry if you haven't met or been impressed by anyone who's been humbled and improved by grace, whose egos have been stilled or reigned in to a high degree, who truly rest in God and authentically begin to do His will. Love is the key-and some simply respond to and embrace it well.

How exactly is that proof of the veracity of a doctrine? There are exemplary people of many different faiths.

Martin Luther pointed out that if it's a matter of piety, the Turks of his day had Christians beat. He wasn't endorsing Islam, merely pointing out the moral hypocrisy of a religion that claimed to have truth and sanctity but didn't have any fruit to show for it, because the foundations were diseased and corrupt.

 

[fhansen]

How exactly is that proof of the veracity of a doctrine? There are exemplary people of many different faiths.

Ok, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you as having a highly pessimistic view of humanity, that there really aren't any explemplary people at the end of the day, which, if that is your view, isn't altogether unwarranted and yet for myself there came a point where I no longer questioned each and every motivation as having a selfish or false motivation. You seem to think (I think) that any aspirations toward holiness are ipso facto bad, or at least wrong-headed and to be doubted? I mean, human self-righteousness, apart from and devoid of real righteousness, is alive and well and constitues a very powerful and destructive force in our world but the answer isn't necesarily to simply resign oneself to wallowing in an acknowledgement of our sinfulness, or our ignorance, limitations, and weaknesses, either, even if self-reflection and a degree of self-doubt and contrition where appropraite are healthy means of helping us sort out what's real and true in us from what's false.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your point, but I can't help but wonder if Luther didn't just kind of give up. I mean, real, good, fruit is possible for a Christian, no?-as the love that motivates it is possible. Forgive me if I'm way off course from your thoughts here.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok, so maybe I'm misunderstanding you as having a highly pessimistic view of humanity, that there really aren't any explemplary people at the end of the day, which, if that is your view, isn't altogether unwarranted and yet for myself there came a point where I no longer questioned each and every motivation as having a selfish or false motivation. You seem to think (I think) that any aspirations toward holiness are ipso facto bad, or at least wrong-headed and to be doubted?

Treated with a great deal of skepticism. Sanctity is often the refuge of the hypocrite.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your point, but I can't help but wonder if Luther didn't just kind of give up. I mean, real, good, fruit is possible for a Christian, no?-as the love that motivates it is possible. Forgive me if I'm way off course from your thoughts here.

Luther didn't teach that Christians shouldn't do good works, merely that good works were not necessarily of a religious nature. He was talking about what today we recognize as secularism, hundreds of years before that concept crystalized. Good works don't need a priest or magisterium to justify or authenticate them, they come spontaneously from faith. Everything else is just religious performativity.

 

[fhansen]

Treated with a great deal of skepticism. Sanctity is often the refuge of the hypocrite.

Ya, and the sanctimonious. But the also of the holy. There must be a higher plane that humans were created for even if it isn't reached in its entirety in this life.

Good works don't need a priest or magisterium to justify or authenticate them, they come spontaneously from faith. Everything else is just religious performativity.

I think that kind of goes without saying, especially in light of Jesus' treatment of and commentary on most Pharisees. But He certainly didn't teach that righteousness was impossible for man, only that man wasn't even created to go it alone, to possess any righteousness apart from grace ,from God. Works, to a Catholic, would come naturally from love but either way, whether from faith or love (or both: Gal 5:6), they come from God who inspires and grants both. And didn't Luther speak of good works as flowing from gratitude for salvation, which would seem, in that case, to be rather forced and theoretical, as well as self-motivated.

 

[Teofrastus]

... To be in Christ is to overcome sin-if we're not then we're not truly in Him. That's simply the path we're intended to be on, a journey that leads to perfection even as we might stumble and fall again now and then in the process, and even if the process won't be completed in the absolute sense until the next life. It's to be perfected in love to put it best, That's not only salvation but the very purpose of man. It's about a partnership, recognizing, again, that 'apart from Him we can do nothing', but that 'with Him all things are possible'.

Sin is overcome in Christ's victory. We live by faith in Christ's victory, not by sight of our own victory over sin.

From antiquity to the High Middle Ages, Catholic theology was deeply influenced by Platonism, emphasizing the soul's participation in divine, heavenly realities. During the late Middle Ages, Christianity largely abandoned its Platonic heritage. This shift, which Hans Boersma analyzes in "Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry" (2011), profoundly affected both Catholic and Protestant thought. As a result, many contemporary Christians find it difficult to understand how believers participate in Christ's victory.

This modern mindset also prevents understanding of how humanity shares in Adam's sin. Many miss the essential truth that salvation depends entirely on Christ, not on personal achievement. Rather than striving for spiritual perfection, Christians are called to be faithful citizens in daily life. The Christian calling is simply to live as decent, helpful citizens while trusting in Christ's work. The tendency towards Pelagian thinking in Catholicism must end.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ya, and the sanctimonious. But the also of the holy. There must be a higher plane that humans were created for even if it isn't reached in its entirety in this life.

I think that kind of goes without saying, especially in light of Jesus' treatment of and commentary on most Pharisees. But He certainly didn't teach that righteousness was impossible for man,

Didn't he? On numerous occasions, he seems to suggest that humanity is not good or righteous (Matt 19:17, 19:26) and is indebted to God (Luke 17:10).

I think Jesus was far more interested in teaching his disciples about the value of compassion than being focused on moral perfectionism.

And didn't Luther speak of good works as flowing from gratitude for salvation, which would seem, in that case, to be rather forced and theoretical, as well as self-motivated.

That's more of an emphasis in Reformed theology (the Heidelberg Catechism lays out this structure, for instance), but it's present in Luther to some extent. However, it's not as prominent in the Lutheran tradition as a whole.

My sense is that the Lutheran understanding of the motivations for prosocial acts and good works are a sense of duty, solidarity, compassion, and vocation. In contemporary Lutheran theology, there is an especially acute sense of service to the neighbor who is marginalized or oppressed by injustice, following Dietrich Bonhoeffer's understanding of the Theology of the Cross and so-called "religionless Christianity".

 

[fhansen]

Rather than striving for spiritual perfection, Christians are called to be faithful citizens in daily life. The Christian calling is simply to live as decent, helpful citizens while trusting in Christ's work. The tendency towards Pelagian thinking in Catholicism must end.

Wait a minute here! You say that we're not meant to strive towards holiness but we are "to be faithful citizens in daily life.", "to live as decent, helpful citizens". Well... why should we do even that? How and why would a sinner "improve" in behavior or anything else unless something changed, something more than trusting in Christ's work having occurred? Isn't even your position too legalistic, too demanding, already? Isn't faith, alone, enough?

 

[FireDragon76]

Wait a minute here! You say that we're not meant to strive towards holiness but we are "to be faithful citizens in daily life.", "to live as decent, helpful citizens". Well... why should we do even that? How and why would a sinner "improve" in behavior or anything else unless something changed, something more than trusting in Christ's work having occurred? Isn't even your position too legalistic, too demanding, already? Isn't faith, alone, enough?

It's an aspirational ideal, not a legalistic requirement. It has to do with the Lutheran concept of vocation.