Paradise Lost

[public hermit]

As long as you're willing to have a discussion with me, we're good. Expound to your heart's content ... and then let me do the same.



Mmm. We need to separate what hath been mashed together here. It wouldn't surprise me if my family said I'm not humble. Whether I am or not is irrelevant to whether I can have a humbling experience ... and I did. I'm not sure you know me well enough to say otherwise. My ego got in the way and prevented my intellectual assent. Only when I learned to put my ego aside and read Augustine for what it was was I able to give that assent. It was a good lesson for me. I learned many more lessons about intellectual games in pursuit of my engineering and history endeavors. I used to enjoy such games, but now view them as too often childish.

All I'm saying is you accept the doctrine and I don't. The notion of inherited guilt before God is absurd. The doctrine says too much that's not needed. What Augustine should have taken from Irenaeus instead was the notion that we are created spiritually immature,; the divine intention being that we are created to grow into maturity. That's all that's needed. Sure, we inherit things from those who come before us, but the idea that we were virtually perfect, rightly ordered and rightly related, and then fell, passing guilt on to the progeny, is simply untenable. It's Augustine's attempt at theodicy, but over time it becomes written in stone.

 

[J_B_]

All I'm saying is you accept the doctrine and I don't. The notion of inherited guilt before God is absurd. The doctrine says too much that's not needed. What Augustine should have taken from Irenaeus instead was the notion that we are created spiritually immature,; the divine intention being that we are created to grow into maturity. That's all that's needed. Sure, we inherit things from those who come before us, but the idea that we were virtually perfect, rightly ordered and rightly related, and then fell, passing guilt on to the progeny, is simply untenable. It's Augustine's attempt at theodicy, but over time it becomes written in stone.

This tells me what you believe, but not why you believe it. It's a good start, but I'd like to know more.

While awaiting further elucidation, I'll throw in a few statements we can use to help frame the discussion. First, as some insight on my perspective, if Augustine's doctrine of original sin were novel, Lutherans would not accept it ... unless to accept it as divinely inspired Scripture, which we do not. It must be something that is evident in Scripture with Augustine only explicating the doctrine. And, though helpful, there is no claim Augustine is inerrant. It would further mean that whatever clarity Augustine brought to the subject, there is quite possibly hints of original sin doctrine in earlier Church Fathers.

Then a few other statements to consider, accept, and/or reject:
* God is perfect.
* Complete knowledge is necessary to truly know what is perfect.
* We humans are finite.
* Being finite, our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore, we cannot discern for ourselves what is perfect, but it must be revealed to us.
* We cannot, for ourselves, discern God in his perfection.

 

[public hermit]

It would further mean that whatever clarity Augustine brought to the subject, there is quite possibly hints of original sin doctrine in earlier Church Fathers

Yeah, he borrowed the basic idea from Irenaeus, but he ate the peel and threw out the banana. If you want to know why I hold my particular belief it's because I've read both and disagree with Augustine. He's trying to save God from being at fault, but it doesn't work. His position is overdetermined, if you will. Like I said, he claims too much, which is fine, but the church took it to heart without looking for a better understanding. The reformation simply continued the error, imo. Now, people assume it's essential to our faith; it isn't.

 

[J_B_]

Yeah, he borrowed the basic idea from Irenaeus, but he ate the peel and threw out the banana. If you want to know why I hold my particular belief it's because I've read both and disagree with Augustine. He's trying to save God from being at fault, but it doesn't work. His position is overdetermined, if you will. Like I said, he claims too much, which is fine, but the church took it to heart without looking for a better understanding. The reformation simply continued the error, imo. Now, people assume it's essential to our faith; it isn't.

That doesn't help me. It seems you want to play your cards close to the vest, so ... OK.