A Pelagian to Arians, a question: [Archive] - Arian Catholic Theological Society (ACTS) Forums

View Full Version : A Pelagian to Arians, a question:

Rev Smith

15th August 2008, 06:27 PM

Danage

15th August 2008, 08:15 PM

I became interested in Arian theology and the "arian controversy" during a course in incarnation theology. The original question posed was: Can Yeshua bar Joseph be both the Christ AND the incarnation of God without a valid Trinitarian order? I answered the question yes - although the "proof" took close to 6000 words.

First of all, welcome!

The view you present, that Christ is the incarnation of God outside of Trinitarianism is similar to Binitarianism (where God the Father is superior to His Son in the Godhead, but that Jesus emptied himself to become man, so the two figures form a Binity). This view is at odds with Arianism. I believe that Jesus Christ was the god to the Hebrews, and was, and is, an Archangel.

I have come to no conclusions in my personal faith, as I consider all but a very few heresies to be actually irrelevant to the faithful. Only a heresy that creates an occasion for sin or in the alternative promotes faithlessness ought to actually matter. Most heresy is more of an assertion of ecclesiastical right then theological importance.

We are not heretics, well not in our own minds and we think, according to the Word of God.

So let me put the inverse to you, Jesus established a new covenant which, as St. James and St. Paul acknowledged in Acts subsumed the law, where did he derive the authority if he was not the incarnation of God on earth? Unlike Moses and Isaiah he claimed no external authority, can God as understood by Arian theology be both the incarnation Father and of the created order?

Immanuel sat as a god on the Heavenly Council of Twelve (representing the Twelve Tribes), as the head of that council, and thus he had authority and knowledge, from God. Now he sits as head of the Council of Twenty-four (this is referenced in Revelation). Since Immanuel got his knowledge direct he had more authority to speak for God than the prophets before him did.

Second question: What would Arian theology assert about the thesis of Pelagius, ie that man is responsible for his sins, because he is capable of living in accord with God's precepts. (thus negating the concept of original sin) - thus grace is not the power to accept God, but rather the loving forgiveness of God, granted at the loving request of man.

Yours in faith,

Fr. Mark Smith - Christ Catholic Church Int.
Philadelphia, PA USA

Pelagians believe we are indeed not subject to original sin, and I do not myself believe in it. We are all subject to God, and His laws, and thus we are to keep to His laws to show to God that we have faith in Him, although grace is given through Christ to all true, baptised, believers.

Hermes

15th August 2008, 09:40 PM

I became interested in Arian theology and the "arian controversy" during a course in incarnation theology. The original question posed was: Can Yeshua bar Joseph be both the Christ AND the incarnation of God without a valid Trinitarian order? I answered the question yes - although the "proof" took close to 6000 words.

I have come to no conclusions in my personal faith, as I consider all but a very few heresies to be actually irrelevant to the faithful. Only a heresy that creates an occasion for sin or in the alternative promotes faithlessness ought to actually matter. Most heresy is more of an assertion of ecclesiastical right then theological importance.

So let me put the inverse to you, Jesus established a new covenant which, as St. James and St. Paul acknowledged in Acts subsumed the law, where did he derive the authority if he was not the incarnation of God on earth? Unlike Moses and Isiah he claimed no external authority, can God as understood by Arian theology be both the incarnation Father and of the created order?

Welcome, I guess I'll add to this as well.

Arians believe Christ is God incarnate. That doesn't make Christ an incarnation of the Father though, that's Sabellianism and borders Athanasianism. The true God is invisible (and not composed of multiple "parts" or "persons", being undivided), Christ on the other hand has appeared to people. He is our Lord and God since that is what he has been made to be, he is the representative of God, the Father, having his authority from the Father, and he has a divine nature; he is subordinate to the Father that begat and created him to be the Mediator through whom the Father does his works, Christ acting as Angel, or Word, or God. Christ follows his Father's will perfectly, and he appears as the Image of God, though the Father is the One, Supreme, Almighty, and has made Christ what the Father wishes.

The explanation that 'Christ is "just a creature" to Arians' which is usually said in history books is much too simplistic and does not do justice to the Church theology.

Second question: What would Arian theology assert about the thesis of Peagious, ie that man is responsible for his sins, because he is capable of living in accord with God's precepts. (thus negating the concept of original sin) - thus grace is not the power to accept God, but rather the loving forgiveness of God, granted at the loving request of man.

Yours in faith,

Fr. Mark Smith - Christ Catholic Church Int.
Philadelphia, PA USA

Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum by Pseudo-Chrysostom is an ancient, later Arian text which supposedly could have a Pelagian view. I've not read it so I can't say. I haven't been into Pelagianism too much myself, but rather I favor Synergism. This view also puts stress on responsibility of one's actions, and that salvation is in the cooperation of God and men. Salvation is not earned. I do not believe that men can be completely sinless in this lifetime, there has only been Christ who lived a sinless life as man.

Blessings.

Jesus John

16th August 2008, 09:36 AM

Hermes

16th August 2008, 04:56 PM

Since Adam till Jesus, were there a faith like you are believing today? Had Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron (May God's peace be upon them) a faith like you? Did they believe that the Lord of the Throne had a divine son as a mediator between mankind and the Lord? By the way, why especially a son, does he has a girl? If your god is the father of his son who is his mother?

All of the prophets had this same faith. They knew the Angel of the Lord, this is quite clear. Who was the the one who led Israel in the desert? That was the Angel in whom God's Holy Name was in, and the one we call Christ. As for why Son, you could also ask why God is Father. That is the traditional way of speaking of them, Jesus called his and our God his Father numerous times, and told us to do so also. You confuse these terms to corporeal things, God has no body and has never literally given birth.

Abraham never had a faith like you, he was never a man who gave divine features to anyone else beside God. If you are the followers of Abraham why are you not believing like Him?

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. Then said the Jews to him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Our Father is the one who is the source of everything, every title, whether it is "Divine", "Lordship" or "Kingship", and God is free to grant titles to whoever God wishes, and he has done so, remember what was said to Moses when he faced the Pharaoh:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy Prophet."

We call even an earthly king "Our Lord", but we never think it to mean someone other than Our Father is the One True God, for we recognize that God can work through others. It is what we understand something to be that ultimately matters.

Our Lord created the heavens and earth, He is the holder of our life, he revealed books and sended apostles in His grace to guide His perfect creatures to the right path. He warns us and give the glad news to have a knowledge about the coming life. If you have a mercy and love you shall warn your friends if he/she is going to fall in a cliff, or is living in a life which is a fire, or if he/she is sleeping unaware while his/her house is under fire. If God didnt warned us we could think that He had no mercy and love upon us, but He warned us.

Does God need us? Of course not. He is the only one who has nothing to need, but we need Him, he has no beginning and no end, but we have a beginning and an end in this life, he never sleep or die, but we sleep and die, He is the ultimate rich which never ends, but we are the poor, He is the only one who knows everything (also hidden things in the hearts), sees everything, hears everything, but we are limited in this functions.

Our Lord and His lovely apostle Jesus is far away of your words.

In the name of God, the most Gracious, the dispenser of Grace,

"They have said that the Beneficent God has given birth to a son. This is certainly a monstrous lie! This would almost cause the heavens to rent apart, the earth to cleave asunder and the mountains to crumble down in fragments, to ascribe a son to the Beneficent God. The Beneficent God is too Exalted to have a son.

All that is in the heavens and the earth will return to the Beneficent God as His submissive servants. He has counted and enumerated them one by one. Everyone on the Day of Judgment will individually come into the presence of God. To the righteously striving believers God will grant love. (Muhammad), We have given you the Book (the Quran) in your own language so that you could easily give the glad news to the pious ones and warn the quarrelsome ones.

How many generations living before them did We destroy? Do you find anyone of them around or do you even hear any word from them?" (19:89-98)

Qu'ran is not part of the Judaeo-Christian faith, sorry. God has numerous Sons, this is clearly stated in the Scriptures. Muslims may believe God has none but then they deviate from their Judaic and Christian roots. Muslims can believe what they wish, but we are not Muslims. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but we have our faith which has been received from our ancestors and we will stick with it. God is our Father, and we are his Sons, not through giving birth, but we are his creation.

Jesus John

16th August 2008, 09:37 PM

I'm sorry if this is harsh, but we have our faith which has been received from our ancestors and we will stick with it. God is our Father, and we are his Sons, not through giving birth, but we are his creation

Especially the underlined parts of your answer are "living" verses in the Qur'an.

"When some people are asked to follow the revelations of God, they say, "We would rather follow what our fathers have followed" even though their fathers had no understanding and could not find the true guidance? And so, the parable of those who are bent on denying the truth is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason" (2:170-171)

"When (the faithless) commit indecent acts they say, "We found our fathers doing this and God has commanded us to do the same" (Muhammad) tell them that God does not command anyone to commit indecency. Do you speak for God, saying things of which you have no knowledge? Say, "My Lord has ordered me to maintain justice. (People), pay due attention (when worshipping God). Pray to Him sincerely and be devoted in your religion. Just as He gave you life, He will bring you back to life again (after you die)" (7:28-29)

"And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of God and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and God's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming" (5:18)

Of course you can stick with it, this is your choice;

"Say,"Truth comes from your Lord. Let people have faith or disbelieve as they chose" (18:29)

"There is no compulsion in religion. Certainly, right has become clearly distinct from wrong" (2:256)

Postulare42

17th August 2008, 12:19 AM

The current discussion seems to be revolving and splitting along a few basic points. The first (and easiest) appears to be the many ways in which "son" is used in the various Hebrew and Christian writings.

Literal: The biological relationship between a human parents and their male progeny.

Legal : The legal relationship between two parties through legal adoption or fosterage, and assumption of responsibity by one party for the other.

Simile based upon function or influence: The relationship between two parties based upon causation/creation.

Simile based upon character or behavior: The relationship between two parties based upon similarity of characteristics and/or behaviors.

All uses of the word "son" fit into one of the above categories. From these can be seen the difficulties of the texts AND human language itself. Neither Hebrew nor Koine, as they have come down to us, are languages with large vocabularies, so a single word may have do serve for many shades of meaning. This is the stuff of poetry, and a poetic perspective can yield much fruit for contemplation and insight.

Similarly, and not unsurprisingly for a Theological forum, the intricacies of the many uses of the words "god" and "angel" are fraught with troublesome nuances.

With Jesus John, I am suspicious of traditional interpretations, and accept them as merely a piece of data; i.e. that there is a belief system that includes this or that interpretation. While the "radical" branch of the study of history does not deserve absolute status any more than any other branch (i.e. Toynbeean), it does offer some demonstrably valid tools for examining the earliest thought systems, and does provide certain necessary caveats concerning the weight that should be given surviving texts. It's prime principle (that only the winner get's to write the history) must give pause when deciding if a surviving source, however authentic, is an accurate representation of an original truth . . . and not merely the views of the most aggressive in self-promotion and social engineering. To fail to do so is tantamount to saying that any person or culture that did not leave decipherable written traces or stone monuments did not exist.

Born and raised in the U.S.A., I am intimately familiar with how far ideals, ethics, culture and language can all shift and change in just 2 short centuries. This may be more difficult to discern for others from cultures wrapped in the traditions of centuries.

We all pretty much agree that "christendom" is a field that has been thoroughly sewn with weeds . . . many of which of very aggressive varieties. A brief survey of the various thought-systems of the world compels a question that is all too frequently overlooked or dismissed. This is, " How did each of these systems catch on, become popular, grow, become dominant?" The "Toynbeean View of History" stated that a culture will survive as long as it's component elements contribute to the real and perceived needs of it's members AND can meet the challenges that it encounters over time. So, what made these thought systems marketable, as it were, to the various populations they encountered, and what influenced the "buyers"? How did these particular texts survive, and how did these interpretations of them become traditional.

Anyone old enough to remember videocassette tapes may know that the "beta" format was far superior, but "vhs" won out in the marketplace through marketting and promotion. This principle is ubiquitous in the world today. Humans being humans, is there any real reason to assert that these principles were not in operation in the first few centuries of the common era?

Inscribed on the archway to the entrance of the Roman Forum was the warning, "Caveat Emptor".

In considering the topics of this thread, these represent a very few of the factors which act as filters for me . . . part of a mental discipline which permits examination of widely divergent perspectives and, most importantly, to remain humble before that ultimate reality which our paltry human faculties attempt to apprehend.

Postulare42

17th August 2008, 01:24 AM

Quote from Rev Smith:
"I have come to no conclusions in my personal faith, as I consider all but a very few heresies to be actually irrelevant to the faithful. Only a heresy that creates an occasion for sin or in the alternative promotes faithlessness ought to actually matter. Most heresy is more of an assertion of ecclesiastical right then theological importance."

I am very much in agreement with you here, but in as much as this is a "Theological Society", debate of all issues is natural.

Quote from Rev Smith:
"So let me put the inverse to you, Jesus established a new covenant which, as St. James and St. Paul acknowledged in Acts subsumed the law, where did he derive the authority if he was not the incarnation of God on earth? Unlike Moses and Isiah he claimed no external authority, can God as understood by Arian theology be both the incarnation Father and of the created order?"

The accounts seem to indicate that all prior covenants were enacted through some form of manifestation of the Divine, though I doubt that most were with the Divinity actually present in total on the physical plane (if such a distiction is even valid in a larger sense). I suspect that in each case, the manifestation was sufficient to the task.

Quote from Rev Smith:"Second question: What would Arian theology assert about the thesis of Peagious, ie that man is responsible for his sins, because he is capable of living in accord with God's precepts. (thus negating the concept of original sin) - thus grace is not the power to accept God, but rather the loving forgiveness of God, granted at the loving request of man."

I am unable to agree with the reasoning behind just about every statement mostly due to the apparent failure to consider known factors.

Man is responsible for his sins - a given. no problem there.

Thus negating the concept of original sin - that does not follow

While I do not subscribe to the doctrine regarding "original sin", there are some accounts in the Hebrew texts that indicate that at least the effects of sin can cross generations, i.e. "...the sins of the father shall be visited unto the seventh generation...", and the promise of the end of that paradigm.

If we are at least willing to consider that religious and spiritual truths address humans in their holistic totality, then certain merely discussional assumptions regarding the distictness of man's spiritual and corporeal existence must fall and, with them, many of the thorny problems lose force. In a mundane sociological sense, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree", may be a truism worthy of consideration. In my life, I have met many who simply "...do not know any better..." because of the circumstances in which they were raised; and still others who seemed unable to even imagine a different paradigm.

The discussion also blankets the definition of "grace" specifically and soteriologically . . . a conjunction that is neither absolute nor inherent. It could be addressed differently, say through consideration of the "grace" relationship between God and creation as a whole, humanity as a created species, any given group of humans, humans in particular, and each individual human person.

While there is merit in the thoughts, the arguments are hardly the "unified theory of relativity" (which continues to escape our best physicists and mathematicians, lol), and do not seem to address texts which bear upon the issue.

In closing, since Genesis gives that at least something about humans was created in likeness to God, I have no problem with Jesus being a special creation (of whatever nature and by whatever means) for the purpose of special communication with humanity to effect change.

btw: Does your church have a website I might visit?

Hermes

17th August 2008, 02:33 PM

With Jesus John, I am suspicious of traditional interpretations, and accept them as merely a piece of data; i.e. that there is a belief system that includes this or that interpretation. While the "radical" branch of the study of history does not deserve absolute status any more than any other branch (i.e. Toynbeean), it does offer some demonstrably valid tools for examining the earliest thought systems, and does provide certain necessary caveats concerning the weight that should be given surviving texts. It's prime principle (that only the winner get's to write the history) must give pause when deciding if a surviving source, however authentic, is an accurate representation of an original truth . . . and not merely the views of the most aggressive in self-promotion and social engineering. To fail to do so is tantamount to saying that any person or culture that did not leave decipherable written traces or stone monuments did not exist.

A question that Jesus John should ask himself though is if he is suspicious of his own traditional interpretations, Islam, and not just Judaism and Christianity, especially considering Islam claims to continue the line of those religions. Christianity is not the only religion with tradition, Islam has it as well.

Criticism of others is easy, self-reflection is much harder. It's much easier for us to criticize Islam than Christianity, and for a Muslim to criticize Christianity. I have done much self-reflection on my religion, and continue to do so, that is why I study it so much, along with other religions. But would a Muslim dare to question his own fathers, his religion and tradition? Would a Sunni dare to turn into a Sufi, or even a Christian?

Danage

17th August 2008, 02:47 PM

A question that Jesus John should ask himself though is if he is suspicious of his own traditional interpretations, Islam, and not just Judaism and Christianity, especially considering Islam claims to continue the line of those religions. Christianity is not the only religion with tradition, Islam has it as well.

Criticism of others is easy, self-reflection is much harder. It's much easier for us to criticize Islam than Christianity, and for a Muslim to criticize Christianity. I have done much self-reflection on my religion, and continue to do so, that is why I study it so much, along with other religions. But would a Muslim dare to question his own fathers, his religion and tradition? Would a Sunni dare to turn into a Sufi, or even a Christian?

A Muslim who converted to Trinitarian Christendom was threatened with execution a few months ago (I can't remember when, or what happened).

When I was a Trinitarian Christian I never doubted my faith, fearing Hell, until October 2005, when I became, unknowingly, an Arian Biblical Unitarian. I questioned my faith, and others, looking for answers.

I rejected Islam because I couldn't accept their prophet, and rejected Christendom (and unknowingly Christianity), because I couldn't accept the Trinity.

I adopted Jewish beliefs, pure Orthodox Shepardic beliefs, and I have contact with a Reform Rabbi because of it.

I rejected Judaism in November 2007, when I accepted Christ as my Messiah once more, after much prompting from the Holy Spirit, but with no beliefs in the Trinity, the Law of God being cancelled and the concept of Hell was purged from me.

I joined the Arian Catholic Church in December of that year. I do not think it any coincidence that I found the Church.

My take on this subject of whether people of certain religions can question their religion is that, yes, they can question their religion, although because they were raised to think it is the only true religion, they will find it difficult to question it. If the Holy Spirit tells them to do something, such as convert to another religion, then of course they will find it hard to do so.

Hermes

17th August 2008, 03:09 PM

A Muslim who converted to Trinitarian Christendom was threatened with execution a few months ago (I can't remember when, or what happened).

When I was a Trinitarian Christian I never doubted my faith, fearing Hell, until October 2005, when I became, unknowingly, an Arian Biblical Unitarian. I questioned my faith, and others, looking for answers.

I rejected Islam because I couldn't accept their prophet, and rejected Christendom (and unknowingly Christianity), because I couldn't accept the Trinity.

I adopted Jewish beliefs, pure Orthodox Shepardic beliefs, and I have contact with a Reform Rabbi because of it.

I rejected Judaism in November 2007, when I accepted Christ as my Messiah once more, after much prompting from the Holy Spirit, but with no beliefs in the Trinity, the Law of God being cancelled and the concept of Hell was purged from me.

I joined the Arian Catholic Church in December of that year. I do not think it any coincidence that I found the Church.

My take on this subject of whether people of certain religions can question their religion is that, yes, they can question their religion, although because they were raised to think it is the only true religion, they will find it difficult to question it. If the Holy Spirit tells them to do something, such as convert to another religion, then of course they will find it hard to do so.

It is indeed hard. That is why we can be glad to live in countries that don't allow religious persecution, even though the truth is that it hasn't completely disappeared. You might not get killed, but may otherwise be alienated. I'll raise my hat to those who dare to question even in the face of persecution though (even if that's a small comfort).

Danage

17th August 2008, 03:54 PM

It is indeed hard. That is why we can be glad to live in countries that don't allow religious persecution, even though the truth is that it hasn't completely disappeared. You might not get killed, but may otherwise be alienated. I'll raise my hat to those who dare to question even in the face of persecution though (even if that's a small comfort).

True, many are persecuted. We are Arians, and so we will suffer persecution because Arianism was viewed as an ancient heresy, and heresy is bad, right? Except it is those Trinitarians who are in the wrong, to persecute the followers of Christ, but it is to be expected.

David Kone

17th August 2008, 05:24 PM

Second question: What would Arian theology assert about the thesis of Peagious, ie that man is responsible for his sins, because he is capable of living in accord with God's precepts. (thus negating the concept of original sin) - thus grace is not the power to accept God, but rather the loving forgiveness of God, granted at the loving request of man.

I spent a good deal of time at the beginning of the year contemplating the God of the OT, who we see most intimately in the Garden of Eden story, and the teachings of Jesus. Here is some of my thoughts:

And then there is again even another level of meaning to this great story. Ironically Adam and Eve choose to hide their unexpected shame from God by sewing together fig leaves to gird their loins:

"Biblically, the tree of life is the Sycamore, which appears often in the Scriptures. To most, this suggests the western Sycamore, the Plant tree (Platanus). However, the ancient Egyptians also regarded the Sycamore as their sacred "tree of life," and so the idea that this is the Platanus Sycamore must be questioned, as that species is not indigenous to the Nile Valley. In reality, the Sycamore of the Bible was the wild Fig tree, dedicated to fertility, joy, and the afterlife." -Mythical Plants of the Middle Ages: The Tree of Life. http://www.godecookery.com/mythical/mythic04.htm

To the ancient Egyptians the Tree of Life linked this world with the underworld:

"The Sycamore tree is often depicted dispensing food and drink of immortality, symbolizing the perpetual renewal in the after world. The sap and the fruit of the Sycamore symbolizes mercy and compassion." -The Sycamore Tree: http://www.kinfonet.org/community/centres/sycamore/Tree.html (Emphasis mine)

They covered up their outward imperfection but remained inwardly imperfect because they had not also eaten of the fruit of Tree of Life. It was a superficial act in which they attempted to look good to God but for their Creator this was not about appearances but about something that was much more important. There is a curious passage in the New Testament in which Jesus does a seemly capricious act:

"And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away." Matthew 21:18-19

Why would he do this? Perhaps because he hungered for the fruit of the Tree of Life and nothing else would satisfy. A tree that did not yield fruit was false. The fig tree that he encountered did not have the fruit of "mercy and compassion" which are the very qualities of his Father in Heaven.

"O HOLY Spirit, who hast taught us that all our doings without love are nothing worth, pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of love, the very bond of peace and of all virtues, without which whosoever liveth is counted dead before Thee; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Son, one god for evermore. Amen." LCC Liturgy

Mercy and compassion are the qualities of divine love, that singular essential element of the great commandment to love God and your neighbor as yourself. These are the qualities that can raise the Adam made of the dirt, out of the confines of the earth and into the Kingdom of God.

Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The consequence for Eve was she would now bare children (good) in pain (evil). She would desire her husband (good) and he will rule over her (ouch!). Adam, on the other hand, must work the cursed soil (aching back pain) to eat (pleasure and sustenance) every day. The land will also grow thorns and thistles (painful experience) among the herbs (edification). Adam is left in world of trial and error. Whereas in the garden there was only one sin now every step from the right path resulted in evil. Each step on the road of knowledge had a potentially painful lesson. Adam's task is to learn to discern the herbs from the thorns and painfully separate enough food to sustain his lowly life. It would be an endless task if man was to be forever limited to his own guidance.

Jesus demonstrated with his very life to both man and God that lowly man can follow perfectly the will of God. It was against all the pressures that could have given him an excuse not to be obedient. He demonstrated to God that man can be worthy of the Tree of Life.

Jesus proved that man can be morally mature and righteous. God, because of the obedience of one man, a man who became his First Spiritual Son, restored access to the Tree of Life to all those who follow Jesus' path of obedience to His word; He restores it to those who are willing to become children of God. Jesus saved us from the spiritual death, which is separation from God's power and grace, by showing us how to overcome our uncaring mineral nature. The ground we till no longer needs to be cursed except as we ourselves curse it by the hardness of our own hearts.

When the prodigal son learns his lesson he returns to the father. What would have been the results if the father had kept coming to him and giving him more money beyond his inheritance? Would the son ever mature in his understanding of the father. How many children today are brought to base behavior by the indulgences of their parents? No young adult is saved by keeping them immature but only by the growth of their own responsibility. The mature choice is to follow the path of the word of God. We can choose to be His true children, obeying His loving counsel and no longer hide behind falseness because now we understand our connection with our Creator; or we can go some other way; through the thorns and thistles of error:

"But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is the type of Him who was to come; but the free gift shall not be also like the offense. For if by the offense of the one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in grace; which is of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." Romans 5:14-15

Looking back on the teaching of original sin maybe it is just to ask if it was not God who sinned. When confronted by God Eve said, "The serpent beguiled me". The serpent was known as the most cunning of all creatures. God created the serpent and God placed the serpent into the garden. If I left my little child alone with a baby sitter whom I knew no one trusted I would be held responsible not my child if they got into the liquor cabinet! The serpent was not the Cat in the Hat who appeared from nowhere; God placed him there. It was also He who also placed the forbidden tree there. Did He miss the mark when He placed Adam and Eve together in the garden with the serpent? Did he expect different results? Surely this could never be, an omniscient God not knowing the potential consequences involved. He must have known something about the nature of man after all He created him in His own image. Surely the nature of the serpent was well known. God must have known all about the forbidden fruit for He Himself had knowledge of good and evil.

The more likely explanation is that everything unfolded exactly as God had planned. The proscription against eating the forbidden fruit was most likely never intended to be permanent. It was just necessary to give them enough time to physically mature so that they would be fully prepared for the rigorous environment that waited for them outside of the protective fence of the garden. We have to admit Adam and Eve really did quite well!

Now Eve was bootstrapped from Adam but Adam himself was recently formed from the dirt. His character clearly demonstrates his low level of maturity. What was the first thing that he did when God confronted him on his behavior? He blamed the woman and also God for giving her to him. God did not curse Adam for his listening to his wife but He did bitterly curse the ground. The ground was so cursed that Adam now must work hard to feed himself. Adam and the ground, which in Hebrew is "adamah," are now linked in a struggle for the life of humanity where the pain of hard labor of tilling the soil and the pleasure of good harvests are an immense the part of the knowledge that was withheld from them in their infant state as they were kept within the fence of the Garden of Eden.

It was not so much a fall but a necessary progression of the human race into adult reality where they would have the potential to finish development into fully realized beings. If it was not for the snake which God placed in the garden there would have only ever been two very underdeveloped humans. Our savior, Jesus, the new type of Adam, demonstrated that we, humankind, were ready to return to a closer relationship with our Father in Heaven through His perfect reflection of the Father. Mercy and compassion only have significance in a world where there is tribulation. "Forgive them for they know not what they do," are the words of true perfection. If God had allowed Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Life in the ideal environment of Eden it would have been mere vanity like the lame covering of fig leaves but in the context of extreme sacrifice His sweet words of such love and wisdom, that sweetly ordered all things, changed our destiny forever.

david

Rev Smith

21st August 2008, 04:48 PM

Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses. First I'd like to say that in my initial premise did not mean l to imply that I believe that your body of our church is heretical, but rather to propose that most debates over heresy vs. orthodoxy are simply irrelevant to the faith.

Regarding the tension between original sin, grace and the order of creation, I would but to you that man being responsible for his sins does negate original sin. If God man by virtue of the "fall", as the Calvinists propose, became a totally corrupt creature incapable of moral action without Grace (and that corruption is so deep that he is even incapable of seeking that grace) - then God is either: Not the just and merciful God we are promised in Holy Scripture sin he has set down Law for men to follow that he knows they cannot (thus making the Machien Gnostics right) - or the premise behind Original Sin is wrong: God asks of us to live in piety, because he has made is capable of that.
The act of redemption of Christ redeemed us from the law and made Grace available to all of us through Contrition. As another poster noted, Jesus is the only man we know of to live without Sin, yet God desires not the death of a sinner - thus redemption and forgiveness.

On us is the burden to Feed the hungry, cloth the naked and comfort the prisoner. On Him is the burden to wash away our sins, to laud our virtue and forgive our weakness - and in ove bolster and uphold us that we might be ready to serve his great purpose in the life to come.

Finally with my riff on heresy I did not mean to imply that all theology is meaningless, it is a high purpose to seek to understand God and His teachings, and to use that knowledge to guide the faithful. Rather I simply wanted to point out that most of the theologies that divide us don't really effect the spiritual lives of the faithful - an Arian Catholic and a Roman Catholic can both Love God, Love their Neighbor and keep the commandments, and thus find favor with God. The trouble with the Episcopal preoccupation with heresy is that it often leads to oppression, anger and in our bad old days, murder (the very problem that is tearing apart the Islamic world today).

I guess to me the highest orthodoxy is the one that leads us, as priests, to most fully serve the people of God.... While I have made no persona conclusion on the Trinity, I have concluded that fidelity to the Creed is not a pre-requsite to Communion in our church...

Yours in faith,
Fr. Mark Smith, O.C.C.

Danage

21st August 2008, 05:15 PM

Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses. First I'd like to say that in my initial premise did not mean l to imply that I believe that your body of our church is heretical, but rather to propose that most debates over heresy vs. orthodoxy are simply irrelevant to the faith.

I know you didn't imply we were heretics, but sometimes it is necessary to state that we are not, especially to outsiders. This forum has been attacked by those we would classify as heretics and apostates, but ultimately what is Catholic and Orthodox, and what is Heresy and Apostasy, is all down to how people read verses, and how they interpret them and how much they put tradition over the Bible. We put the Bible far above Tradition, so we are more Catholic and Orthodox, although many of our beliefs would be considered heterodox to others of the other two Christian religions (Christendom and Mormonism).

Regarding the tension between original sin, grace and the order of creation, I would but to you that man being responsible for his sins does negate original sin. If God man by virtue of the "fall", as the Calvinists propose, became a totally corrupt creature incapable of moral action without Grace (and that corruption is so deep that he is even incapable of seeking that grace) - then God is either: Not the just and merciful God we are promised in Holy Scripture sin he has set down Law for men to follow that he knows they cannot (thus making the Machien Gnostics right) - or the premise behind Original Sin is wrong: God asks of us to live in piety, because he has made is capable of that.
The act of redemption of Christ redeemed us from the law and made Grace available to all of us through Contrition. As another poster noted, Jesus is the only man we know of to live without Sin, yet God desires not the death of a sinner - thus redemption and forgiveness.

Good argument, I would have to agree that we are not subject to original sin now. How we live our lives is what matters.