The Fall of mankind: inevitable part of God’s plan or unexplainable mystery of faith?

[OneSheep]

I respect your views - and the respectful tone of this thread - however, I, myself agree with St. Augustine and can’t agree that God would demand his beloved Son pay a debt owed by sinning humans by dying one of the most horrible deaths possible. And, if the debt was paid, why is humanity still being punished?

Yes, most theologians characterize Anselm’s theory of redemption as penal substitution or at least bordering on that, and most reject it. The most developed theory of redemption is Bernard Lonergan’s “Law of the Cross,” which completely rejects penal substitution. It is very different from anything else out there.

This might be interesting:

catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-our-sins/

Hi Lily,

So, I read this (okay, mostly I skimmed it):

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3294

And extracted this:

“Guilty of both original and actual sin, we contract punishment.”

In my reading, the “contract” implies that there is a debt to be paid, so Lonergan’s theology does not appear to offer a different way of looking at God and salvation. What we see occurring from the crucifixion scene, however, is man not contracting a punishment, but being forgiven “for he does not know what he is doing.” In Luke 23:34 Jesus offers not only a radically different view of God, but a radically different view of man.

Now I suppose that a person could say, “I forgive you, but I am still going to hold this debt against you until…” But this sort of begs the question as far as what “forgiveness” is. Yes, we humans can forgive but still enact some kind of punishment for the benefit of the punished. But if such punishment involves a permanent ostracism (by death or banishment), then to the human this clearly indicates something other than infinite love and mercy. Jesus said that if we hold anything against anyone, we are to forgive. And since we are to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”, we are to hold no contract against another, as neither does God.

Note: what I am saying here is not to argue against Lonergan, for his view is certainly acceptable and makes sense, it is to be respected; it is a natural view of God. It is human to see that every sin against us incurs a debt, a debt not immediately forgiven by the human.

Please feel free to point out what I am either missing or I am not representing adequately.

Again, thanks!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hi One Sheep,

Sorry for my absence, but I had to finish writing something for school.

Lonergan’s theory is the most developed theory of redemption out there. He stresses the transformative power of love. Jesus blamed no one for his death. To boil Lonergan down to a sentence or two, he says that we cannot overcome evil with an even greater evil, we can only overcome evil with love, which he, himself did.

Yes, we are still sinning. I guess it makes sense that some of us, those of us who refuse to follow Christ, do not make it to heaven, and those of us who do, because we are imperfect, still have to suffer the pangs of death and purgatory before we receive our reward.

I have a class, have to run!

PS Thank you for reading Lonergan even you did skim. I have a book of his lectures, and I have a terrible time getting my students to read them. The ones who do read it usually tell me they have no idea what they read!

 

[simpleas]

Hi Lily,

So, I read this (okay, mostly I skimmed it):

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3294

And extracted this:

“Guilty of both original and actual sin, we contract punishment.”

In my reading, the “contract” implies that there is a debt to be paid, so Lonergan’s theology does not appear to offer a different way of looking at God and salvation. What we see occurring from the crucifixion scene, however, is man not contracting a punishment, but being forgiven “for he does not know what he is doing.” In Luke 23:34 Jesus offers not only a radically different view of God, but a radically different view of man.

Now I suppose that a person could say, “I forgive you, but I am still going to hold this debt against you until…” But this sort of begs the question as far as what “forgiveness” is. Yes, we humans can forgive but still enact some kind of punishment for the benefit of the punished. But if such punishment involves a permanent ostracism (by death or banishment), then to the human this clearly indicates something other than infinite love and mercy. Jesus said that if we hold anything against anyone, we are to forgive. And since we are to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”, we are to hold no contract against another, as neither does God.

Note: what I am saying here is not to argue against Lonergan, for his view is certainly acceptable and makes sense, it is to be respected; it is a natural view of God. It is human to see that every sin against us incurs a debt, a debt not immediately forgiven by the human.

Please feel free to point out what I am either missing or I am not representing adequately.

Again, thanks!

I read most of that link to see where the line “Guilty of both original and actual sin, we contract punishment.” was, because I was thinking we are not guilty of Original sin. If we are guilty of O.S when did we choose it? I don’t remember choosing against God, losing original grace and holiness, separating myself from God at any point in my life.

 

[clem456]

I read most of that link to see where the line “Guilty of both original and actual sin, we contract punishment.” was, because I was thinking we are not guilty of Original sin. If we are guilty of O.S when did we choose it? I don’t remember choosing against God, losing original grace and holiness, separating myself from God at any point in my life.

Because we are united in our common humanity

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And 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,295 original sin does not have the character of a 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 towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[simpleas]

Because we are united in our common humanity

Yes I agree that we are one in humanity, but we are also individual, as we all have an individual soul…or else we would be robots, thinking and doing the same as each other.

Our spiritual journeys are very different, but we get tide in with what choice Adam and Eve made at the beginning, and in some way it doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[OneSheep]

I read most of that link to see where the line “Guilty of both original and actual sin, we contract punishment.” was, because I was thinking we are not guilty of Original sin. If we are guilty of O.S when did we choose it? I don’t remember choosing against God, losing original grace and holiness, separating myself from God at any point in my life.

Shame on you!

Actually, your observation drives toward a common problem. Is it a necessary aspect of faith that we see our state as somehow “fallen”? Is God punishing us?

Simpleas, it is no use contesting the view that we are guilty and deserve punishment, I think. It is a view that has its place, and it is a view that is anchored in a person’s relationship with the divine. If you see that you never choose against God, then it is likely that you see no one else doing so either, in the final analysis.

In the mean time, those who share your view can be quickly turned off by assertions that humans are all guilty of something or have something negative in their “state”.

To me, the Church can easily incorporate both views.

God Bless your day! Raining like crazy here in CA this morning! Yay!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Off-topic, but bright sunshine here! Then again, we are not suffering a drought. Far from it. California desperately needs the rain.

 

[clem456]

Yes I agree that we are one in humanity, but we are also individual, as we all have an individual soul…or else we would be robots, thinking and doing the same as each other.

Our spiritual journeys are very different, but we get tide in with what choice Adam and Eve made at the beginning, and in some way it doesn’t make sense to me.

The Communion of Saints expresses this all in a positive sense.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi One Sheep,

Sorry for my absence, but I had to finish writing something for school.

Lonergan’s theory is the most developed theory of redemption out there. He stresses the transformative power of love. Jesus blamed no one for his death. To boil Lonergan down to a sentence or two, he says that we cannot overcome evil with an even greater evil, we can only overcome evil with love, which he, himself did.

There is no doubt that love is transformative, but it would be interesting to go into the details of the transformation. For example, does God see us in a negative light in the first place, and by His own act makes humanity acceptable? Or, does God always see us as beautiful, and it is man who sees God in a distorted way, and the transformation is one that takes place in our vision? This is a summary of the two ways of looking at it; and I think the Church should respect both.

Not absent, just tardy. thanks.

Yes, we are still sinning. I guess it makes sense that some of us, those of us who refuse to follow Christ, do not make it to heaven, and those of us who do, because we are imperfect, still have to suffer the pangs of death and purgatory before we receive our reward.

I have a class, have to run!

Yes, “not making it to heaven” does make sense if we:

1. observe that people knowingly and willingly reject God. (which is not what I observe) This depends on anthropological views.

or

1. God sends people away. This depends on theological views.

PS Thank you for reading Lonergan even you did skim. I have a book of his lectures, and I have a terrible time getting my students to read them. The ones who do read it usually tell me they have no idea what they read!

Well, it sounds like you really value his theology. I did not read his writing, I read the link, which was written by someone explaining Lonergan’s approach. I don’t know if Lonergan was represented by the words
“Guilty of both original and actual sin, we contract punishment.”

So, there may be a bit of contradiction to address if God does not blame man for killing His Son, but does blame man for original and actual sin. By “blame” I mean “contract punishment”, we incur a debt. For example, why does God not blame man for killing his son, but does so for other sins? Are not the same parameters involved, that we do not know what we are doing when we sin? I would be very interested in Lonergan’s answer.

Thanks! I know you probably do a lot of writing already, so don’t feel compelled to answer my post with my same volume. I enjoy this conversation, I hope we can continue.

 

[simpleas]

Shame on you!

Actually, your observation drives toward a common problem. Is it a necessary aspect of faith that we see our state as somehow “fallen”? Is God punishing us?

Simpleas, it is no use contesting the view that we are guilty and deserve punishment, I think. It is a view that has its place, and it is a view that is anchored in a person’s relationship with the divine. If you see that you never choose against God, then it is likely that you see no one else doing so either, in the final analysis.

In the mean time, those who share your view can be quickly turned off by assertions that humans are all guilty of something or have something negative in their “state”.

To me, the Church can easily incorporate both views.

God Bless your day! Raining like crazy here in CA this morning! Yay!

I was pointing out that we are not guilty of original sin.

Maybe we should see it as God healing us rather than punishing us, as that doesn’t seem to work anymore. God that loves does not punish a creature that hasn’t come to know God in this life. We need healing from much more than we need to be punished.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

There is no doubt that love is transformative, but it would be interesting to go into the details of the transformation. For example, does God see us in a negative light in the first place, and by His own act makes humanity acceptable? Or, does God always see us as beautiful, and it is man who sees God in a distorted way, and the transformation is one that takes place in our vision? This is a summary of the two ways of looking at it; and I think the Church should respect both.

Not absent, just tardy. thanks.

Yes, “not making it to heaven” does make sense if we:

1. observe that people knowingly and willingly reject God. (which is not what I observe) This depends on anthropological views.

or

1. God sends people away. This depends on theological views.

Well, it sounds like you really value his theology. I did not read his writing, I read the link, which was written by someone explaining Lonergan’s approach. I don’t know if Lonergan was represented by the words
“Guilty of both original and actual sin, we contract punishment.”

So, there may be a bit of contradiction to address if God does not blame man for killing His Son, but does blame man for original and actual sin. By “blame” I mean “contract punishment”, we incur a debt. For example, why does God not blame man for killing his son, but does so for other sins? Are not the same parameters involved, that we do not know what we are doing when we sin? I would be very interested in Lonergan’s answer.

Thanks! I know you probably do a lot of writing already, so don’t feel compelled to answer my post with my same volume. I enjoy this conversation, I hope we can continue.

Why do you think God does not hold humanity accountable for the death of Christ?

No, I’m pretty sure Lonergan did not write that we are guilty of actual sin and original sin. We inherit original sin from our first parents.

I do value his theology, but I also value other theologians - Hans Urs von Balthasar, Gerald O’Collins, Raymond Brown, Odo Casel, N.T. Wright, who is Anglican, but so close to Catholicism, he might as well be Catholic.

 

[clem456]

All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion
598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

**We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) **and hold him up to contempt.
…
And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391
Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392

 

[OneSheep]

I was pointing out that we are not guilty of original sin.

Maybe we should see it as God healing us rather than punishing us, as that doesn’t seem to work anymore. God that loves does not punish a creature that hasn’t come to know God in this life. We need healing from much more than we need to be punished.

You are so dear, simpleas! Bless you too! I know, “dear” sounds a bit old-fashioned across the pond, but maybe I am old fashioned.

Yeah, how can a person who knows nothing but mistreatment know God? Actually, I think that it is still quite possible to know what love is in any set of experiences, but the blind do lead people to blindness, so people can certainly grow up with a very limited knowing of where God is present. My wife, who teaches kindergarten, did a lesson on racism in honor of Martin Luther King yesterday, giving only kids with blue shirts a treat (and everyone else, after the discussion), . It was amazing to her (and me) what came out of those children’s mouths about what racial group their parents hate. 5-year-olds have no “filter” my wife says.

Yes, we need healing, we need our eyes healed. Does God ever punish us, or do we simply experience natural consequences for our actions? Our consciences punish us, for sure… there I go again.

 

[OneSheep]

Why do you think God does not hold humanity accountable for the death of Christ?

Oops! Did I give the impression that God does not hold people accountable for sin? We know what that “accountability” looked like from the cross. Jesus saw; Jesus forgave. Certainly we are held accountable, but what I am pointing to is what does that “holding accountable” look like? Does God’s face begin with a look of disappointment, condemnation? Or has God already forgiven, and his face shows understanding and mercy? What I am saying is that both of these views are legitimate.

No, I’m pretty sure Lonergan did not write that we are guilty of actual sin and original sin. We inherit original sin from our first parents.

Well, we are definitely guilty of hurting others and failing to help those in need. I am, anyway. So, as for responsibility, I take ownership, and as for accountability, I am ready to do so (able-to-account-for actions). What makes sense is that we inherit the capacity to do harm from our parents; hey, its genetic. If the capacity is part of a punishment, though, that view is difficult to comprehend in light of a benevolent Father who wills communion, which I think is part of the underlying question of this thread.

I am still wondering if Lonergan would say that we “contract punishment” from God. For that matter also, is “original sin” such a contract? We humans depend (more or less) on punishment for behavior modification, at least it is in our nature to do so; we contract debt (punishment) from each other. However, does God? It is quite natural to believe so, but that is not what happened from the cross. Try this question: does omniscience preclude sense of debt? In other words, when you know that someone is going to make an error, and you understand and can relate to the innocence of the action, do you hold it against him when he does it, or do you immediately forgive because you essentially have already forgiven?

I do value his theology, but I also value other theologians - Hans Urs von Balthasar, Gerald O’Collins, Raymond Brown, Odo Casel, N.T. Wright, who is Anglican, but so close to Catholicism, he might as well be Catholic.

Whew! My reading list is already pretty packed as it is. I have much to learn.

 

[Abu]

Lily Bernans #110
I also value other theologians…Raymond Brown…

As Raymond Brown has distorted much of Catholic teaching, one should be wary of placing much faith in him.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

As Raymond Brown has distorted much of Catholic teaching, one should be wary of placing much faith in him.

He was pretty conservative. What, specifically, has he distorted?

Given his conservative reputation, I’d like to check it out.

Thanks!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

He was highly respected.

It is the job of theologians to enlarge the faith, to try to find new ways of looking at the faith. We don’t now know all there is to know. A theologian is not an apologist. A theologian needs to challenge views. I haven’t had my theology degree very long, my MA, but in my years of study, I’ve come to disbelieve the Bethlehem birth and believe Jesus was born in Nazareth. Even one of my professors, who has a PhD and has been teaching for 30 years believes Jesus was born in Nazareth.

In some ways, the formal study of theology - not catechetics or apologetics - can challenge one’s faith. One needs a strong faith going in. If our faith must be protected from differing views, then it isn’t that strong. At least that’s the way I see it.

 

[clem456]

As Raymond Brown has distorted much of Catholic teaching, one should be wary of placing much faith in him.

Not true Abu. You should be specific so we know what you are referring to.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Not true Abu. You should be specific so we know what you are referring to.

Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles called Fr. Brown’s death “a great loss to the Church.”

 

[OneSheep]

He was highly respected.

It is the job of theologians to enlarge the faith, to try to find new ways of looking at the faith. We don’t now know all there is to know. A theologian is not an apologist. A theologian needs to challenge views. I haven’t had my theology degree very long, my MA, but in my years of study, I’ve come to disbelieve the Bethlehem birth and believe Jesus was born in Nazareth. Even one of my professors, who has a PhD and has been teaching for 30 years believes Jesus was born in Nazareth.

In some ways, the formal study of theology - not catechetics or apologetics - can challenge one’s faith. One needs a strong faith going in. If our faith must be protected from differing views, then it isn’t that strong. At least that’s the way I see it.

Good Morning Lily!

Theologians aren’t apologists?

ignatiusinsight.com/features/ceo_apologetics_oct04.asp

All theologians aim to make faith more understandable, to clear up contradictions and/or update doctrine given new revelations from scripture or nature, correct?

And in so doing, they promote the faith. When people point to contradictions in the faith, and our answer is “Mystery”, it does not have near the weight of a well-constructed explanation.