Romans 13 & Marie
If you haven't already, scan over to the comments on my "7 Quick Takes Friday" entry last Friday (8/28) and read some of the interesting exchanges there. Marie has prompted me with some excellent questions that I've been chewing over since then. And in the space of time before my free library Internet access runs out, I want to keep the ball rolling!
Most interesting in my mind is the question of whether or not there are situations where there is no "righteous" option - where whichever path you take is a path of sin. I find this an interesting question that I'd never really thought through before. My impulse is to say that this is probably not realistic. If it were, it would seem that would leave open an interesting belief that it would be possible for someone other than Jesus Christ to live a perfectly guiltless life. If there is always a path of righteousness open, does this reduce the importance (or miraculousness) of what Jesus did as True God and True Man? I'm against anything that even remotely impinges on that.
Yet does not having a righteous option available at all times throw Scriptural exhortations to righteousness out the window? I've always understood that we are called to make the right choices, while also knowing that we won't always be able to do so. But does that exhortation assume that there always *is* a righteous option available?
I'd love to have some more folks weigh in on this one!
To clarify and respond to some of Marie's specific questions:
No, I'm not trying to justify a smaller sin against a larger one. Sin is sin. And we are called to shun sin. Bonhoeffer is not trying to justify his actions coram deo - before God. Rather, he's simply confessing that he willfully entered into sin. In his effort to serve his neighbor best, he decided that entering into this sin willfully was necessary. Not justified before God, but the best decision he could come to.
I don't believe that the fundamental rules of God differ between Old Testament and New Testament. Thus, we're left with the conundrum you raised of whether or not there is always a righteous option - because if we assume that civil obedience is always God's desire, well, shucks.
I don't tend to think that an individual Christian is terribly well qualified to state categorically that a war that their government is involved in is contrary to the will of God. So I don't think that I get to make that sort of call. I don't know the mind of God. I don't know if I'm living in a modern-day Babylonia that is being raised up for God's specific purposes (purposes unknown and unknowable to the leaders of a country, and the citizens as well).
Overall, as I think through this more and more, I feel that it's pretty obvious that we don't always have a righteous option. That at times, we are going to be sinning no matter what. I tend to suspect that the guilt of that will fall upon the State - if it is the State that has indeed put us into that position. Sin may not differ in 'size' before God, but it does tend to differ quite a bit in effect here on earth. As such, I'm going to say (at least for the moment!) that it's better to disobey the state for being required to blaspheme or deny the faith, than it is to blaspheme and deny the faith.
I'll look forward to the next conversational salvo(s)!
Most interesting in my mind is the question of whether or not there are situations where there is no "righteous" option - where whichever path you take is a path of sin. I find this an interesting question that I'd never really thought through before. My impulse is to say that this is probably not realistic. If it were, it would seem that would leave open an interesting belief that it would be possible for someone other than Jesus Christ to live a perfectly guiltless life. If there is always a path of righteousness open, does this reduce the importance (or miraculousness) of what Jesus did as True God and True Man? I'm against anything that even remotely impinges on that.
Yet does not having a righteous option available at all times throw Scriptural exhortations to righteousness out the window? I've always understood that we are called to make the right choices, while also knowing that we won't always be able to do so. But does that exhortation assume that there always *is* a righteous option available?
I'd love to have some more folks weigh in on this one!
To clarify and respond to some of Marie's specific questions:
No, I'm not trying to justify a smaller sin against a larger one. Sin is sin. And we are called to shun sin. Bonhoeffer is not trying to justify his actions coram deo - before God. Rather, he's simply confessing that he willfully entered into sin. In his effort to serve his neighbor best, he decided that entering into this sin willfully was necessary. Not justified before God, but the best decision he could come to.
I don't believe that the fundamental rules of God differ between Old Testament and New Testament. Thus, we're left with the conundrum you raised of whether or not there is always a righteous option - because if we assume that civil obedience is always God's desire, well, shucks.
I don't tend to think that an individual Christian is terribly well qualified to state categorically that a war that their government is involved in is contrary to the will of God. So I don't think that I get to make that sort of call. I don't know the mind of God. I don't know if I'm living in a modern-day Babylonia that is being raised up for God's specific purposes (purposes unknown and unknowable to the leaders of a country, and the citizens as well).
Overall, as I think through this more and more, I feel that it's pretty obvious that we don't always have a righteous option. That at times, we are going to be sinning no matter what. I tend to suspect that the guilt of that will fall upon the State - if it is the State that has indeed put us into that position. Sin may not differ in 'size' before God, but it does tend to differ quite a bit in effect here on earth. As such, I'm going to say (at least for the moment!) that it's better to disobey the state for being required to blaspheme or deny the faith, than it is to blaspheme and deny the faith.
I'll look forward to the next conversational salvo(s)!
Hope you're enjoying your trip!
I'm not familiar enough with the Lutheran tradition, is there not a doctrine of immaculate conception of Mary?
It seems to me that if God places before you choices that all involve some level of sin, He certainly could not hold you accountable for sinning. Surely there is, in every situation, one path that is free of personal sin, although not necessarily of suffering and not necessarily one that good people would immediately always recognize or be able to follow. Also, I think sometimes we take so many steps down a path that runs through sin that we forget that there was a spur waaaay back there that we could have taken, and that we can return to with great difficulty and humility, that is free of sin.
Let me ask you a question -- just read that the President will be making an address to students during their day in the public schools and his administration has sent out study guides to encourage certain lines of thought among the students. If my children were attending a participating school, would Romans 13 necessitate my leaving them in for the day? Or would I be clear as long as I wasn't specifically breaking any truancy laws? What about if it breaks school policy? Any ideas?
Reply to this
The trip is wonderful - aside from extremely limited Internet access!
No, the Lutherans do not profess that Mary was perfect - only that Jesus was born to Mary when she was a virgin. Jesus was immaculately conceived by God the Holy Spirit through Mary. But nothing in Scripture necessitates (or indicates) that Mary was herself immaculately conceived, remained a virgin the rest of her life (since Jesus had brothers and sisters), or is otherwise in any respect other than the virgin conception and birth of Jesus Christ any different from any other man or woman before or since.
The assumption that God is directly providing every single one of the choices available to us through any given day is one I'm not entirely comfortable with. As a new creation in Jesus Christ, I am not held accountable for sinning, since my sin has been forgiven through the atoning birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I stand in every moment as fully a sinner, and fully a justified and redeemed saint in the kingdom of God (Romans 7:21-25). Of course, I don't experience this duality very clearly - my perceptions remain clouded by my unperfected human nature. Yet I accept the reality of this duality through faith in the Sacrament of my baptism, my confession of faith by the enabling power of God the Holy Spirit, and receiving of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in with and under the bread and the wine of the Eucharist.
I live in grace. I continue to sin. My sins are already forgiven. They are forgiven before I can even commit them. The only sin in which I could exit this state of God's pervasive grace through faith would be if I rejected this gift. If I chose to deny my God and my Savior and spurned His grace and forgiveness. Then I enter a very perilous state indeed! But barring that possibility, while my sins remain sinful and contrary to the will of God, they are not held against me by virtue of being clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Yes, this sounds dangerously like some sort of libertine theology that would make a mockery of God's grace through a life of unrepentant sin. There are some who have taken that path. But the Christian faith and the Biblical witness clearly teach that this is in error (Romans 6:1).
In this state, I needn't worry about whether there is a righteous option open to me. I am to seek righteousness in my actions and words and thoughts. But if I do not find it - I do not stand condemned. Likewise, someone who has not been brought to faith in Jesus Christ through God the Holy Spirit does not stand any more condemned for lack of a righteous option. They are already lost - and remain lost whether their choices are righteous or not, because they do not have faith in Jesus Christ. There is no concept of the virtuous pagan as Dante imagined them. We are either lost because we are not in Christ, or we stand within the kingdom already as heirs of Jesus Christ.
I agree with your thoughts regarding decisions made at a previous point in time that take us down a wrong path full of bad options. But I still don't see a Scriptural or theological precedent for saying that in every situation, there is "one path that is free of personal sin". It's appealing to think that there is or can be, but I'm still not seeing yet. Can you cast some Scriptural light on this that might help us further?
As for the analogy you give at the end, as the parent of a former grade-schooler, I know that it is my discretion (for the time being!) to excuse my child from attendance at any time I so choose. So if you opted to remove your child, you wouldn't be disobeying. I tend to think that the better solution (depending upon the age of your child!) would be to talk about the study guide with your child (is their teacher willing to share it with you?). Talk about what they are being encouraged to think and compare that to Scripture. As a product of public schooling, I'm the first to champion the fact that one can go to public school without being lost to the faith. Tempted, battered, and bruised, sure! But not lost. Our decision to home school our children is a matter of the blessing we have at the moment to have my wife not working. If that had to change, our kids would go to public school, and it would be our duty as Christian parents to be very involved both in teaching the faith proactively in our home as well as engaging our children in the material they are presented with at school.
At this point in time, public education is still at least technically seen as an extension of the parental duty to educate children. I agree that this formality is largely lost on the vast majority of the population. And I expect a time in the future when this technicality is quietly erased, at which time families will have some hard choices to make.
But that's likely another discussion topic all together!
I look forward to your continued questions and insights! Blessings to you & your family!
Reply to this
So would I be misstating things to say that yours is, to shorthand it, a "once saved, always saved" theology? I apologize for my ignorance, I kind of thought that was a Calvinist view and I guess I've always thought of Calivinism and Lutheranism as being pretty widely separated. I guess I'm not well versed in denominational theologies.
That does make it harder to navigate the original question, since I believe any sin is a chosen movement away from God, and if I read correctly you believe you have already chosen "for" God and that transcends time, therefore sins are more just unfortunate realities of the human condition and in no way separate you from God (with the exception of the rejection of that grace itself). In that way, I suppose God laying before you nothing but paths of sin would be in some ways like laying before us paths that all lead to death or to suffering -- that's simply the way it is in a fallen world, and we look forward to a time and place where that is no more? The fact that God is just and merciful (and I'm sure we could come up with many Scripture passages on that one) would preclude in my theology Him placing before us only choices involving some level of sin, but not in yours. He can be just and merciful and still, essentially, "require" sin in us? Since we will not be penalized for that sin?
In that case, if obedience to the government involved a sinful act, you could still choose to obey the government and feel you were following the will of God? Afraid I'm not in the same position, so I guess I'll just have to keep working on it. Thanks!
Reply to this
No, Lutherans don't follow the Calvinistic once-saved-always-saved approach. Scripture doesn't allow for that, since it seems pretty clear that salvation is a gift - but that gift can be rejected. It's definitely one of the areas where we part ways with Calvinists. Lutherans attempt to maintain the Scriptural tension that God is always to be given credit & glory when someone comes to faith (since it was the working of the Holy Spirit that made that possible - Corinthians 12:3), and we are always culpable if we reject the working of the Holy Spirit (a working that we are, to be sure, unaware of all too often!). God desires the salvation of all (Ezekiel 33:10-11 has always been very comforting to me in this respect). So if that is the case, the Calvinistic dual-predestination theology seems to have some pretty heavy explaining to do.
Yes, any sin is a movement away from God, a continued act of the rebellion that began with Adam and which we are completely and totally incapable of stopping of our own accord. Lutherans hold with the Catholic doctrine of the total depravity of man. There is nothing we can do of our own accord to save ourselves. Except for the grace of God in Jesus Christ, all would be lost to sin and death.
I did not choose God - God chose me, and I have not fought Him on that account. The gift of salvation comes without any merit or effort on my part. I could choose to walk away from it - to reject the gift and embrace separation from God. But that's the extent of my choice in the matter. That God has chosen me through Jesus Christ does transcend time. The forgiveness of Jesus that started before I was ever born covers all of my sins that I have ever committed, and will cover any sin I might ever commit. As a child of Jesus, I seek not to sin - but that's an inevitable state of living as a broken human in a fallen world. Until the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God is complete, we remain equally marred by our sinfulness, as surely as we are completely justified in Jesus Christ.
I haven't said that God only lays before us paths of sin. What I've objected to is the assertion that we always have a righteous option to choose from (whether we recognize it as such in the moment or not). Yes, I do look forward to the return of the King, when all creation will be reconciled and healed, and where the redemption that is a reality of my spirit is exhibited as a reality in my body and my will.
God does not require sin of me. That would indeed be unjust. But God has allowed the working of sin to have sway to an extent in our world and in our individual lives and bodies. While God remains ultimately in control of all things, the question becomes whether every single incident, choice, or decision is uniquely crafted by God. Again, I'd be interested in Scriptural support for that assertion, because I can't think of any off the top of my head. I understand that by the function of our reason and logic, it would seem that if God is control at some level, He is in control at every level, and therefore it would be unrealistic or unjust of Him to allow us options that did not allow us to please Him. But our logic and reason are broken and fallen as well - which is pretty standard Christian doctrine. We are in error if we apply the standards and logic by which we hold one another accountable, to our Creator.
To assert that God allows us to always have an option that would avoid sin would seem to me to create a new form of legalism that would eclipse even the sacrificial system of the Israelites, or the Mosaic obsessions of the Pharisees. Jesus made it pretty clear that the very desires of our hearts are broken and sinful, that we sin almost automatically. We can control the expression of that sin in our actions some of the time, but how often do our hearts and minds deceive us and betray us into sin before we can adequately get a handle on them? How often must we rebuke the thought of malice or envy or lust or cruelty - and yet that thought existed and had to be rebuked? How then - if our sin is within us and not simply a matter of the choices we make - the latter part of Mark 7 can be helpful here, I think - are we to assume that our actions can remain unsinful?
God does not require sin in us - our very nature as fallen creatures requires it, predicates it, perpetuates it. All in contradiction to God. But if the choices before us at any given moment do not always include a righteous option, to me this just emphasizes the hopelessness of our condition without Christ. And our penalty for our sin was indeed penalized - it was penalized through the suffering and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The perfect lamb of God truly takes away the sins of the world - but not by making them disappear, or pretending that they never happened. He takes them away by suffering in full the penalty that was due directly to you and I as the sinners.
I'm aware that the Catholics make distinctions between types of sin that are not widely discussed in Lutheran circles, and perhaps that's a distinction that is coming into play here?
Any sin is a rebellion against God. But the fact that I may not have an option before me that pleases God does not implicate God in my sin. It simply fully expresses the fallenness of creation as a whole, and myself as an individual. It recognizes that it is impossible for me to live perfectly, and this is more than just a matter of some intangible original sin.
Is any of this helpful? Are you able to provide some examples of how your understanding and faith paint a different picture? I always thought this was one of the areas where Lutherans and Catholics were vaguely in the same camp - but I freely admit that my studies of Catholicism are not as thorough as I'd like them to be!
Blessings & thanks!
Reply to this
Thanks for the clarifications.
I supposed I would like to think, in some ways, that the ways laid out in front of us sometimes do not include a possibility of walking on without sinning. Certainly I've been in many situations where I seem to only be able to choose from the lesser of two, or seventeen, evils. But I think I've always found that if I'm honest with myself there is a way that does not involve personal sin, although that way often seems outrageous or "unrealistic". Still, your understanding as described above certainly does seem to match up more closely with how the world actually seems to run than my understanding does.
What I'm reading above is that 1) your view of sin is essentially that of death, sickness, suffering -- a condition of a fallen world that must be gotten through and can't be escaped, and 2) God does not involved himself necessarily in the details of life, only the big picture, and because the big picture is one of a fallen world there is often an almost incidental degree of sin in the details simply because that follows from Adam's choice.
Here's where it seems off to me.
It seems that if God wishes us all to be be with him that he would wish us all to come closer to him. As sin is a move away, this seems to be something God would never wish. It seems in a different category than suffering or death, which are hard but which often lead us to Him. Sin is by definition something that leads us away. I can see how God would allow the option to sin, but I don't see how he could even simply allow (rather than will) the requirement to (i.e. in order to exist you have to choose among options, all of which contain sinful action). In fact, if you even allow that one man remained sinless, how can you do so if you don't grant that that one man at least met with no situations in which he had to opt for one sin or another? I suppose you could say that was the mechanism by which Jesus remained without sin, he was never put into a position where he had to, but I have a hard time seeing how that construct would not make God responsible in some way for our own personal sins, which can't be.
I still think our conceptions of grace and sin are getting in the way of our viewing this whole issue the same way. Your characterization of the acceptance or the rejection of grace -- I see that as a choice made every time there is a option to sin. I believe we all are sinners because as fallen humans we all choose at one time or another to reject grace for a particular situation. In other words, I believe God lays out a number of possible paths and many contain sin, but one or many do not, and when we choose to sin we are choosing against accepting the grace of God to bring us to the right path.
Why would I think God is so involved in the details? I can only point to passages about knowing the sparrows or knowing us before we were born, being concerned with haircuts and noticing when someone grabs his robe in a crowd?
Reply to this
I apologize for the delay on getting your response approved to post - I was without Internet access for most of this weekend!
In terms of clarifying my stance as we continue, yes, sin is endemic. It is unavoidable. Not simply at the theoretical level of original sin, but in the actual moment to moment living. That even when we restrain our words and actions, our thoughts and feelings betray us into sin - even if we discipline ourselves to keep a tight rein on those as well. Sin is not something to be gotten through, it is something that we must be rescued from. We are totally depraved - even our best works are as dirty rags before God (Isaiah 64:6, or Romans 3:23). Without Jesus Christ, we are completely without hope.
God is free to do as He wills in this world - and I get through each day only because of my fervent belief that He is acting in this world. I don't mean to imply that He is only working at the Big Picture level. Scripture is clear that He involves Himself in a very personal manner and way - intervening with Abraham so that Isaac will not be slain, feeding Elijah as he flees from Jezebel, Jesus raising a little girl from the dead. God is most definitely involved at the micro as well as macro level.
But this must somehow be held in tension with the paragraph above. God is at work, yet God still allows sin to exist and to function for the time being. Death still holds sway in temporal terms, even though it has been defeated eternally. And so I question whether or not the fact that God is involved at both the micro and macro level necessitates that each of us have a righteous option at every juncture in our day and life. Particularly, I'm struggling for anything in Scripture that would support this sort of belief.
Yes, sin is a movement away from God. But a key difference between Roman Catholicism and most of Protestant Christianity is whether or not each individual sin is a move further away from God or not. Catholic doctrine regarding the necessity of atoning for sins - whether in this world or Purgatory - seems to view each individual decision or act as a move closer or further away from God.
I think that at least Lutheran Protestantism would paint the picture as one in which our status as sinful removes us from the kingdom of God. Period. At that point, incrementalism loses meaning. If one is outside of Paradise, it would seem to be rather irrelevant whether one were just a little outside of Paradise, or miles and miles away from it.
Unless you believed that somehow, that distance could be closed and eventually erased so that you could be within Paradise at last. By some effort of your own (whether that effort is enabled by the Holy Spirit or not, as I think Catholic teaching holds).
Lutheran theology would say that you are either outside or inside Paradise. You are either in favor with God the Father by faith in God the Son through God the Holy Spirit, or you are not. There is nothing that we can do to move ourselves closer to God the Father, because the work of God the Son is completely and totally sufficient towards that end. In baptism, in the Sacraments, and in the heart of faith as worked by God the Holy Spirit, we are either heirs of the Kingdom because we accept this gift, or we continue in rebellion by rejecting the gift of faith.
Once we are heirs of the kingdom through faith, incrementalism has no meaning. We are completely forgiven. Completely covered in the blood of Jesus Christ. Completely atoned for. There is nothing more that we need to do, because there is truly nothing more that we can do. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is not meant as an argument that we can do whatever we want, that we needn't concern ourselves with how we live and act and think - Paul makes that abundantly clear in Romans! Sinful human nature inclines towards that sort of libertine-ism, but it's clearly not in keeping with the Biblical witness.
We are called to care about how we live and speak and act and think. Not because it can bring us closer to God - Jesus has already done that. Not because our errors separate us further from Paradise - because Jesus Christ already declared that this is not the case. The thief on the cross went to Paradise that day - not after he atoned for his past sins.
Now, the issue about the fact that Jesus could remain sinless is an interesting one indeed! And it does pose a challenge to the macro, systems-oriented ideas about sinfulness that have been brought up here. I'm hoping to have some more people jump in and address this topic. It seems clear at the very least that Jesus was able to remain without sin while yet living as a very real part of this world. Which indicates that at least for Him, it was possible to make perfectly sinless choices at every juncture of His life. I tend to think that this is not to be taken as an example that we can do this as well. I tend to think that sin has a cascading effect. Jesus was free of any such cascading effect, having been born without the curse of original sin. And therefore He truly could have available to Him at every moment perfectly righteous options. The question is whether we have that same ability, and I don't see anywhere in Scripture that asserts this.
Your passages definitely reflect that God is involved in the details - which I never meant to deny. What I'm searching for are passages that indicate that we are guaranteed a righteous option in every situation, even if that option is "outrageous or unrealistic". I'd also be interested if you're aware of a particular Catholic doctrine which asserts this.
Blessings and many thanks again - I look forward to hearing more!
Reply to this
Regarding the question of a righteous option, I find it helpful to think of sin not just in an individual sense, but in a corporate sense. Sin does not just pump through our own veins, but through all systems of society in which people operate, including government. Think of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. In other words, sin is built into the system, whether we know it or not. Thus, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that we can indeed encounter situations wherein we feel like we have to choose the lesser of two evils. We may say, "Well, that's not my fault! There was no other option!" But let's face it, it is our fault. We are all in this together. Even if we did not cause that particular instance of sin, we are infected by sin as a condition, and we operate in a society that suffers from the same deadly affliction.
Personally, I think about elections. I have yet to encounter the perfect candidate (in my mind). Thus, I always find myself wrestling between two options: vote for someone less than perfect, or opt not to vote. Neither option particularly thrills me. What to do? I pray for direction and guidance. I make the best decision I can with information I have weighed against what the Scripture says.
There is only one "righteous" path. It is a path that realizes we are not righteous, not one of us. Not all of us. It is a path that realizes this unrighteousness, that realizes our guilt, my guilt, and knows that we all deserve death. We are in need of a savior, a rescuer, someone to put things back together again, individually and corporately.
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us..."
Reply to this
Thanks J.P. - I think that's a very helpful angle to think of sin in the broader perspective as well as how we encounter it individually. Paul exhorted the Roman Christians to obey the civil authority. Yet it was a civil authority that would use their tax dollars to destroy the Second Temple just a few years later. It was a civil authority that required emperor worship tacitly if not explicitly. Those don't sound like righteous options to me. And yet Paul did not advocate overthrowing Rome, but in accepting even the ugliness of it as in some way (which I won't pretend that any of us are able to discern - then or now) an expression of the Will of God made manifest and tangible in our world.
Reply to this
This I can wrap around a bit.
Let's take the election as an example. I think I have two evils to choose from and I must pick the lesser.
But in reality, we are here in part (ery, very small part) because of me. I have not in any way tried to do any of the things that would bring good candidates to the ballot. I have not stood up and protested wrong, I have not encouraged and supported good, I have not used my time and my skills to in any way mend any hole I have seen in the system. I can't say what it would look like if I did -- maybe it would look like running for the school board, maybe it would look like writing letters to candidates, maybe it would look like starting a new party, maybe it would look like withdrawing from the world to the extent that I don't pay any of those taxes that go to things I consider greater or lesser evils -- who knows. But way back there, there was a place that I could have turned and that I can return to where I could have chosen, by accepting the grace of God, to do the right thing. Waiting until the election and deciding I have only two choices (three if you count not voting) and all have some sin is deceiving myself?
I don't know. I'm sounding pretty convoluted here, it certainly seems like the view you guys have is more consistent with how the world really is.
I guess I am wary of how easy it is to sin when we accept that we have no options but sinful ones. I realize that it doesn't necessarily follow that we will become complacent about wrong, but it certainly would be an easy trap to fall into. This is the deal I have with understanding how I'm to follow authority -- it would be awfully easy for me to do what I'm told and then let the sin fall on the King's head == what's the line, every man's duty is the King's but every man's sin is his own?
Reply to this
I totally agree with your last paragraph. If we say that we have no choice but to sin, it could easily lead to throwing our hands up in the air and saying why bother even trying to live righteously? Many people have reached that conclusion!
But they didn't reach it by grounding themselves in Scripture, because Scripture makes it plain that we are to continue trying. Romans 6 is fantastically clear on this point. Because of the great and good gift of God, we live our lives to the best of our ability in keeping with the will of God as we struggle to understand it. But it is precisely that - a response to what has already been done, rather than an effort to somehow make things more right.
I think the idea that one bad choice cascades into other bad options is probably very realistic - to a point that could be utterly depressing. But I also think that it's dangerous to assume that if we could avoid that initial bad choice, we would continue to have a righteous option in our future choices. I tend to think that could lead to a rather dangerous level of spiritual pride, which can be as damaging as a spirit of licentiousness and a warped concept of our freedom in Christ!
But in this and every other situation, I prefer to let Scripture inform me as much as possible, and the Holy Spirit most often does that by providing people that can shed light on Scripture that clarifies what I ought to believe as opposed to what I'd like to believe. I debate and discuss as much in the spirit of expecting to be proven wrong as I do in the assumption that I'm right!
Reply to this
Before I talk any more I really ought to clear up a few things.
1. I don't believe that by believing your sins to come are also forgiven you are more inclined to sin than I am -- I believe that would be an incorrect reading of your theology and a danger some who follow it may fall into, but not a requirement of it. I see it as very much like folks who claim the absolution Catholics believe they receive in the confessional makes Catholics inclined to be libertine -- certainly it's an error Catholics and not Baptists can fall into, but it's not a correct reading of that belief. In fact, I am hard pressed to find any religious belief that includes mercy to not be open to the accusation that its adherents would then sin freely, knowing they will be forgiven. So you do not need to explain to *me* that your theology does not encourage sin -- I know it doesn't.
2. If you are looking to me to be a spokesperson for Catholicism, well, don't. I'll get it all wrong.
3. You've asked several times for Biblical references -- yours is a habit regarding Scripture that I respect, but not one I share. I have a tendency to have a question and to look to the Bible as part of my search. It seems you have a question that you answer using your knowledge of the Bible, but then you return to the Bible to find specific references to back up or refute your conclusion. For me, if I were going to so rigidly adhere to such a pure scholastic standard I would have to take each question back to Scripture and read the entire Bible in light of my one inquiry, each time. So, you can see how I'm having a hard time answering your request -- but please don't think I'm ignoring or discounting it, I think we approach things differently and I'm having a hard time adapting.
Reply to this
Thanks for the clarifications, Marie. Theology is a tricky dance, and more often than not people end up stepping all over one another's toes. I try to clarify arenas where I expect there may be misunderstandings even before misunderstandings are encountered - a tricky feat at best!
Also thanks for your clarification on your official status as representative of Catholicism
My push back to Biblical sources is part of an effort to understand sources of understanding. In a situation where two Christians have a difference of understanding or opinion, my goal is ultimately to understand where the other person is getting their ideas from - and to share where I at least *think* I'm getting mine from as well. At least in part. I'm not aware of Scripture being explicit on this point. And secondly, it's not something that I've really given much thought to in the past, since my faith tradition has a different understanding of grace than Catholicism.
As such, I've appreciated the opportunity to think through this with you, and am glad that it hasn't been a simple matter of "I guess we don't agree so there's no point in further discussion". That sort of thing (too early on in a discussion) tends to give me hemorrhoids!
Reply to this
I'm getting a little lost, so I'm going to fly my best effort by here.
Regarding sinless paths, I can't point to anything in the Bible that addresses that, much less somehow confirms my point, specifically. I suppose I look upon simple things like the clear command not to murder -- if I had been ordered to man a camp in WWII Germany, it would seem pretty clear to me that following that order would be breaking that commandment. If, then, Paul is telling me that disobeying any authority is sinning, I'd have to take your point of view that I have no choice but to sin in some way or another in that situation. But I'm not certain I should read that passage from Paul as an injunction that I must follow any authority or sin. Do you believe that is what he is saying?
It is interesting that you bring up the idolatry angle. It seems to me that the Jewish people living under the Romans were practically universally victims of the government. They were exempt from the requirements to worship the emperor, and the images on coins certainly went against tradition based on law, but not against the law itself. So they didn't do wrong, they had wrong done to them. I'm thinking Paul encouraged people to look beyond rebelling against authorities that victimized them, but did he encourage people to obey a government authority when the authority tried to force them to do wrong themselves? Aren't there many examples of early Christians (who were not given a pass on the emperor-worship laws) being martyred rather than submitting? Is that a way around for me, or do you think I'm cheating a bit?
It is funny, I think in all this wrangling I'm getting a much better grip on what these authority passages are all about -- I really appreciate the conversation, this has been a difficult topic for me for some time and I have felt pressed more and more lately to take these passages seriously and to heart. Thanks so much for the help.
Reply to this
As I look over Romans 13, I see it as part and parcel of Romans 12. Romans 12 has to do with how we are to live our lives - as living sacrifices. At times, it would seem, that will require us to forgo our judgment and natural impulses, and rather to cling to truth and thereby heap burning coals upon our enemies. We are to overcome evil with good. The link between Romans 12 & 13 (only made necessary to note since the arbitrary division of Scripture!) is that they way we conduct ourselves with personal adversaries is extended to governments and civil authorities. Paul's admonition in Romans 12 that we are not to judge seems to apply in Romans 13 as well, even though Paul only explicitly deals with authorities that are acting in ways that are proper.
But Paul and Peter both had to take a stand before the Emperor. Many Christians had to make the same choice later on. Either be obedient to civil authority and make sacrifices to the emperor or a false god, or hold fast to their confession of Jesus Christ as their one true Lord. Christian historical tradition has it that they both - as many others did in the centuries that followed - held fast to the truth of Jesus Christ. In other words, it would appear that for Peter and Paul and many others, Truth was what mattered, not sinfulness. The Truth of Jesus Christ could not be denied, even if that meant sinning by disobeying a direct civil authority. It would seem that whether or not they were sinning by confessing Christ until death was not a matter of much concern.
For Paul and Peter then, clearly there was a line at which civil obedience - no matter how God pleasing as a rule - could become sinful. If one denied the Truth of Jesus Christ, one crossed that line. Whether this is a sin or not seems irrelevant. Which seems - speaking purely on speculation here! - to support the idea that we are not, as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ - to obsess about the effect of sin. Sin happens. But that sin has been washed away in the blood of Jesus Christ. We stand fully redeemed. So the issue of whether one always has a righteous option available becomes less of a stress factor. If there is an obviously righteous choice, choose it. If you are required to choose between sins, make the best choice possible. Hold to truth. Don't give up the confession of faith that has saved you.
So to answer your question, I'd point to how Paul seems to have answered it in his own life. Civil obedience is pleasing to God. But even Paul chose to disobey civil authority - thereby sinning - in order to remain faithful to the truth of Jesus Christ. I doubt Paul was troubled too greatly about the fact that he had only sinful options before him. He took his stand. Bore his punishment. And I doubt either of us is uncertain as to whether or not he is with his savior this very moment!
As for the distinction between sinning volitionally and having sin thrust upon oneself, again, the only reason why this would become an issue is if one was assuming that there would always be a righteous alternative. If we remove that assumption, does the distinction between being willfully sinful creatures of our own volition and being required to sin as part of being sinful creatures in a sinful world sort of lose relevance? So yes, I guess I suspect it's an easy out to claim that someone 'had' to sin. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. We can't really tell, can we? Only God can. Our duty is to try and love that person - as well as the people who may or may not have forced him to sin - as best we can, and leave judgment and retribution to God.
Not a very satisfying position to be in, most of the time. But probably a safer one than some of the alternatives I can think of!
Reply to this
Regarding the last passage, I'm afraid I hadn't even considered someone else's complicity with this passage -- I'm worried about myself! I'd like to get it right. . .
I agree that the "agree to disagree" thing can be frustrating -- I tend to want people to respect me and my opinions enough to care if I'm wrong and try to fix it. But I guess that could just be a cover for an instinctive Irish love of a good fight.
You may say I'm parsing, but in looking back, here's what I see.
We could say that Paul tells us disobeying the government is a sin and then go from there to determine that there are some situations where there is no righteous path and so we must take Paul's sin here instead of other sins, as Paul himself did when he got thrown in jail.
Or, could we not look at Paul's life, and Peter's as you say, and read the passage in a different way? In looking back, he tells us to submit to authority -- you and I read that as doing what authority tells us to do. But could you not read that as letting authority do to us what it wishes? After all, he follows it closely with an admonition to do what is right. Could he not have simply meant that you should do what is right, but if the government locks you up for it don't fight about it? Doesn't that pretty much play out in the example he gave?
I'm sure you'll think I'm tenaciously holding onto the idea that we always have the option not to sin. I think the way I look at it is that we could lead a sinless life, but we can't. God is able to do anything he wishes, and we walk away from sin through the grace of God (I know those principals are to be found many times in Scripture). Therefore, God could let a man live without personal sin (let's let the original sin thing go for a bit. . . . ), and in fact once he did. So we could go through life without any personal sin, because anything is possible with God, no? But we can't, because God does not always grant us the grace to not sin and when he does, we do not always accept it. In this way, I can see how God could lay out before us a path of sin and a path without sin, but deny us the grace to choose the right way -- it may serve his purpose. I think about Thomas a Kempis saying that God allows small, frustrating, repeated sins in us so we will realize we cannot even get rid of those pests without him. But I can't see how God could lay out only paths of sin, never give us the option of wanting grace. It seems unjust to me,it seems that would make God culpable for my sin, and while I can't cite any passages about it that clearly contradicts a Christian understanding of God, doesn't it?
I'm sure you've got things to do, so I'll check back to see if you've got some corrections for me, but I'll let you go now. You've really helped me dig into this one, I can honestly tell you you've done me a great service and I appreciate it.
Reply to this
I think that Romans 12 & 13 could be read in the way that you suggest. I see both our interpretations as two sides of a coin, in some respects. The state may misuse it's God-granted authority to conduct itself in a way that displeases God, and to pressure citizens to do so as well. The citizen's only choice in that situation is to suffer the wrath of the State for attempting to live as a witness to the Truth of God in Jesus Christ. Paul seems to be writing primarily to discourage people from taking upon themselves a role that is God's alone - that of judgment and wrath, two elements that would probably be present in even the most 'righteous' efforts at overthrowing the state in some fashion.
But your thoughts on the sinless possibility of a person are far more fascinating to me, since they dictate not only how you read this (or any) passage a certain way, but also why. To me, it's the why's that are more important than the specifics of the how. Something could be read write but for mistaken reasons, whereas if the reasons are in order, I tend to think the Bible will eventually sort out the error on it's own.
I'd suggest a couple of tweaks to your statement on personal sinlessness as a way forward in our discussion.
God didn't allow Jesus to be sinless. That would imply that God made an exception for Jesus, rather than doing something completely new in and through Him. This is the importance of the virgin birth - Jesus is not just some guy. Scripture attests that Jesus is not only a man, but also the Son of God incarnate. In other words, God didn't make an exception for Jesus - God created something entirely new and never seen before or since - a God-man. Fully divine, and therefore sinless from the moment of the Holy Spirit's conception. Fully human, and therefore subject to all of the temptations that a person is likely to encounter in their life. Jesus experienced fully the temptations that you and I do, but unlike you and I, his divine identity created a very real moral neutrality so that he could choose righteously - always.
This may seem like a technicality, but I think it's an important distinction. God didn't just waive the rules for Jesus, and in so doing set a precedent for possible future actions with other humans. Rather, God created an entirely new situation. God created a second Adam, as Paul talks about. And the thing about the first Adam was that he possessed what we might refer to as a true moral neutrality - he could make a choice either to obey or disobey, and was not naturally inclined or driven to one or the other. This is what Jesus was as the God-man. He possessed a quality of existence impossible to any other human being before or since.
This to me places the issue of personal sin in a different context than where you're coming from. Sin is not something to be avoided, because we can't avoid it. I don't believe that a person can live righteously and avoid sinfulness. Ever. It's not just our actions that are sinful, it's our impulses, our natural reactions, our emotions, and our thoughts. And while we can train these things to a certain extent, we can't qualitatively change their basic, sinful nature. We may retrain ourselves - by the power of the Holy Spirit - not to look lustfully at another person, or to be vindictive or gossipy, but that initial impulse is always there. I suspect that saying that a person could live sinlessly - except for original sin - allows for the mistaken notion that someone perhaps has done this, and original sin becomes this unfair clause that condemns an otherwise sinful person. It allows for actual virtue apart from Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
God can do whatever He wants, but as part of His nature, He can't compromise justice or righteousness. Simply waiving the rules for a person - or pretending that a person isn't steeped in sin at a level deeper than any DNA - would (speaking speculatively here!) impinge the actual righteousness of God. It would destroy the notion of justice through a perversion of mercy. And it would truly set up a double-standard that might give us real cause to decry an unfairness on God's part, rather than simply sitting with the vast mercy and grace of a God that offers rescue to those in active rebellion against Him.
And I'm not sure that I'm arguing that God would completely and totally deny righteous options to any particular person. It's clear that He may choose to do this at times (the Pharaoh in Exodus seems to be a good example). But I don't think that to argue that righteousness is not always available, we have to argue that it is never available. God is not culpable - ever - because we are sinful from birth. It is a condition of our nature. We reinforce that nature from birth. We are born sinfully self-centered - though we make excuses for it in the case of babies.
I agree - this is a fantastic dialog that has really pushed me to explore the contours of this passage. I'll take a feisty Irish unwillingness to back down from an argument over squishy relativism any day!
Reply to this
So you believe Jesus was sinless as a man only because he was also God? I guess I've never considered that particular question, but I tenaciously hang on to the idea that he was fully man and fully God (which you obviously do, also) and so I guess it seems important to me that Jesus the full man choose to remain without sin. Couldn't Adam have chosen the same, but he didn't?
Was reading around blogs today, btw, and saw a post called "unintended consequences" on this blog -- http://inscapes.blogspot.com/ -- and thought about this conversation, it's a little linked.
Reply to this
That was an interesting take on things at the blog you directed me to. I liked the article and analysis very much. It takes a keen eye to notice something that is gone, or something that may never have actually been there, but could have been - or should have been.
Anytime we start talking about how the God-man thing works, we're on pretty shaky ground. A great deal of effort has gone into this - particularly by theologians in the first four-five centuries of Christianity. There were lots of speculations that seemed obviously incorrect because they led logically to conclusions or situations that were untenable with the Biblical witness. We both affirm the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus Christ. That's a huge positive that many Christians lack these days thanks to betrayals in the pulpit and in their hierarchies. But when we begin to try and discern what exactly each of these full natures allowed or provided, that's where it gets interesting quickly.
The fact that Jesus of Nazareth was born by the work of the Holy Spirit and not a human father seems to have meant that he did not inherit the curse of Adam - original sin. Some people might go off into curious tangents about whether or not it is the father that literally transmits original sin to his children. I don't think either of us are interested in running off to those speculations though! Biblically, what we are given is that Jesus of Nazareth was also God the Son. True God, True Man. He was morally neutral at the very least. I could probably be easily convinced that he was not fully neutral - that he was inclined towards the good. I think I would say the same thing about Adam as well. It's not as though Adam and Jesus had no knowledge of their creator and what the creator desired and that what the creator had done so far was truly good. So to say that Adam or Jesus were simply neutral seems to be a bit far-fetched. I think they were both inclined towards good. But as Adam demonstrated, this inclination or leaning towards goodness was by no means a failsafe situation. Likewise, the first act in Jesus' ministry after His baptism is the temptation in the wilderness. As though God the Father and God the Holy Spirit wanted to be certain that the fully human aspect of Jesus was not going to make the wrong decision again, that he would not repeat the sin of Adam.
Facing Satan in the wilderness, Jesus relied upon the Word of God - which is all Adam had in dealing with the serpent. No miracles. No spiritual lasers or hosts of heaven riding to the rescue. Jesus simply accepted and trusted the Word of God where Adam and Eve did not. And the only way that Jesus could ever have been in a position to refuse that temptation was if he was free of original sin and the enslavement at conception towards evil. And the only reason that Jesus seems to have been free of that was because he was also the Son of God.
You're right - Jesus the fully human did resist sin successfully - but I don't believe for a second that would have been possible if he was not also Jesus the fully divine. Yes, Adam could have resisted the serpent's temptation because, at that point, Adam was without the stain of original sin as well. He was still existing fully as the image of God, fully under God's creation declaration that everything was good.
Reply to this