Ignorance or Intention?

Continuing from the introduction at Triggermanblog...

En Guard

Alex/Brandon begins his defense of his second premise by focusing on "original sin", writing,

Original sin, supposedly incurred when Eve are (sic) from the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden, means that every subsequent person inherits some degree of moral culpability as a consequence. That is, everyone is morally blameworthy for the actions of someone who existed before they were born.

I really had to think about this paragraph because--aside from its grammatical faults--it just didn't make any sense in relation to either the narration of Genesis 3 or to any historical understanding of original sin as a doctrine. The Catholic Catechism (section 390ff) gives a breakdown of what the term means in regards to its understanding and meaning, as does the Heidelberg Catechism (Question 7ff), and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (Chapter 6), none of which even remotely reflect Alex/Brandon’s peculiar understanding of either the cause or the effect of Adam's sin, something that is clearly reflected in Scripture (Romans 5:12, 19; 1 Corinthians 15:21).

Original sin, properly understood, is about effect, as Philip Ryken notes, "The sins of those who rebel against God leave a bitter legacy for the generations that follow.(p. 1047)" Berkhof explains it thusly,

That sin [of Adam] carried permanent pollution with it, and a pollution which, because of the solidarity of the human race, would affect not only Adam but all his descendants as well. As a result of the fall the father of the race could only pass on a depraved human nature to his offspring. From that unholy source sin flows on as an impure stream to all the generations of men, polluting everyone and everything with which it comes in contact. (p. 241)

Alex/Brandon further demonstrates his confusion about the topic writing, "...[It] is unjust to blame someone for something that another person did," as if that is what original sin refers to, blame. Here again, God responds directly to the accusation,

Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. -Ezekiel 18:4, ESV

God, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, corrects people who think that they are being punished for the sins of their forefathers. The answer to their complaint is that if they're doing what's right and true and good, then they have nothing to fear, only those who are doing evil have something to fear. Ezekiel's audience was suffering from the effect of their parent's rebellion by their deportation but it wasn't to punish those who had been faithful, rather it was to preserve them from God's judgement against those who hadn't.

The claim of original sin isn't that we're blamed for someone else's actions, rather its to say that those actions have an effect, a real and measurable effect, and if they aren't addressed properly and effectively, then we will be judged no differently and suffer the same consequences: ejection from the presence and supply of God.

The question is, how is how does one properly and effectively address that problem we have with our own corruption which results in our sin before a holy and just God?

Cashing Out

The biblical account sets sin, both as a result of inherited corruption and personal action,  as an unpayable debt from the position of humans. This is told from the position of faith thusly,

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with [Christ], having forgiven us all trespasses, by canceling the debt that stood against us with all its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 

-Colossians 2:13-14, ESV

Now, the concept of generational debt is something that is probably foreign to western individualists, partly because we have structured our laws to protect a person's descendants from their predecessors financial obligations, with a few exceptions. 

In the ancient world, and even parts of Asia and Africa to this day, the reality is quite different: a debt incurred by a family member, say a father, is shared by his family and full payment can be demanded at any time. But this debt doesn't necessarily need to be a financial one, it can penetrate into other aspects of life as well (see Malina, p. 67ff). The obligation to repay this "other" kind of debt was dependent on how one wanted to be regarded within their immediate community as one's reputation was their greatest asset (de Silva, p. 33). There is another aspect of sin though, its properties of contamination. 

Much of the distinction of "purity" has to do with the fulfillment of an ideal or, as John Pilch has stated, "purity marks a person who knows how to be clean rather than unclean, pure rather than polluted-in other words, how to maintain honor and avoid shame (p. 151)." This value of purity is echoed in David's psalm of repentance,

            Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 

-Psalm 51:7, ESV

Purity, in the biblical mindset, is about setting and maintaining boundaries and since Adam had crossed a boundary in violating God's express command (sinning) and was cast outside of the Garden, he was now unclean. It would take something to make Adam, and his subsequent descendants, fit for that space again.

Alex/Brandon gives us a brief outline,

The central story of the New Testament is about the life and death of Jesus.... In the eyes of mainstream Christianity, the death of Jesus has enormous metaphysical consequences.

Typically, this is cashed out as Jesus ‘dying for our sins’. But what does this ‘atonement’ mean? (emphasis original)

Alex/Brandon proceeds from there to dive into various atonement theories without ever really answering the question: what does "atonement" mean?

Biblically, atonement can be defined as "a means of reconciliation between God and man" (Brockway). In the ancient world, atonement was inherently linked to the purification of a site or person in preparation for religious service (ibid). In the Old Testament, this linkage is firmly established as a necessary aspect of not just an individual's worship, but ultimately for the nation to be fit to exist in God's presence (ibid; also see Leviticus 16). However, these yearly sacrifices were only a reminder that they didn't fix the problem between God and man, as the writer of Hebrews says,

...[In] these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 

-Hebrews 10:3-4, ESV

It takes something more than "bulls and goats" whose carcasses would be consumed in their entirety in fires of the altar, thus symbolizing the temporary nature of the repair, as the fire symbolized God's wrath against sin and the sacrifice taking the place of the sinner in order to gain a momentary audience, but could never wholly enter in. The priests themselves could only go so far and stay for so long, and even the high priest could only enter the most holy place for a few moments until the next year, when the process started again.

The sacrifice itself represented the fact that whatever could repair the damage was of a different nature and innocent, unlike the worshiper, the priest, or even the high priest, since they all required sacrifices to be made to merely hope to enter the presence of God. Enter Jesus, the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14), the "lamb who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), the "Son of Man [who] came...to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45), thereby fulfilling God's promise (Hosea 13:14).

But, Alex/Brandon objects, is this "just"? He writes,

Suppose a gangster murders your best friend. He then gets arrested, tried, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. But then one of his cronies volunteers to do the prison time in the gangster’s place, and the judge agrees. The gangster walks free from the courtroom while the crony gets lead in handcuffs into the jail.

There's just one tiny flaw in Alex/Brandon’s analogy: Jesus wasn't a "crony". The "crony" in his analogy was himself a criminal, while Jesus was declared "innocent" (John 18:38, 19:4). Moreover, being truly innocent and declared to be so publicly and still killed therein lies the injustice. The injustice done to Jesus, as Peter said,

...[You] denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life,... 

-Acts 3:14-15, ESV

But the injustice that was done was not left to stand because, "God raised [him] from the dead (Acts 3:15)."

Brandon cries out, "A perfect being would not have as the centrepiece of their metaphysical system a blatantly unjust action like this." But, as has been shown, the injustice was done to Jesus, who is himself God (John 1:1, Phil 2:6; Heb 1:3), the very same perfect being, and since it was to him that the injustice was done it is left up to him to decide how to rectify the situation since it is him that "God has highly exalted...and bestowed on him the name that is above every name",

...[So] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, ..., and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 

-Philippians 2:9-11, ESV

So, who is Brandon to tell the Incarnate One how he must deal with those who wronged him?

Cashing In

The Apostle Paul, in writing to his friend Titus, says,

...[When] the goodness and lovingkindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior… 

-Titus 3:4-6, ESV

Notice that Paul attributes salvation not to any human effort but in spite of it. Why is this? 

It's because the prophet Isaiah rightly diagnoses the human condition:

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. 

-Isaiah 64:6, ESV

Several years ago, I was working on a tractor when an oil line blew. The result was that I was covered in a fluid that immediately soaked into my clothes and onto my skin. I had to shower for over 30 minutes to get the oil off of me, yet in those few seconds of exposure and minutes of cleaning, I reeked of burnt oil for days afterward. I had to throw everything that I was wearing that day away, except for my socks and shoes. Everything that I touched in the moments after was soaked was contaminated by the residue of the oil. In that moment, the reality of the prophet's words hit me in a way that I could not only see--once I got the oil out of my eyes--but feel, smell, and even taste. The fact that someone had to help me to the eyewash station just reinforced my helplessness and need. 

The problem with sin is that we can be so wrapped up in it that we often can't see it until it gets pointed out, or we bump into its sharp corners through the actions of others. And sometimes, we step in it without realizing it and track it everywhere we go. And when we realize what's going on--hopefully--we want to fix it, but we either don't know where to start or we don't know what to do.

Brandon writes, "Christianity involves the notion of salvation through faith or acceptance of Jesus as your saviour." To which I answer: Yes, if there's a problem then it follows that it requires a solution.

Brandon, however, sees a problem with this "notion" in that, "it severs [the] connection between action and culpability," complaining,

According to Christianity, one can be a murderous warlord (like Constantine), but repent on one’s deathbed, and thereby be forgiven and accepted into heaven. All the while, someone who lived a morally perfect life, but didn’t believe in Jesus, could end up being the recipient of eternal punishment.

Well, first, I'll admit that there's been a long and rather tiresome debate over the question of so-called "deathbed conversions". And I believe that it can be, at least, historically tied to a belief in baptismal regeneration and a peculiar habit that led to both infant baptism (stemming from rates of high infant mortality) and withholding baptism until a person was near death, such as in Constantine's case. And I don't intend to hash out that debate here, but I again, offer an analogy to second part the objection:

Have you ever been putting together a jigsaw puzzle and you get down to that last piece, the one in the middle that ties the whole picture together only to find that piece missing? You check the box, you look around on the floor, you look under the couch, between the cushions, you look everywhere and that one piece is missing. Is that puzzle complete? Well, no, obviously it is not complete because there's a piece missing. And that's the point, as Paul pointed out:

...I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh...If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 

-Philippians 3:4-6, ESV, emphasis added

Paul says that he had all of the right boxes ticked, and in the end, upon reflection all of that is counted as skubalon (v8): dung.

Jesus himself was encountered by a man who asked him, "...[What] must I do to inherit eternal life?(Luke 18:18)" Jesus answered him,

You know the commandments: "Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother." 

-Luke 18:20, ESV

The man's response is telling, "I've done all these things from my youth. (v21)" The man's initial question recognizes that his moral acts lack something and are fundamentally inadequate. So, Jesus, like a competent doctor, diagnoses his condition:

One thing you still lack....[Come], follow me. 

-Luke 18:22, ESV

Now, some might point to those ellipses and say, "Hey, you're leaving some stuff out." True, I am, and I'm leaving them out for a reason because that's what you're focused on: the puzzle and not the missing piece.

Again, I have to defer to Jesus,

One that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do mighty works in your name?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me you workers of lawlessness." 

-Matthew 7:22-23, ESV

And as James says,

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. -James 2:10, ESV

And, again Paul,

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them. -Galatians 3:10 (cf  Dt 27:26), ESV

Brandon claims, "This is blatantly unjust."

The LORD himself responds,

Yet you say, "The way of the Lord is not just." Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. 

-Ezekiel 18:29-30, ESV

God simply meets his challengers where they're at and says, "Hey, you think I'm not being fair, that I'm being unjust? Let's pull out the tape measure and see who's measuring up." And then he lays out the moral law, with it's first commandment: 

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your might. 

-Deuteronomy 6:5, ESV

Have you done that, Brandon? Has anyone, really? I know I haven't. So the question is, what are you trusting in to save you from the one to whom we must give an account for every thought, word, and deed (Hebrews 4:13), knowing that if you failed at any one point that you failed at all points (James 2:10)?

Would it not be just for a perfect being, who is perfect in his judgement, perfect in his justice, perfect in his holiness, to therefore condemn you for your failure? If not, why?

You see Brandon, that perfect being he gives you, and me, and everyone else the exact same choice: justice, in which you are judged for your failures and punished accordingly; or mercy, where he takes what was inflicted on his own Son, who was perfect and had no failings, as the sufficient and necessary punishment for you, something that he went through willingly, knowing  that he would be vindicated, and thereby lay claim to whatever he wanted as reparations for what was inflicted upon him?

Jesus, by his death and because of his resurrection, has been given the right to lay claim to whatever he wants, as the Scriptures say of him,

 

You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 

-Psalm 2:7-8, ESV

And from that, this admonishment:

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. 

-Psalm 2:12, ESV

For what is desired of God?

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. 

-Hosea 6:6, ESV

And what pleases him?

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God… 

-Micah 6:8, ESV

Brandon wants and demands justice. If that’s what he really wants, then that’s what he will get. And he will be judged fairly by God. But here’s the thing, the terms by which God judges:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. 

-John 3:36, ESV

If that’s not just from a perfectly just being I don’t know what is. 

Conclusion

So, what have we discovered about the truthfulness about Brandon’s premise?

Simply put, it isn’t true because he doesn’t begin with an understanding of that perfect being which he appeals to and seems to agree must exist. At every one of his objections he’s demonstrated that he doesn’t understand what is entailed when properly understood. 

Original sin is not, “[blaming] someone for something that another person did,” it’s recognizing  that Adam’s sin—not Eve’s—, like a stone thrown into a still pond, its effects ripple across the surface of humanity corrupting us and making us unfit for God’s presence which incurs a debt. Similarly, in the atonement, it’s not, transferring, one’s “moral culpability”, instead it is God’s acceptance of Christ’s payment of that debt we owe in our stead, which allows his death to satisfy that demand on our part. Lastly, Brandon rejects God’s promise to save all who believe in his Son is based on a historical misunderstanding related to the timing of Constantine’s baptism. Whether the so-called “death bed conversions” are really a thing is not something that can be decided here, but only in the context of God’s mercy and the provision of his grace since it his alone to bestow.

At every step, Alex/Brandon’s assumption regarding the truth of the second premise have been demonstrated as false. Whether this is because of ignorance or intention I’ll leave up to others to decide, but I am satisfied to have adequately demonstrated that my comment was rather correct. Moreover, Brandon’s “possible Christian apologetic responses” that he offered, don’t deal with anything inside historical Christian belief.

Bibliography

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology.

Brockway, D. "Atonement". The Lexham Bible DIctionary. Lexham Press. 2016.

de Silva, David. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, First Edition. InterVarsity Press. 2000. (ePub)

Malina, Bruce J. "Faith/Faithfullness". The Handbook of Biblical Social Values and their Meaning. Hendricksen Publishing. 1993.

Pilch, John J. "Purity". The Handbook of Biblical Social Values and their Meaning. Hendricksen Publishing. 1993.

Ryken, Philip Graham, and R. Kent Hughes. Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory. Crossway Books, 2005.