LouisBerkhof - Tumblr Posts
What Is Original Sin?
By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness. If we say that we have
not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us.
——-
Original Sin
Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.
Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the
children, neither shall the children be put to
death for the fathers: every man shall be
put to death for his own sin.
To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
him.
But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.
——-
The Collective Unconscious
Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.
Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.
Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with
himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as
other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as this publican.
But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:
But those things which proceed out of the
mouth come forth from the heart; and they
defile the man. For out of the heart proceed
evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.
That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked: who can know it?
No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):
they that are in the flesh cannot
please God.
As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:
The church is not a museum for pristine
saints, but a hospital ward for broken
sinners.
If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.
——-
Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?
Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!
Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.
However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:
Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]
judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous.
In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:
For since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead. For
as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive.
Conclusion
Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.
That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”
What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:
actual sin in the life of man is generally
admitted. This does not mean, however,
that people have always had an equally
profound consciousness of sin. We hear a
great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the
sense of sin.’
Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!
——-
For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie
Divine Providence & Concurrence
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim
——-
The Doctrine of Providence
The classical doctrine of “divine providence” asserts that all events occur according to God’s sovereign will. The Reformed tradition rejects “chance” as having any consequence or playing any part in the natural world. The Latin word provideo, from which is derived the term “providence,” means “foresight.” So, etymologically speaking, the term “providence” means foreknowledge & is related to predestination. In Calvinism, providence highlights the complete sovereignty of God & the radical corruption of man.
However, Arminianism theology doesn’t agree with Calvinism on the issues of election & predestination. Arminianism asserts that God has a limited mode of providence. According to this mode of providence, divine foreknowledge & free will are compatible but theological determinism is not. In this view, predestination is based on foreknowledge, and on conditional election (human faith), not on God’s absolute Sovereignty.
According to Paul’s teaching, God “will repay according to each one's deeds” (Rom. 2.6 NRSV). But how can there be moral culpability in a hard determinism model? Calvinists argue God has predestined everything “according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will” (Ephesians 1.11):
τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν
τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (προς Εφεσίους 1.11
SBLGNT).
Yes, everything works according to God’s will. But neither Calvin nor this verse tells us specifically to what degree or to what extent do all things work according to his will. To assume or presuppose that everything is wholly and completely working according to his will creates an inherent logical fallacy that implies either that God’s will is ineffective or that it is flawed. It would be considered ineffectual in bringing about the desired result, specifically when his will is seemingly opposed, or flawed in the sense that there is an unfavorable result as concerns his benevolent divine attributes. In either case, God would not be “God” in terms of sovereignty. In other words, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would contradict his attributes of omnibenevolence (see Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). If we are to attribute the cause of all the horrific acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them, we are doing him a disservice. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!
Calvinism also entails a theological contradiction because humans could not be held morally responsible for their actions and therefore could not be judged. Besides, if everything worked according to the will of God, then why does Paul say: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”? (Phil. 2.12). We wouldn’t need to work out anything. God would do it all. But that’s not what Paul’s teaching implies.
In my view, the doctrine of providence, expressed as the complete sovereignty of God, is as faulty as the pre-trib rapture doctrine. Both are based on wishful thinking and a false sense of security.
——-
The Doctrine of Concurrence
The term “concurrence” refers to the cooperation of God and a human being in a combined attempt to generate an action. In Calvinist theology, this means that human beings do not operate autonomously but that every one of their actions and thoughts is controlled by the sovereign will of God. Calvinists often present Biblical support for this view by quoting passages that might be misconstrued as referring to predestination when they’re actually talking about foreknowledge. For example, in Jos. 11.6, God’s assurance to Joshua of Israel’s victory may be due to foreknowledge rather than predestination. They also interpret many passages in the literal sense of the word, rejecting shades of meaning, nuances, or other levels of interpretation. So, for example, 1 Kings 22:20-23 says that “the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” In the narrative, it appears as if God is causing these actions, if read literally. However, the development & continuation of the scene shows that God permits rather than causes these actions to take place. And because he has the final say on the matter, it is written as if he has done it himself. In fact, this shows us, metaphorically, how the process of evil works and how God grants it permission. It’s the same story in Proverbs 21.1, which says that “The king's heart is … in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.” These interpreters jump to conclusions without knowing if this is due to God’s permission, foreknowledge, or will. In fact, in Calvinism, God is said to cooperate with evil. In his book, “systematic theology,” Louis Berkhof writes:
it is also evident from Scripture that there is
some kind of divine co-operation in that
which is evil. According to II Sam. 16:11
Jehovah bade Shimei to curse David. The
Lord also calls the Assyrian ‘the rod of mine
anger, the staff in whose hand is mine
indignation,’ Isa. 10:5.
He goes on to say:
The work of God always has the priority, for
man is dependent on God in all that he
does. The statement of Scripture, ‘Without
me ye can do nothing,’ applies in every field
of endeavor.
However, what Jesus means by this saying is that without a spiritual rebirth we can do nothing. He’s not necessarily referring to the doctrine of concurrence per se. The doctrine of concurrence in Arminian theology rejects the Calvinist notion of exhaustive determinism. Calvinists have fired back at Arminians that they deny the sovereignty of God. Roger E. Olson, a classical Arminian, says:
If we begin by defining sovereignty
deterministically, the issue is already
settled; in that case, Arminians do not
believe in divine sovereignty. However, who
is to say that sovereignty necessarily
includes absolute control or meticulous
governance to the exclusion of real
contingency and free will?
In other words, there is no hard determinism in Arminianism. In this view, the implication is that God is not the author of sin or evil. He simply permits these to exist for a greater purpose. Arminians believe in God’s sovereignty. But that doesn’t mean that God controls every thought, every behavior, every word, or every choice one makes. The problem with Calvinism is that although they support the concurrence of God in all actions and events, they nevertheless deny that God is the author of evil or the responsible party for all corruption.
In discussing Wayne Grudem’s Calvinist views, Ken Schenck, a New Testament scholar, writes:
The understanding here of God's
‘cooperation’ with human action is subtle
and needs to be understood very carefully.
In Grudem's view, humans feel like they are
acting freely even though God is really
behind the scenes making them do what
they do. We experience our actions as free
actions even though God is really directing
them. This is a position that William James
called ‘soft determinism’ in the late 1800s.
——-
Conclusion
The absolute sovereignty of God presupposes that God is the author of sin. However, the attribution of pure evil to the divine will would scripturally contradict God’s attributes of omnibenevolence (e.g. Ps. 92.15; Ps. 106.1; 135.3; Isa. 65.16; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18; Jn 17.17; Tit. 1.1-2; Jas. 1.13). To attribute the cause of all the abominable acts of evil in this world to the very God who is said to fight & oppose them is equivalent to a misunderstanding of the fundamental “truths” of scripture. Calvin’s theology does not square well with the New Testament notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5)!
——-