Into the Wardrobe

Adam,

I understand what you're saying (most of the time), but it's just not built on any Scriptural concepts. It seems to be built on the metaphor of the prodigal son, that the prodigal remains a son despite his wayward intent. I have no problem with that, and neither does the concept of original sin. Original sin does not say there is no more connection to the creator. It just says we cannot reclaim our inheritance without assistance from the Father. The prodigal son did not deserve his inheritance. Justice would have been banishment. Forgiveness would have been becoming a hired servant. Grace was restoration.

- Dan -

::My soteriology (and indeed I'm in agreement with a good chunk of Christendom here, certainly the vast majority of Evangelical Christian theology) is not based on "prooftexts". It's based on interpreting the Scripture, as a whole, in their contexts, in order to base our beliefs on what is Biblical, including considering the New Testament just as much Scripture as the Old Testament. You may disagree with our hermeneutics or our acceptance of the New Testament as Scripture, but to call us "prooftexters" just because of that disagreement is disingenuous at best, and deceptive at worst.

I am certainly familiar with the hermeneutics of the various strains of western theology, but they are philosophical rather than homiletic, meaning that they must rely upon concepts rather than narratives, which inevitably leads to certain texts being used to define and assign concepts, that is, certain texts take the function of "proofs." I certainly know exactly what I was accusing.

::The story is not extra-Biblical, nor is application of the story. I have questions however about your application of this parable. I believe you're engaging in what my Bible Study Methodology students would have called "allegorical interpretation" in which interpreters will try and force a spiritual meaning from every detail in a parable. Parables are simple stories used to convey a single (usually) simple point. The parable of the prodigal son / forgiving father was used by Jesus to portray the love and forgiveness of the heavenly Father towards sinners. Remember that it was given in the context of the Pharisees' complaints that sinners were coming and listening to Jesus. You've taken your entire doctrine for salvation from a parable that was not meant to do so.

In the context of Jesus's intent, the story was meant, not only to show the character of the Father, but the status of the Son as well. An evangelical bias which considers salvation to be based entirely upon God's activity and God's character, and therefore not indicative of any worth or virtue or character or essence of humanity, perverts the parable. There is no need to extrapolate doctrines using allegory, only the need to restore a very simple aspect to the story that has been ignored or covered up because it defies other extrapolated doctrines using smoke and mirrors, namely, original sin.

Again, simply speaking, the parable says as much about the worth of the Son as the character of the Father.

::I think the basic problem we're having is a difference in our basis of theological authority. I don't get my theology of salvation from Aquinas or Athanasius or from watching families in a park. My theology of salvation comes from my study of the Bible. There are millions of people who agree with me and many more millions who disagree with me. You may disagree with what I believe about salvation, but that does not make it nonsensical.

The Bible is what is seen, and the Church is the eyes that see. Your and my understanding of salvation comes from how we interpret the Bible, but I think that you using a tinted and cracked set of glasses to do it.

What makes it nonsense is that it is logical and reasonable but strikes no chord with experience; it is all well and good to speak of our worthlessness and God's grace in Sunday school, but when we are being honest with ourselves and living our daily lives, it may occur to us that the people we find worthy of love in our lives must be at least as worthy in the eyes of the God who sees what we cannot, who in fact knew and formed their very being in His image to conform to His likeness. I am suggesting that the problem with original sin, quite simply, is that it defies experience, making humanity greater lovers than God, or else denying and poisoning humanity's love.

Which is why I cannot ease the attack out of respect for hermeneutical disagreement; original sin is a heresy, pure and simple, that has real and destructive consequences for the fellowship of the Church. It is not simply wrong, it is dangerous. Ideas have consequences, and this idea, when it is applied to life, hurts people.

Adam