Irenaeus' optimistic view of Original Sin fits with EU

[Alex_Smith]

The following quotes are from:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/zim/ev/ev_01evolution_sin13.html

The word salvans (the one who saves) which Irenaeus uses to designate Christ’s role, does not have the narrow meaning of a Savior who merely pays a ransom to rescue sinners. The word Savior means to Irenaeus, and to the Greek Fathers typically, the more inclusive role of Sanctifier. The Sanctifier elevates the natural man to the supernatural state originally, as well as after the Fall. Christ, in the concept of Irenaeus, elevated Adam to the state of holiness and justice before the Fall, and redeemed him after it. He is more than a repair-man who reconditions a damaged product. He is an architect who builds the structure originally according to God’s primal plan, and then reconditions it even more magnificently after Adam’s temporary crash.

I think this fits neatly with EU, as does the following. According to Irenaeus:

Christ is not an afterthought conceived in God’s mind as a response to the sin of Adam; on the contrary, Christ is the Alpha and Omega of the cosmos in the first place; Adam is fitted into the cosmic plans as the strategic gateway through which Christ will enter it.

… for Augustine original sin was a disaster repaired only partially by Christ. Whereas for Irenaeus the sin was more like the first fall of a baby just learning to walk.

For Irenaeus, Christ takes into Himself all of mankind, including Adam, and makes His redemptive action extend to the entire human race.

“the history of humankind and the history of salvation are one and the same. This path may twist and wander through many detours, but there is no radical bifurcation…The human race was predestined in Adam, but it was predestined to come to be in the image and likeness of God” (Minns, 58-59)

[Stefcui]

Thanks for the article, Alex; this looks interesting. I will give it some time and attention. The comment: “… for Augustine original sin was a disaster repaired only partially by Christ. Whereas for Irenaeus the sin was more like the first fall of a baby just learning to walk.”

That’s exactly as I see it. Sin is not a disaster; it is a fall which was required in order to walk. God has used metaphor and allegory to bring forth a mystery; which is also required, as everything relative to God is mysterious.

Steve

[Sobornost]

Yay

[Username1]

and thrice yay!

Much as I admire much of Augustine’s theology, I’m with you on this one, Steve. I have long had a problem with the orthodox doctrine of original sin. I don’t believe Christ was God’s ‘plan B’ to deal with the unexpected consequences of sin. There was only ever a plan A - Christ the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, who takes away the sin of the world.

Thank for posting this Alex.

All the best

Johnny

[Sobornost]

We’ve just been discussing this issue on another thread - so there is a synchronicity here . Also it dovetails into something that Jason was saying a few months back about an argument in Prof. Ramelli’s Book - doesn’t she argue (to the surprise of some) that Irenaeaus was actually a universalist in terms of human salvation (it was only the rebel angels he had doubts about)? That makes sense to me - given Irenaeus Doctrine of the atonement being effected by the Incarnation (‘what is not assumed cannot be redeemed’) that makes enormous sense.

And guys and gals, since it is Christmas, check out the Anglican carol ‘Adam lay ybounden’ which celebrates Iranaeus’ doctrine of the fortunate fall that merited so great a redeemer.

love

Dick

[Stefcui]

I have long had a problem with the orthodox doctrine of original sin. I don’t believe Christ was God’s ‘plan B’ to deal with the unexpected consequences of sin. There was only ever a plan A - Christ the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, who takes away the sin of the world.

Hi Johnny,

I have really enjoyed reading the article in Alex’s post. I have read Ireneaus, but I never picked up that view of his. I have found a similar subject discussed here:

energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/cur-deus-homo/

A similar view to which you stated is found there…

“I say, nevertheless, that the Fall is not the cause Christ’s predestination. Indeed, even if one angel had not fallen, or one man, Christ would still have been predestined thus-even if others had not been created, but only Christ.”
(John Duns Scotus, Opus Oxoniense, 3, dist 19)

And again:

“The whole question for Duns Scotus was precisely that of the order of Divine ‘predestination’ or purpose, i.e. of the order of thoughts in the Divine counsel of Creation. Christ, the incarnate, was the first object of the creative will of God, and it was for Christ’s sake that anything else had been created at all.”
(Florovksy, Creation and Redemption, 165)

This view of the priority of the Incarnation seems to be implied in your ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’. If the Incarnation was only to address the fall, then Augustine and Calvin are right. If, however, the Incarnation was to draw all men to Himself, and the fall was part of that process, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”, then it modifies the outlook of much in scripture. It also shows how God can conceal His ‘will’ from our minds so easily, just because we look with our own preconceived bias and expectation. The object can be sitting right under our nose and we cannot see it. God is remarkable!

I had arrived at the same conclusion by noticing that the *Kingdom of God *was always apart of God’s plan in Christ, not just an afterthought. Christ had always intended to be King; for the entire world was created through Him and by Him and FOR HIM! Christ has now an eternal body which is going to be shared with other faithful co-rulers of the Kingdom. This was not Plan B. This was always Plan A: “There was only ever a plan A.”

[Username1]

Hi Steve

Thanks for the scholarship on this one. I haven’t read any Duns Scotus, but I really like the quote you gave. For what it’s worth, my own view of the atonement and the Incarnation is that they are essential to God’s overarching plan, only not for the reasons usually cited in orthodoxy. I believe that if Christ had not come we would be utterly and forever lost. I also believe that we were - are - always and forever utterly saved. I think the Bible teaches that, and it makes sense to me morally and philosophically.

Cheers

Johnny

[Stefcui]

I found this chapter of the book so interesting that I copied all of the chapters into a word file and created a PDF e-book. If anyone would like a copy, let me know.