Kegan Chandler, PhD

‘Origins of Sin – The New Heretics and the Metaphysics of Disobedience’ (Presentation)

—

by

Kegan A. Chandler
in , , ,

This weekend I had the pleasure of participating in the Theological Conference hosted by Atlanta Bible College and Restoration Fellowship in Atlanta, GA.  I was honored to be able to present some of my Master’s Thesis research on the history of the doctrine of original sin.  As I mention in the presentation, I am currently finishing a new book on this topic, which I hope to find a publisher for very soon.

Here’s the skinny on the presentation:

Since the early fifth century, Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin has influenced the way many Christians think about God, themselves, and their ability to obey. But is it true that Christians have always believed and taught this doctrine, as Augustine claimed? Did Augustine invent the doctrine himself? Or did Augustine import heterodox ideas into the catholic faith, as his ancient critics alleged? The historical quest for these answers forms Part 1 of this new study about sin and obedience.

 

Comments

14 responses to “‘Origins of Sin – The New Heretics and the Metaphysics of Disobedience’ (Presentation)”

  1. Steven Colborne Avatar
    Steven Colborne

    Hi Kegan! Firstly, I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your presentation. You’re a very good speaker and what you said was clear and easy to follow.

    My personal perspective, after many years struggling with the topic of sin, is that I understand God to be in control of everything that happens (in the present moment rather than some kind of predestination). I have explained and evidenced this worldview in my most recent book ‘God’s Grand Game’, and I would love to send you a copy if this is of interest. To understand what the book is about you can take a look on Amazon or read a brief introductory article here. And you can always email me if you’d like to discuss anything through my Contact page. If you email me your address I’ll happily put a copy in the post.

    I love your passion and enthusiasm for the Christian faith, despite no longer identifying as a Christian myself. I wish you the very best on your faith journey, and hope we can chat sometime.

    Best wishes,

    Steven

    Like

    Reply
    1. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
      Kegan A. Chandler

      Steven, Thank you for the compliments; I am glad you found the presentation engaging. After taking a look at your book, it seems to be to be an attempt to resolve the challenge of religious pluralism? Is that right? The introductory article doesn’t seem to be working for me.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Steven Colborne Avatar
        Steven Colborne

        Hi Kegan. That’s strange that the links aren’t working, normally WordPress allows hyperlinks in comments. Sorry about that!

        The book is all about the divine sovereignty versus human free will problem. I argue that God’s omnipresence means that He is not separate from existence, but rather His being is without boundaries and therefore the universe exists ‘within God’. If everything exists within God then everything is under God’s control. That’s the key premise of the book.

        This view of God does incidentally solve the religious pluralism problem, though that is only one of many subjects discussed in the book. If you’re interested, you can check out the book on Amazon. The offer is there to send you a copy, but no worries if it’s not of interest.

        Best wishes,

        Steven

        Like

      2. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
        Kegan A. Chandler

        Steven, thank you; I am presently a big proponent of human free will (I used to be a Calvinist years ago), but would also consider myself open-minded. I’m interested in how your theory (which sounds pantheistic at first glance?) might resolve religious diversity, as I am currently writing about some of those issues. I will take a look at your book if you have an extra copy, though I won’t be able to get to it till later since I’m preparing a manuscript at the moment. Interested in talking more, and even chatting directly (skype?) about your theory and how you arrived at it.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Duncan Law Avatar
    Duncan Law

    Did you mention – 1 Corinthians 15:32?

    Like

    Reply
    1. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
      Kegan A. Chandler

      An interesting reference there, Duncan:

      “If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:32)

      In other words, if there is no resurrection from the dead, then we seem to have little reason to curb our impulses towards personal survival and personal happiness. This falls directly in line with the reading of Romans I’m suggesting: human death motivates unrighteous behavior, and it is God’s gracious revelation of the resurrection from the dead that inspires us towards individual righteousness. Thank you for mentioning this passage!

      Like

      Reply
  3. Kevin George Avatar
    Kevin George

    Hi Kegan. Excellent presentation!! Thank you for dealing with this topic, and I am looking forward to your book. I would like to buy an entire box to distribute, but maybe I’m just dreaming.

    I recently wrote a 4-page article about the sin nature topic. I’ll send it to your comment-reply address. I also translated it into Spanish.

    Your explanation that death is one of the primary motivations for sin is one that I had not heard of, but makes so much sense. I have at times actually had that thought – “What if there is no resurrection, and this is the only life there really is? Would I make this choice or not?” I especially like what you presented about how the Jews explain that within certain bounds the selfish tendencies are actually good, otherwise we would not accomplish much of anything.

    It has been so frustrating for me in the past to sit through church services and be told almost weekly that we have a sin nature. It seemed so much like an excuse for at least some of the people’s sin. I find this doctrine, and the other doctrines of Calvinism, far more disturbing than the Trinity doctrine. I am certain that Calvinism has been a cause for atheism more than any other false Christian doctrine.

    One thing I would like to add is that Paul seems to differentiate between categories of sin. If you read Colossians 3 you will see that he is saying something like, “before you came to Christ (verses 5-7) you had these very bad sins, but now (verses 8-10) that you have come to Christ and stopped those former sins, you should also work on these other lesser sins.” I find that encouraging, in that there is no excuse for sin, but there is an understanding that not all sins are the same in God’s eyes.

    I will also find interesting your take on the atonement, which I understand you have not fully developed and is for a later time. It is a big topic, but also very important and very misunderstood.

    What I see in Scripture about atonement is that it is primarily a blood covenant. Mat. 26:28 says, “For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” KJV. Most versions have “for the remission…” but the word translated “for” is “eis” in Greek, which is better understood as “into” or “unto”. In other words, the effect of the new covenant will lead to forgiveness of sins, instead of the standard payment for sin that is so often taught.

    Jesus died to institute a new covenant, in line with the Abrahamic covenant, and not under the Mosaic covenant. He had to die, shed blood, for this covenant to be instituted, and he had to be a pure sacrifice. This is what Heb. 9:22 is about, in context, and not about forgiveness of sin. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission [release of the former covenant].” Most of the time, when you read the word “blood” in reference to Jesus’s death, if you add the word “covenant” you can see that the authors are presuming that the reader is aware of blood covenants that were in use in those days. (Regarding this, I recommend the book “The Blood Covenant – A Primitive Rite and its Bearings on Scripture” by H. Clay Trumbull. I can send you a pdf copy if you like.)

    When we come to Christ we are effectively joining Him and His blood covenant. This covenant has terms, just as a marriage covenant has terms (and those terms are not works – refraining from adultery, for example, is not a work, but is a term) and one of the terms of the New Covenant is to stop sinning, especially the big sins, as mentioned by Paul in Col. 3.

    I could go on, but I need to take the time someday to write my own paper about the subject.

    Thank you again for your presentation!

    Like

    Reply
    1. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
      Kegan A. Chandler

      These are terrific comments. Did you send me your article?

      Like

      Reply
  4. George Avatar
    George

    Hi Kegan, I posted a comment on your blog. Attached is my article that I mentioned in the blog. You are free to share it if you like. Blessings, Kevin George

    Like

    Reply
    1. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
      Kegan A. Chandler

      George, looks like this was supposed to be an email? Don’t see an attachment. Thanks!

      Like

      Reply
  5. Duncan Law Avatar
    Duncan Law

    It’s interesting in the Q&A how you refer to Torah. I am working on the ecological connection to Torah, particularly in what is normally called the “dietary law” over the centuries. I believe i can now demonstrate a direct cause and effect from the “unclean” animals to the curses (effects). I have also found a few examples in ancient cultures of the connections being recognized. I now do not believe that “dietary law” has anything to do with nutrition or disease directly to an individual. The Torah appears to be a protection for the community as a whole. The unclean bird list has been my main point of access into understanding the relationship. My first objective was to ascertain which flying creatures can truly be identified by us today. First came the Bat in relation to the grape vine, eaten by worms (which more correctly translates as scarlet caterpillars). Secondly the Hoopoe & small owls relation to the olive tree dropping its olives, by the fact that some types of grass hoppers (including locusts) & tree hoppers feed on the sap of trees and at the same time can transmit a bacterial infection to the tree that causes the olives to fall. Next and most strikingly I changed tack to look at why locusts are the one clean insect to be eaten. Normally they are just a kind of grasshopper but when the population density increases for a given food supply the change on mass into what we call locusts. By protecting many “unclean” birds that thrive on eating them and also reducing the population by eating them ourselves it would greatly reduce the likelihood of a swarm. This is just a tiny sample of what I have found. I’m writing a paper on the bird list at this moment.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Duncan Law Avatar
    Duncan Law

    https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2018/08/vineyards-in-the-dordogne-invest-in-bats-to-protect-crops/

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180625192715.htm

    A small piece of modern evidence.

    Like

    Reply
  7. John Avatar
    John

    A great and informative lecture, Kegan – delivered in a lucid and interest holding manner.

    However : (1). Romans 7:14-24 seems to unpack Paul’s vitally important comment in Romans 7:5 – that the Jewish Torah cannot completely solve humanity’s sin problem (not even allied with any Rabbinic yetser ha-tov). Romans 7:14-24 most probably describes Paul’s own pre-Christian, Jewish experience under the Torah (an experience which has some parallels with 1QH, and also amongst some pagan Greek moralists).

    (2) The lecture was pneumatologically light. The personal presence of the holy Spirit and the ‘new birth’ (Titus 3:5) are the only means by which humanity can approximate true moral perfection- via Christ’s imparted righteousness (Rom. 5:19; Ga. 5:16-25), and our co-operation (Phil. 2:12-13; Rom. 8:13). Christ is unique in the Bible as being the only man who is explicitly described as being without moral sin.

    (3) What you say about the Eastern Orthodox view of Rom. 5:12 is effectively tantamount to saying that : through Adam ‘death’ – both ‘physical death’ and ‘spiritual death’ (cf. Col. 2:13; Rom 7:9. 10, 11, 13, 24; 2 Cor. 3:6) – entered into the world of humanity (cf. Commentators Moo, Zeisler; Dodd, et al). Through ‘spiritual death’ all men (in pre-Christian experience) fall short of complete moral perfection – and only the experience ‘new birth’ , through the ontological holy Spirit, can give us the means of being increasingly conformed to the image of God’s morally perfect Son, Jesus.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Kegan A. Chandler Avatar
      Kegan A. Chandler

      Hi John, thank you for the compliments, and for your good comments here. Lots to discuss. In your post, you seem to think that something metaphysical is happening when someone becomes a Christian. Would you mind describing that process? I’m neck-deep in manuscript work, but I’ll respond here as time permits. Thanks!

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Steven Colborne Cancel reply