Irene Rosenberg recently passed away. She was a longtime member of the University of Houston Law Center and a lion-hearted liberal. Irene and her husband Yale were two of the brightest lights at the law school. They were orthodox Jews and unapologetic leftists.
While I disagreed with the two of them about many things in law and politics, I learned a great deal from them. They were intellectual powerhouses with probing, critical minds capable of wonderful acts of analysis. When Yale died several years ago, I wrote her to express my appreciation for him. She wrote back with great warmth and affection. I still have that letter in a box marked SENTIMENTALS. It fills me with happiness to look at it and to think that it meant something to her that I wrote after his death.
Irene was emotionally transparent and very blunt. I can remember her asking a girl if a particular piercing was painful. The girl was taken aback. I was nearby and was greatly amused.
At one point, Irene figured out that I was a pretty religious person, like she and Yale were except Christian. She once told me she felt sorry that my faith lacked the detailed ritual and observance of her orthodox Judaism. The remark wasn’t meant offensively, nor did I take it that way. When Yale taught Jewish law, I took the course enthusiastically. He confided that conservative Christians tended to be his best students in the class because of their interest in the Hebrew scriptures.
Irene was sensitive to students, but she argued hard for her views. I had the chance to talk to her about them on many occasions offering my conservative challenges. At one point, she confided that she sometimes thought all political and legal discourse might be a screen for what’s really in our guts.
If her intuition was true, I can say this much: Her guts were made of solid gold. She was an orthodox Jewish humanist in the best sense of those words.
November 18th, 2010 | 12:21 am | #1
“They were orthodox Jews and unapologetic leftists. … She was an orthodox Jewish humanist in the best sense of those words.”
Hunter,
I sympathize your loss. However, are unapologetic leftist orthodox Jewish humanists covered by the blood of Jesus Christ and redeemed into Heaven with an eternal relationship with the almighty triune God?
November 18th, 2010 | 7:10 am | #2
Hunter Baker: She sounds like a special person. Thanks for giving us some insight into your special friendship.
TUAD: this is not the place, for you to express such views. Please be more respectful. I have a feeling, that if you go to heaven, you’ll see Irene looking right at you.
November 18th, 2010 | 9:22 am | #3
Personal friendships with skeptics and non-believers who have died, from the one who is the Christian, is in most cases a deep sense of emotional loss. There is a finality to it, based on Scripture, of the possibility of spending eternity in hell apart from God. God is the final judge on who will be in heaven and who won’t, and the doctrine of hell has been around for a lot longer than those today who deny it, but what impact does Jesus’ command to ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel…’ have if part of this is not to persuade those to be ‘born again’ (John 3), that if they confess with their mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead they will be saved (Rom. 10:9). Saved from what?
November 18th, 2010 | 9:49 am | #4
We are called to love all. It seems somewhat difficult, to say the least, to do this, if we believe that the vast majority of human creatures, created by God, will wind up in Hell. We must have have hope that ALL will be saved. God’s love, and saving power extends to all.
November 18th, 2010 | 12:33 pm | #5
Steve Drake: “[W]hat impact does Jesus’ command to ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel…’ have if part of this is not to persuade those to be ‘born again’ (John 3)…?
Yes, that’s what I’m curious about.
Hunter, did you share the Gospel with Yale and Irene Rosenberg? If so, how did it go? If not, what do you think the impediments were to you not sharing the Gospel [Evangel] with the Rosenbergs?
November 18th, 2010 | 12:52 pm | #6
TUAD,
I hope someone shares the Gospel of respect with you.
November 18th, 2010 | 12:55 pm | #7
They knew the Gospel. They knew I believed it. They were fiercely committed to their own understanding of the covenant between their people and the Lord. And they lived in accord with that belief.
November 18th, 2010 | 1:14 pm | #8
“They knew the Gospel.”
At least they knew. Sadly, it appears that they rejected the Gospel that they knew of.
Again, I’m sorry for your loss. And for that matter, their loss as well.
November 19th, 2010 | 10:36 am | #9
Scripture says that we are all ‘dead’ in trespass and sin. Every single one of us. That even our righteous (good) deeds are like filthy rags to God. We are not merely ‘sick’ and need some medicine or a doctor, but ‘dead’ and need to be resurrected. We need an infusion of life that only comes through grace, the grace of God. God’s grace is provided through the mediation of Jesus Christ as propitiation for the sin and trespass of our dead state. But as an exercise of the will, each one of us must choose to lay down our autonomy and bow the knee to Jesus.
As evangelicals, we realize God deigns to use us in persuading others to do just that. Part of that persuading is a recognition that hell exists and those who refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Lord will spend eternity there. Those of us who ‘have’ exercised our will in bowing the knee realize that we are not our own but that we are bought with a price. The price of the precious blood of Jesus on a hill called ‘Golgotha’. And that even this grace to believe was a gift and not of our own.
Orthodox Christianity has always centered it’s doctrine of salvation around what the individual does and acknowledges about Jesus, and what He did for us that we couldn’t do for ourselves. Jesus Himself made this the focal point of his ministry while on earth.
I did not know the Rosenberg’s, but I think we all know people ‘like’ the Rosenberg’s. I too, empathize with the loss of your dear friends. Jesus Himself wept at the tomb of Lazurus at what sin and it’s wages, death, has wrought in this world. Maranatha, Lord Jesus, come quickly.
November 19th, 2010 | 11:57 am | #10
Our righteousness is not as filthy rags to God if our righteousness is the righteousness derived from God. What is detestable to God is the belief that we do not need God. That is self-righteousness. It’s ridiculous to say that our faith, hope, and love, if truly from God, are detestable to God.
November 19th, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #11
Orthodoxdj,
If your response is to Steve Drake’s comment, fyi, you are reacting to something that Steve Drake did not say. I.e., you’ve misrepresented what Steve Drake said, and then attacked your own misrepresentation of his comment.
Please be more discerning and careful.
November 19th, 2010 | 1:09 pm | #12
TUAD,
You may be right. I said what I said because Steve said that our good deeds are as filthy rags to God. It all depends on what one means by good deeds.
November 20th, 2010 | 2:16 am | #13
Another point, that should be addressed is: we humans cannot be as horrible as some evangelicals, and others claim, since God made us, and that, obviously, would reflect badly on Him! (does He make really make such wicked creatures?), also, why would He choose to save such deplorable creatures? We must be worth saving.
November 20th, 2010 | 9:57 am | #14
Orthodoxdj, Bret,
I’m referring to the doctrine of original sin, and my reference to righteous (good) deeds and filthy rags is from Isaiah 64:6. I fully understand the different theological circles we run in, and the differences in the Augustinian (Protestant Reformation) and Thomistic (Catholic) traditions on this. I think, Orthodoxdj, I read that you were Eastern Orthodox, and Bret, I take it from some of our other discussions where you defended Reason for epistemic certainty, that you are Thomistic in your thinking and therefore Catholic? Please forgive me if this is not correct, I’m only stating these things for clarity’s sake in this discussion about righteous (good) deeds and a consideration of what ‘is’ a good deed, and whether or not any deed or work will earn one merit in the eyes of God.
Are either of you saying that one’s deeds, or a majority of one’s ‘good’ deeds can earn merit with God and count towards eternal salvation?
November 21st, 2010 | 7:31 pm | #15
Thank you, steve, for your always thoughtful, and respectful comments. Sorry about the late response. I have been reluctant to specify my own religious affiliation, for a number of reasons, privacy, being one, and its lack of relevance, being another. Also, there have been some, who seem to not show the greatest respect for others views, and I felt it was none of their business,(and still do) what my specific religion is. One person, on this site has made an inference, about my religious beliefs, and I haven’t corrected him, because I felt (and feel) that it’s none of his business, and I should not be forced to respond to someone’s claims. However, I have taken, and continue to take positions, that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that I am Catholic.
This, at least currently, is not the case. I have great respect for Catholicism, and, when introduced to Thomas Aquinas, several years ago, found his philosophy to be very persuasive. And I consider him to be one of, perhaps, the five greatest philosophers who ever lived. I have considered joining the Catholic Church, on several occasions, but, despite my respect, and admiration for Her, some issues still concern me. I disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control, women’s ordination, and gay issues. I do agree with the church on the immorality and horror of abortion. I’m open to joining in the future, but right now I’m in a limbo state. (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Sorry for the long treatise! I’ve always respected you, Steve, and felt that you deserved an explanation. You’ve always interacted with me in a respectful, decent manner, and I wanted to show you where I stand.
I don’t believe that we earn our salvation. But, as I believe that God does save all, through His grace, and resurrection. I think (as the Catholic Church teaches) that there’s a place, where one gets “cleansed” from sin, prior to heaven.
November 22nd, 2010 | 10:31 am | #16
Bret,
Thanks for your kind comments and willingness to become somewhat vulnerable by telling me something of your thinking and history. I realize in a forum like this, that this is not easy to do and leaves one open. I applaud your courage.
I always enjoy our discussions, and as ‘iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another’ hope that we are both not sufficiently sullied enough to not keep learning from one another.
God’s grace and peace to you and your family as you give ‘Thanks’ this week. Blessings.
November 22nd, 2010 | 1:07 pm | #17
“I disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control, women’s ordination, and gay issues.”
It’s a good thing you didn’t join the RCC.
November 22nd, 2010 | 3:49 pm | #18
Steve Drake: Thanks! I enjoy our discussions, as well!
Blessings to you, too. Talk to you, soon.
November 22nd, 2010 | 4:07 pm | #19
Bret,
Might we continue our discussion until we lay down the pen for a fork in a few days? I have a question about your comments which I will quote below:
“Another point, that should be addressed is: we humans cannot be as horrible as some evangelicals, and others claim, since God made us, and that, obviously, would reflect badly on Him! (does He make really make such wicked creatures?), also, why would He choose to save such deplorable creatures? We must be worth saving.”
I guess I’m curious as to your views on the doctrine of original sin, shared by Catholics, Easthern Orthodox, and Protestants alike, i.e., that we are born in sin, inherited from Adam, and not as Pelagius thought, a ‘tabula rosa’ (blank slate), and are free to choose not to sin.
What are your doctrinal views here and can you point to the Scriptures that support your views?
You mention in the quote I referenced above that we cannot be as horrible as some evangelicals claim, so I’m trying to clarify at least as a starting point, your view of original sin, whether you follow after Pelagius, or possibly take a semi-Pelagian view? I realize these terms may have Protestant connotations, but I would like to discuss this with you if you are willing?
November 22nd, 2010 | 4:52 pm | #20
Steve, Yes, absolutely. I do think that original sin, makes sense. If one defines it as a propensity for selfishness, and other sinful (or immoral) behavior. I think that Pelagius, the fifth century english cleric, who jousted with Augustine, over this issue, is correct. But I am sympathetic to a semi-Pelagian view, in that “original sin” is not as horrible as some might suggest.
my views on this issue are an inchoate state, with plenty of room to develop. But I’m disinclined to view humans as intrinsically evil.I believe that our reason is basically intact, but our will, has problems. That is, our will is predisposed toward selfishness, which I would conclude is the equivalent of “original sin”. But humans have also been created by God, to have moral inclinations. most humans (the exception being those with antisocial personality disorder. These people, according to the latest statistics, constitute one to five percent of the population, an alarming number, if true), have consciences, and therefore are guided toward the moral good.
Pelagius, although somewhat misguided, is, in my view, to be admired for asserting that, if one follows the example of Christ, one can become great, even “perfect”. Certainly, we all, to the best of our ability, should follow Christ. But perfection, for humanity, seems like utopian fantasy, to me. Hence, our need for Christ’s saving us. But my view is, that Christ saving us, is not contingent on us accepting, explicitly, His saving grace. Because we are so fallable, we often don’t know what’s in our best interests. So, when when “rejects” Christ, either explicitly, or implicitly, it’s analogous to a mentally ill person rejecting treatment. To reject treatment, presupposes the existence of the rational capacity, and judgment (to decide whether mental health treatment is for him), but these qualities our absent in the mentally ill person!
Similarly, if Christ is the savior of the world, then it makes no sense that someone could make an informed decision to reject Him. How could that possibly be in his/her best interests? Christ would necessarily be in everyone’s interest! So someone “rejecting” him, really is not in his/Her right mind, and God takes that into account, and saves all.
November 22nd, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #21
Bret,
Your views are pretty consistent with the Orthodox view. Inherited weakness is not the same as literal guilt.
November 22nd, 2010 | 5:25 pm | #22
Orthodoxdj: Thanks, that interesting. I’ve always had great respect for the Eastern Orthodox Church.
November 22nd, 2010 | 5:31 pm | #23
“my views on this issue are an inchoate state, with plenty of room to develop.”
I respectfully agree with you, Bret Lythgoe.
November 22nd, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #24
Bret,
Thanks for the detailed analysis. Lot to digest. It seems clear that the Pelagian controversy denounced by the Council of Carthage in 412 AD, revived by the Bishop of Rome and later and further debated during the Reformation period between Luther and Erasmus, and the Council of Trent over an 18 year period (1545-1563) adding its weight to the issue as well, is where you come down. I’m not sure we can settle this issue between us, but I would still like to see the Scripture verses you use to support your views.
So with that in mind, what Scripture(s) would you point to that support the view that “I am disinclined to view humans as intrinsically evil”?
Let’s maybe start there, and then move on from that.
November 24th, 2010 | 6:43 pm | #25
Steve: sorry to take so long to respond. One particular quote, from the Gospel of John, 3:16,17, has always moved me, and implies the basic goodness of humanity. God sent his son NOT to JUDGE the world, it says in part. If we are fundamentally depraved, the FIRST thing that Christ would do, I would think, is make it clear of our need to be judged.
The first portion of Genesis, talks about God’s creation of the Heavens, and the earth, including us. He points that the creation, (including us) is GOOD. this clearly implies that we are fundamentally good.
Also, we’re created in His image. How could we be created in His image, if we’re fundamentally flawed? This is, of course, just a start, vis a vis biblical sources, of human goodness, but it’s a start.
November 25th, 2010 | 7:56 am | #26
Steve: I would agree with what Orthodoxdj, that original sin, is an inclination, toward sin, and not actual guilt. Otherwise how could free will be maintained, if we’re “guilty” for something that we did not actually do?
There’s the philosophical conundrum, of why God made humans with the inclination to sin. Some might argue, understandably, that God has “stacked the deck” against us, and then contrived to have Christ save us, fro this “deck stacking”. although an understanable view, it’s way too glib, on the part of this hypothetical objector.
It seems to be beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are prone to sin. But our cores must be good, otherwise why would Genesis indicate that we were created in the image of God. Indeed, this passage doesn’t say we’re similar to God, but fundamentally different, but in the image, of God. That’s striking language, that seems to conflict with the notion that we’re infected with original sin, otherwise it would imply that God has this sin too, which is absurd. Amiddle interpretation is warranted: humans are inclined to sin (original sin), but, due to our being created in the image of God, we’re fundamentally good.
I hope you have a great, and enjoyable thanksgiving, Steve!
November 25th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #27
Bret,
Happy Thanksgiving! I’ve got a few moments this morning before the festivities start so thought I’d respond. I guess I can see where this might be heading if we’re going to throw Scripture verses at each other in support of our views. I realize I was the one who asked you the question, but will my counter arguments really persuade you? I guess I can try and maybe only because you said your views here are still in development.
I think to start we need to make clear our definition and understanding of ‘fundamentally depraved’, or ‘intrinsically evil’. Scripture never says we were created ‘fundamentally depraved’ as you rightly note above ‘being created in the image of God’, and a ‘VERY GOOD’ creation, but that Adam and Eve were created sinless and immortal, and that an historic act of disobedience against the command of God in an exercise of their will changed this dynamic completely. This is what Augustine called ‘original sin’. The original sin of our first parents Adam and Eve. I don’t think it can be described as an inclination, but true moral guilt in an act of disobedience to God’s command in real space-time history. I’m not sure how you can read Genesis 2 and 3 and come to a different conclusion. (Maybe you can speak to your understanding of this. I’m not sure whether you believe Adam and Eve were ‘real’ historic people or representative of mankind in general? But then was there really an historic space-time ‘Fall’ in your view?) The Apostle Paul’s references in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, as well as King David’s reference in Psalms 51 seem to support this.
Your reference to John 3:17 above ‘that God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world’, makes no reference to John 3:18 that ‘ he who does not believe (the Son) has been judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God’. Following on in verse 19, Jesus refers to the judgment, ‘the light (Jesus) has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil’. Ending this segment and chapter in verse 36 Jesus clearly delineates and divides those ‘who believe the Son will have eternal life, those who do not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him’. If everyone is ‘saved’, how is it that Jesus says the wrath of God will abide on those who do not obey the Son?
My wife is calling to help with some of the preparations, (one can be too selfish in sitting in front of the computer, right?), so I’ll stop here and will pick up later. Blessings.
November 26th, 2010 | 3:00 am | #28
Steve, I hope you, and your family had a great thanksgiving! It’s hard to believe, but before we know it, Christmas will be here!
the more I have studied the eastern Orthodox perspective, vis a vis original sin, the more I like. Inclination towards sin, seems to me to make more sense. It seems incoherent to me, for Original Sin, to refer to actual sin, since Adam and Eve were the people responsible, and the rest of humanity, did not exist yet. How can one be guilty of something, if one didn’t exist when the guilt occurred?
One could talk of some “genetic”, or comparable type of “transmission”, of original sin, but it still faces the conceptual hurdles that I mentioned in my previous paragraph: for guilt to have meaning, the one guilty must exist at the time of the guilty act, and have an intention or intentions to engage in the guilty act. Also, it seems that we all would be committing the same sorts of sins, since we all have an equal amount of original sin. But, clearly, some people are robbers, some murderers, some cheats, some, unfortunately, all of these things and more. It’s hard for me to see how original sin can account for the differences. I certainly could be missing something, here, but it’s a conceptual road blck, for me.
It seems that the act, of Adam and Eve, if they were real people, would only make them actually guilty. One could then argue that, through some genetic transmission, (analogous, say, to someone transmitting a proclivity toward cancer, or obesity) that the sinful inclination, spread to all of humanity.
You ask a good question, regarding my views of the historical nature of Adam and Eve. Were they actual people? I honestly don’t know. I’m willing to be persuaded either way. Right now, however, I inclined toward believing that they were not. I don’t believe that the legitimacy of Christianity is contingent on Adam and Eve actually existing (I DO believe, however, that the legitimacy of Christianity is contingent on Christ actually being resurrected. The historical evidence for this, is very good, in my view).
Your citing of John, is important. I really don’t know how to fully reconcile it, with the notion that all will be saved. It’s possible that, it’s an attempt to “scare” people, for lack of better words, into accepting the truth. That is, the individuals, who these passages are specifically addressed, perhaps are not very sophisticated. Therefore, if they were given deep, philosophical justifications for accepting Christ, it would go over their heads. But since it’s to their obvious benefit to accept Christ, the “scaring” is justifiable. Some might, reasonably argue, that this says God “lies”. Perhaps an answer could be, that, God, creator of all (including morality) can “break” His own rules, for some greater good. After all, we don’t argue that God is a “murderer” for allowing huriccanes and earthquakes, to kill people.
It could also be a threat to send them to a “purgatory” or similar place, which may not be the same that Catholics advocate, but it’s an unpleasant place, where they get reformed prior to going to heaven. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid this place all together, by accepting Christ, just like it would be better to avoid the unpleasant nature of jail, be behaving morally?
I look forward to continuing the discussion! Talk with you soon! Blessings to you, too!
November 29th, 2010 | 10:47 am | #29
Bret,
Hope you had a good weekend. I think you can tell from my posts that I side with the Augustinian view of original sin, and not the Pelagian. I think the early councils at Carthage rightly condemned Pelagianism as heresy. That said, I’m not sure that anything more I’d say would convince you that the Augustinian view is better supported by Scripture and thus the correct view to hold.
I respect the thinking and research that you have done on this, yet I also understand we differ. The doctrine of original sin, and the doctrine of the Fall, I’m sure you’ll agree however, do have profound implications on the rest of our theology. Anthropology, the study of man and his nature, whether man’s nature was impacted at the Fall, and how he comes to knowledge, being ones that we have discussed before.
Since this thread is rapidly moving down the list of posts at Evangel, I propose that we further our prospective views in light of other threads? Or if you have specific questions for me, maybe one or two at a time, we can continue here as long as we can find each other?
November 29th, 2010 | 4:10 pm | #30
Steve, thanks again, for your always respectful, and thoughtful comments. You have clearly provided a very intelligent defense for the Augustinian view of original sin. As much as I respect Augustine, and think he was one of the greatest theologians (next to Aquinas), I think he went too far in his views concerning human sin.
It’s always a pleasure, talking with you, Steve, and I’ll talk with you soon, on another thread!
December 4th, 2010 | 4:00 am | #31
Leftists are ROTTING IN ETERNAL HELL FOR BEING A Traitor TO GODS WILL.
Enjoy rotting in eternal hell, Irene, leftist slime.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact