 |
|
|
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
|
|
|
|
 |
|
THE FALL
Bob Bacon - The Fall
A very interesting discussion,the best answers are surely to be found in the Bible,which is inspired and free from the opinion of those that are fallen. If the fall is true,then surely our discussion will be affected by the fact that we are fallen,and all the work of the greatest minds will be flawed and biased against God's truth. God gave Israel 10 commandments that were very simple, but by the time Jesus came they were lost under the weight of the Torah and other writings and everything was complicated. Jesus set out the truth of God very simply so that the common people "heard Him gladly" cutting through all the opinions of the scribes etc. The gospel when first preached was simple truth encompassing the fall and restoration of man,but as we are fallen and do not love God's truth, as time went by it all became so complicated that the common person could not understand it again. The translating of the Bible into English and then later the Pilgrims Progress did more to bring the simple truth of the fall and its affects, to the common person than any philosopher ever did,so continue with your discussions,but God's Word is the best source for help.
James Ashdown The Fall
The previous comments do well to indicate some of the problems with this programme. I'd like to reinforce the issue of the lack of reference to Eastern Christianity whose important perspective seems to be taken more more seriously in western Christianity these days. It is also interesting to note that Melvyn's fellow radio 4 presenter Steve Chalke, an influential Evangelical leader, has just cowritten a book attacking ideas of original sin! Which reminds me of the need for In Our Time to do a programme on evangelicalism...!
Fred Hyland - Predestination
If you want someone to talk sense on predestination I suggest you go fetch Packer, - Dr. J. I. Packer.
Linda Hambling - quality of discussion
I much enjoyed this week's topic (one of the most interesting to me so far). In fact, the whole series has been a spell-binding 45 minutes' worth of listening. I have to say I usually only understand half of what is said but, do you know, it really does not matter a jot. Your speakers are informed, interesting and, above all, willing to listen to what others have to say. They come together to make something worth broadcasting (politicians please note). And I am so impressed by Melvyn's breadth of knowledge. It sounds as if he really has done his homework and if it weren't for the fact that he is with experts he would shine even more. Well done, that man.
Judith Meredith - Adam and Eve
I love Melvyn Bragg's programme, and often try to listen to it, but a lot of the time cannot make head or tail of it. I am not an 'intellectual' but I am also not stupid. One of the problems I think is that you have too many people debating, so that there are too many different currents coming in, which I think confuses and complicates. I understand that they are all very erudite (the people you have on the programme), and into their subject, but, for example today, I so just wanted to listen to Griselda Pollock's input without the other 2 poeple, that in the end I wasn't able to hear and understand what was said because of the crossing paths that were going on. Today was a reflection of many, probably most, of all the other programmes that I listen to, or try to listen to.. So, for me, in many ways the programme fascinates, but it also excludes, and I never really get to the crunch of the debate, that is, I never really come to an understanding, which is frustrating to say the least.
Paul Carline - The Fall
One of the most interesting "In Our Times" for a long time. Far too short a programme to deal adequately with this subject. Excellent contributions especially from Martin Palmer and Griselda Pollock. Masses of areas still to be explored (Lilith, Eve-Mary, what the snake represented (consciousness? knowledge? wisdom?), the idea of 'The Fall' as the 'fall' into self-consciousness and the capacity for moral choice (knowledge of good and evil - touched on in the programme, but inevitably superficially), what the story has to say about human evolution and destiny, the origin and purpose of sexuality (evidence of an earlier hermaphrodite state of the human being, 'sex' being the 'cutting' into two), possible implications for the idea of reincarnation (the continuing journey towards a different, conscious, 'Eden' cf. Kleist's remarkable short story "On the Marionette Theatre") etc, etc.
Revd Dick Wolff : 'The Fall' : political context
Excellent programme this morning! Thank you. The question was asked why Augustine's guilt-based Christianity survived over Pelagius's. The comments about the context of huge social/political change (both then and at the time of the Reformation) were apposite. However, one dimension seemed missing : once Christianity becomes the religion of emperors and kings, doesn't it suit them to keep people in a state of fear of eternal damnation since the only ones with the power to offer salvation are their own priests? Comments about Calvin and predestination were fascinating, but of course the politics underlying the theology was all about the abuse (and political 'inconvenience' for a number of European princes)of such spiritual hegemony. If priests, popes, pardons and indulgences could make no difference to people's eternal prospects, their spiritual power over their subjects was broken. But the theology of affirmation (grace) doesn't have the political muscularity of the theology of condemnation, so the Reformers had their work cut out to maintain a spiritual/political grip. "In Our Time", The religious right in America and elsewhere is making quite a good job of imposing political power in the name of 'freedom' ('salvation'?)
Ann Barton: original sin
Yes, fascinating, and contrary to some reactions,very relevant as it affects modern ideas. Communism was a Christian heresy, Rousseau wrote "Confessions" which owe a lot to Augustine, and Rousseau has been hugely influential "Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains" and "Declaration of the "Droits de L'homme" (=human rights) But I think everyone gets the history wrong - Scripture scholars all agree that Genesis (like other episodes) was an amalgam of several different traditions, all later than the Davidic kingdom. And the view of sex was not constant over the centuries. It was always normal in the near east to "abstain from women" as a part of ritual purity,and all forms of bodily emission were polluting according to Leviticus. The Mishnah discuses at length the practical implications. Hence also the need for the mikvah - ritual bath - after menstruation, and the "purification" after childbirth. The Essenes at Qmran were male celibates (though I think they had had wives)and there was a community in the desert at that period, recorded by Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BCE), an older contemporary of Josephus. It was a period of great religious turmoil, as was the Babylonian exile 5 centuries earlier, which changed Judaism in important ways - the scriptures replaced the tradition of the Jerusalem temple as the core of religious thinking, and this was he beginning of the notion of a canon of scripture. Before, there were collections of writings, and a lot of revisionism by "the Deuteronomist" at the back of Josiah's reforms. I think that the best way to see scripture is as an ongoing "diary" of religious insights, but not moving in a straight line. Unfortunately, as it is transmitted it always falls into the hands of conservatives "the scribes" who turn the poetry into literalism and legalism. Incidentally, in Jesus' day, he clashed with the Saduccees (descendents of Aaron)who were pretty corrupt by then (the Maccabees were genuine zealots, but very exclusive and military). Saul/Paul played off the Pharisees against them at one point. He was an anti Christian zealot in Jerusalem at the time Stephen was stoned, and, as he says, heavily into Rabbinical orthodoxy though his father obtained roman citizenship by contributing to public works in Tarsus. As for the fathers, they, like Pliny, were very suspicious of women, and after all both Plato and Aristotle were largely anti-woman - to the Greeks women, children and slaves were all non-citizens, as were resident aliens. Of course high class courtesans were allowed to be intelligent, respectable women were not. Jewish women were better off than that, but still it was the men who dismissed the wife in divorce, and could have her stoned for infidelity - she had no recourse. The only almost equal women were Pharonic. The women didn't do well in India or China either. And Indian religion tends to be ascetic - plenty of extreme "penances" in the search for religious experience. Augustin was a very complex character, and in old age he got distinctly tetchy and jealous of his reputation, but he certainly loved his concubine though he thought that marriage could not be combined with philosophy, and required a virgin bride, confusing virtue with respectability. Manicheanism, the sect he followed as a youth, believed in an evil God as well as a good one. The problem of evil was primarily not sin, but death and suffering, sex was a complication which made the will hard to control. All this is universal male hang-ups, female hang-ups are mostly power and manipulation. Augustine became the one that a certain type of teacher quoted, but all the fathers extolled virginity.
David Cowley. Subject (Prog. The Fall) Predestination
Much more could be said, but I'll restrict myself to two things; Firstly, it is so sad to constantly hear Augustine of Hippo talked about as if he were the main defining influence on Christian thought from the early centuaries AD. He was only big in the Western, Latin-dominated area, and not in the Greek (and Syriac etc) East. There are many church Fathers in the East who are very important, and here the doctrine of Predestination - which I understand Augustine used well before Calvin - never held sway. In fact, it was I think even condemned in the West at some time soon after Augustine wrote about it. On the argument between Pelagius and Augustine, I understand that Pelagius is on record as supporting the idea that we are saved by God and our own free will working together - which was then, and now the view in the East. It was some follower of Pelagius who took things to the opposite extreme to Augustine's grim view (on the supposed utter depravity of man), and said that man could be saved by his/her own efforts. What I think has happened in the West is that Augustine has been treated as being so representative of Christian thought that huge numbers of people have been put off Christianity as a result, without having been told that there are loads and loads of great saints in the East, including many with lots of written material of what they were saying, like St John Chrysostom, and who didn't say those things. This takes me back to where I started - I think that when Augustine is referred to in matters such as this, it is very helpful to emphasise that he got very big press in the west only, because he wrote in Latin, whilst the Eastern Fathers' writings in Greek and other languages were not getting through to the Latins. If Greek writers of earlier times (seen as being Western) are talked about so much today, why not more about the later, Christian ones? Melvyn, there is lots of material here for possible future programmes. The other point - at one stage, someone in the show I think said that Christ's Virgin Birth was a 2nd centuary 'idea'. What about Evangalists Luke and Matthew, in the 1st centuary? And the book of Issiah before them?
Chris Richardson
I came into this programme halfway through and was delighted that such an important subject was your topic. However, I was again disappointed that the BBC has chosen to discuss a biblical topic with no person who takes the Bible seriously as God's word. Your "experts" may know lots about parts of church history and literature but they obviously hadn't read the first few chapters of Genesis for a long time. There were many errors eg. Though not explicit, sex is implicit in 2:23-25 before the Fall, as well as companionship (which is also vital here), something Augustine (who was a man of huge joy - another error) clearly got wrong due to his own sexually history. Note also an error of parts of the church made clear in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. Adam was not absent when Eve ate the fruit of rebellion Gen 3:6 clearly says Adam was with her when she ate. This is vital for the correct apportionment of blame. Certainly the new Testament writers seem to lay the blame at Adam's door (Romans 5:12-21) not Eve's. And so on. Please look for one evangelical scholar when doing such programmes. They do exist. Try Don Carson, Bruce Winter, David Peterson, etc Thanks for discussing these issues. They need to be discussed. But I think fairness demands that a biblical view be on the table too. CR
Daniel Hill, Re The Fall
This was an interesting programme, but marred by a failure to keep apart what the original text says (or doesn't say) and later theological ideas arising from the text. It was also marred by some errors: Martin said that Adam ate the 'apple' from the 'tree of knowledge of life and death', theough Griselda corrected the first of these errors. Martin also said that Calvin's doctrine of unconditional predestination removed the need for Christ's sacrifice and that Calvin had failed to notice this. Calvin deals with this point: he says that Christ's sacrifice is the means whereby the sin of the elect is atoned for. Thanks for an interesting programme.
Jonathan Stedman - The Fall
The discussion seemed to veer along well trodden paths of how ideas on sin and guilt developed in the early Church and Judaism. All very interesting but not very exploritary and with no new areas of research to reflect modern knowledge of the modern world. This discussion could have happened 100years ago with no major changes. Not exactly "In our Time". For instance not once was any mention made of modern theological reasearch into the other great influence on theoligical development in the first 600 years of the church. Just to the East of Palestine was of course the Roman Empire's great superpower rival. It had been developing its own very sophisticated monotheistic religion for a thousand years by the time of Christ and by the 3rd century AD had become a state religion. I am of course talking about the Parthian and Sassanid Empires and Zorostrianism. I do not believe that with so much cultural intermingling in the Middle East and Anatolia , that early Christian thought was not influenced by Zoroastrian ideas on sin, original sin, guilt, the devil, the origins of the devil, even the virgin birth, the final judgement day and especially the idea of freewill and individual responsiblity in the fight against sin. All these ideas had already been covered in Zoroastrianism in an on going debate since 500BC, if not for a 1000years before. A pity that no referance was made by any of your theologians to these ideas in Zoroastrianism. Or perhaps church theologians just only seem to look to the Western Church for their ideas of how Christianity has developed. Perhaps they should occasionally look East. They may be pleasantly surprised that people have been grappling with ideas of sin, the devil and their origins for a very long time and even may have found a few answers that make sense to modern secular man. Perhaps a programme for the future?
Patrick Wormald - The Fall
Dear Melvyn, Not one of your better shows, I fear (I am normally a genuine admirer, truly). This was a show on Original Sin without anyone who knew about Augustine himself. I can see why John Carey was there, as usual: he is a true Milton expert. But whatever your theologian knew about, his awareness of the fifth century was such that he thought the Sack of Rome was 'in 415 or 411', and that 'the Romans pulled out of Britain in 410': actually, the Roman Army left in 407, 410 was the date when paychecks for the Civil Service stopped, and also of course of Alaric's sack. The outcome was that Augustine's actual thinking was completely misrepresented. To give just one illustration, Augustine did envisage that there was sex before the Fall - but it was not uncontrolled, that is to say controlling. Furthermore, he said very little that was not at least inherent in Paul's Romans letter; it is of the essence for Paul that man was bound in sin by the old law, from which God's grace in Christ had set us free. As for Pelagius, he was an intellectual snob and a moral perfectionist; he was also strongly influenced by monastic thinking: his route to salvation was extreme asceticism! All of this could have been revealed had you employed anyone with knowledge of Late Antique thinking; the obvious example is Robert Markus, whose 'End of Ancient Christianity' is a Must Read for anyone choosing to pontificate on Augustine.
Dr Robert A. Davis; the Fall
Another absorbing programme. Howeve the Virgin Birth narrative (whether accepted or dismissed) is emphatically not a 2nd century or monastic invention. It is clearly a very early tradition of key Christian apostolic communities (much more interesting in this context is the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - that Mary was herself conceived in her mother's womb without original sin because of her intended role as Mother of God...). Secondly, Augustine did not invent the theology of Original Sin: for better or worse, it is clearly evident in the Pauline epistles ('In Adam all have sinned...' etc). Neither need the concept of OS be seen quite so negatively as the controbutors suggest. Third - I'm no sympathiser of Calvin's, but it is quite absurd to suggest that his theology involves the abolition of free will. God's omniscience is much subtler than that in C's scheme. Martin Palmer is a great guy, but we've heard him on the Soul, the Devil and the Fall. Maybe we should hear from another theologian some time.
jan miles 'the fall of man'
How could Eve have disobeyed God when she did not get free will until she and Adam were cast from the Garden of Eden? If she didn't have free will, she could not have disobeyed God. Could She??? Was it all a setup!!!!! Many thanks Jan M
|
|
|
|
|
