Chapter 1 Unmasking the Book, the Problems with the Salvation Theory Published by the Spiritual Group, the “Tribal Association”
The spiritual group “Tribal Association” published a book called the Problems with the Salvation Theory in the name of the “Second Generation Counseling Corner” (Nov. 1, 2008). The content of this book is based on the theory of Mr. Tatsunori Okamoto who is part of the Myung Sik Woo group.
The group dissolved on April 12, 2006 after not being able to refute the contents of the book Correcting the Errors of the Spiritual Group, the “Tribal Association”! (Kogensha, Jan. 25, 2006) and was in hiding for a while. Although the purpose of the recent publication was to counter the book Correcting the Errors, it does not touch upon any of the 23 points in Correcting the Errors, except for the original sin and the blood lineage.
Correcting the Errors discusses the Human Fall centered on the original sin and the blood lineage, based on the viewpoint that Reverend Moon’s teachings and the Divine Principle (hereafter referred to as the DP) are consistent. However, Mr. Okamoto and his group claim that Reverend Moon’s teachings are inconsistent with the content of the Human Fall in the DP.
In Problems with the Salvation Theory, it not only claims that there are inconsistencies, but that the DP is merely an “interpretation” of his teachings (p. 23). They focus on their criticisms of the theory of the Human Fall, borrowing from the teachings of Protestant theology, and repeat their claim that the “nature of the original sin is the primary characteristics of the fallen nature, which is the motivation of self-centeredness” (p.120).
The three of us (Mori, Kachi, & Takeuchi) call the Okamoto theory the logic of a Satanic apologist that conceals the original sin (adultery) (Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Copyright Part II, Kogensha, p. 128, referred to as the Copyright hereafter) and this publication proves why.
The original sin is not a motivation of the mind (a cause) but is the effect of an “illicit relationship.” Reverend Moon said the following:
“The fall began with an illicit motivation of the blood lineage. That is how the result of the fall was passed down through history until today as the original sin. It is amazing that the fact of the fall having been a consequence of a love act was revealed in Reverend Moon’s time. This is something that is theoretically systematized through its historical background and content that cannot be denied.” (Blessed Family and the Ideal Kingdom, pp. 436-437)
Therefore, the fall was an incident that began from an “illicit motivation which affected the blood lineage,” but the original sin is a “sin that was brought about through the blood lineage due to the spiritual and physical fall of our first human ancestors,” which is a “consequence of a love act” (the DP, p. 121). Self-centeredness (the primary characteristic of the fallen nature) is a motivation, not the original sin itself. Reverend Moon says:
“The hope for humanity is to take off the mask of the fall. What is the mask of the fall? It was a change of the blood lineage. What was the fall of the blood lineage? It was an illicit sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Who was it centered on? It was centered on Satan.” (Cheon Seong Gyeong, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,906)
As one can see, when he says, an “illicit sexual relationship between a man and a woman,” Reverend Moon’s teachings are consistent with the understanding of the original sin and the sexual relationships explained in the DP.
In the Bible, it says that Adam and Eve fell from eating the “fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.” Is this “fruit” self-centeredness, which is a psychological element, or is it “Eve’s sexual organ”? If you go back to the origin, you will know what the original sin really is. Reverend Moon says very clearly that the “fruit of the knowledge of good and evil signifies Eve’s sexual organ.” (Cheon Seong Gyeong, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,871)
However, Protestant theology focuses on a psychological analysis of the motivation of why they did not obey the commandment (psychological aspect) rather than the “act” of eating itself, and thus interprets the original sin as being within our minds. The Okamoto theory criticizes the Human Fall from this Protestant viewpoint, merely replicating the “anti-UC claims” already made by anti-UC ministers.
In understanding the original sin, we must not confuse cause (motivation) with effect. Otherwise we would not take “having an illicit sexual intercourse” as the original sin and would take it lightly. The self-centered motivation is, of course, a problem, too. Therefore, we must practice sacrificial love and accomplish the revolution of heart.
The conclusion that the Okamoto theory makes in Problems with the Salvation Theory is that the salvation theory of the UC is “incomplete” and that there are “some mistakes in the understanding” of the original sin and the blood lineage. They claim that Reverend Moon’s teachings should be analyzed in detail and a new “Completed Testament Principle” should appear to replace the DP. It seems that they are haughtily trying to say that theirs is the “Completed Testament Principle.”
Section 1 The DP
1.1 The Relationship Between Reverend Moon’s Teachings and the DP
Reverend Moon states that the DP is a universal truth, and is the “sword of the Word created by Reverend Moon,” a “heavenly proclamation,” and the “mainstream constitution within God’s heart.” (The Copyright, p. 145) Reverend Moon’s understanding of the DP has not changed over time.
Even though there are certain truths that are revealed in Reverend Moon’s teachings but are withheld from the DP, there are no inconsistencies between his teachings and the DP. If there is anything that is untrue, it should be determined by Reverend Moon, the True Parent.
1.2 An Ontological “Concept of God”
The DP discusses God (the Ultimate Being) ontologically in the first place. What makes theology a theology is the way in which it perceives God. In fact, a solution to many theological problems depends on how God is perceived.
Paul Tillich (1886-1965), in his systematic theology, describes God as “existence itself” or the “power of existence,” perceiving God in the same ontological way that the DP does. He states that only this kind of concept of God can remove many of the problems and confusion involved in the disputes about God. He also said that this viewpoint of God is “more religious” than a “theology that shuts God up in a supernatural environment.” The concept of God as a “substantial existence” is not an arbitrary understanding of God such as is the perception of God by Kant. He said, “God can be perceived as a moral standard (an existence), or supernatural revelations can be established through illogical fideism in which faith is at the base of the perception.”
The Kantian Principle ultimately guarantees the freedom and sovereignty of God, but loses sight of God as a “substantial existence.” Tillich denied any kind of concept that was not founded on the actual existence of God.
With the breakdown in the traditional value system and the loss of criteria of what is right and wrong, modern society is facing the crisis of family breakdown and social disorder. Tillich’s achievement lies in trying to save this crisis by re-interpreting Christian theology through understanding God existentially, and attempting to systematize it. This concept of God had the “mission of the John the Baptist,” to make way for the acceptance of Unification theology.
1.3 Champion in Eight Areas
We must not be misled by the part in the “Introduction” that says a “portion of the truth” in thinking that it undermines the DP as being a universal truth. The content of the DP unveils the mysteries of the Bible and sets forth the basis to unify religion and philosophy.
Reverend Moon states in his Peace Messages No. 13 and 16 that he is the champion of the following eight areas: 1God, 2Satan, 3humanity, 4the spirit world, 5Jesus, 6the core of the Bible and scriptures of all the religions, 7knowledge of human history, and 8true family values.
The DP consists of contents that make Reverend Moon the champion of these areas. However, in Problems with the Salvation Theory, Mr. Okamoto states that because the DP constantly quotes from the Bible, “It looks as if it is just another denomination of the Christian church” (p. 26). He fails to see that the contents of the DP can unify religions. The reason why the DP often quotes from the Bible is in part to assure Christians that it is the theology of the Second Coming.
Reverend Moon talks about the Human Fall in the following excerpt:
“Let’s investigate where heaven and hell are separated. Are they in the air? Where are they? They are in your sexual organs. This is very serious. This truth turned heaven and earth upside down. Who can deny this fact? It is explained in the section of the Human Fall in the Principle book that Reverend Moon published. If you’re not sure, ask God. Nobody can oppose Reverend Moon’s Principle book which systematized something that you had never imagined even in your dreams.” (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom I, p. 57)
Reverend Moon said, “There is a Principle book called the DP, isn’t there?” (Family, Jan., 2009, p. 50), indicating that the Principle book signifies the DP.
On the one hand, Mr. Okamoto says, “Reverend Moon’s teachings are an absolute standard.” (95 + 13 Proposals, p. 57). But, on the other hand, says, “It is dangerous to believe in “the Human Fall” completely, and to do so is an act of blind faith.” (Explanation of Completed Testament Principle, Vol. 1, edited by Okamoto, p. 57) This is hypocritical. Not only does he not follow Reverend Moon’s teachings, but he denies them.
1.4 The Person Who Can Revise the DP
Mr. Okamoto asks, “Which should we emphasize more, the DP or Reverend Moon’s teachings, when judging the truth?” (95 + 13 Proposals, edited by Okamoto) In Problems with the Salvation Theory he explains that the DP is merely “one interpretation” of Reverend Moon’s teachings, and that it being a “systematic theological interpretation,” there is more religious authority in Reverend Moon’s direct teachings” (p.23), trying to say that there are inconsistencies between his teachings and the DP.
The criteria for judging the truth is yes, his teachings, but the DP IS the “sword of the Word that Reverend Moon created.” They are both Reverend Moon’s teachings and the very act of “prioritizing either one of the two” is wrong. There are no conflicts or inconsistencies within Reverend Moon’s teachings. It is people’s subjectivity that creates conflict and inconsistency.
Even if there were mistakes in the definitions and explanations in the DP, we are not the ones to revise it. If any kind of correction is necessary, the only person who can do it is Reverend Moon.
Reverend Moon made it very clear that the “only person who can revise the DP is Reverend Moon. Do you know that?” (Cheon Seong Gyeong, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,722)
Reverend Moon gave the “authority to revise” the DP to Reverend Jeon Ok Yu in 2009, but he is the only person who has the authority to do so.
1.5 Who Has the Key?
The Problems with the Salvation Theory states, “The contents (revelations) the founder teaches are not something academically systematized. They are often metaphors, symbols and allusions that include poetic and difficult expressions (p.20) and therefore, they need logical and coherent theological interpretation.” It says that a “key” is necessary to interpret the metaphors and allusions. Mr. Okamoto probably wants to say that he has the key. However, the following are Reverend Moon’s teaching on this topic:
“Beloved leaders of the world, Reverend Moon, the person standing in front of you, has the key to save humanity from the bond of Satan and guide them to heaven, from a position which has never been attained before in history.” (Peace Messages, p. 329)
Reverend Moon also warns individuals who claim to have interpreted the truth: “Are you saying you interpreted the Principle? You will not understand it unless I explain it to you. You won’t understand what it means.” (Family, April 2007, p. 44)
1.6 A Portion of the Truth
Based on the part which says a “portion of the truth” in the Introduction of the DP, Mr. Okamoto and his group declare in Problems with the Salvation Theory that the DP is not the ultimate scripture that theologically systematizes the philosophy of Reverend Moon, who is the Second Coming. (p. 27)
We must understand why Rev. Hyo Won Yu wrote a “portion of the truth.” It was not to criticize the DP by pointing out its limitations. In the Introduction, it goes on to say that “when the time is ripe, more profound portions of the truth will be published,” and that if there are any mistakes in the expression of the content of the DP, the disciple (author) is held responsible.
This is because if someone criticizes what Reverend Moon wrote, it would be an infringement upon the heavenly law and the person in question would have to pay a certain indemnity for that. That is why the author says he wrote it and that he would be responsible for it. This signifies relief for the person who criticizes [because he does not criticize Reverend Moon directly]. They must understand this thoughtfulness.
The expression a “portion of the truth” means that there are some “truths that are reserved” in the DP. The reserved portion and the DP together make the truth whole (The Original DP).
Section 2 Theological Problems of the Original Sin
2.1 The Significance of Investigating the Original Sin
What is the original sin? Differences in the theory of the original sin lead to differences in the salvation theory. In that respect, the original sin theory makes up the core of the doctrine.
The DP describes the original sin as an “illicit relationship” between the Archangel and the first human ancestors. The Japan Communist Party ridicules this theory as “absurd.” Mr. Sadao Asami criticizes the change of the blood lineage through the Marriage Blessing as “blood sharing,” and Mr. Koichi Iiboshi insists that “The evil of the UC begins where they claim that the first human ancestors had sex with Satan.”
Mr. Okamoto was probably influenced by these anti-UC statements which criticize the theory of the Human Fall. That is how he came to claim that the original sin theory in Protestant theology (self-centeredness) is correct, and criticize the Human Fall theory described in the DP.
We must not neglect any of these criticisms, but must respond to each one seriously and make the truth very clear. This is because many people today are becoming slaves of free sex, destroying families by having illicit relationships, and thereby going straight to hell. We must sweep away the Satanic influences of illicit sex in human society and bring salvation to these people.
We must investigate what the root of sin is and liquidate it. That is the whole purpose of finding out what the original sin is.
Karl Barth (1886~1966) joined the Social Democratic Party even though he was a pastor. He realized later, however, that the Social Democratic Party lacked the “recognition of sin” that was written in the Bible. Reverend Moon emphasizes the importance of the Human Fall in the DP which clarifies the root of evil and sin:
“In order to solve all of the problems in the world and clean up humanity’s morality problems, we must have the theory of the Human Fall. Humanity’s problems will not be corrected unless we have that theory. (Cheon Seong Gyeong, The Path to a Completed Testament Person, p. 1,615)
2.2 The Point of Dispute Concerning the Original Sin Theory and the Blood Lineage
2.2.1 The Viewpoint of the Japanese Communist Party
The Japanese Communist Party describes the DP as an extremely bizarre interpretation of the Bible and criticizes the theory of the Human Fall:
“The bizarre interpretation by the UC, which states that the identity of the serpent is the Archangel and that he fell because of an illicit sexual relationship, is one that cannot be seen even in any kind of heretical Christian denomination, and is completely made up without any basis in the Bible. It is no wonder that a decent Christian would not take the DP seriously.” (The Principle Movement and the Federation for the Victory Over Communism, p. 123)
They are saying that no other “heretical Christian denomination in the world” interprets the fall as an “illicit sexual relationship.” This is nothing more than a strategic expression, as are all of the others of the Japanese Communist Party.
2.2.2 The Christian View of the Original Sin and the Inheritance of the Original Sin
Liberal theology considers exploitation, suppression, discrimination, and inhumane, anti-democratic dictatorship a sin, and calls for reform of the establishments. This kind of social theory is used by Communists for their revolutionary movement, strategies and tactics. It is not the establishment that is a sin, but rather sin is that creates such a kind of establishment. Liberal theology is indifferent to the “dogmatic” notion of original sin, which is the root of all of the evils in society.
The first person who used the word “original sin” was St. Augustine (354~430). He said the following:
“Adam’s sin has passed down to every single individual in humanity. Since posterity is born through sexual relationships, having sex is the root of sin in double aspect. That is, the fact that every person is born through sexual relationships is already sinful, and the inclination to commit sins is also passed down as an inherent weakness.” (An Introduction to Contemporary Christian Theology, W.E. Hordern, p. 46)
Protestant theology identifies the root of human illness with “something mental” (greed, arrogance and self-centeredness). But when it comes to an understanding of how it began and how it is passed down, Hordern says, “We should learn from St. Augustine about his doctrine of Adam and the inheritance of his sin.”(ibid.) He continues to say, “What could be called the mental aspect of sin seems to have changed over time to something biological. It is hard to decide whether the psychological aspect of sin or its biological inheritance aspect should be more emphasized, and how to harmonize the two aspects as well.”(ibid.)
In this way, it is difficult to harmonize the two ideas. Christian theology split over this issue of identifying the original sin by its “mental aspect” or by its “biological inheritance aspect,” and the conflict to choose one and reject the other ensued. Protestants deny the biological inheritance theory from their position of the justification by faith theory, whereas the Catholics believe in it as seen in Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
2.3 The Catholic View of the Original Sin
2.3.1 The Immaculate Conception Concept of the Catholic Church
Visiting Professor Kari Elisabeth Borresen of the PontificalCollege in Rome states the following in her thesis Mary in the Catholic Theology (Who Was Mary?”):
“The premise of the Immaculate Conception is based on St. Augustine’s doctrine that the original sin comes from the father’s reproductive act. Because of this, at the moment a rational soul is about to be infused, ‘infectio carnis’ (fetal infection) occurs…….… The Christ avoided this infection through the work of the Holy Spirit when he became human……… According to male-centered biology, the original sin is inherited solely from the father who plays an active role.” (p. 126)
This academic theory thus states, “The original sin comes from the father’s reproductive act.” This is the same understanding of the original sin as that of the DP. This theory of the original sin and the theory of the Immaculate Conception both relate to the important theological issue of why Jesus was born without the original sin.
2.3.2 Scholastic Theology in the Medieval Age
Let us look at the viewpoints of original sin by the Scholastics:
“Since the 8th Century (John of Damascus), the theory became more accepted that Mary was sanctified of her original sin because of her motherhood. The main Scholastic philosophers believed that Mary, being human, contracted a fetal infection as in any other conception, but was sanctified due to the intervention of the redemption. This intervention happened on two stages. The first stage happened inside the womb. The important thing was that at the moment of the sanctification, she was liberated from all of her sins. According to these fathers, Jeremiah and John the Baptist were also sanctified inside the womb. However, these sins were only large ones that would cause them to lose God’s grace. (Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb ……” and Luke 1:15) The second stage of Mary’s sanctification was at the moment of the conception of the Christ (Luke 1:35). At this moment, the original sin was completely eradicated from her.” (ibid., Borresen)
The Catholic understanding of the original sin is similar to that of the DP, that is, it is unlike a “disposition” (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature). Moreover, the assertion that the original sin was inherited (Satan’s lineage) as discussed in the DP can be seen in the quote, “Mary, being human, contracted a fetal infection as in any other conception.”
Moreover, one can also recognize the theories of the “liberation from all actual sins” and the “sanctification inside the womb” in the principle of “restoration inside Tamar’s womb.”
Reverend Moon says, “If you study Tamar, you will understand the whole of the Principle.” (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom II, p.77) In the Okamoto theory, which only reiterates the Protestant theological viewpoint, it is impossible to explain the restoration principle with regard to Tamar’s womb, that is deeply related to the cleansing of the original sin. The best the Okamoto theory can do is to say, from their subjective conceptual viewpoint, that the “seed” stands for heart and the “womb” for the Holy Spirit, and they will not admit an objective existence. As for the theories of “fetal infection” and the “uterine” sanctification and the “seed,” they would probably criticize them as a biological “blood-sharing” theory at best.
Borresen says, “The Catholic theological belief of the intervention, which precedes the “fetal infection” came about in relation to the holiday celebrating the Immaculate Conception. This belief spread in England at the end of the 11th century and spread all over Europe by the 12th Century.” (ibid.)
The concept of “reproduction” being impure is the premise of this theory of the original sin.
2.4 The Explanation of the Original Sin by Mr. Hideo Oki
“The term ‘original sin’ was first used by St. Augustine. The original meaning of the term is ‘inherited sin’ and ‘hereditary sin’, and was the sin that has been passed down all the way – generation to generation from fallen Adam and Eve through reproduction.” (The Dictionary of Systematic Christian Theology, p. 268)
This can be described as a Biblical interpretation of the theory of the original sin itself, which is explained as a lineage-like and hereditary sin of the sexual relationship in the DP. The theory of the Human Fall is not an “absurd interpretation of the Bible” that no decent Christian would take seriously, nor would any heretic sect claim, so as the Communists say.
Section 3 Relationship between the Critique by Mr. Sadao Asami and the Problems with the Salvation Theory
3.1 Mr. Asami’s Criticism of the concept of the Human Fall
Mr. Sadao Asami (United Church of Christ of Japan) criticizes the Human Fall as follows:
“An argument that man’s original sin is hereditary is found in traditional Christianity as well. But what I would like to point out here is the peculiar theory, found in the DP, claiming that ‘the consequence of actions in sexual immorality as committed by Eve and Lucifer, and Eve and Adam as has been inherited for generations. (Mr. Sadao Asami’s the Unification Church = the Principle Movement, p. 134)
Mr. Asami ridicules the Human Fall as a peculiar theory but would not dare to elaborate it. It seems to be a tactic to effectively support his continuous deprogramming attempts.
The Problems with the Salvation Theory based on arguments made by Mr. Okamoto, criticizes the Human Fall by elaborating specific reasons which Mr. Asami refrained from discussing. This book may shed some light on how the anti-UC ministers argue against the Human Fall in their deprogramming of UC members.
3.2 Biological Concept of Blood Lineage
What Mr. Asami calls a “peculiar theory” involves some teachings concerning the Human Fall, regarding how the original sin began and was inherited. His view stems from the Protestant theology view concerning a relationship between the original sin and the laws of heredity.
3.2.1 Sperms and Eggs and Blood Lineage
Rev. Sun Myung Moon explains about sperms and eggs as follows:
“The life you inherited from your parents began when you inherited your father’s sperm and mother’s egg. Where the sperm and the egg are united by love and thus a root is born, that is your child.” (Family, March 2007, p. 7)
As such, Reverend Moon refers to the blood lineage in terms of biology, namely: Life’s succession from parents to children begins where a sperm and an egg are united in love.
However, it is not just from the biological argument on sperm and egg, that Reverend Moon lays emphasis, but he thinks more profoundly about love, saying, “… united by love and then a root is born.” When we discuss love, we need to distinguish whether this love is associated with God’s lineage or Satan’s. Is it true love or selfish love? This is a subject addressing the philosophical or theological sphere, beyond a mere scientific argument. The Problems with the Salvation Theory in line with Mr. Okamoto’s argument, insists that “the lineage referred to in Reverend Moon’s teachings is a relationship of heart” (p. 128), claiming that it is not transferable by means of a “biological substance”, that is, “biological DNA like “sperms and eggs.” (ibid.) He denies Reverend Moon’s teachings again.
At the same time, Professor Kari Elisabeth Borresen talked about the discovery of ova as follows:
“With the discovery of mammals’ eggs by Karl Ernst Ritar von Beer in 1827, the premises of Christology collapsed, which tried to understand women based on male chauvinism. Then, the functions of father and mother were deemed equal.” (Who Was Mary?, p. 122) Likewise, the discovery of the egg had a big impact upon the women’s rights movement and upon theology. Reverend Moon talks about both sperm and egg, indicating his theological perspective concerning the essential equality of both genders.
3.2.2 Blood Lineage and the Laws of Heredity
On blood lineage and the laws of heredity, Reverend Moon states as follows:
“What is the fruit of Good and Evil that makes descendants sinners for thousands of generations? It involves a blood relation. If the root of sin is planted into the blood lineage, it will last forever, by the laws of heredity. Such a dynamic is conceivable only in matters of love. Misuse of love is the very cause of the fall. (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom I, p. 435)
Likewise, the blood lineage and biological laws of heredity are inseparable. In the series of Peace Messages, Reverend Moon said, “Life and love are combined to produce a blood lineage” (p. 126). Reverend Moon also stated as follows on the 28th True God’s Day:
“Have you seen life? Have you ever touched life? Though we can recognize life forms, we cannot discern life itself. We can never touch it. It is also true with the blood lineage. It is generated in an innermost room where a couple loves each other. A blood lineage is generated when the sperm and the egg encounter with each other to create a life form.” (Family, March 1995, p. 22)
Reverend Moon’s concept of the blood lineage would not question either the lineage of heart or biological one, nor would it separate heart (love) from sexual intercourse unlike Mr. Okamoto’s argument. Reverend Moon’s concept of the blood lineage is that of one formed through the union of love and sexual intercourse (a sperm and an egg). When he talks about God’s blood lineage or Satan’s, it is not just a relationship of heart without involving a sexual relationship. Sexual intercourse should not be confused with the illicit “blood-sharing rituals” which are practiced by the Woo Myung Sik Group, and which violate the heavenly law.
Incidentally, Reverend Moon’s teaching, which Mr. Okamoto considers to be the conceptual basis of the “lineage of heart,” that is; “To restore the lineage of heart inviolable by Satan” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory, p. 172) refers to the original blood lineage in which one can call God Father (True Son = Jesus). Mr. Okamoto extracts only the phrase the “lineage of heart” from his teachings, taking it out of context, thus making the concept of the blood lineage ambiguous.
Section 4 Criticism of “Double Concepts of Salvation”
4.1 Unity between Mind and Body Can Be Achieved Only When the Blood Lineage Is Restored
Mr. Okamoto attempts to argue about God’s blood lineage in isolation from both sexual intercourse and the lives of both genders. This is the concept of the lineage of heart they emphasize. Mr. Okamoto preaches only about the individual union of heart with God, making the far-fetched claim that it alone can bind us with God’s blood lineage. This sort of subjective idealism is wrong.
No matter how hard a fallen individual person makes an effort (a change of mindset), without going through the Blessing, namely: “engrafting” (a change of the blood lineage through the Holy Wine Ceremony), the primary characteristics of the fallen nature cannot be eradicated. Nor can one achieve the union of heart with God on the perfection level.
Reverend Moon’s teachings say, “God’s heart is not flying into you from somewhere. Unless you correct your blood lineage, nutrients or the lineage of heart cannot be bound at the root. The restoration through indemnity involves the blood lineage and the realm of heart.” (Homeland, p. 209-210, Correcting the Errors, p. 156) Likewise, “First, correct your blood lineage, then you can bind yourself to God’s heart and achieve unity between your own mind and body.” (Homeland, p. 255)
4.2 The Legalistic View of Atonement Revealed by Reverend Moon
The Problems with the Salvation Theory claims that the “legalistic view of atonement” (the distinction between the original sin and the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) was necessitated in order to emphasize “salvation” in order to counter the anti-UC ministers. (p. 56).
On the contrary, the “legalistic view of atonement” is the very view of salvation according to the truth Reverend Moon revealed. What it calls a certain condition (a necessary procedure) for the atonement actually refers to the Holy Wine Ceremony. The Blessing is the formula to restore mankind back to the state prior to the fall of Adam and Eve. The Holy Wine Ceremony is the “ceremony for the salvation of all mankind” by cleansing the original sin, as well as liberating and pardoning people from the dominion of Satan.
The original sin is to be cleansed by reversing the process of the fall through the Holy Wine Ceremony. Thereafter, the motivation of the fall, or the primary characteristics of the fallen nature will be eradicated by practicing self-sacrificing love. In light of the principle of restoration through indemnity, the path of cleansing the original sin does not occur simultaneously as the path of removing the primary characteristics of the fallen nature. They are separate and the former precedes the latter.
4.3 The Royalty Is Already Saved, too
Now, Mr. Okamoto criticizes Correcting the Errors by labeling the book as a “theory of a biological change of the blood lineage which denies the notion of saving the whole mankind.” (p. 160)
However, blessed families have gone through the change of blood lineage, namely, the Holy Wine Ceremony, and have already reached God’s blood lineage. Both the first and the second generations of blessed families are the “royal family” and are already saved. In order to complete the Four Great Realms of Heart, Three Great Kingships and the Realm of the Royal Family, the blessed families are treading the path on the perfection level, which has not been trodden before by anyone in human history, while attending the True Parents and True Family. The “matrimony between the second generation and the direct lineage” signifies the elevation from the Royal Family into the King’s Family.
However, the followers of the Okamoto theory grossly misunderstand this, saying, “This matrimony between the second generation and the direct lineage is the only path to salvation,” thus ridiculing the UC’s position as a “biological view of salvation that denies the salvation of all mankind.” However, marriage is not a blood-sharing ritual. Moreover, both the Royal Family and the King’s Family are one family under God. The Blessing surely envisages the salvation of all mankind.
The legalistic view of atonement means the Blessing, while what the Okamoto theory ridicules as a theory of a “biological change of the blood lineage” means the matrimony between the Royal Family and the King’s Family (=True Children). Therefore, there is no conflict on contradiction, nor any serious problems at all in the “double views of salvation.”
Section 5 Naive Criticism Is Not to Be Ignored in the Okamoto Theory (Questions about the Human Fall)
5.1 An Illicit Sexual Intercourse Not Leading to Pregnancy
Concerning the view of the original sin in the Human Fall in the DP, the Problems with the Salvation Theory questions whether illicit sexual acts between Adam and Eve without bearing children nor generating the blood lineage, no matter how often they are performed, should not be regarded as the original sin. (p. 118)
Read the DP carefully. The Human Fall elaborates the motivation, the process of the fall and its outcome. It does not merely discuss a specific action.
The act of the fall, called the original sin (to have an illicit relationship) does not refer to the physical fall between Adam and Eve alone, but includes the spiritual fall between the Archangel Lucifer and Eve. Also, since it refers to inherited sin, the concept of the original sin includes the births of sinners as a consequence of the act of the fall.
Consequently, illicit acts not leading to pregnancy are included in the definition of the original sin (process). They are considered as sins. In reality, did Adam and Eve have a child before being kicked out of the Garden of Eden, as described by Reverend Moon’s teachings? Did they have a child after they were kicked out? As soon as they ate the fruit, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
Reverend Moon says the following:
“Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden after the fall, weren’t they? Were they kicked out after they had a child? If they fell through a love relationship, there is no way that their immorality was not discovered and could be kept while delivering a child before being kicked out? A thunderbolt would strike fallen Adam and Eve. They would face a fire immediately after their fall, without a lapse of time. Could God wait for days? No way. Absolutely no way. Indispensable for bearing children is the life of a couple as well as a ten-month lapse in the womb before a child is born with a scream. Thus, the conclusion is obvious. There is no doubt that they were kicked out immediately after the fall, much before they could have a child. (Blessing No.76, Spring 1993, pp. 120 -121)
5.2 The Spiritual Fall Not Affecting the Biological Blood Lineage
A child cannot be born through the spiritual fall between the Archangel and Eve. Its impact is limited to their generation only. If it had been the fall of Eve only, she could have been saved fairly easily. However, because even Adam who was the seed fell, their salvation has been prolonged. (The DP, p. 111)
Regarding the illicit relationship between the Archangel Lucifer and Eve, if Eve had abided by the commandment: “Don’t eat of the fruit” (Genesis 2:17) and had not formed a reciprocal relationship with the Archangel in spite of Lucifer’s temptation, there would have emerged no loving passion between them. Accordingly, Eve would not have crossed the line, leaving the Archangel with one-sided love and Satan’s primary characteristics of the fallen nature would not have entered into humanity.
That is to say, even if the Archangel who deviated from his position had had his self-centered motivation (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature), his motivation would have remained as such and it would not have led him to committing a sin. In other words, the “motivation (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) remained as such and would not have caused a sin” and “the Archangel would not have turned into Satan.”
As the DP reads, “Eve received certain elements from Lucifer when she joined into one body with him through love” (p. 79 [English version]), Satan’s nature (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) entered into the humanity as a result of the act of the fall between the Archangel and Eve.
As a result of the fall, Eve’s heart was contaminated (not the other way around). Needless to say, the Archangel’s primary characteristic of the fallen nature was the internal motivation and not the original sin (adultery or an external act) (The original sin and the primary characteristics of the fallen nature are not identical.). Even if an “intention had an idea of the consequence,” this is still the case.
As the DP elaborates, all sins stem from the original sin. There were no multiple sins that violated the heavenly law prior to the original sin.
Reverend Moon’s teachings point out that the Archangel Lucifer’s (Satan’s) self-centered fallen motivation was the “root of evil and sin.” (Blessed Family and the Ideal Kingdom II, p. 268) This root (motivation) was not created evil by God but it had originally been created good but later it turned into evil (monism). Then, why did good turn into evil? It was agitated by love.
The DP reads, “The basic motivation that thus caused the primary characteristics of the fallen nature lay in the jealousy the Archangel felt toward Adam.” (p. 122) Concerning this jealousy, it explains; “Any incidental desire occurring from the original nature of creation would be used for the development of human society; it could never cause man to fall.” (p.123)
5.3 Hugs and Kisses
The Okamoto theory says, “Before the action of crossing the line (an illicit sexual intercourse), there had been a series of actions such as hugs and kisses in violation of the heavenly law.” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory p. 122), insisting that in that case an illicit sexual intercourse cannot be referred to as the first sin.
Then, it would become a very absurd logic that many sins were lined up before the original sin, eventually contradicting the definition of the first sin. (ibid.)
The DP defines the sin (an illicit sexual intercourse) committed through the blood lineage as the original sin that violates the heavenly law. The Archangel’s hugs and kisses that were directed to cross the line (p. 122) were conducted in the process of committing the original sin through the blood lineage. These actions themselves had not violated the heavenly law yet but they were problematic since they were against the purpose of creation (God’s Will), and thus were about to violate the heavenly law.
However, if they had not crossed the line and thus had not committed the act of the fall, they would have just attempted to commit the original sin that would have violated the heavenly law. Thus the Archangel’s motivation (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) would not have come into humanity. In that case, the salvation of Eve and the Archangel would have been much easier.
5.4 Confusion of the Concept between Illicit Sexual Relationship and Blood Relationship
Mr. Okamoto’s theory also criticizes as follows:
The DP description is as if having an adulterous relationship were tantamount to having a blood relationship. This description has caused a gross misunderstanding of the concept of the blood lineage.” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory, p. 132)
The reason for his criticism this way is because “Mankind is the posterity of Adam and Eve and not born of Lucifer’s biological blood lineage since Eve could not bear a child of Lucifer who does not have physical sperms.” (ibid., p. 134) Consequently, it wants to say that humans cannot be related to Satan.
First of all, let us consider why the DP argues the way it does. Eve was romantically involved with Satan and became “Satan’s wife,” who was involved with Adam in Satanic love, causing Adam to fall. As a result of this illicit sexual relationship, Adam was born as Satan’s son (an evil change of the blood lineage).
It is the case that Reverend Moon’s teachings show the following: “The responsibility for the fall started with Eve centering on Satan, and then shifted to Adam. That is, as far as Eve who had received a false seed of life was concerned, Satan, who took over the position of God as the father stood in the position of delivering Adam (becoming one with Eve), constituting the fall. Thus, Eve fell and put the Archangel and Adam in the positions of the father and the son respectively. (Family, June 1992, p. 58; Correcting the Errors, p. 115)
That is to say, the relationship of Satanic love and sex by Eve formed a father-son relationship between Satan and Adam, and she helped Adam establish a blood relationship with Satan.
Reverend Moon says, “Love has a vertical type and a horizontal type. A father-son relationship is vertical while a conjugal relationship is horizontal. The vertical love is related to the blood lineage, while the conjugal relationship is not. (Reverend Moon’s Teachings at Workshops in Korea, p.12) Likewise, the father-son relationship between Satan and Adam is vertical and connected to the blood lineage.
Why does the DP define the “sin of the lineage by the spiritual fall and the physical fall”? (p. 121) Why does it also define the spiritual fall and the physical fall together, instead of separating them? We should ponder these points rationally. The DP’‘s definition of the original sin indicates the process of how it was connected to Satan’s blood lineage.
The mistake of the Okamoto theory in criticizing the biological view of the blood lineage, hiding behind the lineage of heart, lies in separating love and a sexual relationship. Reverend Moon’s concept of the blood lineage does not separate love from the sexual relationship. As stated above, we should examine the formation of the blood relationships by means of Satan’s selfish love and various sexual relationships.
Adam and Eve were not born with the original sin, unlike fallen people. They were born as God’s son and daughter without the original sin, and only after the fall did their blood lineage become that of Satan.
5.5 Is It Inappropriate to Call Sexual Acts As Illicit Sexual Intercourse?
The Okamoto theory criticizes the Human Fall, saying, “Why was the act of the fall (the physical fall) between Adam and Eve called adultery? That expression is not appropriate, as it amounts to ‘premarital sex’ in contemporary terms, which may not be ethically appreciated but not subject to a heavy criminal charge according to the contemporary criminal law.” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory, p. 121)
However, Eve got involved with Satan in love (the spiritual fall) and became Satan’s wife. Then she got sexually involved with Adam who was not fallen (the physical fall). As a result, fallen Adam who became one with Satan by establishing the father-son relationship had a sexual relationship with fallen Eve. These acts cannot but be described as “an illicit sexual intercourse” or “lechery”. Describing them as premarital sex is rather inappropriate.
The acts of sexual relationships among the Archangel, Adam and Eve (the spiritual fall and the physical fall) were tantamount to a serious sin as the Satanic blood lineage started from there.
Reverend Moon says:
“The particulars of the original sin and the fall that I examined closely involved the illicit incidents of the first human ancestors with the Archangel” (Cheon Seong Gyeong, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,863). “They committed illicit relations with the Archangel. This became the fundamental cause which wrecked the universe.” (Cheon Seong Gyeong, Sins and Restoration through Indemnity, p. 1,231)
There could be no graver sin than this, as the illicit incident with the Archangel “wrecked the universe.”
But the Okamoto theory focuses on the internal nature of Adam and Eve in an attempt to conceal Satan’s sin (adultery). It reads, “Rather than internal nature such as motivations or thoughts, external behaviors like illegal acts are apt to be stressed.” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory, p126), or “A more essential problem is the immature and self-centered nature (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) which was transmitted to the descendants through sexual acts.” (ibid, p. 121)
Incidentally, though it says that sins were “transmitted to the descendants through sexual acts,” the problem is the sex acts that transmitted them. After all, when it comes to how the original sin is transmitted, the Okamoto theory also has to depend on the dogmas of St. Augustine or the Human Fall, as pointed out by Hordern.
As a conclusion, how would Adam and Eve’s sin (the act of the fall) be judged since they were seduced to commit the sin while they were juvenile? “Human sins may not be subjected to a total punishment or destruction anticipated by Satan. Rather, it would induce a pity and is not subject to just a pure punishment but a pardon or salvation at the same time. This point is indicated in the biblical passage in which God declared His punishments to the serpent, and Adam and Eve separately. Dictionary of Systematic Christian Theology, Kyobunkan, p. 268）
Satan’s sin (lechery) is a destructive and grave sin committed out of his own volition, as explained in this dictionary.
5.6 Is the Notion of the Original Sin in Reverend Moon’s Teachings Akin to Protestant Theology?
The Problems with the Salvation Theory, citing Reverend Moon’s teachings on a “disease of love” from God’s Will and the World makes a far-fetched argument: “Reverend Moon’s ideology is more akin to conventional Christianity (especially to Protestant theology) than the current concept of the original sin based on the (ambiguous) description of the DP.” (p. 111).
However, if you pay close attention to Reverend Moon’s teachings on the “disease of love,” he teaches that “selfishness” became the “motivation of the fall” (ibid., p. 110) and not the original sin. People like Mr. Okamoto interpret his teachings in that fashion because they read them from the biased viewpoint that the interpretation of the original sin in Protestant theology is correct. It should rather be considered as close to that of Catholic theology.
5.7 Is the UC Concept of Sin Akin to the Old Testament-Like Legalistic View?
The Okamoto theory, citing passages from the New Testament, criticizes the concept of sin of the UC as similar to the Old Testament-like legalistic view, saying:
“It would result in openly denying words in the New Testament such as: ‘Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’ (Matthew 5:28), showing how much lower its anachronistic Old Testament-like legalistic view is than the Christian concept of sin which appreciates the internal motivation and spirituality.” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory, p. 100).
This is the same criticism directed toward the UC as was directed by the Protestants to Catholic theology action-focused virtue as external legalism.
The Protestant notion of sin focuses more on the inner self, disregarding external behaviors. This may be superior on one side but may lack social implication on the other.
Besides Jesus’ biblical passage (a thought of fornication) was addressed to fallen people, and not the kind of thought that was ever harbored by Adam and Eve, who had been created so pure and chaste as not to be ashamed of their nakedness. But fallen people cannot eliminate such a thought, however desperately they may try, including receiving baptism in Christianity.
As St. Paul lamented about his “conflict between mind and body,” fallen people cannot avoid “carnal desires” (sin) that would spring up ceaselessly. Why is this so? It is because we have inherited Satan’s blood lineage. Unless we change our blood lineage through the Marriage Blessing and practice self-sacrificing love, we can never achieve the revolution of heart (the revolution of mind).