Part II: Systematic Theology

Prolegomena
Chapter 1: Theology Proper
Chapter 2: Hierology
Chapter 3: Cosmology
Chapter 4: Anthropology
Chapter 5: Soteriology
Chapter 6: Ecclesiology
Chapter 7: Teleology
Chapter 8: Eschatology

Soteriology

[introduction needed]

A Particular Theology of Sin: Defining Sin

Sin (restriction) is the existential condition of a Star (estrangement) that arises from the ignorance of/opposition to its True Will (or essential purpose/directional motion) as a result of the illusion of separation (or duality) from its ground of being (Nuit).

Soteriological Alignment

The question first has to be asked, what exactly is salvation? I don't mean the colloquial superficiality that occurs because of bad American theology for the past hundred years. One can talk about being "saved from sin" but what does that actually mean? What is the condition of 'sin' from which one is being 'saved'? Why do we need 'saving' in the first place? The church in which I grew up didn't have this particular line of abysmal thinking—it was quite theologically oriented, deeply so, rather than creedal in nature—but I knew a lot of people from other churches that were terrified of "doing something wrong."

More importantly, has that condition changed at all with the advent of the revelation of the Book of the Law? Or has it merely been reframed in light of that same revelation?

In modern Thelema, many are either fixated on outmoded 17th century models or, conversely, attempting ideological genocide on any religious concept that is deemed "old aeon" without consideration for continuity. For most concepts, however, the Law of Thelema provides a new level of maturity, a "step-up," if you will, from the previous aeon. It is not so much that any particular idea is new, but comes from a new perspective and, sometimes, provides new or additional terminology to go with it (ex., Khabs, Khu, etc)

The concept of 'salvation' is no different in this regard. In order to examine this from a Thelemic perspective, though, we need two specific definitions: salvation and sin. In this case, I have utilized one of the most conservative—theologically speaking—sources possible to provide these concepts. While Christianity, not to mention Judaism, has widely varying definitions of salvation and sin, I think it's best to work from a narrow perspective first, and from the closest genetic link, in order to define these ideas.

Salvation is defined as "God's activities in bringing humans into a right relationship with God and with one another …"^[1] In that same text, sin is defined as "the human condition of separation from God that arises from opposition to God's purposes."^[2] (We won't deep dive here into the two differentiations of sin: the 'act' and the 'result of the act.')

There are two concepts here, which ultimately can be reduced to a single concept, that jump out here as the basis of all sin and salvation: that is, separation and un-separation ("bringing .. into a right relationship"; i.e., reconciliation).

What does this mean for us as Thelemites? How many times have you heard Thelemites proclaim there is no salvation in Thelema? Where there is sin, there is salvation. And does not the Book of the Law very clearly define sin? Yes. It does.

And what is sin according to the Book of the Law? It is restriction. What is restriction?

Is discipline sin? We read regularly in Crowley's work that a large portion of Thelema is all about self-discipline. Isn't that restriction? In a manner of speaking, sure, if you want to be overly broad about it. If I discipline myself from eating too much, it's still restriction after a manner.

But is that the kind of restriction to which the Book of the Law refers? No. Even Crowley ridiculed the idea that self-discipline was restriction. He says in Magick Without Tears, "About 90% of Thelema, at a guess, is nothing but self-discipline."^[3] So, obviously we have to examine restriction from a particular perspective or it's out of line with the intended meaning within the Book of the Law.

There is certainly some moral value to the term restriction—"O man! refuse not thy wife, if she will! O lover, if thou wilt, depart!" [AL 1.41]—but we also find there is a common theme that runs through the first chapter of the Book of the Law that is repeated again immediately thereafter, "There is no bond that can unite the divided but love …"

What exactly is divided that is longing for union through love?

"For I [Nuit] am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union." [AL 1.29]

Sin [restriction] is the existential state of being estranged; or, the separation [ontological resistance] of any one thing from any other thing. It is being opposed to nonbeing, if you want to be ontologically precise about it. We'll see layers of this in a moment.

But, keep in mind that the definitions we've used, the most conservative that can be found (and still doctrinally accurate for Christians), are very precise in nature.

Sin is "the human condition of separation from God that arises from opposition to God's purposes." Breaking this down, we find: (A) It is a human condition. (B) It involves a separation between the human and the divine. (C) It is specific to an opposition to divine purpose.

How do we translate this into "New Aeon" terminology?

Sin (restriction) is the existential condition of a Star arising from the ignorance of/opposition to its "true will" (or essential purpose/directional motion of Hadit) as a result of the illusion of separation (or duality) from its ground of being (Nuit).

That's pretty simple, right?

Sin is a state of existential anxiety toward the ultimate concern [ground of being/Nuit]—not to be confused with clinical anxiety which is more a form of fear. It is a recognition of finitude in which we exist daily.

But here is where salvation gets tricky. Salvation [as we determined from our theologically conservative source for definitions] is "God's activities in bringing humans into a right relationship with God and with one another …"

For us, this could be taken on several different levels. But, first, as we noted that sin was about separation, being out of alignment, we equally have to note that salvation is specific to a particular mode of existence: right relationship. Seeing this, salvation then becomes understood as an actionable event, something in which an action occurs or must be taken in order to be recognized. It is not passive.

When we think of right relationship there are many different illustrations that can arise. However, I'd like for you to think on this in the manner of two pieces of metal with a hole in each. In order to place a bolt through both holes, the holes in the pieces of metal must be properly aligned, or in right relationship with each other so that the holes overlap perfectly for that bolt to be placed through them. This is the meaning of salvation, of right relationship, of the proper alignment between Man and God.

For Thelemites, the activity of salvation is bringing us, as humans, as Stars, into right relationship with what? I think this concept of right relationship exists, for us, on three levels:

• first, right relationship with each other (refraining from the restriction of others in the pursuit of their true will);
• second, the right relationship with our true will (HGA); and,
• finally, right relationship with the ground of being (dissolution back into Nuit).

I'm going to skip and come back to the concept of atonement which makes all this far more accessible, but for now I want to just follow through with the basics. When we understand the concept and principles of atonement, that is where it all begins to fall into place far more naturally from a perspective of language.

The concept of salvation in the first sense, the right relation with others, follows the idea of "die daily" that is, each moment is a new point-event (this includes other Stars) in which we joyfully unite. We are constantly in a state of "saving" ourselves from the restriction of ourselves and others.

But this seems stretching when it comes to the idea of salvation, doesn't it? Or does it? If we take each individual as part and parcel of Nuit, partakers not in a spark of Godhead but as absolutely and utterly the fullness of the ground of being itself, then we are working on a right relationship with each individual with whom we come into contact and with each experience with which we unite. In this, yes, we are working through the process of salvation—that right relationship—with God of Very God, as Crowley would put it, in the form of each other. As an actionable concept of salvation, it works; but it's not really sufficient. This is a passive event, just another part of an axiomatic ontological taxonomy in the first place.

The idea of salvation is also about a right relationship between human and divine. For Thelemites we have two aspects of that "divine" that come out to play outside of the notion of each individual as commented above: first, the divine as ground of being, our ultimate source of existence; second, the divine as that essential direction of our individual nature (pure will) that is exemplified in the metaphor of the Holy Guardian Angel.

Given that a right relationship with our ground of being would be to cease all motion (i.e., death, dissolution of a king, etc), while it would suffice as a definition of salvation, this is a bit extreme as an actionable definition. It's not something we can truly use even if it strictly true. The far majority of people, including Thelemites, will never get to the point of experiencing even a state of consciousness that includes this level of experience. In this, the idea of salvation, as an action, really falls flat.

This leaves us with a working definition of salvation as the right relationship between human and divine as exemplified by the pursuit of that experience within Thelema labelled through the metaphor of "the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel"; that is, the discovery of the true will and modification (right relationship) of behaviour in accordance with that relationship. Until we have that experience, we are in opposition to that purpose for the simple reason of ignorance of that purpose. Accidental connections to one's purpose is not the same as being reconciled to that purpose. It is, after all, called 'true will' not 'maybe will.' At the very least, we are "saved" from the ignorance of our true will.

Attribution

No part of this publication may be used or redistributed for any purpose without the express prior written consent of the author.

Canons of Thelemic Philosophy & Religion © 1996-2024 by Qui Vident.

Comments

If you wish to comment about the materials here, feedback is welcome. Feel free to email questions, comments, and concerns regarding the Canons to curate@quivident.co.