Abstract

Augustine was Calvin’s main source of reference in the “Insti- tutes”. However, his treatment of Augustine’s views was not uncritical. This article discusses the way in which Calvin modi- fied Augustine’s doctrine of original sin. The main differences can be attributed to different theological aims. Augustine deve- loped his doctrine of original sin against the teachings of the Manicheans and Pelagians, whereas Calvin shifted the focus to knowledge of God and the self. Calvin understood original sin noetically as religious and moral blindness – whereas Augus- tine viewed sexual concupiscence as the main principle of original sin. Augustine made a considerable effort to explain that sin does not find its origin in God. God foresaw the fall, but did not compel it. Calvin located sin in God’s eternal decree and permission. Augustine, furthermore, understood the transmis- sion of original sin biologically, whereas Calvin ascribed it to God’s eternal permissive will. These differences culminated in a different understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ virgin birth. The article concludes by discussing the relevance of Calvin’s noetic approach to original sin.

Highlights

  • The term original sin is not found in Scripture, but was developed by Augustine to articulate the biblical doctrine of the total depravity of man

  • He used the Latin term peccatum originale to explain that the whole of humankind partake in the original sin of Adam, and share a common state of guilt before God

  • Augustine’s doctrine was accepted by the Council of Trent and the Reformation, though not in all its dimensions, in order to defend the doctrine of the total depravity of humankind and the undeserved nature of the grace of God against the teachings of the Pelagians

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The term original sin is not found in Scripture, but was developed by Augustine to articulate the biblical doctrine of the total depravity of man. Augustine was able to reconcile his position that man is accountable for his sins with the view that God is not the source of evil, through the concept of the free will of man. It provided him with a mechanism through which something that comes forth good from God could, at the same time, be capable of evil (Babcock, 1988:33). The flaw which darkens and weakens all those natural goods, so that it has need of illumination and healing, it has not contracted from its blameless Creator – but from original sin, which is committed by free will. 1

In the original Latin
Problems emanating from the classical position on original sin
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.