Shaped in Iniquity or Knit Together by God? An Inquiry into the Psalmist's Understanding of Humanity's Sinful Nature

Evolution, the Origin of Human Persons, and Original Sin: Physical Continuity with an Ontological Leap

This chapter takes a close look at Martin Luther’s teachings in order to examine its relationship to psychology. Martin Luther was not the only one rebelling against the papacy and Catholic theology, but he conceivably had the greatest impact with his theological arguments. He brings about the theological turning point. In Catholic theology, faith and salvation were seen as objective dimensions, not controlled by the individual but by the Church. Luther fundamentally changed this by linking faith primarily to the individual’s subjective confession, admitting to having a sinful nature. This change is presented as a central argument for legitimizing subjectivity. According to this theology, although sinful nature is an objective reality, it is only when this sinful nature results in a subjective acknowledgment, that one can obtain salvation. Thus, this chapter argues that Protestantism reinforces the justification of subjectivity and also expresses a particular need to gain a deeper insight into human nature. This is how Melanchthon gains acceptance for his new and expanded understanding of Aristotle’s De Anima. This chapter also presents another crucial argument. When Luther claims that theology should relate only to the Bible and not to philosophy, emphasized by the slogan sola scriptura; this also has major implications for philosophy. Philosophy can no longer be based on theology. It must find a new foundation. The claim here is that the Reformation prevents philosophy from relying on theological teachings. This creates a vacuum in the foundation of philosophy, and this foundation must therefore be replaced.

Controversies Around Restorative Justice

The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible

A Gnostic Understanding of Coping for the Cardiothoracic Surgeon.

Everyman—an unusual drama in that it presents a protagonist dying throughout the course of the play—departs from its analogues and from much medieval death literature both in tone and purpose. Whereas the ars moriendi material tends to be strident in tone, Everyman is serious; whereas medieval death literature saw man's sinful nature as a grave impediment to dignified death, Everyman presents such a death as a reality. Informing the presentation of death in Everyman is the author's penetrating psychological insight which views dying as a process and death as a learning experience.

Most Pentecostals, at least in the global South, believe that Satan and his demonic forces are responsible for much of the carnage and suffering that characterise life on earth. The broader context of the discourse is the challenge theodicy poses to Christian believers: if God is almighty and good, why do believers, just like unbelievers, suffer while living on earth? This paper aims to discuss Pentecostals’ response: they blame evil as Satan’s strategy to oppose God. They reason that his main goal is to handicap and double-cross creation because God threw him and his followers from heaven following his rebellion against the divine order. Thus, Satan is portrayed as the instigator of the first human couple, tempting them to sin, with all future generations implied by their choice and cursing human beings with a sinful nature at birth. Demonic forces employ human sinful nature to realise their ultimate goal, to separate humankind from the Creator by tempting them to sin while also threatening the rest of creation. This article investigates the Pentecostal theology of demonic forces in explaining the challenges posed by theodicy by comparing it to biblical data, using grammatical-historical exegesis and a comparative literature survey to evaluate their biblical grounding. It concludes that Pentecostals’ belief in such forces are justified if the the New Testament narratives are accepted as divine revelation. However, some Pentecostal speculations about demons’ origins, scope and reach are not biblically justified and complicates the response to theodicy, such as the origin of evil and its relation to human beings.

Man is God's noblest creation with specific graces, namely free will and reason. However, this free will has led man to sin, believing that all of man has fallen into sin. Originally, man was created in the image of God with a consciousness of transcendence. In Christianity, sin has a contagious force that is difficult to contain. This research uses qualitative methods with a descriptive approach to answer research problems with literature sources such as books, journals, and articles. The aim is to provide an overview of how digitization affects the beliefs and practices of Christianity. The transformation of hamartology in early Christianity shows a change in views about sin during the development of Christianity. Early understanding was influenced by Jewish tradition with the Torah as a way of obtaining forgiveness of sins. Augustine saw original sin as coming from Adam and Eve, inherited by every human being. The nature of sin is thought to be rooted in man's free will conditioned to sin. Augustine recognized the importance of free will but stated that human will is conditioned by original sin. Redemption is possible only through God's grace and faith in Christ.

In Ch. 6, I presented a model (the Aquinas/Calvin model, or A/C model), which illustrates how belief in God could have warrant; my aim in the next four chapters (7–10) is to extend the model of Ch. 6 to specifically include Christian belief, and to show how it can be that Christians can be justified, rational, and warranted in holding full‐blooded Christian belief. Now, one important difference between bare theism and Christianity has to do with sin and the divine remedy proposed for it; in the present chapter, therefore, I explore the nature of sin and its noetic effects. After providing an initial statement of the extended A/C model, I turn to an examination of the nature of sin, focusing especially on original sin, a condition affecting both will and intellect. According to the extended A/C model, the noetic effects of sin are concentrated with respect to our knowledge of others, ourselves, and God; most importantly, the sensus divinitatis has been damaged by sin. After exploring this basic noetic consequence of sin, I return to an issue from Ch. 12 of Warrant and Proper Function, and take the opportunity to make some corrections, simplifications, and additions to the arguments I offered there (especially to the argument I offered for the conclusion that an ordinary naturalist has a defeater for any belief she holds, including ordinary naturalism itself).

Biblical worship is the response of created beings to the self-revelation of the Creator, and a proper response in worship engages both mind and body—the whole person. A closer study of the worship theme in the Psalter elucidates its physical dimension and the relevance of engaging the body in worshiping the Lord. This paper explores the importance of embodied worship as it is purported in the Psalter. First, the connection between biblical anthropology and worship is established. Arguments are presented from the book of Psalms to show how and why the physical aspect of human nature receives attention. Second, the study elucidates practical implications that can foster a deeper biblical worship experience. In particular, the processional movements studied in the book of Psalms teach us the proper attitude worshipers should nurture when they approach God in worship. The act of prostration expresses gratitude and ascribes honor to the Lord. Also, standing posture can instill a sense of commitment to consecrate ourselves to God.

The doctrine of the incarnation suggests that Christ is necessarily like us in some respects, and also unlike us in others. One long-standing debate in modern christology concerns whether Jesus’ human nature ought to be regarded as ‘fallen’ – as conditioned by the effects of the Fall – despite the fact that he himself remained without sin (Heb 4:15). Is fallenness a condition which is necessary in order for Christ to sympathise with human beings, to represent them, and so to reconcile them to God? Is fallenness logically separable from sinfulness? Recent literature has suggested an increasing intractability on both sides of this debate. This article seeks to bring clarity to the question of the fallenness of Christ's human nature by identifying areas of common ground between advocates and opponents of this position. It engages the work of representatives from both sides – Oliver Crisp in opposition and Karl Barth in support – in order to determine the different ways in which they approach the matter of Jesus’ fallenness and impeccability, and to locate points of potential consensus. Crisp argues that fallenness cannot be detached from sin and guilt – i.e. Augustine's notion of both original sin and original corruption, in which sin is an inevitability. Barth, on the other hand, is critical of the Augustinian view and takes as his point of departure Jesus’ unity and sympathy with fallen creatures. Yet the fallenness of Jesus’ humanity does not mean that sin was a real possibility for him.In this article the christological doctrine of anhypostasis – a way of speaking exclusively of human nature apart from its hypostatic union with God the Son – is suggested as the primary way forward. Advocates of the fallenness position seem to have this qualifier in mind when describing Jesus’ human nature as ‘fallen’: it is true of the assumed nature only when considered in itself, apart from the hypostatic union. There are logical and historical grounds for opponents to accept fallenness strictly on these terms, as well. Beyond this, I argue that anhypostatic fallenness should be acceptable to both sides because it is never without a corresponding sanctification of Jesus’ human nature by its encounter with God. Though Jesus’ humanity was conditioned by the fall, by virtue of the communicatio gratiarum it was not left in a state of peccability.

Reviewed by: The Roles of Christ's Humanity in Salvation:Insights from Theodore of Mopsuestia Charles Kannengiesser Frederick G. Mc Leod, S.J. The Roles of Christ's Humanity in Salvation: Insights from Theodore of Mopsuestia Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005 Pp. xvi + 278. $69.95. Anticipated by two well-received monographs, The Soteriology of Narsai (Rome, 1973) and The Image of God in the Antiochene Tradition (Washington, 1999), both of which were completed by a substantial article in this journal (10 [2002]: 37–75) on "The Theological Ramifications of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Understanding of Baptism and the Eucharist," the present work announces the originality [End Page 240] of the author's purpose by its very title. By claiming that the "insights of Theodore of Mopsuestia" in which Mc Leod is specially interested concentrate on "the roles (my emphasis) of Christ's humanity in salvation," the author frees his research from the metaphysical abstraction of conventional school christologies when discussing the classical debates of the fourth and fifth centuries. Instead of analyzing Theodore's theory of the unity of Christ's two natures only though a modernizing paraphrase of what Theodore himself or his adversaries said on that issue, as has been the custom among a few recent generations of historians of dogma, the author starts by a penetrating study of "Theodore's method of interpreting scripture" (20–57). McLeod argues that Theodore "differed notably from Diodore, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret . . . in his unique interpretation of the image of God and the divine plerōma," and that "he did not consider the Christological question about the unity of Christ's human and divine natures from a philosophical perspective" (57). In particular, in Theodore's typology of Adam and Christ, his scriptural exegesis reveals the originality of his insight. The Pauline metaphor of Christ's body as church in stark contrast with Adam's body, meaning sinful humanity, prompted in Theodore a theory of salvation in which the principle of human freedom prevails over any idea of an original sin that vitiates nature itself. His notion of a salvific incorporation in Christ was essentially sacramental, based on his doctrine of baptism and the Eucharist, both being explained by him through a sound and a realistic interpretation of Pauline statements. The role of the Spirit in the existential experience of the salvation process is very well highlighted. Christ's human nature becomes a bond uniting the whole cosmic reality in a saved "body," namely Christ himself according to Colossians 15.20. Christ represents the plerōma of the saved members of the church and the cosmos as a whole. The author offers a nuanced analysis of that cosmic Christology in discussion with U. Wickert and others (110–23). Through his humanity Christ renders visible the mystery of divine Trinity. Precisely in his incarnate status he is "the visible image of the invisible God" (Col 1.13–20). Here I may note that in this regard Theodore's thought comes close to the teaching of Athanasius of Alexandria, his older contemporary. Contrary to Diodore, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret, Theodore also stresses that Christ, as the Image of God, incorporates believers of both sexes in his iconic supremacy. He affirms the equality of men and women as saved by their participation in Christ the Image of God (138–43). Theodore's proper understanding of the christological mystery is set forth in chapters 6 and 7, the most significant section of the present study. The author insists on his singular purpose: "my approach is a functional, existential one" (145). Indeed, McLeod reformulates all the usual christological terms as Theodore himself defined them: the prosōpon of Christ is the joined manifestation of his divine and his human natures; "every perfect nature, if it is a truly existing being, has its own hypostasis, which in [my correction] turn has its own prosōpon"(150). But in Christ the "exact" union between the two natures results in a common prosōpon of both: "the Word has chosen to reveal himself together with Christ's human prosōpon in such a way that both inner natures can be recognized as present and...

What Is Wrong with Us? Roger Haight SJ Christianity and Buddhism, in diverse ways, assert a fundamental flaw in the human condition expressed by terms like "sin" or "delusion"—a flaw that we are largely unconscious of, which prevents us from noticing the extent to which we ourselves as individuals and societies contribute to the harms we see around us. In what ways are Christian or Buddhist diagnoses of a basic human flaw critical for understanding the causality of current world problems, such as growing social and economic inequalities, religious animosities, racism, environmental degradation, and violence? Can any of these problems be addressed without adequate consideration of such traditional diagnoses? If not, what specific Christian or Buddhist understandings of the human condition need to be raised up today to shed light on such problems? How might Buddhist and Christian perspectives challenge or complement each other? And how might these traditional perspectives on the human condition undergo reinterpretation when relating them to current problems? [End Page 2] The Christian tradition contains several ways of thinking about an answer to this question. They have different contexts and perform different functions. I will point to five Christian approaches and indicate why one of them might be the most adequate and comprehensive response to the question as it is posed. The five are (1) dogmatic conceptions of an original sin, (2) descriptions of an existential sinful condition, (3) the social character of our sinful condition, (4) counsel from an ascetic tradition, and (5) a position generated by what might be called a Christian naturalism. original sin: an objective sin and its consequences The doctrine of original sin corresponds with an experience of a tendency to sin that appears in various ways as a condition prior to the exercise of freedom, inclining us toward action that is harmful to others or to ourselves. The concept of an original sin of the human species goes back to Scripture and the sin of Adam and Eve. It refers both to the first and originating sin of the first couple and the state or condition in which it left their progeny, that is, humanity. This sin stands (a) at the beginning of human history. Narrated in a myth about human beginnings, the symbol (b) represents appropriate feelings of guilt for the human condition: we are immersed in an evil that overwhelms us. But it is our fault for God did not create us this way.1 For centuries the story was taken literally and (c) human nature was considered "fallen:" all human beings begin life with a darkened intelligence and a weakened or impotent will relative to virtue and good actions. "Original sin," therefore, also refers to a condition of actual human nature. This became (d) an important part of a pervasive Christian metanarrative that affects Christian understanding of humanity, Jesus Christ, salvation, the church, and the sacraments. This understanding of an objective originating sin effecting a fallen human condition still informs the language of prayer and worship. It is a deeply engrained element of Christian self-understanding that resides in the Christian psyche and continues to be promoted in liturgy and spirituality. I consider it one of the tragic vestiges of premodern Christian self-understanding. The doctrine of original sin contains aspects that are both positive and negative. It will be good to call attention to some of these features in order to open up reflection on how the doctrine functions within the Christian community and what it represents to outsiders. [End Page 3] The genre of a mythical story of the first sin of the original human beings, Adam and Eve, in itself offers a sound approach to the mystery of human existence. We need symbols to open up the imagination to aspects that are not fully available to clear conceptual analysis. The narrative of their typical actions opens up a venue for a far-ranging analysis of what goes on in the drama of sinful behavior. The story has been an object of reflection over millennia, yielding new psychological, social, and cultural insight in different historical contexts and in response to always new examples of finite human existence. The theology of sin is not static...

Robert Barry argues that man's condition in a state of pure nature and man's condition in the state of original sin are one and the same. This article aims to show that this thesis is false and is not the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Angelic Doctor teaches that man in pure nature would be more capable of doing the good proportionate to his nature and would be able to love God above all things with a natural love. Important here is the truth posited by many in the Thomist commentatorial tradition, namely, that on account of sin man is directly averted from his supernatural end and at least indirectly averted from his natural end. Furthermore, this thesis has undesirable consequences, albeit consequences unintended by Barry, for Christology and soteriology. We must understand what pertains to human nature as such if we are to understand the various states in which we find human nature, including in Christ. If a natural analogue to supernatural charity cannot even in principle obtain, charity will be something alien to human nature. Christ came not only to elevate us to supernatural life and divine friendship, but to heal human nature.

Finding Ourselves after Darwin: Conversations on the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Problem of Evil