Doctrine Of Original Sin Research Articles

A Postmodern Reading of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and Its Disclosure of a New Image of God and a New Understanding of Salvation

Under a hermeneutics of disclosure that prioritizes a subjective “ready-to-hand” relationship with the biblical text and, concomitantly, the ontological realities of solicitude and the knowing of a priori understanding, this article interprets Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:15–19 utilizing the literary-critical principles of a close reading of the text and consistency building. Paul’s perspective in Rom 1:17 is that the gospel, not the law, discloses God’s justice and its movement, “out of trust into trust,” is interpreted in relation to Gal 3:15–19 and the testament of inheritance that God established with Abraham and his seed, Christ. The law is relegated to a codicil, constituted by angels and added to the testament of inheritance through Moses’ mediation between God and Israel at Sinai. Its function is to raise to consciousness the infection of sin ( hamartia) and to serve as the guide to Christ, the end of the law. Christ, the testamentary heir, fulfilled its conditions by eradicating sin and making the benefits of the testament universally available. Accordingly, the phrase, “out of trust into trust,” implies the movement “from the trust of Abraham into the trust of Christ” and establishes the possibility of actualizing the justice of God and delivering the creation from its corruption. Luther and Calvin’s formulation of a law-oriented gospel, combined with their adoption of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin—that continues to dominate the interpretation of Romans—limited salvation to God’s accreditation of dikaiosynê (usually translated as “righteousness”) to those who receive Christ into their lives. Their theology of atonement, determined by their law-oriented gospel, presupposed a punitive God who was compelled to inflict the punishment of law-transgressing humanity upon God’s Son in order to satisfy God’s law-directed retribution. The result: a gospel of individual salvation without commitment to the actualization of God’s justice.

The History of Philosophy as Perversion: On Karmen MacKendrick

The History of Philosophy as Perversion: On Karmen MacKendrick

Sin and Ecology: A Conversation with Jürgen Moltmann and the School of René Girard

Abstract This essay will compare the approaches of Jürgen Moltmann and René Girard and those who follow his social criticism, in the light of the need for an ecological reinterpretation of the nature of sin. Sin, and the doctrine of original sin in the Western tradition goes to the very basis of the Christian story and the concept gospel. Good news is there to address bad news. In turn, the story of good news in the Christian tradition requires a thorough exploration of bad news. The need for an ecologically sound harmartiology begs the question of ktisiology and the very nature of ‘God the Father Creator of heaven and earth’. It leads us to ask: Why is the Christian faith a salvific faith? Why redemption and what is it?

Stopping at the Stone: Rethinking Belief (and Non-Belief) in Modernism Via A Passage to India

The modern mind takes such small flights. --E. M. Forster in his Commonplace Book The desire to think in binary terms seems to be a part of human nature with respect to belief: we see things--or want to see things--in black and white, yes or no, either/or terms. We want people to believe or not, to be religious or secular, to appeal to revelation or reason. This, in turn, drives us toward monolithic models of subject and linear narratives of conversion or religious loss: we think of conversion, following Augustine, as a turning of whole self to a state of belief. Historically modernity equated with wholesale religious loss, and secularity with unbelief and facile theory of a search for surrogates. As a side-effect, itself becomes defined in terms of pre-modern institutionalized Christianity, and there a great reluctance to approach new modes of potential modern religious engagement. In approaches to literary modernism, symptoms of this problematic approach manifest most clearly in kinds of questions we ask about authors and works with respect to religion religion (if we ask them at all): when did so-and-so lose their faith? does such-and-such work evidence belief? if so, in what? These questions reduce things back into simple binaries, monolithic models, and linear narratives--the very structures that we work so hard to dismiss in our attention to broader issues in modernity in favor of models of fragmentation and higher complexity But new debates about how we conceive of secularization--coming largely out of sociology religious studies, and philosophy--suggest new modes of thinking about religious engagement in modernity that can perhaps lead us in a better direction. These models, in turn, suggest a new sort of question as a starting point for talking about belief not is there belief?, but what does it mean to say 'I believe' (or 'disbelieve') in modernity? By tracking critical reception of belief in a work that debatably modernist and in an author who debatably religious, my hope to show by example how this new thread of questioning might offer a way out of our usual mode of thinking about religion in modernity, and how it can produce fresh readings of an old subject. This thread may seem to lead into, not out of, a maze--away from clarity nicely supplied by usual narrative of religious loss in modernity--but critics will, I hope, agree that this new and more complex model better fit for its subject. E. M. Forster and faith E. M. Forster lost his faith, according to his own belated 1959 account, quickly and quietly over course of his early years at King's College, Cambridge (1897-1900). The process occurred through [his] friendship with Hugh Meredith, who already disbelieved, and partly because of general spirit of questioning that associated with name of G. E. Moore. He abandoned Church dogma--first Trinity, then Incarnation because it hinged on doctrine of Original Sin, which he had never accepted. He also rejected personality of Christ. Although Christ offered that appealed to him--his personal warmth, his suffering in Passion--Forster saw another, uglier side of Christ's message that he couldn't reconcile with his own developing humanist values: away from worldliness and towards preaching and threats, so emphasis on followers, on an elite, so little intellectual power (as opposed to insight), such an absence of humor that my blood's chilled. I would on whole rather not meet speaker, either at an Eliot cocktail party or for a quick Quaker talk, and fact that my rejection not vehement does not save it from being tenacious. And so, as he puts it, the debunking of Christianity was effected with comparatively little fuss. By end of his third year at King's he disbelieved as much as he would at age eighty (Prince's Tale 313-39). …

In Adam's Fall: A Meditation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin – By Ian A. McFarland

In Adam's Fall: A Meditation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin – By Ian A. McFarland

On Original Sin and the Scandalous Nature of Existence

Abstract This article interprets the story of Sarah and Hagar in terms of the relative freedom of humanity in creation and the absolute freedom of God for creation. The interpretation follows the narrative flow of the story, pointing out the free decisions of the actors and God's responses to them. It is argued that the figures of Hagar and Ishmael fully represent the unfulfilled status of the promise that God will bless all nations through Abraham's offspring. Their expulsion demonstrates the scandalous nature of existence, one in which people are cast out through no fault of their own. Nonetheless, God still responds to them graciously. This theological interpretation provides a framework for a discussion concerning Augustine's doctrines of original sin and infant baptism as well as Karl Barth's doctrine of election in Christ. The interpretation of the Sarah-Hagar narrative allows one to take insights from both theologians. The article concludes with a statement regarding infant baptism and the church's current location between promise and fulfillment.

On Original Sin and the Scandalous Nature of Existence

Abstract This article interprets the story of Sarah and Hagar in terms of the relative freedom of humanity in creation and the absolute freedom of God for creation. The interpretation follows the narrative flow of the story, pointing out the free decisions of the actors and God's responses to them. It is argued that the figures of Hagar and Ishmael fully represent the unfulfilled status of the promise that God will bless all nations through Abraham's offspring. Their expulsion demonstrates the scandalous nature of existence, one in which people are cast out through no fault of their own. Nonetheless, God still responds to them graciously. This theological interpretation provides a framework for a discussion concerning Augustine's doctrines of original sin and infant baptism as well as Karl Barth's doctrine of election in Christ. The interpretation of the Sarah-Hagar narrative allows one to take insights from both theologians. The article concludes with a statement regarding infant baptism and the church's current location between promise and fulfillment.

ORIGINAL SIN OR ORIGINAL SINFULNESS? A COMMENT

My purpose is to defend Augustine's doctrine of original sin against Joseph Fitzpatrick in his series of articles in New Blackfriars (July 2009–Jan 2010). I begin by arguing that Fitzpatrick's criticisms of it as psychologically inadequate fail because they do not take seriously enough the metaphysical structure of this doctrine, viz, creation from nothing. The second part begins with a critique of Fitzpatrick's interpretation of Genesis 3 and continues with a critical analysis of his proposed alternative to Augustine on original sin (‘original sinfulness’) with reference to the scriptural passages he cites in its support. The conclusion I reach is that ‘original sinfulness’ is not an acceptable biblical hermeneutic. In the third section, I discuss Fitzpatrick's concept of ‘prototypical action’ and, using recent work of Carol Harrison on Augustine's early theological writings, I argue that, far from being incompatible with Augustine's theology of original sin, as Fitzpatrick maintains, this concept enables us to understand Augustine's position in a way that overcomes Fitzpatrick's objections to it.

Calvin’s modification of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin

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.

Calvin’s modification of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin

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.

Cómo hacerse pelagiano en cuatro pasos. Ensay o de interpretación de Rm 5, 12

This article deals with the importance of the text of Rm 5, 12 for S. Augustine and his initial development of the doctrine of original sin. It examines the way in which this doctrine, based upon Augustines reading of Paul’s verse, became subject to hotheaded debate in the 16th and 17th centuries, especially for the discussion on the relationship between nature and grace, within the baianist controversy. It deals also about the revived discussions on this very subject in the twentieth century.

The doctrines of original sin and the virgin birth: divine revelation or human construct?

Two South African theologians, Ben du Toit and Anton van Niekerk, recently published books in which they argued that postmodern believers can no longer subscribe to the doctrines of original sin and the virgin birth. According to them both these doctrines reflect a pre-modern world-view which should be regarded as outdated. However, they would not like to take leave of the grand narrative of Christianity. There are some fundamental flaws in the reasoning of both scholars. The doctrine of the virgin birth is intertwined with the doctrine of original sin, and both are important to the orthodox doctrine of salvation. As it is not viable or consistent to tamper with some of the orthodox doctrines and try to keep the rest intact, we are left with two options, either to discard the whole system and start afresh, or to try and keep the whole package intact. However, biblical research since the Enlightenment has ruled out the second option. The paper argues in support of this case and attempts to offer a different way forward for Christians living in the twenty-first century than the one offered by Du Toit and Van Niekerk.

Simon Episcopius’ Doctrine of Original Sin ‐ by Mark A. Ellis

<i>Simon Episcopius’ Doctrine of Original Sin</i> ‐ by Mark A. Ellis

Conceiving a Culture of Life in a Century of Bones: G. K. Chesterton and Malcolm Muggeridge as Social Critics

Conceiving a Culture of Life in a Century of Bones:G. K. Chesterton and Malcolm Muggeridge as Social Critics Adam Schwartz (bio) Poet Jill Baumgautner Perez has aptly labeled the twentieth century "a century of bones." But it was also a century of converts. Particularly in Britain, prominent intellectuals defied prevalent post-Christian cultural trends to profess orthodox Christianity, and especially Roman Catholicism, persistently. Among the first to swim the Tiber was journalist G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), who ended a lengthy spiritual sojourn by becoming a Roman Catholic in 1922. In the century's twilight, another "vendor of words," Malcolm Muggeridge (1903–90), similarly brought a protracted pilgrim's progress to its end by entering the Catholic Church in 1982. Besides their chosen occupations and prolonged conversions, these two authors' lives and work had other crucial affinities. In particular, both men were acute social critics, an aspect of their thought that has received little comparative attention.1 Yet this scholarly deficiency should be rectified, for there are striking resemblances in Chesterton's and Muggeridge's critiques of what they saw as their day's dominant mores. Specifically, each thinker combated what he considered the materialistic ethic he associated with modern capitalism, one both of them deemed at odds with traditional Christianity [End Page 50] and corrosive of the core social institution, the family, especially as manifested in the eugenic impulse. Both men, in turn, regarded orthodox Christianity (particularly Roman Catholicism) as a convincing counterstatement to such apparently regnant, if destructive, civilizational currents. Elucidating these likenesses in Chesterton's and Muggeridge's outlooks will thus not only deepen understanding of each writer's thought, but will also suggest that disquiet with the acquisitive society and its cultural repercussions was a consistent concern of British Christian converts across the twentieth century's span. Chesterton: Early and Consistent Critic Chesterton's criticism of capitalism began in boyhood. As early as age twelve, he condemned capitalist industry's purported exploitation of the poor.2 This sympathy led him to favor socialism as an alternative to capitalism by the mid-1890s, as he then regarded socialism as a "passionate protest and aspiration: it arises as a secret of the heart, a dream of the injured feeling. . . . The intellectual philosophies ally themselves with success and preach competition, but the human heart allies itself with misfortune and suggests communism."3 He asserted contemporaneously that this sense of solidarity is at the root of Christianity as well, claiming that both Christianity and socialism are grounded in "a feeling of sympathy with the disregarded: of defiant protection of the simple, the aggregate, the anonymous."4 As Chesterton moved closer to orthodox Christianity in the first decade of the 1900s, he became somewhat more critical of socialism, but he continued to censure capitalism and to place compassion for the common man at the core of his faith, as he would for the remainder of his career. Once Chesterton began integrating some central traditional Christian teachings, particularly the doctrine of original sin, into his political outlook, he gained a new basis for his distrust of capitalism. Orthodox Christianity confirmed his dissent from what seemed the [End Page 51] modern veneration of wealth and the wealthy. As he explained in 1908, "the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy which (for a Christian) is not tenable." The reason it was untenable for this Christian was the doctrine of the Fall. To Chesterton, all people are inclined to be self-seeking, but those with more earthly goods and power are especially tempted to worship those gifts rather than their Giver: "the whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt . . . to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck."5 This general indictment of the evils of riches eventually led Chesterton to reprove the specific philosophy behind capitalism on similar grounds. He held that thinkers like Adam Smith presupposed people to be naturally sympathetic and hence inclined to use their talents for the common...

The Rediscovery of the Meaning of Baptism—Its Contribution to a Public Theology

AbstractIn this contribution, I emphasize the potential public—and here that means 'societal'—impact of one of the main sacraments of the church; namely, the sacrament of baptism. I shall focus especially on the ethical implications of the sacrament of baptism as a sacrament that marks the transition to a new way of life. The thesis to be elaborated is that the sacrament of baptism, including its doctrine of original sin and its expectation of the kingdom of God, comprises the indispensable framework of a sound public theology understood as a theology of societal renewal.

Disentangling Ambrogio Catarino's Doctrine of Original Sin from that of Albert Pigge

Due largely to the influence of Robert Bellarmine's description of Catarino's and Pigge's doctrines of original sin, theologians and historians from the seventeenth century onwards have generally assumed that Catarino and Pigge advanced similar, if not identical, doctrines. This assumption is challenged here by careful attention to the reception each theologian's doctrine received in its own day. Pigge's doctrine was unanimously condemned by his contemporaries; Catarino's doctrine was embraced by some and rejected by others, but condemned by almost no one. Careful examination of the substance of each theologian's doctrine confirms their teachings to be essentially different. Pigge's doctrine lacked any notion of human solidarity with Adam; thus Pigge denied that Adam's descendants shared in the culpability for Adam's transgression. Catarino affirmed human solidarity with Adam, rooting the same in a historical covenant between God and Adam in the Garden. On the basis of that covenantal solidarity and the representative role performed by Adam in relation to his posterity, Catarino recognized every descendant of Adam to be culpable of Adam's sin. Superficial similarities between Catarino's and Pigge's doctrines should not be allowed to obscure the fundamental difference between their teachings, a difference demonstrably recognized by their own contemporaries.

Calvin's Christ: A Dogmatic Matrix for Discussion of Christ's Human Nature

Abstract: Discussion regarding the type of human nature assumed by the second person of the Trinity has intensified recently. Judgements regarding dogmatic coherence have not been as forthcoming. John Calvin's Christology is presented here as a helpful context within which the fallenness position may be advanced. Calvin's doctrine of original sin allows for fallen nature to be considered distinct from guilt. Calvin's doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum also allows for the predication of fallenness to Christ's human nature without necessitating the contamination of the divine nature.

‘Willing Is Not Choosing’: Some Anthropological Implications of Dyothelite Christology

Abstract: The dyothelite Christology of Maximus the Confessor provides a basis for countering modern worry that an Augustinian doctrine of the bondage of the will undermines human integrity. Modern discomfort with Augustine presupposes an anthropology that equates genuine agency with freedom of choice. In defending the principle that Christ has a fully human will, Maximus challenges this presupposition by denying that a human agent's willing is to be identified with choosing. Thus, while Maximus does not share Augustine's doctrine of original sin, he offers a framework within which to explore possible convergence between Eastern and Western understandings of the will.

Newman and Teilhard

Teilhard greatly admired Newman for whom the Eastern Fathers had been his first masters. Teilhard himself was nourished on the ideas of the Fathers, especially the Greek-speaking Fathers, many of whom are present throughout his writings like Irenæus of Lyon, Origen of Alexandria, this man with an ‘extraordinary cosmic consciousness,’ or the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus. Faithful to the vision of the Cosmic Christ in St Paul and St John, Teilhard was inspired by the evolutionary perspective of the Eastern Fathers. He was always aware of continuing their ideas within the framework of a universe in movement towards its final consummation in the Universal Christ. In this respect we think it important to stress that Teilhard’s reflection on the divinisation of the cosmos, the doctrine of original sin or apophatic theology, a theology that is practically unknown to the majority of western Christians today, comes very close in its broad approach to that of many contemporary Orthodox theologians. Teilhard was equally aware of the need to summon a ‘New Nicæa,’ a new ecumenical council to define ‘the cosmic face of the Incarnation.’ He feared that we were about to see a renewal of ‘the great conflicts of arianism’ in an evolutionary cosmos. Finally, Teilhard invites us to return to the roots of our faith—going through Newman and the Eastern Fathers—to allow us to advance together towards the reconciliation of the eastern and western churches so that the ‘one holy catholic and apostolic Church’ might ‘breathe again with its two lungs,’ according to Pope John Paul II’s much-loved metaphor. We have much to do…

Genes, Original Sin and the Human Proclivity to Evil

ABSTRACTTheologians have long recognized that the Augustinian formulation of the doctrine of original sin, based on a historicized reading of Genesis 3, is at odds with biblical scholarship and with what science has established concerning our evolutionary origins. Setting aside Augustine's anti-Gnostic Adamic myth, some attempt to recast the doctrine within an evolutionary worldview by developing an anthropology within the framework of genetics and sociobiology, now evolutionary psychology. This essay argues that a wholly biological explanation of the human tendency to evil is inadequate, even reductionist, and it attempts a constructive reformulation of the doctrine that, while incorporating insights of evolutionary psychology, appeals also to ontological, psychological, and social dimensions of humanity that must also be considered if we are to retrieve the central, still valid point of the doctrine, that deep within human being there inheres a proclivity to evil.