Doctrine Of Original Sin Research Articles

"Homo Imago Dei" in Jewish and Christian Theology

Previous articleNext article No Access"Homo Imago Dei" in Jewish and Christian TheologyAlexander AltmannAlexander Altmann Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 48, Number 3Jul., 1968 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/486127 Views: 300Total views on this site Citations: 10Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1968 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:, , Viktor Kókai-Nagy Εἰκών bei Paulus, Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Reformata Transylvanica 67, no.22 (Dec 2022): 7–28.https://doi.org/10.24193/subbtref.67.2.01Giancarlo Lacerenza Neighbors, (Dec 2017): 229–245.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315585871-10Robin M. Jensen Aniconism in the first centuries of Christianity, Religion 47, no.33 (Apr 2017): 408–424.https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2017.1316357Wessel Bentley Are we special? A critique of imago Dei, HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 73, no.33 (Jun 2017).https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i3.4524Dov Weiss The Rabbinic God and Mediaeval Judaism, Currents in Biblical Research 15, no.33 (Jun 2017): 369–390.https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X17698060David Fergusson HUMANS CREATED ACCORDING TO THE IMAGO DEI : AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL, Zygon® 48, no.22 (May 2013): 439–453.https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12014Noreen Herzfeld In Whose Image?, (Mar 2012): 500–509.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118241455.ch43Jean Baumgarten BETWEEN TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY, Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 3, no.33 (Nov 2010): 269–287.https://doi.org/10.1080/1472588042000292358Lionel Kochan Man in His Image, (Jan 1997): 112–135.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25545-0_7Aharon Barak, Daniel Kayros The intellectual history of the social value of human dignity, (): 15–33.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316106327.004

The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin

The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin

Review of Book: The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin

Review of Book: The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin

The Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin

The Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin

Doctrine of Original Sin in Scripture

Doctrine of Original Sin in Scripture

The Meaning and Matter of History—A Christian View by Martin Cyril D’Arcy, S. J.

BOOK REVIEWS The Meaning and Matter of History-A Christian View. By MARTIN CYRIL D'ARcY, S. J. New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959. Pp. 309, with appendix and index. $5.50. " History started off under the protection of Clio, one of the Muses; it was under the inspiration of one who would give mortals insights into the meaning of man's drama.... "Today, books on the philosophy of history are constantly appearing, but they are all open to the criticism of trying to generalize and find laws of behaviour on insufficient data. Either they have to fall back on the broadest generalizations or they omit facts or force facts in applying their laws. It may be, therefore, that a philosopher should be more modest in his claims, that he should confess to the historian that he cannot compett> with him and has no intention of competing with him. He is an artist as well as a scientist, relying, if need be, on poetic truth to make an intelligible theme out of his vast material." The above quotations from the present work might well serve as a thumbnail review for they sum up what the author has been trying to do in this book. Fr. D'Arcy does not attempt to formulate a philosophy of history although he does suggest the lines that should be followed if a sane and solid " philosophy " of history is to be arrived at. The author himself does not like the term "philosophy " of history. He is more than doubtful that systems based upon reason alone, systems such as those contrived by Hegel and Toynbee, can provide a solution to the multifarious riddles of history and really bring order into the seemingly chaotic movements of man upon the earth. And he is certain that for the Christian no such philosophy can exist. Without certain concepts for the knowledge of which man must depend upon Divine Revelation, and therefore, Faith (e. g. the doctrine of original sin), any interpretation of the past or attempt to provide a possible pattern for the future, must be in vain. Therefore, in common with C. S. Lewis (The Screwtape Letters) he prefers the term "historicism." But he does not use the word (as Lewis uses it) with overtones of contempt. In an introductory chapter to this study of the different systems which historicists have invented ranging from Thucydides to Toynbee, Fr. D'Arcy examines the nature of historical knowledge to determine what right history has to claim any truth at all. He refutes the arguments advanced by certain scientists that history can never arrive at truth but only an approximation to truth, since it is impossible for it to proceed by the methods used by the U5 126 BOOK REVIEWS physical sciences to discover truth. Fr. D'Arcy admits the obvious (although many historians do not) and concedes that while history can and does use the physical sciences as auxiliaries, it cannot itself make use of the methods of the laboratory in arriving at its own peculiar certainty which differs from the certainty of the theologian, the metaphysician and the physical scientist-but it is none the less certain for all that. It is, if you will, a moral certainty, but moral certainty as used in the philosophic sense. For the certainty of history is surely as valid as the certainty of the law courts, and the evidence of history is no less convincing than much of the evidence upon which cases are decided at law. Fr. D'Arcy thinks that we can know more about the characters of history than we can know about the people who live next door and we can judge the times in which they lived better than we can judge our own because our judgment is not fogged by passion. If you would call this " only moral certainty " Fr. D'Arcy has no quarrel with you as long as you realize that it is as good and as great as any man has in conducting his social life in the present. To the objection that the conclusions of history rest ultimately to a great measure upon human faith, Fr. D'Arcy would reply...

Thomas Traherne and the Doctrine of Original Sin

Thomas Traherne and the Doctrine of Original Sin

Teaching Literature for General Education

There are, I suppose, few of us now engaged in t aching who do not recall the dismay we felt when, young and eager for knowledge, we examined the course offerings of alma mater and found presented in her name not a straight way to learning but a labyrinth called distribu tion. We were solemnly advised that, if we were to become learned, we had to choose one course each from several areas or groups. Beneath the verbiage lay the simple injunction : take one course in English, one in science, one in a foreign language, one in history, and if you haven't had enough math, take College Algebra now. Al though the builders of these educational laby rinths were inspired by the worthy motive of providing the student with an acquaintance with several and, at the same time, per mitting him a free choice (thus countering the unpleasant connotation of disciplines), the re sult was generally to deny the student access to many fields of knowledge. If the student, for in stance, wanted to take philosophy and literature and history, he was barred from one of these because he could take only two courses in any one area, and so on. Or if he wanted to know something about physics and chemistry and bio logy, he could again take only one?or wait until he had a chance in Junior year to grasp an elective. The distribution actually forbade his imbibing more than teaspoon fuis from the springs of knowledge. The basic fault of the area requirement scheme for the first two years of college was its artifi cial compartmentalization of knowledge. In this it unwittingly adopted the same fallacy that has beset education since the time of the trivium and quadrivium, the ancient incubus of a divisive theory of education. From medieval times on education has suffered from the ravages of the bellum intestinum in which the realization that knowledge is one has been pitted against the belief that knowledge can be divided into disci plines. In practice, the former belief has had only lip service, and the latter, rather than being properly regarded as an expedient merely, has been followed as the true faith. It is time, ac cording to those who believe in General Edu cation, to restate the fact that learning springs from one source, not many. With this as the first article of faith, the division of knowledge into courses or disciplines may be tolerated for what it is, in the same way that the academic quadrennium is accepted for the sake of exped iency. The problem, then, is how to keep this exped iency within bounds, how to keep it from becom ing the end in itself that it has often managed to make of itself. A case in point is the question of what to do with literature, the subject most often required (usually under the label of Fresh man English or Sophomore Survey) in the area system. We must begin by asserting that an ac quaintance with literature is obligatory if Gen eral Education is to succeed in demonstrating to students what it is to be a human being. In General Education programs literature is usually incorporated in humanities courses, organ ized either historically or according to subject matter, that also include philosophy, art, music, and religion. Of the two types of organization the historical is the better option for literature, for it sets literature free to operate as it should. As the successive cultures that have been parts of the making of modern man are presented to the stu dent, literature is seen in the ambiance of the ideas and ideals it embodies and transmits. It be comes a part of that culture. The student who en counters Oedipus the King as part of his investi gation of the Hellenic world brings to his read ing of the play some knowledge of Greek philoso phy, art, and religion; his reading of the play in turn illuminates the other aspects of Greek cul ture. Or, to take an equally compelling example, when a student comes to the reading of Paradise Lost, he knows something of the original doc trines of Christianity and its Protestant formula tions. Compare this with what happens in the survey course of the area system where a fifteen minute pause is made in the dash through the centuries so that the student can be informed on the doctrines of original sin and redemption, thus being enabled to understand Milton's epic. 49

L'Immaculée Conception dans l'Écriture Sainte et dans la Tradition Orientale by Martin Jugie, A.A. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS L'Immaculée Conception dans l'Écriture Sainte et dans la Tradition Orientale, by Martin Jugie, A.A., Rome, 1952; 477pp. Summarily, the author, the Reverend Martin Jugie, A. A., gives a rather comprehensive treatment of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in a chronological historical development, stressing the place of Holy Scripture and Oriental Tradition. In the preface, the Reverend Charles Balic, O. F. M., Director of the Bibliotheca Immaculatae Conceptionis tells us of the thesis proposed by the author: Mary existed in a particular state (status naturae reparantis) having the right to each and every preternatural gift of the state of innocence. The book itself is a chronological treatment of testimonies, both favorable and unfavorable , especially from the Scriptures and from Oriental Tradition. In treating of the Immaculate Conception in the Oriental Church from its origins down to the present time, this book is unique. The book itself is divided into three major parts. In the First Part is treated the Immaculate Conception in Holy Scripture and in the Oriental Tradition during the Patristic Period. In the Second Part, Byzantine Tradition from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century is considered. The Third Part gives place to the Immaculate Conception in the Greco-Russian Church from the end of the Sixteenth Century up to the present day. Then follows a brief conclusion for the entire work. After a prologue, the author spends forty pages in treating of some preliminary questions. He discusses the notion of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the nature of original sin, the preternatural gifts and the state of innocence, the doctrine of original sin among the Greek Fathers, different methods of formulating the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and finally, the controversy in the Oriental Church on the Immaculate Conception previous to the Sixteenth Century. AU these points enumerated constitute the first chapter. In the second chapter the author treats of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the Sacred Scriptures. He states the question, and then under separate headings investigates: Mary as all holy and always holy, Mary blessed as Jesus and always blessed, the Mother of God, the victory of the woman over the serpent, and Mary redeemed. In the conclusion to the second chapter. Father Jugie asserts that Scripture is ,,not completely silent on the dogma defined by Pius IX." Rather, Scripture has expressions which suggest this truth. In the third chapter, the original sanctity of the Mother of God in Oriental Tradition of the first five centuries is proposed. The most ancient tradition from the Council of Nicea to the Council of Ephesus and the Fathers of the Fifth Century are considered. 210 Book Reviews211 In the last chapter, after discussing the Immaculate Conception in the Byzantine Church from the Sixth to the Ninth Century in the fourth chapter, the doctrine of the Nestorian and Monophysite Churches on the Immaculate Conception is examined, in the fifth. Part Two deals with Byzantine Tradition from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century. The two chapters of this Part include the Byzantine Theologians of the second half of the Ninth Century to the end of the Thirteenth (chapter one), and the theologians of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (chapter two). In the Third Part, the author is concerned with the Immaculate Conception in the Greco-Russian Church from the Sixteenth Century to the present day, in five chapters. Chapter One contains the Greek Theologians in the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth Centuries, both favorable and unfavorable. In the second chapter the Greek Theologians of the Eighteenth Century, and in the third chapter the belief of the Russian Church previous to the Seventeenth Century are examined. In the fourth chapter, the Immaculate Conception in Russia during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries is presented. The final and fifth chapter concludes by proposing the Russian Theologians of the Ninteenth and Twentieth Centuries. The work is summarized in a five page resume, with an index of proper names and table of contents appended. In this conclusion, the author states some resulting principles, in a synthesis of the work. Holy Scripture "in its literal sense, independent of the interpretation of certain Fathers, does not furnish us with explicit...

Original Sin, Privation of Original Justice

ORIGINAL SIN, PRIVATION OF ORIGINAL JUSTICE IT IS a well-known fact among theologians that St. Thomas is claimed as their patron by followers of the most clearly opposed doctrines. The very same texts of the Saint are not infrequently understood in widely different meanings. So much so that ,one wonders at this irreducible division among Thomists. Is there any possibility at all of getting at the genuine teaching of the Common Doctor? One of the controverted interpretations regards St. Thomas' texts and his idea of original sin as privation of original justice. The disputed point is well known: does original justice whose privation constitutes original sin comprise in itself sanctifying grace, or is sanctifying grace adequately distinct, though not separable, from original justice? Both answers are given by Thomists and each of them claims faithfully to echo St. Thomas' teaching. Both theories argue from his texts and from intrinsic reasons based on his principles. Each also has an answer ready for the arguments of the opposite opinion. Is there any way out of the deadlock? Contemporary Controversy: Its History. Before 1915 modern Thomists commonly taught, as being the faithful interpretation of SL Thomas, that the essential and formal element of original justice is sanctifying grace. The latter, therefore, is but inadequately distinct from the former, as is a part from its whole. No one seemed to have any doubt or difficulty about this. And it was taken for granted, rather than concluded from a study of the original texts, that such was the authentic interpretation of St. Thomas' teaching: Since the concept of original sin as privation of this justice explained perfectly well how the hereditary fault is a sin in the proper sense of the word, that is, death of the soul because of the 469 4 470 P. DELETTER absence of sanctifying grace, such as the Tridentine decree on original sin demands it and still more explicitly the projected Canon of the Vatican Council, no one was led to suppose that the Common Doctor could have. taught any different doctrine. It was Fr. R. Martin, 0. P., who opened the controversy by calling into question this common interpretation. In an article on the doctrine of original sin in the Summa contra Gentiles 1 he showed, from a minute analysis of the three chapters on original sin (Book 4, chapters 50-52) and from the study of the sources, that St. Thomas held, with the Scholastics of the previous and of his own century, that sanctifying grace is not included in original justice, the privation of which constitutes original sin. Original sin is the privation of the preternatural integrity of nature only, and this privation entails the absence of sanctifying grace in the individuals who inherit that nature. Martin's study-because, no doubt, of the unsettled conditions of the First World War-provoked little comment. His thesis was taken up again in 1921 by Canon J. Bittremieux, professor at Louvain University, who extended the field of research to all the works of St. Thomas. He examined the question of the distinction between original justice and sanctifying grace according to St. Thomas/ and concluded in favour of Martin's thesis. A year later Fr. J. Kors, 0. P., devoted a volume of the Bibliotheque Thomiste to the same study.3 In it he combines both historical research in pre-Thomist teaching on original justice and original sin, and critical study of St. Thomas' own 1 R. Martin, 0. P., "La doctrina sobre el pecado original en Ia Summa contra Gentiles," Ciencia Tomista, VI (1915) 1, pp. 889-400; 2, pp. 228-286. He expressed the same opinion about St. Thomas' teaching in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et 1'heologiques, V (1911), 825 f., and again ibid., IX (1920), 678. Other historical studies of his on the problem: " La question du peche originel dans Saint Anselme," ibid., V (1911), 785-749; "Les idees de Robert de Melun sur le peche originel," ibid., VII (1918), 700-725; VIII (1914), 489-466; IX (1920), 108-UO; XI (1922), 890-415; "Le peche originel d'apres Gilbert de Ia Porree et son ecole," Revue d'lfistorie Ecclesiastique, XIII (1912), 674-691. • J...

Liberalism and the Challenge of Neo-orthodoxy

HE shifting meanings of the terms neo-orthodoxy and liberalism in current theological discussions make it profitable to define the two words at the outset. Neo-orthodoxy, descriptively defined, defends the Reformation theses of the sovereignty of God, justification by faith, and the Bible as the Word of God. Somewhat unlike orthodoxy, neo-orthodoxy treats selectively the principles of the Reformation. Altogether unlike orthodoxy, neo-orthodoxy is aware of the results of the historical approach to the Bible. By reason of its emphasis upon the Sovereignty of God, neo-orthodoxy is known as neo-supernaturalism. Because of its acceptance of justification by faith and considerations such as the doctrine of original sin which support this classical Protestant view, neoorthodoxy is described as realistic if not pessimistic in its anthropology. Moreover, it is accused, on the whole unjustly, of failure to support the concern for social progress. Since neo-orthodoxy regards the Bible as the Word of God, it is forced characteristically to relate its intellectual principles to the Bible in some way. In the variety of writings which can be labelled as neo-orthodox, serious diversity of outlook often appears. For in one wing may be found a rejection of natural theology and apologetics, with an insistence upon the complete impossibility of man's finding in the data about himself anything relevant to God's Word. Barth, of course, is the outstanding representative of this outlook. In the other wing are those who insist that in man's own observations appear correspondences to the comprehensions of revelation; thus the cogency of revelation is sometimes asserted in terms which are informed by a nonrevelational viewpoint. Perhaps Brunner could be characterized as belonging here. Nevertheless, certain unities of statement run throughout neo-orthodoxy. Despite the varying selectivity from the Protestant tradition, beyond a certain framework the movement cannot go and remain Calvinistic. The limits of liberalism, again descriptively defined,are far more broad. Etymologically, it includes the conclusions of the free man. Beyond that, its unities can be characterized only in terms of an attitude, a method, and, perhaps most important of all, a criterion of truth. Its attitude appears in the willingness of liberals without prejudices, if possible, to seek the truth wherever it may be found. Its method is largely that of empiricism with the employment of those hypotheses which make intelligible the discoveries of empirical studies. Its criterion of truth is that of rationality either in a narrow or a large sense of the word.

Manichaeism and Augustine's Idea of ‘Massa Perditionis’

In my essay, “The Genesis of St. Augustine's Idea of Original Sin,” published in this Review (1917, pp. 159–175), I advanced the theory that Augustine's doctrine of original sin and its transmission was not derived from the teaching of Ambrose, as Harnack holds, but rather from the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans by the unknown writer commonly referred to as Ambrosiaster. From this fourth-century writer Augustine borrowed his final formulation of the doctrine of the universal participation of mankind in the sin of Adam and his interpretation of the most discussed passages of the Epistle to the Romans, as well as the notions of man “servus culpae” and “servus gratiae.”

Recent Reconstruction of the Doctrine of Sin: II. Original Sin

The doctrine of original sin, which commanded almost unanimous approval in the history of Christian thinking, has recently aroused adverse criticism. The biblical support of the theological doctrine has been found to be very doubtful. Science has made incredible the doctrine of so profound an alteration of human nature as is attributed to Adam, within the lifetime of one individual. We recognize aspects in human behavior due to the persistence of animal instincts, but these are biologically considered normal and natural. They are non-moral antecedents of sin, but not inherently sinful. The "higher" life of any individual is socially rather than physiologically produced. If we are to speak of the transmission of sin at all, we should look to social forces for the general conditions under which the specific inheritance of each individual finds expression.

Jonathan Edwards's 'Doctrine of original sin'

Journal Article Jonathan Edwards's 'Doctrine of original sin' Get access H. J. Ayliffe H. J. Ayliffe 117, Wyndham Street, Brighton Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Notes and Queries, Volume s12-IX, Issue 185, 29 October 1921, Page 354, https://doi.org/10.1093/nq/s12-IX.185.354g Published: 29 October 1921