DOCSLIB.ORG

Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sin. Systematic Theology.Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology Wayne Grudem Chapter 24! SIN What is sin? Where did it come from? Do we inherit a sinful nature from Adam? Do we inherit guilt from Adam? EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS A. The Definition of Sin The history of the human race as presented in Scripture is primarily a history of man in a state of sin and rebellion against God and of God’s plan of redemption to bring man back to himself. Therefore, it is appropriate now to consider the nature of the sin that separates man from God. We may define sin as follows: Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. Sin is here defined in relation to God and his moral law. Sin includes not only individual acts such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are contrary to the attitudes God requires of us. We see this already in the Ten Commandments, which not only prohibit sinful actions but also wrong attitudes: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex. 20:17 NIV). Here God specifies that a desire to steal or to commit adultery is also sin in his sight. The Sermon on the Mount also prohibits sinful attitudes such as anger (Matt. 5:22) or lust (Matt. 5:28). Paul lists attitudes such as jealousy, anger, and selfishness (Gal. 5:20) as things that are works of the flesh opposed to the desires of the Spirit (Gal. 5:20). Therefore a life that is pleasing to God is one that has moral purity not only in its actions, but also in its desires of heart. In fact, the greatest commandment of all requires that our heart be filled with an attitude of love for God: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). The definition of sin given above specifies that sin is a failure to conform to God’s moral law not only in action and in attitude but also in our moral nature. Our very nature, the internal character that is the essence of who we are as persons, can also be sinful. Before we were redeemed by Christ, not only did we do sinful acts and have sinful attitudes, we were also sinners by nature. So Paul can say that “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8), or that previously “we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph. 2:3). Even while asleep, an unbeliever, though not committing sinful actions or actively nurturing sinful attitudes, is still a “sinner” in God’s sight; he or she still has a sinful nature that does not conform to God’s moral law. Other definitions of the essential character of sin have been suggested. Probably the most common definition is to say that the essence of sin is selfishness.1 However, such a definition is unsatisfactory because (1) Scripture itself does not define sin this way. (2) Much self-interest is good and approved by Scripture, as when Jesus commands us to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matt. 6:20), or when we seek to grow in sanctification and Christian maturity (1 Thess. 4:3), or even when we come to God through Christ for salvation. God certainly appeals to the self-interest of sinful people when he says, “Turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11). To define the essential character of sin as selfishness will lead many people to think that they should abandon all desire for their own personal benefit, which is certainly contrary to Scripture.2 (3) Much sin is not selfishness in the ordinary sense of the term—people can show selfless devotion to a false religion or to secular and humanistic educational or political goals that are contrary to Scripture, yet these would not be due to “selfishness” in any ordinary sense of the word. Moreover, hatred of God, idolatry, and unbelief are not generally due to selfishness, but they are very serious sins. (4) Such a definition could suggest that there was wrongdoing or sinfulness even on God’s part, since God’s highest goal is to seek his own glory (Isa. 42:8; 43:7, 21; Eph. 1:12).3 But such a conclusion is clearly wrong. It is far better to define sin in the way Scripture does, in relationship to God’s law and his moral character. John tells us that “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). When Paul seeks to demonstrate the universal sinfulness of mankind, he appeals to the law of God, whether the written law given to the Jew (Rom. 2:17–29) or the unwritten law that operates in the consciences of Gentiles who, by their behavior, “show that what the law requires is written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). In each case their sinfulness is demonstrated by their lack of conformity to the moral law of God. Finally, we should note that this definition emphasizes the seriousness of sin. We realize from experience that sin is harmful to our lives, that it brings pain and destructive consequences to us and to others affected by it. But to define sin as failure to conform to the moral law of God, is to say that sin is more than simply painful and destructive—it is also wrong in the deepest sense of the word. In a universe created by God, sin ought not to be. Sin is directly opposite to all that is good in the character of God, and just as God necessarily and eternally delights in himself and in all that he is, so God necessarily and eternally hates sin. It is, in essence, the contradiction of the excellence of his moral character. It contradicts his holiness, and he must hate it. B. The Origin of Sin Where did sin come from? How did it come into the universe? First, we must clearly affirm that God himself did not sin, and God is not to be blamed for sin. It was man who sinned, and it was angels who sinned, and in both cases they did so by willful, voluntary choice. To blame God for sin would be blasphemy against the character of God. “His work is perfect; for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he” (Deut. 32:4). Abraham asks with truth and force in his words, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25). And Elihu rightly says, “Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong” (Job 34:10). In fact, it is impossible for God even to desire to do wrong: “God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). Yet, on the other hand, we must guard against an opposite error: it would be wrong for us to say there is an eternally existing evil power in the universe similar to or equal to God himself in power. To say this would be to affirm what is called an ultimate “dualism” in the universe, the existence of two equally ultimate powers, one good and the other evil.4 Also, we must never think that sin surprised God or challenged or overcame his omnipotence or his providential control over the universe. Therefore, even though we must never say that God himself sinned or he is to be blamed for sin, yet we must also affirm that the God who “accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11), the God who “does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What are you doing?”’ (Dan. 4:35) did ordain that sin would come into the world, even though he does not delight in it and even though he ordained that it would come about through the voluntary choices of moral creatures.5 Even before the disobedience of Adam and Eve, sin was present in the angelic world with the fall of Satan and demons.6 But with respect to the human race, the first sin was that of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1–19). Their eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is in many ways typical of sin generally. First, their sin struck at the basis for knowledge, for it gave a different answer to the question, “What is true?” Whereas God had said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate from the tree (Gen. 2:17), the serpent said, “You will not die” (Gen. 3:4). Eve decided to doubt the veracity of God’s word and conduct an experiment to see whether God spoke truthfully. Second, their sin struck at the basis for moral standards, for it gave a different answer to the question “What is right?” God had said that it was morally right for Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of that one tree (Gen. 2:17). But the serpent suggested that it would be right to eat of the fruit, and that in eating it Adam and Eve would become “like God” (Gen.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and John Milton
    Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 3.1, 3–27 © 2000 [2010] by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Gorgias Press THE FALL OF SATAN IN THE THOUGHT OF ST. EPHREM AND JOHN MILTON GARY A. ANDERSON HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL CAMBRIDGE, MA USA ABSTRACT In the Life of Adam and Eve, Satan “the first-born” refused to venerate Adam, the “latter-born.” Later writers had difficulty with the tale because it granted Adam honors that were proper to Christ (Philippians 2:10, “at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend.”) The tale of Satan’s fall was then altered to reflect this Christological sensibility. Milton created a story of Christ’s elevation prior to the creation of man. Ephrem, on the other hand, moved the story to Holy Saturday. In Hades, Death acknowledged Christ as the true first- born whereas Satan rejected any such acclamation. [1] For some time I have pondered the problem of Satan’s fall in early Jewish and Christian sources. My point of origin has been the justly famous account found in the Life of Adam and Eve (hereafter: Life).1 1 See G. Anderson, “The Exaltation of Adam and the Fall of Satan,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, 6 (1997): 105–34. 3 4 Gary A. Anderson I say justly famous because the Life itself existed in six versions- Greek, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Coptic (now extant only in fragments)-yet the tradition that the Life drew on is present in numerous other documents from Late Antiquity.2 And one should mention its surprising prominence in Islam-the story was told and retold some seven times in the Koran and was subsequently subject to further elaboration among Muslim exegetes and storytellers.3 My purpose in this essay is to carry forward work I have already done on this text to the figures of St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin
    THE GREAT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN by Jonathan Edwards “They that be whole, need not a physician; but they that are sick.” - Matthew 9:12 1 CONTENTS Advertisement 3 The Author’s Preface 7 PART ONE Wherein Are Considered Some Evidences of Original Sin From Facts and Events, as Founded by Observation and Experience, Together With Representations and Testimonies of Holy Scripture, and the Confession and Assertion of Opposers. Chapter One 8 Chapter Two 69 PART TWO Containing Observations on Particular Parts of the Holy Scripture Which Prove the Doctrine of Original Sin. Chapter One 78 Chapter Two 102 Chapter Three 110 Chapter Four 130 PART THREE The Evidence Given Us, Relative to the Doctrine of Original Sin, in What the Scriptures Reveal Concerning the Redemption by Christ. Chapter One 143 Chapter Two 148 PART FOUR Containing Answers to Objections. Chapter One 155 Chapter Two 158 Chapter Three 164 Chapter Four 177 2 ADVERTISEMENT CONTAINING A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THIS BOOK AND ITS AUTHOR, BY THE FIRST EDITOR The Reverend Author of the following piece, was removed by death before its publication. But, ere his decease, the copy was finished and brought to the press; and a number of sheets passed his own review. They who were acquainted with the author, or know his just character, and have any taste for the serious theme, will want nothing to be said in recommendation of the ensuing tract, but only that Mr. Edwards wrote it. Several valuable pieces on this subject have lately been published, upon the same side of the question.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can Original Sin Be Inherited?
    DEAR FATHER KERPER Michelangelo, The Fall and Expulsion from Garden of Eden. Web Gallery of Art sinned against obedience. But this act How can original represents much more: they actually rejected friendship with God and, even worse, attempted to supplant God as God. sin be inherited? To see this more clearly, we must rewind the Genesis tape back to chapter ear Father Kerper: I’ve always had a huge 1. Here we find that God had created problem with original sin. It seems so unfair. I can the first human beings “in the image of God.” (Genesis 1:27) As such, they understand punishing someone who has broken a immediately enjoyed friendship and law. That’s perfectly just. But why should someone even kinship with God, who had Dwho’s done nothing wrong get punished for what someone else lovingly created them so that they could share everything with Him. did millions of years ago? Though Adam and Eve had everything that human beings could Many people share your understandable In the case of speeding, the possibly enjoy, the serpent tempted reaction against the doctrine of original punishment – say a $200 ticket – is them to seek even more. Recall the sin. As you’ve expressed so well, it does always imposed directly on the specific serpent’s words to Eve: “God knows in indeed seem to violate the basic norms of person who committed an isolated fact that the day you eat it [the forbidden fairness. But it really doesn’t. How so? illegal act. Moreover, the punishment is fruit] your eyes will be opened and you To overcome this charge of unfairness, designed to prevent dangerous and illegal will be like gods.” (Genesis 3:5) we must do two things: first, reconsider behavior by creating terribly unpleasant By eating the forbidden fruit, Adam the meaning of punishment; and second, consequences, namely costly fines and and Eve attempted to seize equality rediscover the social nature – and social eventually the loss of one’s license.
    [Show full text]
  • Janson. History of Art. Chapter 16: The
    16_CH16_P556-589.qxp 12/10/09 09:16 Page 556 16_CH16_P556-589.qxp 12/10/09 09:16 Page 557 CHAPTER 16 CHAPTER The High Renaissance in Italy, 1495 1520 OOKINGBACKATTHEARTISTSOFTHEFIFTEENTHCENTURY , THE artist and art historian Giorgio Vasari wrote in 1550, Truly great was the advancement conferred on the arts of architecture, painting, and L sculpture by those excellent masters. From Vasari s perspective, the earlier generation had provided the groundwork that enabled sixteenth-century artists to surpass the age of the ancients. Later artists and critics agreed Leonardo, Bramante, Michelangelo, Raphael, Giorgione, and with Vasari s judgment that the artists who worked in the decades Titian were all sought after in early sixteenth-century Italy, and just before and after 1500 attained a perfection in their art worthy the two who lived beyond 1520, Michelangelo and Titian, were of admiration and emulation. internationally celebrated during their lifetimes. This fame was For Vasari, the artists of this generation were paragons of their part of a wholesale change in the status of artists that had been profession. Following Vasari, artists and art teachers of subse- occurring gradually during the course of the fifteenth century and quent centuries have used the works of this 25-year period which gained strength with these artists. Despite the qualities of between 1495 and 1520, known as the High Renaissance, as a their births, or the differences in their styles and personalities, benchmark against which to measure their own. Yet the idea of a these artists were given the respect due to intellectuals and High Renaissance presupposes that it follows something humanists.
    [Show full text]
  • ORIGINAL SIN, INFANT SALVATION, and the BAPTISM of INFANTS —A Critique of Some Contemporary Baptist Authors—
    MJT 12 (2001) 47-79 ORIGINAL SIN, INFANT SALVATION, AND THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS —A Critique of Some Contemporary Baptist Authors— by J. Mark Beach Introduction IN REFORMED THINKING the covenant of grace forms the basis for the practice of infant baptism. This practice, however, has been much contested within Protestant theology, causing the mercury on the theological thermometer to rise from time to time. Heated polemics, of course, are not foreign to the topic of infant baptism. Countless articles, treatises, books, and pamphlets have been written in favor of and in opposition to the baptism of infants. Certainly theologians and scholars have not lacked resolve and conviction regarding this subject; nonetheless, no unanimity has resulted as a consequence of nearly half a millennium of polemics. Proponents from each side of the debate have been unable to achieve a consensus among Protestants regarding the proper subjects of baptism. The issue remains a cause for division. Thus, after nearly five hundred years of debate, some theologians are pleading for a truce within the evangelical church. Wayne Grudem, for example, while himself arguing vigorously for believer’s baptism, does not think baptism ought to be a point of division among churches. He suggests that paedobaptists and advocates of believer’s baptism jointly acknowledge that “baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.” Grudem recognizes that this would require concessions on the part of 48 • MID-AMERICA JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY Baptists and paedobaptists alike so that both views of baptism could be “taught and practiced” in their respective churches. 1 Grudem’s suggestion comes, as noted above, after he has waged his own polemic against infant baptism.
    [Show full text]
  • FOUNDATIONS in ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A
    I \ I ~ , .. ,I I I I I FOUNDATIONS I IN ECCLESIOLOGY I I I I I I I I Joseph A. Komonchak I I I '. I I I I I I FOUNDATIONS IN ECCLESIOLOGY I Joseph A. Komonchak I I I I I I I Supplementary Issue of the Lonergan Workshop Journal I Volume 11 Fred Lawrence, editor I • \ I 1../ I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I Copyright © 1995 Boston College I I Printed in the United States of America I on acid-free paper I I ,I I I I EDITORIAL NOTE I Joseph A. Komonchak belongs to a generation of Catholic theologians formed in what was essentially the pre-Vatican II system I of seminary education. This system combined the very forces of renewal that made the Council possible with the drawbacks of I closedness and downright aridity that made Pope John XXIII's fresh air necessary. If he was exposed to much in the seminary and church that needed reform, he also had the opportunity to have solid scholars I teaching him, such as Myles M. Bourke for scripture, in his New York diocesan seminary, and equally respectable men like Rene Latourelle and Juan Alfaro in Rome, not to mention the person who exerted the I most influence upon him, Bernard Lonergan. In one of the most trenchant passages he ever ,wrote Lonergan I said: The breakdown of classical culture and, at least in our day, I the manifest comprehensiveness and exclusiveness of modern culture confront Catholic philosophy and Catholic theology with the gravest problems, impose upon them mountainous tasks, I invite them to Herculean labors.
    [Show full text]
  • “Only a Trinity Can Save
    “Only a Trinity Can Save Us” Ephesians 3:14-21 14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 in order that he might grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, being rooted and established in love, 18 in order that you might be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the length and width and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, in order that you might be filled with all the fullness of God. 20 Now to him who is able to do exceedingly more than anything that we could ask or imagine, according to the power that is being worked within us, 21 to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus for all generations, forever and ever. Amen. In the Name of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. 1. Introduction. When I was studying in England, I was enrolled in a Theology Seminar led by, let’s say, a “noteworthy conservative theology scholar.” There was nothing immediately alarming about the class or the instructor on paper, but then on day two, we began our study of the Trinity. The Professor explained that the word “God” was not so much a noun as an adjective to be applied to each Person of the Trinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Babies, Baptism, and Original Sin: Augustine's Understanding of the Theological Implications of Infant Baptism
    Babies, Baptism, and Original Sin: Augustine's Understanding of the Theological Implications of Infant Baptism By Jeffrey J. Meyers The rite of infant baptism as practiced in the church before Augustine has been appropriately called “a practice in search of a theology.”1 Although solid evidence exists for the practice of paedobaptism from the time of Tertullian, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it was the custom from Apostolic times,2 nevertheless, to say that there was no consensus of opinion concerning the theological rationale for the sacramental rite would be an understatement. That the ritual of paedobaptism was practiced universally from about 200 A.D. till the time of Augustine is almost certain; what theological significance it had, and why it was administered to babies remained open to theological development. In response to errant Pelagian theology, Augustine developed a catholic theology of infant baptism from the meaning and implications of the rite itself in conjunction with his understanding of the 1David F. Wright, “How Controversial Was the Development of Infant Baptism in the Early Church,” Church, Word, and Spirit: Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. James E Bradley and Richard A. Muller (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987) 50, 51. 2Tertullian’s polemic against infant and young child baptism does not necessarily imply the novelty of the practice (as Pelikan asserts, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100- 600), vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], 290); rather, Tertullian’s opposition is best understood as directed against an existing custom.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerald O'collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching
    Gerald O’Collins, Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching, Rhetoric, and Reception (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 121 pages. Reviewed by Gary R. Habermas, Liberty University Over decades studying the resurrection of Jesus, it always appears odd that there are comparatively few contemporary works treating the centuries of great church fathers who have addressed Christianity’s center. Many treasured gems have grown dusty and remain too-seldom remembered. We are the worse for that. Why this research lacuna? This little volume features well-known researcher Gerald O’Collins entering this void on a subject he knows well, addressing Augustine’s thoughts on Jesus’ resurrection and teaming with perhaps the world’s most respected academic publisher. Who besides Augustine is more erudite, speaks to the entire church, and does so in the classical rhetorical style, providing a magnificent choice? O’Collins begins his Preface by acknowledging the need for this study. Other major church leaders like Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Leo the Great wrote major Christological works before and after Augustine, yet, the latter surprisingly did not do so. Augustine’s longest treatment of Christology is The Trinity 4:1-5, though he still presents many reflections on Christology in his sermons, letters, and other works (v). Since “Preaching the message of Christ constituted the central core of Augustine’s ministry” (vi), the absence of an extended treatment is surprising. This absence encouraged his commentators to concentrate on other themes, like Scripture, the Trinity, original sin, free will, and grace. It remains the case that today, few commentators treat Augustine’s message: “we still lack studies precisely on Christ’s own resurrection from the dead.” O’Collins continues: “This study aims to fill this important gap.” (vi) 1 Towards this goal, O’Collins’ five chapters are devoted to key subjects strewn throughout Augustine’s writings.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Imagining Ecclesiology: a New Missional Paradigm for Community Transformation
    Digital Commons @ George Fox University Doctor of Ministry Theses and Dissertations 4-2021 Re-Imagining Ecclesiology: A New Missional Paradigm For Community Transformation Michael J. Berry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/dmin Part of the Christianity Commons GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY RE-IMAGINING ECCLESIOLOGY: A NEW MISSIONAL PARADIGM FOR COMMUNITY TRANSFORMATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF PORTLAND SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY BY MICHAEL J. BERRY PORTLAND, OREGON APRIL 2021 Portland Seminary George Fox University Portland, Oregon CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ________________________________ DMin Dissertation ________________________________ This is to certify that the DMin Dissertation of Michael J. Berry has been approved by the Dissertation Committee on April 29, 2021 for the degree of Doctor of Ministry in Leadership in the Emerging Culture Dissertation Committee: Primary Advisor: W. David Phillips, DMin Secondary Advisor: Karen Claassen, DMin Lead Mentor: Leonard I. Sweet, PhD Copyright © 2021 by Michael J. Berry All rights reserved ii DEDICATION To my wife, Andra and to our daughters, Ariel and Olivia. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks for everyone’s support and assistance to get me through this process: Dr. Len Sweet, Donna Wallace, Dr. David Phillips, Dr. Loren Kerns, Dr. Clifford Berger, Dr. Jason Sampler, Rochelle Deans, Dr. David Anderson, Dr. Tom Hancock, Patrick Mulvaney, Ray Crew, and especially Tracey Wagner. iv EPIGRAPH The baptism and spiritual
    [Show full text]
  • Sin and Its Consequences
    VZ Mar. ’09 Sin and ConsequencesOVoittonen Sin and Its Consequences The boundary between right and wrong, between that which is permitted and that which is forbidden, has dimmed to a great extent in the way people commonly think about matters today. At the same time, people’s morals have become relative. Many are of the opinion that sin no longer has significance for modern man. The question regarding sin and release from its guilt, however, is at the same time the most painful problem of life for many people. Sin closely connects with the concept of man and his salvation. The Perfection of Life Was Broken According to Scripture, God created man in His own image. He gave a mind, will, and conscience to man. Man received everything from God and lived in unity with Him. Everywhere there was perfection, harmony: everything was good (Gen. 1:27, 31.) Man had three basic relationships: a relationship with God, a relationship with other people and a relationship with nature. Man’s committed sin broke the harmony. In the fall into sin he became attracted to evil, he wanted to become as God and thus broke God’s will. When he consented to commit sin, man did not care about what God had said. The image of God in man was corrupted and he lost the peace of conscience. He lost his righteousness, his free will, and immortality. Accusations and distrust arose in the relationship between Adam and his spouse. The ground became cursed: Creation groans in pain (Rom. 8:19–22). The “law of sweat” descended upon man’s being, the sweat and furrows of the brow (Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NUMBER of Books and Articles Which Have Appeared Recently On
    ORIGINAL SIN: CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES JAMES L. CONNOR, SJ. Loyola College, Baltimore HE NUMBER of books and articles which have appeared recently on Tthe subject give evidence of keen interest in the doctrine of original sin. Several brief surveys of this literature are available in English,1 but it might be of interest to trace the progressive development of thought in this area according (in most cases) to the chronological order in which these studies appeared. Before presenting the individual hypotheses, however, economy will be served by reviewing the variety of influences which have drawn each of these authors to a reconsidera­ tion of this doctrine and which—more or less, as will be evident in each case—they would all accept. FACTORS INFLUENTIAL IN A RECONSIDERATION OF THE DOCTRINE Difficulties Inforent in the Classical Position No theologian, laudator temporis acti though he might be, is unaware of the fundamental problems which for ages have plagued the tradi­ tional presentation of the doctrine of original sin.2 How are we to explain the fact that the single sin of one man is the sole explanation for a condition of deprivation in every other man? By the virtual inclusion of all men in this one? By juridical imputation? By some form of "corporate personality"? As we know, none of these theories have proven fully satisfactory. How are we to account for the transmission of this sinful condition? Can we seriously hold that the nontransmission of grace, which by God's decree man should have, is the positive transmission of guilt? In what sense can the deprivation of grace be called "sinful" in the individual when not personally willed by the individual? These and other problems have vexed theologians for centuries.
    [Show full text]