DOCSLIB.ORG

Original Sin and Infant Baptism by Amanda Van Der Westhuizen May 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Original Sin and Infant Baptism by Amanda Van Der Westhuizen May 2010 Original Sin and Infant Baptism By Amanda van der Westhuizen May 2010 I have decided to do an essay on this topic because I have realised how ideas about original sin have permeated our beliefs regarding sinfulness and God’s fairness towards humanity. I decided to track the development of these doctrines from the apostolic church to judge the accuracy of both ideas. What emerged is that neither original sin nor infant baptism as we know it today has scriptural proof or support from early church fathers. This essay covers the historical development of the doctrines of original sin and infant baptism and looks at scriptural arguments both for and against two arguments regarding infant baptism: parallel to circumcision and original sin. It is incorrect that the doctrine of original sin and infant baptism was “always there” or is in the scriptures. The development of this doctrine is a post-NT development. The theology of original sin developed stepwise over the first 4 centuries of Christianity in the context of a number of questions: the relation of God to evil, human nature, the reason for divine redemption, the necessity of Christ, the practice of infant baptism, and the role of the Church in God’s plan of salvation. Furthermore, no evidence of the existence of infant baptism in the 1st and 2nd century churches has been found, although it may have been practiced in small “spurts” although baptism after the personal profession of faith is the most clearly attested pattern in New Testament documents. Thus, by the end of the 2nd century, infant baptism is not discussed in any of the preserved Christian documents. If it had been a prominent practice in the early church, one would expect it to be prominently discussed. In fact, during the first 3 centuries of the Church, adult baptism was the rule and actual conversion of the person was required as a condition before the person could be baptised. Historical evidence shows infant baptism was not a common practice until well into the 6th century. The historical development of these doctrines The Apostolic Fathers dealt mostly with other topics than original sin. Irenaeus , the Bishop of Lyon (ca. 130-200 AD) lived in a time when false interpretations about Jesus were plenty. About 187 AD, he listed about twenty varieties of Christianity. In Irenaeus’ time, original sin is not a part of the Christian faith except in a general way. There were questions, however, about what was lost with Adam’s sin. Irenaeus was less interested in Adam’s sin than he was in the process of redemption. In Irenaeus’ view, redemption is about restoring something that was lost: humankind’s likeness to God. Irenaeus distinguished between likeness to God and image of God as found in Genesis 1:26. He thought image of God referred to reason and freedom, the rational moral nature of man. Adam did not lose this ability by sin. To Irenaeus, however, likeness to God referred to spiritual similarity to God which Adam lost through sin. According to Irenaeus then, since Adam, human beings are born into a fallen world. However, he also asserted that even fallen, man has free will. Justin Martyr (110-165AD), an apologetic, acknowledged the sinfulness of humanity. Adam’s sin meant that humanity lost their capacity for deification, which is given back through Christ’s redemption. It is important to note that Justin’s questions about humanity, sin, and redemption were shaped by the specific historical conflicts in his time, such as the deterministic notions regarding free will of the Stoics. Justin argued that even though humanity had lost its capacity for deification through sin, the capacity to make God-pleasing decisions still remain. Human goodness or evil is not predetermined, which means that humans can take responsibility for evil actions. Adam’s sin, however, did weaken human reason and humanity’s ability to resist evil. Therefore, humanity is in need of divine help to reason and act in responsible manner. Justin’s understanding of the relationship between Adam’s sin and humanity can be better described as original corruption than original sin. Justin speaks of baptism; the sacrament appears to be administered to “persuade” persons who are able to “believe”. He also emphasises choice where baptism is concerned. “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and undertake to conform their lives to our doctrine, are instructed to fast and pray, and entreat from God the remission of their past sins, we fasting and praying together with them. They are then conducted by us to a place where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For they are then washed in the name of God the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.” Thus, no mention of infant baptism. Tertullian (160 – ca. 220 A.D), another apologetic, also reasoned that the first sin changed the human state from blessedness to moral wretchedness. He believed that Adam’s sin brought about an inclination to sin and impels wrongdoing. However, free will is still acknowledged as humanity still remains responsible for the misuse of freedom. Humanity thus has a bias towards sin, corruption and impurity. This bias to sin, however, is not the equivalent to original sin as seen in Tertullian’s view of infant baptism. Tertullian rejected the necessity of this custom by reasoning that humanity’s inclination/bias to sin due to Adam was in itself not a sin that requires forgiveness. Rather, adult baptism is what removes individual sin’s guilt and restores humanity to the likeness of God lost through sin. “Let them come when they are growing up, when they are learning, when they are being taught what they are coming to: let them be made Christians when they have become competent to know Christ. Why should innocent infancy come with haste to the remission of sins?” The fact that Tertullian refers to infant baptism is used as proof by paedobaptists that infant baptism was an accepted practice during the 2nd and 3rd century. However, taking into consideration that Tertullian held apostolic tradition in high regard, it is unlikely that he would have vehemently rejected infant baptism had it been an apostolic or generally accepted tradition. Rather, Tertullian’s concerns regarding baptism were around the issue that baptism should only be given to those prepared to accept its responsibilities and live by them. For example, he reasons that if earthly property is not entrusted to minors, heavenly affairs should also not be entrusted to them. Tertullian also used an existing scriptural argument for infant baptism (Matt 19:14 “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these”) to underscore the importance of teaching and learning and personal knowledge and commitment to Christ – even more reason to delay baptism until these conditions have been fully satisfied. Origen of Alexandria (185 – 254 AD), a 3rd century theologian, was the first to explicitly coin the term original sin when arguing around the need for infant baptism. “All are tainted with the stain of original sin that must be washed off by water and spirit”. Origen used Gen 3 and other defilement texts such as Psalm 51:5 as scriptural proof of humanity being born with a stain on their souls which needs to be cleaned through baptism and regenerated through the Holy Spirit. However, he argued more on why infant baptism could be necessary rather than whether infant baptism could be used. However, Origin’s philosophical tendencies veered toward Platonic views of the spirit. For example, Origin viewed Genesis 3 events to be allegorical and he transformed it into a cosmic myth. Sin originated in the cosmic, transcendent, not historical realm. The punishment for sin was thus the descent (fall) into the material, historical world. Through this fall, the soul suffered defilement and can only through baptism and the Holy Spirit begin its ascent back into the transcendent realm where it originated. Humans’ sinfulness from birth is also seen as the result of misguided choices in the transcendent realm and has nothing to do with the misguided choices Adam made. However, Adam’s descendents followed his choice of making bad choices. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 AD) described Adam’s sin as a primeval contagion inherited by each person through their physical conception, that it, sexual intercourse. Psalm 51:5 was deemed to be proof of this position. He believed that infant baptism should take place as soon as possible. Didymus the Blind (313 – 398 AD) contributed to the consensus that Adam’s sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse. Because Jesus was not conceived through sexual intercourse, he was not corrupted by Adam’s sin. In contrast to later theological views, Didymus believed that baptism restored humans to being “sinless and masters of ourselves”. Other church fathers such as Gregory of Nazianzus , Gregory of Nyssa and John Crysostom believed that original sin can be inherited without babies being born into sin. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 – 428 AD) regarded Adam’s sin as the beginning of sin and death of humankind, citing Romans 5:12 as proof. However, Theodore also remained convinced that sin is not inevitable and that humanity still has the ability to reason and make the choice to act sinfully. Thus, in the early patristic writers references can be found to the origin of sin, the fall and the inheritance of sin. This differs from what is found in later church tradition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Evangelical Anglicans Should Not Baptise Babies
    WHY EVANGELICAL Published by the Unboring Book Company Northampton, England ANGLICANS Copyright Joe Story 2019 Revised second edition 2019 Any part of this book may be copied or quoted for any not for SHOULD NOT profit purpose with an acknowledgement to source. BAPTISE BABIES For Joe Story’s blog and details of other titles available, see: unboring.network by Joe Story CONTENTS Introduction 5 An historical overview a) Pre-Reformation – 1907 6 The case of Roland Allen and the baptism of all-comers 12 An historical overview b) 20th and 21st Centuries 13 What is covenant baptism? 17 The arguments for baby baptism based on Jesus and the Apostles 19 Why I disagree with Covenant Baptism 25 Why am I challenging Evangelical Anglicans? 33 Baby baptism does not work 37 The detrimental effect of Anglican policy on other churches 38 Postscript: The Ecumenical dilemma 41 NOTES: 1.To give some variety to what could otherwise be tedious repetition, the terms Anglican and Church of England are used interchangeably in this booklet. 2. I have chosen to use the term baby baptism rather than infant baptism, because the term infant can be used of young children, and I would not exclude the possibility of children coming to faith and being baptised when they are young. It is the issue of faith not age that I am dealing with. 3 4 Why do Evangelical Anglicans continue the practice? INTRODUCTION I have read hundreds of books and booklets on baptism, many of them with the express aim of understanding why the Church of England carries out practices, that seem to many of us on the outside, According to the Church of England’s own statistics (2013), an to be misguided.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • So You Are Thinking About Having Your Infant/Child Baptized?
    SSoo YYoouu AArree TThhiinnkkiinngg AAbboouutt HHaavviinngg YYoouurr IInnffaanntt//CChhiilldd BBaappttiizzeedd?? Here You Will Find What We Believe, Why We Believe and Practice It As United Methodists By Bass Mitchell Introduction Since you are reading this you would like to ask your booklet on infant/child minister when you meet. baptism, you must have an We will meet with our interest in the topic. Most pastor: likely it is because you have Date ________________________ questions about or perhaps Time ________ you are considering it for Place _______________ your children. Here write down any This booklet is a resource questions you may wish to ask that might help you answer your minister or any thing some of your you might wish to explore. questions and address some of your concerns about infant baptism. It will seek to show the meaning of infant baptism and why it is a part of many churches today. It is strongly suggested that you read and discuss it with your spouse. Also, you should arrange a meeting with your minister to discuss this and ask any further questions you may have. There is a space provided at the end of the booklet for you to jot down questions or anything 2 We Believe in tradition. But that tradition Baptizing Children was based on much older ones Someone allegedly asked back to the early church and Mark Twain, “Do you believe biblical teachings, as well in infant baptism?” He is as our understanding of key said to have responded, Christian doctrines like “Believe in it? I've SEEN grace.
    [Show full text]
  • Baptism: Valid and Invalid
    BAPTISM: VALID AND INVALID The following information has been provided to the Office of Worship and Christian Initiation by Father Jerry Plotkowski, Judicial Vicar. It is our hope that it will help you in discerning the canonical status of your candidates. BAPTISM IN PROTESTANT RELIGIONS Most Protestant baptisms are recognized as valid baptisms. Some are not. It is very difficult to question the validity of a baptism because of an intention either on the part of the minister or on the part of the one being baptized. ADVENTISTS: Water baptism is by immersion with the Trinitarian formula. Valid. Baptism is given at the age of reason. A dedication ceremony is given to infants. The two ceremonies are separate. (Many Protestant religions have the dedication ceremony or other ceremony, which is not a baptism. If the church has the dedication ceremony, baptism is generally not conferred until the age of reason or until the approximate age of 13). AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL: Baptism with water by sprinkling, pouring, or dunking. Trinitarian form is used. Valid. There is an open door ceremony, which is not baptism. AMISH: This is coupled with Mennonites. No infant baptism. The rite of baptism seems valid. ANGLICAN: Valid baptism. APOSTOLIC CHURCH: An affirmative decision has been granted in one case involving "baptism" in the apostolic church. The minister baptized according to the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and not St. Matthew. The form used was: "We baptize you into the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive a gift of the Holy Ghost." No Trinitarian form was used.
    [Show full text]
  • Preamble: the Methodist Church Accepts Baptism As a Sacrament Of
    Disclaimer: Please note that this paper does not represent the views of the MethodistChurch of Southern Africa or DEWCOM, unless specified otherwise. Status of paper: Discussion document for Synods 2010 URL: http://mcsadewcom.blogspot.com/2010/03/infant-baptism-synod-2010- discussion.html Preamble: The Methodist Church accepts baptism as a Sacrament of welcome into the Christian church. For this reason we exercise a preferential option for infant baptism. It is our conviction that all people can be welcomed into our faith. Welcoming children is a clear sign of the grace of God already at work in our lives. Our African context affirms the value of children being recognised as forming part of the greater community. “It takes a village to raise a child”. The Sacrament of Baptism as practiced by the MCSA resonates with this view. The vows clearly reflect that baptism does not only concern the individual/s presentation for a religious rite, but that these children belong to a greater community that pledges to nurture these children as they grow in faith. Although baptism involves the whole community, the MCSA asks that one of the parents be a member of the church because this parent acts as the link between the family unit and the community to which the child is presented. Conference’s request to DEWCOM centres around the person/s who present the children for Baptism and effectively asks whether a child’s inclusion into the community should be granted or rejected on the basis of those who bring them to the community. By refusing such baptism the church effectively states that the “sins of the parents shall be visited on their children”.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • A CONTEMPORARY REFORMED DEFENSE of INFANT BAPTISM (C) 2005 R
    A CONTEMPORARY REFORMED DEFENSE OF INFANT BAPTISM (c) 2005 R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved. Introduction Among Western Christians there are four major views on baptism: 1 • Baptism is the means of spiritual renewal and initial justification and sanctification through the infusion of grace received in it, in such a way that one cannot be saved ordinarily without it. Baptism communicates saving grace, by the working of its own power. Children of all church members and unbaptized adult converts must be baptized (Roman Catholic).2 • Baptism is a public testimony to one's faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who have reached the age of discretion can make such a profession of faith. Therefore, only those who are able to confess Christ should be baptized. (Baptist). 3 • Baptism is so closely related to the gospel that through it, Christians receive eternal life and without baptism there can be no assurance of salvation. Both the children of believers and unbaptized adult believers should be baptized (Lutheran). 4 • Baptism is a means of sanctifying grace and a gospel ministry to the people of God. It is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace illustrating what Christ has done for his people and sealing salvation to the same. Therefore covenant children of believing parents as well as unbaptized adult converts should be baptized. (Reformed).5 Protestants uniformly reject the Roman Catholic view of baptism as unbiblical and sub-Christian since it replaces faith as the instrument of justification. Among Bible-believing Protestant churches, the Baptist view is easily the most common and the Reformed view is probably the least well known.
    [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]
  • Beyond Original Sin: Is a Theological Paradigm Shift Inevitable? for the Doctrine of Original Sin
    Article Beyond Original Sin: Is a Theological Paradigm Shift Inevitable? Denis O. Lamoureux Denis O. Lamoureux Written from an evangelical Protestant perspective, this article examines the doctrine of original sin in the light of scripture, the Western Christian tradition, and human evolutionary science. It begins by examining biblical passages from the apostle Paul and classic creeds dealing with original sin in order that readers can feel the weight of questioning the truthfulness of this doctrine. Next, I challenge the concordist hermeneutic that undergirds both the Pauline passages and the traditional understanding of original sin as fi rst formulated by St. Augustine. Finally, this article offers one possible approach for moving beyond the belief in original sin. I will assume an evolutionary creationist view of human origins and argue for a nonconcordist interpretation of biblical passages dealing with the creation of humanity. By embracing a biblically based approach to natural revelation, I then cast human sinfulness within the framework of a Christian evolutionary psychology. he doctrine of original sin has is occurring even within evangelical been a foundational belief of the Protestant circles.3 For example, a land- TChristian faith throughout most of mark issue of Christianity Today in June church history. It is a complex doctrine 2011 featured a cover with a Neanderthal- that is intimately connected to the fall looking male and the title “The Search of humans in Genesis 3 and later inter- for the Historical Adam: The State of the preted by the apostle Paul primarily in Debate.” The cover commented, “Some Romans 5:12–21. Original sin features at scholars believe that genome science [i.e., least ten different facets: fallenness, uni- genetics] casts doubt on the existence of versal sin, fi rst sinful act, original guilt, the fi rst man and fi rst woman.
    [Show full text]