From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 17:28:02 EDT
My comment below:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Subject: Re: Original Sin (was Re: RATE)
> Yes, I agree that original sin is *true*, indeed Neibuhr or Chesterton
> (can't remember which, can someone help?) once said that original sin was
> the most empirically verified theological belief we have.
>
> Romans 5:12 clearly teaches that we *are* all sinners, that we are all
like
> Adam in this respect. The question is, what is the *theory* of original
sin
> as vs the doctrine of original sin?
>
> The "fall" is real, in that we all harbor a great capacity for wickedness,
> rebellion against the Almighty in various forms. Whether the "fall" is
also
> historical, is another question.
>
I think this is a good way to frame the discussion, if by asserting that the
fall is historical one insists that Gen. 3 is to be interpreted (1) as an
actual historical act, and (2) through the framework of Romans 5, taking
5:12 to mean that humanity has inherited the propensity to sin from Adam in
some physical way, so that, as Augustine put it, humanity is a "massa
damnata." This is where Pelagius took issue with Augustine, as the former
argued that we sin after the example of Adam; he is the exemplar of all acts
that alienate us from God, but that we are not to understand sin as a
*substance*, which is what he understood Augustine to mean. If that be the
case, Pelagius wrote, then we "can shake hands with the Manichaeans." This
is one reason why I have never found Augustine's explanation a satisfactory
one, or the notion that we human beings are born depraved. (Even while
observing or interacting with two-year-olds at their most "terrible," I've
never thought their willfull actions to be "depraved.") In the final
analysis, one does not need to insist that the "fall" is historical in order
to hold to a concept of sin as a universal human capacity that nags us to
explain it.
Explaining such an empirical observation has become a differently framed
issue in some areas of Christian and non-Christian thought, one that falls
into the realm of *theory*. Freud offered us the "Id." Evolutionary
thought has opened speculation as to what degree our behavior is the product
of an evolutionary development. I don't find Freud's model of psycho-sexual
development convincing. But I do think theology needs to take seriously the
implications of evolutionary thought on the emergence of the human species,
as it seeks to articulate a notion of sin in the light of all that has been
learned about human beings in the last 100 years. The doctrine of the
"fall"/"original sin" has had its various formulations throughout the
history of Christian thought. I think the time is ripe for another major
look at it.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 17:32:09 EDT