original sin

Original Sin and the Fall (Spectrum Multiview Books), edited by J. B. Stump and Chad Meister. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020.

Summary: An overview of five different views of original sin and the fall, with responses by each contributor to the other views.

Christians have traditionally believed that the first human beings enjoyed “original righteousness.” They were sinless and able not to sin. Then sin entered the world through Adam and Eve and has tainted all human beings such that only God can overcome our “fallen” condition through Christ. This “taint” is what is understood as original sin. Beyond this broad explanation, Christians have disagreed on many of the specifics of this doctrine. Does original sin entail original guilt? Are humans, even under prevenient grace, able to contribute anything to their salvation? With the greater, but hardly universal acceptance of evolution, how are we to understand the Genesis accounts of original sin?

This volume explores all these questions. Proponents of five views that reflect a broad spectrum of Christian thought contribute to this discussion:

Hans Madueme sets forth the traditional Reformed-Augustinian view, affirming original sin and original guilt with death and the judgment of God following, irrespective of our acts.

Oliver Crisp represents a modified Reformed view in basic agreement with the Reformed position except for not affirming original guilt.

Joel Green speaks for the Wesleyan view which affirms original sin but holds the individual guilty for only their own sins and sees sin not only as depravity but also disease.

Andrew Louth, a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy describes the Eastern Orthodox understanding, which stresses ancestral rather than original sin and focus not on fall and redemption but the arc from creation to deification, within which this sin occurs.

Tatha Wiley speaks for a reconceived view, drawing upon Catholic theologian Bernard Lonergan. Original sin is reconceived as a failure of authenticity, a failure to act upon what one rationally understands. We stand in need of intellectual, moral, and religious conversions. She advocates for a new approach contending biblical accounts reflect a pre-scientific view of the world and modern advances require a different formulation.

Each contributor responds to all the others. Each is gracious to the others, distinguishing their own from other views without polemics. The editors briefly introduce the discussion and then step out of the way.

A few observations. Madueme offers a statement of the Reformed position at its best and not a caricature. Crisp, while I think the best in framing his views seems a bit of a compromise–halfway between Reformed and Wesleyan, not quite either. Joel Green’s distinctive contribution is as a biblical rather than systematic theologian. He offers an interesting discussion on what Genesis 1-3 and other texts say and don’t say about original sin. Louth, rooting his work in the Eastern fathers speaks from a different framework, focused more on the arc of creation to theosis than focusing on sin. Here the focus is rather on death. Wiley’s was the least familiar to me and seems untethered from the biblical accounts. Further, while engaging science, as Crisp notes, she does not explain “what compelling reasons there are for the kind of doctrinal reconstruction she advocates.”

The discussion helps us to understand the interconnected nature of Christian doctrine, how our understanding of God, our anthropology, our soteriology, and eschatology all connect. I’m reminded of the pressing questions I’ve been asked by those of exploring faith of how we can be held responsible for Adam’s sin, or even our own sinful nature from birth. We see different ways of answering that may offer better language and explanations. This is a valuable adjunct to any study of systematic theology.

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Finding Ourselves After Darwin, Stanley P. Rosenberg ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.

Summary: This book presents and discusses multiple approaches to thinking about the image of God, original sin, and the problem of evil in light of biological evolution.

This collection of essays is one result of a research project at Oxford University which “assembled scholarship presenting different approaches and methods and insights, introducing a variety of models that may be considered . . .” (p. 8). The individual authors are primarily theologians and biblical scholars, some with a science background.

As the title implies, biological evolution is presupposed, and the issue is how to think about the image of God, original sin, and the problem of evil in the light of biological evolution. The book is divided into three parts, one for each topic. Each part includes a brief introduction, a discussion of the questions, challenges, and concerns for the topic, several essays offering different approaches, and a conclusion and further reading list.

Part 1 deals with why the image of God is important in the theology-evolutionary science dialogue. It begins with a discussion of what constitutes human distinctiveness. After four essays offering different views of the image of God in the light of recent developments in evolutionary science, Michael Burdett concludes by suggesting that “it is entirely possible that each of these models could be combined in interesting ways such that hybrid models could be constructed that rely on aspects from each one outlined here.” (p. 109)

Part 2 deals with original sin. The opening essay by Gijsbert van den Brink suggests that biological evolution does not require a radical abandonment of the doctrine of original sin, but rather a recontextualization within an evolutionary framework. After essays on Augustinian, Irenaean, federal headship, and cultural approaches, Christopher M. Hays presents a compelling account of the ways in which evolutionary theory aids our understanding of the universality of sin without appealing to an Adamic fall. In his conclusion, Benno van den Toren suggests that “Insights from different theories might well be combined for a new theological synthesis to arise out of this fermentation process. (p. 206)

Part 3 deals with the problem of evil by presenting a variety of approaches. Essayists discuss Augustinian, Irenaeasn, fall-of-the-angels, free process, only way, and non-identity theodicy and how they relate to evolution. The concluding essay by Michael Lloyd suggests that, despite their differences, the contributors to this part seem to believe the following: (1) the current state of evolutionary biology and modern genetics leaves plenty of room in which to do theodicy, (2) the seriousness of the problem of evil in relation to the evolutionary processes, (3) this volume falls far short of a full theodical narrative, and (4) their positions still have challenges to face and work to do.

The three Further Reading lists, the 26-page Bibliography, and the numerous informative footnotes provide a wealth of opportunities to pursue specific topics of personal interest.

It would help to have some familiarity with the issues before tackling this book, but it does succeed in bringing together multiple approaches to dealing with the image of God, original sin, and the problem of evil in light of evolution. I can recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. Three other helpful essay collections on the same topic are “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation”, “Theology After Darwin,” and “Darwin, Creation and the Fall.”

__________________________

This guest review was contributed by Paul Bruggink, a retired technical specialist whose review interest is in the area of science and faith.