Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TS 102, Shults
Box 7211
Since the Enlightenment of the 18th century, the World has been expressing a growing intolerance for
the Church’s talk about Sin. Consequently, the Church has expressed an increasing reluctance to raise this
topic in its dialog with the World. This breakdown in the Church/World dialog, has registered its effect on
contemporary Evangelical Christianity. On the one hand, the current focus in Evangelism, (on themes such as
purpose, happiness, or ultimate fulfillment,) lacks the urgency and necessity of the Gospel Message, leaving
Christianity unable to compete with rival worldviews, in the contemporary milieu. On the other hand,
attempts of some, to re-assert the doctrine of Sin with renewed zeal, while neglecting to examine the reasons
behind its dissolution, only builds greater walls between Church and World. What’s more, those serious
attempts that have been made by theologians at re-evaluation and renewal of the doctrine, have been off the
radar for most mainstream evangelicals; while those attempts, of which contemporary evangelicalism is
aware, are met with skepticism or outright rejection. This is no small problem for the Church. The doctrine of
Sin is indelibly, linked to the Church’s teaching about the Atonement. Without it, there can be made, no
How we choose to address this problem will ultimately depend on where we place the locus of
responsibility for the breakdown of communication. Millard Erickson is representative of the view held by
many contemporary evangelicals, who place the locus of responsibility with the World. According to this
view, one reason for the breakdown might be simply that people do not like to think of themselves as bad or
evil persons. Another reason might be that those who lack a transcendent theistic reference point do not
consider themselves ultimately accountable for their actions. A third reason might be that unspiritual people
simply cannot grasp the concept of Sin as in inner force, an inherent condition, or a controlling power.1 If the
underlying assumption, behind these reasons, is true, then we truly have reached the time foretold in 2 Tim
4:3. Perhaps the time of human receptivity to the Gospel is now past. An alternative and lest nihilistic view,
1
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998) p. 582
would place the locus of responsibility within the Church; are we indeed talking about Sin in helpful ways?
It is my belief that the cause of this breakdown is the result of a lack of credibility in the Church’s ontology
and praxis. This lack of credibility is rooted in our anachronistic adherence to a Classical Augustinian
formulation of the doctrine, which is dependant on the substance metaphysics and faculty psychology
dominant in the West, prior to the philosophical and scientific turn to relationality in the post-modern era. I
would propose a (re)formation of the doctrine of Sin, along Neiburhian lines of finiteness and anxiety which
Augustine
Prior to Augustine’s influence, the contributions of the Apostle Paul to the doctrine of Sin as an
anthropological condition were not fully realized in by Church.2 The narrative of Genesis 3 did not have a
significant place in Christian reflection on Sin3, nor did Paul’s portrayal of Sin as a power, which holds
humanity captive to the reality of death. In fact, most Greek writers of the patristic period viewed Sin simply
as an abuse of free will.4 In this undeveloped form, the doctrine of human Sin was not in harmony with the
Church’s Soteriology. It could not account for the missionary zeal of the early church, nor could it fully
justify the church’s claim that Jesus was the only source of reconciliation with God.
Augustine’s most recognizable contribution to the contemporary view of Sin in the West is that of
inheritance. Three factors were formative in the creation of this doctrine his conflict with the Pelagians on
the one hand, the Manichees on the other, and his desire to defend the practice of infant baptism.5 This
statement from his major work, City of God, is representative of his formulation of the doctrine of
inheritance.
God, the author of all natures, but not of their defects, created man good; but man,
corrupt by choice and condemned by justice, has produced a progeny that is both
corrupt and condemned. For we all existed in that one man, since taken together, we
2
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology: Vol 2. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994) p. 239-240
3
Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). p.193.
4
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001) p. 442
5
RTA p. 194
were the one man who fell into sin through the woman who was made out of him
before sin existed.6
As a doctrine, inherited Sin can account for a number of biblical truths: that all human beings sin (Rom
3:10-23), that we are fundamentally helpless while under the power of Sin (Rom 6:16-17), and consequently,
that intervention on the part of God is necessary for human salvation (John 15:5, Eph 2:1-6).
Augustine’s concept of inherited Sin, was conceived within the philosophical concept of
traducianism (the belief that the whole, human race was present in Adam and therefore, participated in his
sin). Augustine’s main biblical text for this doctrine is (Rom 5:12), using a flawed Latin translation of the
original Greek expression, evf w-| (because,) which renders it, “in whom”. This fact is widely
acknowledged today, even by those who support the traditional view.7 Even in Augustine’s day, the belief
that seminal souls could participate in Adam’s decision was considered bizarre;8 and since the concept of
inheritance cannot be found in either the Eastern Church or Judaism, we must concede that the assumption is
neither an automatic nor a necessary conclusion to draw from the biblical witness.9
Though advances in our understanding of the reproductive process eventually obliterated the
traducian concept of inheritance, this did not result in a rejection of the concept of inherited Sin. Rather, a
subtle shift occurred, from a traducian view to a genetic one. This shift had unintended effects on
Augustine’s doctrine of inheritance; because, the traducian view, at least according to Augustine, allowed for
our participation in Adam’s sin, making the inheritance a consequence of our own guilt. The genetic view,
makes our participation in Adam’s sin impossible, making guilt itself an inherited trait. The concept of
inherited guilt, without participation calls into question, human responsibility, and God’s justice, which
John Calvin
Augustine’s formulation of the doctrine of Sin was not accepted carte blanche within the Catholic
Church. Many Christians were unwilling to let go of Pelagianism. They correctly assessed that Augustine’s
formulation of the doctrine would lead to a devaluation of human freedom and responsibility.10 The Synod of
6
Augustine, City of God, Book XIII chapter 14.
7
Erickson, p. 653
8
Pannenberg p. 254
9
RTA p. 192
10
McGrath p. 449
Arles c. 473, gave voice to these concerns.11 A subsequent reformulation of the doctrine was made at the
Council of Orange 592, where most of Augustine’s insights were accepted in his own words, but the concept
It was not until the reformation that the Augustine’s formulation of the doctrine was accepted in full.
The theologians of the Reformation protested the excesses of the Catholic Church, one thing at the root of
these abuses and errors – they held, was the Catholic Church’s semi Pelagianism. Calvin expresses this view
in his Institutes.
Teaching man to rely on himself can be no more than sweet seduction, because
everyone who is deluded by it will be ruined.13
Calvin’s Institutes Bk 2, Ch1: Sec.2
Like Augustine, Calvin wanted to express that Sin was substantial, real, and radically pervasive.14 Yet he
did so in a way that casts some doubt on the reality of free will in human agency. For Augustine, Rom. 5:15
meant, humanity needed to be shown what to do, and then gently aided at every point,15 Calvin went farther;
-we are devious and malevolent with every part of us capable of lifelong evil (Rom.
3:10-18). If we are all like this (and the apostle says so clearly), it is easy to see what
would happen if the Lord allowed human passion to have its way. - - -
God heals the elect of these evil things; others he only restrains so that they do not
break out in a way that makes it impossible to maintain law and order.16
Institutes Bk 2, Ch3: Sec.3
In his attempt to show that Sin is more than a formal privation,17 he inadvertently undermined the idea of
free will, which theologians had hitherto sought to preserve. Without the concept of free will, humanity could
not be held responsible for its actions, and the responsibility for evil could be traced back to God.
Contemporary Observations
As I have stated earlier, the contemporary breakdown in the dialog between Church and World, owes
itself to the Church’s adherence to a formulation of the doctrine that is rooted in substance metaphysics and
faculty psychology. According to this view, guilt is an inherited trait, and human beings are born inherently
11
Bettenson, Henry and Chris Maunder eds., Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) p. 65
12
ibid p. 66
13
Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 1987) p 87
14
RTA p.198
15
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction, (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001) p. 448
16
Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 1987) p.94-95
17
RTA p. 198
corrupt (bad, wicked, evil). In the previous sections, I have briefly shown how the doctrine has been
transmitted to us from Augustine down through the reformers especially Calvin. I have also shown some of
the forces that have been formative in the doctrine and how it was shaped, (intentionally and
unintentionally). This previous section examined the lack of ontological credibility in our present
formulation of the doctrine. I have yet to show how this creates a lack of credibility in the church’s praxis.
Therefore, my next task will be, to look at some of the contemporary effects of this formulation of the
The doctrine of Sin, as it is currently formulated, creates tendencies in the Church’s relation to the
world, which are anti-Christ. Because we see Sin as an inherited trait (substance), which everyone possesses
form birth, but that Christ takes away from believers through conversion, one tendency will to dismiss virtue
in those outside the church. Christians today often use passages like Isa 64:6 and Rom 3:10 to support this
tendency. Yet when Jesus addresses the rich young ruler, who says he has obeyed the commandments, he
loves him. Mk 10:21. Our inability to recognize virtue in the non-Christian, contributes greatly to the lack of
Another tendency is to discourage the identification of Sin within the church. Jesus and Paul both
clearly taught that we are to judge ourselves Matt 7:5, and the Church 1 Cor 5:12. Yet the church’s
identification of Sin is primarily directed toward those outside the church. This tendency stifles our own
experience of forgiveness and the opportunity for genuine spiritual growth as well as our ability to proclaim
that message to the world in a credible way. This consequently raises the indignation of a World that is not
The us/them mindset that results from the substance view of Sin inclines the Church toward a
characteristically adversarial stance with the World. This may be part of the force driving the Church in the
“Culture Wars.” The World today is not much different than it was in Jesus day, there were sinful people and
sinful institutions, yet in the Gospels, we see Jesus standing beside sinful people, and challenging sinful
institutions; today we see the church allying itself with sinful institutions against sinful people. Could
anything be farther form the Gospel, which sought to save people and not culture?
What we need, is a formulation of the doctrine of Sin that does the necessary work of the traditional
view, while avoiding any assumptions, which have proven to be unhelpful in the Church’s dialog with the
World. Such a view must be in agreement with the witness of scripture and conversant with a contemporary
ontological assumptions. The philosophical turn to relationality can be helpful in this regard. I am proposing
that we (re)formulate the doctrine according to the recent turn to relationality in contemporary science and
Reinhold Neibuhr puts forth a formulation of the doctrine, which proposes that Sin originates within
the paradox of human freedom and finiteness.18 According to this view, anxiety (which results from this
paradox,) is an inevitable spiritual state for human beings; from it, arises the temptation to sin, as well as the
possibility of faith in God, which transcends our finiteness. As finite beings, which are spiritually aware, our
contingent nature longs for a sense of permanence, as does our identity, which is also derivative. Drawing on
the insights of developmental psychology, Alistair McFadyen describes how our sense of identity and
personhood is formed by our individual history of communication; this makes our encounters with others,
including God significant in shaping who we are.19 If these longings do not find their persistent fulfilling in
God, the human creature will inevitably turn to sinful means to procure it from the creation. Because
creation is incapable of sustaining our being, the result is spiritual, and ultimately physical, death.
The advantages of this view are manifold. First, it would be in harmony with the Church’s
Soteriology (which calls for a certain missionary zeal, as well as support for the bible’s claim that Jesus
Christ is the only way to reconciliation with God). This view supports the doctrine of the universality of Sin
by appeal to common a human condition (anxiety,) from which there is only one legitimate response (faith in
God). Jesus Christ’s position as God’s only means of human salvation is secure, because of his unique status
as the Word, the self revelation of God, the second person of the trinity.
This view also avoids pitfalls of the classic formulation of the doctrine. For instance, it resolves the
Pelagian problem without making God accountable for human evil, by attributing human proclivity toward
18
Thelen, M.F., Man As Sinner, p. 93.
19
McFadyen, A. The Call to Personhood, (Cambridge University Press, 1990) p. 115-116
Sin to the necessary limits of human life when acting in denial of our status as contingent beings. It avoids
the problems of inheritance, especially the genetic concept of inherited guilt, preserving God’s justice.
This view also accounts for the universality of sin all without resorting to the doctrine of total
depravity or predestination to evil; upholding the idea of free agency, which is necessary to preserve the
Finally, this view preserves Augustine’s appropriation of Pauline insights within the Christian
tradition. Sin is a power or force at work in the human being, but it is an inevitable relational dynamic, not a
substance, passed on from generation to generation. Furthermore, this view is fully sympathetic with
Neibuhrian/relational framework, is entirely possible; in fact, it could resolve many problematic elements of
When the World asserts that it does not believe in Sin, or evil, we should not take this to mean that it
has no concept of right and wrong. The awareness of right and wrong, the desire to be treated fairly and
justly, and the ability to recognize when that does not happen – are fundamental to human nature.
It has been rightly stressed that the loss of meaning that the term “sin” has suffered in
the modern consciousness does not mean at all that people today are no longer aware
of the reality of evil. On the contrary, evil, though often perceived only diffusely and
partially, is one of our main problems today.21
The Church finds today that it has been “cut out” of the dialog by a World that no longer wants to engage the
Church on the issues surrounding the human condition. What I mean is this, by rejecting the category of Sin,
the World has decisively resolved to exclude Christianity from the discussion of what to do about the
problem of evil; for it is not merely ontological credibility, which the Church’s doctrine of Sin lacks. The
World also perceives a lack of credibility in the gap between how the church today acts towards Sin and the
way that Jesus acted toward it. Even a casual reading of the New Testament reveals that contemporary
20
Two problematic questions raised by the classic interpretation of Genesis 3: If Adam and Eve were created without the knowledge of Good and Evil
and in their uncorrupted state immortal, how could they have understood the prohibition? What significance does the Tree of Life play for beings who
are created inherently immortal?
21
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology: Vol 2. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994) p.236
evangelicalism’s attitude toward sin differs radically from that of Jesus and the Apostles; sinners flocked to
Jesus, they flee from the Church. Jesus embraced sinners, and avoided association with institutions. The
church builds coalitions with institutions in order to suppress sinners. This is very simplistic and perhaps
imperfect way of stating what is nevertheless quite obvious. The church, which is the body of Christ, does
not relate to a world that is in need of God, in the same way that Jesus did. The world has not changed, the
Church has.
It may indeed be the influence of a substance view of sin, and faculty psychology, which has oriented
the church in its characteristically hostile stance towards the World. We view Sin as a stain or blemish that is
fundamentally part of our person, until Christ removes it. After it is removed, we see ourselves as essentially
pure; at least in God’s eyes, we are forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ. The world sees this as
outright hypocrisy. The reason it does so should be so obvious to anyone. We have forgotten the parable of
the unforgiving debtor. We have also forgotten about the log in our own eye. Were Jesus words “judge not,
lest ye be judged” warning us primarily about the judgment of God, or of other people who see in us the
I agree essentially with those who advocate the need to restore the theme of Sin, to preaching.
Without Sin, we cannot build a compelling case for faith in Jesus Christ. However, the way we speak of Sin
makes a difference. When we see Sin as something we are born with, that makes us fundamentally evil and
detestable to God. Then we see the un-redeemed World as the enemy. We doubt that the people we minister
to are trying to seek truth, goodness, and beauty. We alienate those whom Christ would draw near. When we
see Sin in relational terms, we can freely speak of our own sinfulness, and our experience of God’s grace and
forgiveness through Jesus Christ. The Gospel becomes good news again. Further, we can acknowledge
peoples longing for the good, true, and beautiful, and can commend their virtue without the sense that we are
undermining the Gospel. The result would be a church that does not support a culture of hypocrisy, and that
Seeing Sin from the perspective of relationality can also be very fruitful for one’s spiritual growth. I
have found this to be true, as I have moved away from merely seeking to know things about God, to knowing
God Himself. Devotional practices, suddenly take on a new significance as one makes the shift from
gathering information, to simply spending time. No longer is there pressure to find the spiritual principals
that will help me overcome Sin and somehow attain righteousness. Newness of life is not to be found in
principals, helpful as they may be. In prayer, there is no longer the expectation; the longing for something to
happen that will change me suddenly. One’s spiritual identity only changes, as one’s relationship to God
changes, (i.e. from someone who knows X number of things about God, to someone who spends time with
God). Then, you are no longer relating to God as object of knowledge. You do not worry about how
productively your time is being spent, you are not necessarily seeking to get something out of it, the
relationship itself is the payoff. Spending time with God is how you become God’s friend. Christianity is all
about relationships. I find evangelicals generally believe this, or at least they acknowledge it, and yet most
of our striving continues to be for more information, most of our sermons continue to be around keys for
effective living, rather than focusing on our identity, who we really are in Christ.
I have already mentioned the work of Alistair McFadyen. His insight about the formation of identity
through our history of communication is important here because it has much to do with what we encounter in
the scriptures. When we think about personal spiritual growth, as well as the spiritual growth of others, we
must keep in mind the way God intends us as persons when God communicates with us. We ought to pay
attention to these words, rather than skip over them in search of commands to fulfill, and principles to live
by. Most of what is written in the epistles concerns our identity (who we are,) in Christ. If what McFadyen
says is true, then merely hearing them affects who we are and who we are becoming. This is perhaps the
- the real word of God heals simply by being heard, by being heard as the holy voice
of him who has authority to call people home to himself. The real gospel is not there
for us to translate into “practical rules for living.” If we have done that, we would
have gained nothing in our fight against sin. Rather, that “good word” must succeed
and gain influence with us as it is in itself. This is really all that matters.22
When I hear the communication by which God intends who I am, when I receive it from him, thank him for
it, confess it as true, offer it to others, the power to change people at a very radical level is unleashed. The
22
Gestrich, C. The Return of Splendor in the World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997) p.27
Bible is the Spirit’s Book not primarily words about God, but the self-communication of God by which God
gives us himself.
All that remains is for me to present some possible objections to this view along with my response.
“Doesn’t rejection of the classical formulation of the doctrine of Sin fail to take seriously the reality
of Sin?” Denying the Substance view of Sin is not the same as denying the reality of Sin. This relational
view of Sin would agree with Calvin on two points. Sin is real and radically pervasive; however, it is not
substantial. The philosophical turn to relationality calls into question the reality of “substance” as an
ontological category; however, it does not need to call into question reality and the inter-relationality of
existing persons. Our experience of Sin as a power that influences human agency is real. Its hold on the
World is real. I would argue that this view takes Sin more seriously, because it is a serious attempt to deal
with the ontological assumptions, which lead to the breakdown in the Church/World dialog, rather than
falling into the Nihilism, which will inevitably result from an unexamined re-assertion of the Augustinian
formula.
Millard Erickson questions whether23 Neibuhr’s formulation of the doctrine of Sin requires us to
depend on our own ability, to trust God and thus overcome the anxiety of our finitude. We must remember
that the effectiveness of faith depends on what it is oriented toward. Faith does not merely give us the
psychological confidence to overcome the anxiety surrounding our finitude, if it is oriented toward the true
God it restores us to the source of all life and provision; therefore it is not about what we can do but what
Feminist Criticism – Doesn’t this focus on Sin provide a one sided view of the atonement i.e.
forgiveness without healing? Is there room in this view for healing as atonement? The fact of Sin necessarily
precedes the fact of woundedness. This in no way precludes the necessity of developing a view of the
atonement that emphasizes healing for the wounded and dis-empowered. Forgiveness and healing both come
23
Erickson, p.606
Bibliography
Augustine. City of God, (abridged for modern readers) ed. By Vernon J. Bourke, (New York: Doubleday, 1958).
Bettenson, Henry and Chris Maunder eds., Documents of the Christian Church, 3rd edition (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999).
Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker 1987).
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998).
Gestrich, C. The Return of Splendor in the World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997).
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology: Vol 2. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994).
Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).
Thelen, M.F. Man As Sinner in Contemporary American Realistic Theology, (New York: Kings Crown Press, 1946).