Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T00:15:48.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Original sin, control, and divine blame: some critical reflections on the moderate doctrine of original sin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2024

Aku Visala Open the ORCID record for Aku Visala [Opens in a new window]  and
Olli-Pekka Vainio Open the ORCID record for Olli-Pekka Vainio [Opens in a new window]
Aku Visala*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, Yliopistonkatu 3, Helsinki, Finland
Olli-Pekka Vainio
Affiliation:
Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, Yliopistonkatu 3, Helsinki, Finland
*
Corresponding author: Aku Visala; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines a construal of the doctrine of original sin which affirms the cognitive corruption of human faculties but denies that humans carry original guilt for Adam's fall or for cognitive corruption. All humans require Christ's atonement, because they either inevitably commit at least one sin or are rejected by God for other reasons. We go on to identify three problems with this account. The first problem is the ‘inevitability’ of sinning. Here, the defender is forced either to accept a compatibilist analysis of responsibility or provide a libertarian-friendly analysis of ‘inevitability’. The latter option contradicts the Augustinian contention that it is impossible for sinners to lead a life of virtue and holiness. The second problem has to do with the mechanics of the cognitive effects of sin. The cognitive effects of original sin make it very difficult or inevitable for humans to perform meritorious actions and very easy or inevitable for them to commit sinful actions. If the sinner's degree of control over her sinful actions is so low, it seems that she does not deserve divine blame and punishment for failing to commit meritorious actions. Finally, we raised some problems regarding the fate of the non-culpable sinners.

Keywords

original sinmoral responsibilitycompatibilismlibertarianismfree will
Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , First View , pp. 1 - 15
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bignon, G (2018) Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil. Eugene: Pickwick.Google Scholar
Copan, P (2003) Original sin and Christian philosophy. Philosophia Christi 5, 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couenhoven, J (2013) Stricken by Sin, Cured by Christ. Agency, Necessity and Culpability in Augustinian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, O (2019) Analyzing Doctrine. Toward a Systematic Theology. Waco: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
Crisp, O (2020) A moderate reformed view. In Stump, JB and Meister, C (eds), Original Sin and the Fall. Downer's Grove: IVP Academic, pp. 35–55.Google Scholar
Crisp, O (2023) Participation and Atonement. An Analytic and Constructive Account. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
Fischer, JM and Ravizza, M (1998) Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, WP (2012) Original sin and broad free-will defence. Philosophia Christi 14, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, H (2014) The Fall and Hypertime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, R (1996) The Significance of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Madueme, H and Reeves, M (eds) (2014) Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
McFarland, I (2007) The fall and sin. In Webster, J, Tanner, K and Torrance, I (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140–159.Google Scholar
McFarland, I (2010) In Adam's Fall: A Meditation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444327656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisula, T (2012) Augustine and the Functions of Concupiscence. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preciado, M (2019) The Reformed View of Freedom: The Compatibility of Guidance Control and Reformed Theology. Eugene: Pickwick.Google Scholar
Rea, MC (2007) Metaphysics of original sin. In van Inwagen, P and Zimmerman, D (eds), Persons. Human and Divine. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 319–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, J (2014) The contours of control. Philosophical Studies 170, 395–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, J (2021) The Shape of Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P (2008) Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, E (2018) Atonement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R (1989) Responsibility and Atonement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbert, M (2022) Attributionist theories of moral responsibility. In Nelkin, D and Pereboom, D (eds), Oxford Handbook of Moral Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timpe, K (2014) Free Will in Philosophical Theology. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Timpe, K (2021) ‘Sin in Christian Thought’ in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online: Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sin-christian/.Google Scholar
Timpe, K (2022) The Inevitability of sin. TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology 7. https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v7i2.65953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timpe, K and Speak, D (ed.) (2016) Free Will and Theism: Connection, Contingencies, and Concerns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicens, L (2022) Human freedom and the inevitability of sin. In Furlong, P and Vicens, L (eds), Theological Determinism: New Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicens, L (2023) Christianity and the Problem of Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visala, A and Vainio, O-P (2020) Erasmus versus Luther: a contemporary analysis of the debate on free will. Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 62, 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar