Journal articles on the topic 'Doctrine of sin'

“I want to suggest that the doctrine of sin is vigorously alive but has migrated. It has moved into different contexts provided by various doctrinal loci; it has moved under the pressure of subtly different judgments about what the basic gist is of the Christian message; and the effects of the moves are pastorally, morally, and even politically practical. We can broadly map the doctrine's migration by noting its traditional home and sketching three trajectories along which it has migrated.”

This article seeks to demonstrate the coherence of Athanasius of Alexandria’s soteriology by drawing attention to the interrelationship between his doctrines of sin and redemption. Traditional accounts of Athanasius’s doctrine of salvation often present an incomplete picture by, for example, underemphasizing sin and the effects of the Fall or overemphasizing deification. In fact, Athanasius’s soteriology is balanced and intelligible insofar as he integrates a robust doctrine of sin with a deep and rich soteriology founded upon the Incarnation. Therefore, this study lends further support to the thesis in contemporary studies that Athanasius is a consistent thinker who integrates various doctrines of the Christian faith into a coherent system.

Huldrych Zwingli’s understanding of original sin is usually sidelined in contemporary Reformed theology. In this paper I argue that Zwingli’s views are worthy of theological retrieval for contemporary dogmatics. His position offers a moderate version of the doctrine that has ecumenical promise. It also avoids well-known objections to some later Reformed views such as that it unjustly imputes guilt to the innocent, and the sin of one (Adam) to the many (humanity). Although there are some difficulties in Zwingli’s account, I argue that his doctrine provides a useful framework for a contemporary moderate Reformed account of original sin.

Abstract This research aims to identify the guilt concepts used in Reformed doctrines on the origin and transmission of sin and to evaluate them in light of the criteria of biblical authenticity, rational plausibility, fairgrounds of culpability, and the principle of causing non-harm. The results show that the Reformed tradition predominantly employs the notions of original guilt, inherited guilt, collective ‘species’ guilt (realism), ‘devolved’ collective guilt (federalism), and actual guilt. Actual guilt is the only guilt concept that satisfies all of the stated criteria, as it preserves the link between human agency and human accountability. The question that flows from this observation is: Can Reformed original sin doctrines be purged from harmful guilt concepts without subverting the essence of the doctrine? The article suggests that the notion of actual guilt is perfectly capable of carrying the basic message of the original sin doctrines, provided that we keep the personal and collective dimensions of actual guilt together and that we refrain from espousing comprehensive causal-explanatory theories on the transmission of sin.

ABSTRACTTheologians have long recognized that the Augustinian formulation of the doctrine of original sin, based on a historicized reading of Genesis 3, is at odds with biblical scholarship and with what science has established concerning our evolutionary origins. Setting aside Augustine's anti-Gnostic Adamic myth, some attempt to recast the doctrine within an evolutionary worldview by developing an anthropology within the framework of genetics and sociobiology, now evolutionary psychology. This essay argues that a wholly biological explanation of the human tendency to evil is inadequate, even reductionist, and it attempts a constructive reformulation of the doctrine that, while incorporating insights of evolutionary psychology, appeals also to ontological, psychological, and social dimensions of humanity that must also be considered if we are to retrieve the central, still valid point of the doctrine, that deep within human being there inheres a proclivity to evil.

Abstract Theodicy wrestles with suffering and pain, while seeking to understand God’s engagement with these realities. Cancer raises similar questions, while focusing on specific aspects of those questions. Cancer appears to challenge many aspects of Christian doctrine, in particular issues regarding the origin of sin, Christology, and ultimately one’s doctrine of God. This article explores how my own personal diagnosis of colon cancer has led to an exploration and re-evaluation of these traditional doctrines and their relevance for my own faith journey. The realities of cancer, and random cell mutation as an evolutionary driver, appear to call into question traditional understandings of the origin of suffering and sin, and, I would argue, the very role of Jesus. A process theology that redefines core features of the nature of God is proposed as one way of addressing these doctrines and their impact for faith. These features will note the limited nature of God with regard to power and knowledge as well as the nature of a God who truly risks.

The focus of this essay is on how, and to what extent, John Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection was influenced by his readings of the late fourth-century monastic preacher, Macarius Symeon. In this essay, I argue that Wesley focuses too narrowly upon Macarius’s language of Christian perfection to the neglect of his broader theological reflection. In doing so, Wesley sets out to paint upon a doctrinal canvas using fourth-century paint, yet neglects some of the necessary hues and tones. Wesley’s doctrine of Christian perfection evolved throughout his life, though his reliance upon Macarius is well noted in his writings. The difference, however, between the 18th-century revival preacher and the fourth century Egyptian monk is a greater recognition of earthly struggle and sin in this present life. While Macarius uses perfection language, his notion of the Christian life provided a much more grounded reality of sin and fallen human nature, contrary to Wesley’s rendering with his doctrinal formulation.

Responding to the too-optimistic theology of fellow Arminian, John Taylor, John Wesley wrote his lengthy treatise on the doctrine of original sin. In an optimistic effort to make fellow personalist theologians’ works accessible, Methodist theologian Georgia Harkness tersely disdained the same doctrine in her first major book. She soon found her liberal theology “chastened” by interactions with neo-orthodox opponents and experiences of depravity—in world events and gender-based discrimination reflecting systemic sin. This article examines her later works for evidence of whether Harkness modified her attitude toward original sin and innovations she made to accommodate both her disdain for the doctrine and the realities of depravity.

Durante un tiempo considerable buena parte de la doctrina cooperativa señalaba que las cooperativas eran entidades sin fines de lucro. Algunas leyes, sobre todo de mediados del S. XX, recogían esa fórmula a la hora de definir la naturaleza de estas particulares empresas. En la actualidad, sin embargo, doctrina y legislaciones parecen abandonar dicha formulación. En este artículo ahondaremos en las razones de esta evolución y analizaremos cómo los textos legales más representativos que sobre la economía social y solidaria se han ido gestando en diferentes países de América en lo que va del S. XXI, han tratado la naturaleza de las empresas del sector solidario en relación con el lucro. For a long time some cooperative doctrine defined the cooperatives as a non-profit corporation. Some laws, especially of mid-20th century, defined the nature of these particular organizations using this idea. Today, however, doctrine and legislation seem to leave such formulation. In this article we analize into the reasons for this evolution and will look at how the most representative SSE laws in different countries of South America have recognize the nature of the SSE sector in relation to the profits.

ORIGINAL SIN AND THE FALL: Five Views by J. B. Stump and Chad Meister, eds. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020. 200 pages. Paperback; $24.00. ISBN: 9780830852871. *The doctrine of original sin has been controversial since its earliest articulation by Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century, and it remains a provocative source of debate for Christian theologians in our time. Controversy surrounding the doctrine has only intensified as a scientific and evolutionary framework has come to characterize modern thinking. Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views provides a forum in which representatives from different Christian traditions are able not only to articulate their own perspectives on original sin and the Fall, but also to respond to the views presented by others in the volume. *Hans Madueme articulates one approach to the doctrine of original sin and the Fall from within the Reformed tradition, an "Augustinian-Reformed" perspective. While he states in the beginning of the essay that he developed his approach "with an eye to recent scientific challenges," he does not engage in a sustained way with information from scientific discourses (p. 12). Instead, he points out some of the shortcomings he perceives in theological accounts of original sin that attempt a synthesis with evolutionary accounts of the world, and he argues that theology should not be too quick to conform to deliverances from the sciences since "scientific consensus is a moving target" (p. 33). Madueme asserts the priority of biblical exegesis and theological evidence, which he views as affirming a historical, cosmic Fall, imputing moral corruption and guilt. Madueme is compelling in this essay in his identification of the many potential pitfalls inherent to the task of reconciling a theological approach to original sin with the current scientific consensus. However, the essay leaves one desiring more work from Madueme to reconcile his rejection of contemporary science with his belief in the unity of scientific and theological truths, since, as he affirms, all truth comes from God. *Continuing in the Reformed vein, Oliver Crisp presents a "moderate" approach to original sin and the Fall that he describes in terms of "dogmatic minimalism" (p. 37). This means that Crisp affirms "as 'thin' an account [of original sin] as is doctrinally possible" (p. 37) while still being consonant with his broader theological commitments. For Crisp, being afflicted by original sin means that every human (except for Christ) has a "morally vitiated condition," and yet does not bear the burden of inherited guilt. Crisp argues that the notion of inherited guilt is "monumentally unjust," and that humans should be held culpable only for actions that "they themselves perform or to which they are party" (p. 47). Crisp argues that one benefit of his approach is that one can hold it in tandem with a variety of different beliefs about human origins and the historicity of the Genesis account. The rejection of inherited guilt is perhaps the least persuasive aspect of Crisp's essay. Though he affirms that all of humanity is metaphysically united, he rejects the notion that this requires a belief in shared guilt. To defend this point, he uses the example of a child born into a family of slaves and argues that the child born into this plight "is not responsible for being born a slave" (p. 41). However, it is odd that Crisp used this example instead of the example of the child born into a family of enslavers. Does not the child born into an enslaving family, who benefits from the system of slavery, bear some culpability for it, even if only passively? *Joel Green's contribution draws from his expertise in biblical studies and is written from a Wesleyan perspective. He argues that Wesley viewed the doctrine of original sin as "essential to the theological grammar of Scripture and life" (p. 56). While Wesley emphasized the impairment of human nature, he did not embrace the notion of total depravity, arguing instead that God's work of healing has begun within the human race. Green shifts next to reflect on the significance of Adam and Eve's sin from the perspective of Second Temple Jewish texts. He argues that evidence of belief in original sin cannot be found in these texts, and suggests that this is significant in terms of understanding the mindset of New Testament writers who may have been influenced by them. Green then turns to the New Testament. He argues that in Romans 5, Paul is not interested in developing a doctrine of original sin. Instead, Paul seeks to establish the equal status of Jews and Gentiles before God (p. 70). Finally, Green assesses Genesis 1-3, arguing that these chapters also do not provide a foundation for the doctrine of original sin, although they do reveal a belief in the pervasiveness and heritability of sin, "not in the sense of passing sin down biologically but in the sense of pattern and influence" (p. 73). In his conclusion, Green argues that Wesley refused to choose between Scripture and the "book of nature," that is, the natural sciences. He uses this as inspiration to briefly suggest a way of maintaining belief in the Fall while also acknowledging the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens. Green's essay is helpful in that its reflection on original sin is explicitly in dialogue with insights from evolutionary biology, making this a needed contribution, given the popular perception that evolution has disproven the doctrine. *Andrew Louth provides a nuanced account of an Eastern Orthodox approach to thinking about inherited sin. He first clarifies that part of the dissonance between Western and Eastern thinking about inherited sin can be explained in terms of problems of translation. He notes, "The term original sin (peccatum originale) belongs to a particular Western context; nor is it easy to translate into Greek" (p. 79). A central insight of Louth's essay is his thesis that Western theology begins from the point of view of the Fall and becomes narrowly focused on the notion of redemption. In contrast, he argues, Eastern theology begins from creation and culminates in deification. Eastern Christians view sin through a cosmic lens, and fallen humanity not in terms of inherited guilt but in terms of suffering the effects of the inheritance of death. To illustrate his arguments about the differences between Western and Eastern approaches to sin, Louth juxtaposes the writings of Athanasius and Anselm. He then examines the works of Sergii Bulgakov and Dumitru Stăniloae and argues that they continue the trend of viewing sin in the context of creation and deification. The final section of Louth's essay addresses the sinlessness of Mary via Bulgakov's approach to the issue. This aspect of his essay is particularly welcome since only one other essay (Oliver Crisp's) in the volume mentions Mary in relation to the doctrine of original sin. While Louth's argument that the West focuses narrowly on the Fall-redemption arc could perhaps be challenged, his essay nevertheless illuminates important differences in emphasis between Eastern and Western Christian thinking about sin and makes a crucial contribution to the conversation. *Tatha Wiley, in the so-called reconceived view, draws from the theology of Bernard Lonergan, S.J., to develop an exorcising approach to the doctrine of original sin. Wiley takes seriously the ways in which the traditional articulation of the doctrine has lost credibility in the contemporary age. She suggests that this is a result of its dissonance with modern biblical scholarship and evolutionary biology, and its history of being used to deny the goodness of humanity and sexuality. Wiley emphasizes the time-bound nature of all human understanding, and the fact that theological doctrines will inevitably reflect the historical frameworks in which they are articulated. In the current age, Wiley argues, this requires us to take seriously the scientific context in which we live, as well as our "authentic values" (p. 106). In her recasting of the doctrine, Wiley suggests via Lonergan that the "root sin" of humanity is "sustained unauthenticity" (p. 124). Wiley's contribution is compelling in its boldness. Rather than suggesting a few minor tweaks to the doctrine, she presents a rigorous rethinking of it. Wiley's essay is also valuable in that it addresses the gendered effects of the doctrine's history, and is the only essay in the volume to do so. *Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views is a thought-provoking treatment of one of the most debated aspects of Christian theology. On the whole, the book will likely be useful for professional theologians, students of theology at the graduate and undergraduate levels, pastoral ministers, and interested lay people. The "Responses" portion of the book was especially engaging, as the authors were quite candid in terms of assessing the lines of divergence in the group. The book provides thoughtful approaches to a difficult theological puzzle in which clear positions are established, not only from diverse points of view without apology, but also with genuine efforts to understand and accurately represent the positions of the others. Given the brevity of the volume, there were inevitably many unanswered questions evoked. Those familiar with theological discussions surrounding original sin will likely wish for more-thorough engagement with the challenges raised by evolutionary biology, as well as more reflection on recent shifts in thinking about evolution expressed in the extended evolutionary synthesis. These developments are friendlier to theological intuitions about inherited sin. *Reviewed by Megan Loumagne Ulishney, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Theology and Religious Studies, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK NG7 2RD.

In this paper, I argue that no strong doctrine of the Fall can undermine the propriety of epistemic self-trust. My argument proceeds by introducing a common type of philosophical methodology, known as reflective equilibrium. After a brief exposition of the method, I introduce a puzzle for someone engaged in the project of self-reflection after gaining a reason to distrust their epistemic selves on the basis of a construal of a doctrine of the Fall. I close by introducing the worry as a formal argument and demonstrate the self-undermining nature of such an argument.

En Francia; las relaciones entre los métodos utilizados para desarrollar una ciencia del Derecho Constitucional, por una parte, y una ciencia del Derecho Administrativo, por otra parte, están evolucionadas y resultan complejas. Se trata aquí de determinar cómo y por qué los especialistas de estas dos disciplinas se sirven de los métodos de la otra. Además, cuando un académico generalista está estudiando tanto el Derecho Administrativo como el Derecho Constitucional, ¿lo hace con las mismas herramientas metodológicas? De este estudio se deduce que los intercambios metodológicos son significativamente desequilibrados. Los métodos asignados a los especialistas en Derecho Administrativo ejercen más influencia en el estudio del Derecho Constitucional que a la inversa. Esta conclusión, sin embargo, parece más compleja con respecto a los académicos generalistas. Por lo tanto, mientras que para los especialistas, respectivamente en Derecho Administrativo y en Derecho Constitucional, la metodología se está convirtiendo en un factor determinante para fundar la autonomía científica de su propia disciplina, al contrario, para los académicos generalistas, es la postura epistemológica previamente adoptada la que determine las opciones metodológicas.

The topic of original sin in the context of theology-science discussions has, quite naturally, tended to focus on how this condition might have originated in view of scientific knowledge about early humanity. But that is only one aspect of the doctrine. What is really important for most people is the question of what original sin means today. Here that aspect of the doctrine is considered from a pastoral perspective first. Then I review and clarify what I have suggested in earlier publications about the origins of original sin.

AbstractBy comparing the theories of evil found in Kant and Kierkegaard, this article aims to shed new light on Kierkegaard, as well as on the historical and conceptual relations between the two philosophers. The author shows that there is considerable overlap between Kant's doctrine of radical evil and Kierkegaard's views on guilt and sin and argues that Kierkegaard approved of the doctrine of radical evil. Although Kierkegaard's distinction between guilt and sin breaks radically with Kant, there are more Kantian elements in Kierkegaard than was shown by earlier scholarship. Finally, Kierkegaard provides an alternative solution to the problem of the universality of guilt, a problem much discussed in the literature on Kant.

The learning pattern of the Dogmatics course tends to be directed at mastering and memorizing Christian doctrines, and participants find it difficult to connect Christian doctrines learned to real-life realities. The course materials become things to memorize, not things to believe. In the Dogmatics learning process, a learning pattern that can improve understanding of course materials and be applied in everyday life is needed. This research aims to describe the application of the combined teaching method to improve participants' understanding of course materials and to be able to relate them to daily life. It is descriptive &qualitative research. The research was conducted at Simpson Theological Seminary Ungaran on the odd semester of 2020/2021 Academic Year. The objects of this research were 15 participants and lecturers of Christian Religious Education major participating in the Dogmatics I course. The results show that applying a combination of lecture and Q&A methods could improve participants' understanding of course material and connect lecture material to daily life. Evaluation of learning outcomes showed a good level of understanding of the course material, in which participants could connect the concepts in learning to everyday life

A christological treatment of sin is, for Karl Barth, the only possibility for those who wish to know something of that which opposes life in Christ. Such a treatment must be christologically ordered in so far as Christ remains the arche, teloas, and nomos of theological thought. It is not coincidental, then, that his treatment of sin is proper to the doctrine of reconciliation and ordered by the christological assertion that Jesus Christ is truly God, truly human, and the unity of these as the ‘guarantor and witness of our atonement.’ Indeed, the knowledge of sin is only possible in the light of the revelation of God and humanity in the God-man Jesus Christ. Consequently, the doctrine of reconciliation is the proper place for the knowledge of sin in so far as Jesus, the one who knew no sin, was made to be sin ‘so that we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21). To know sin one must face the one who became sin for our sakes.

AbstractThis paper provides a reading of the late Augustine which supports the hypothesis that, while the early Augustine believed that pride is the basic sin, he changes his views during the Pelagian controversies, and advocates instead (contra Pelagius) the thesis that sin, post-fall, does not take on any one form. Augustine makes some key, though rarely discussed, statements about the nature of sin that, particularly when his views are put into perspective within his larger doctrine of sin, indicate that Augustine does not think all sin can be reduced to pride. Indeed, Augustine's controversial views about original sin incline him to believe that, far from being self-aggrandising, sin often takes the form of (and is often a sign and result of) ignorance and weakness. Thus, a careful reading of Augustine's doctrine of sin shows that he has significant commonalities with his feminist critics, precisely at one of the points on which he has been most criticised.

Abstract This article interprets the story of Sarah and Hagar in terms of the relative freedom of humanity in creation and the absolute freedom of God for creation. The interpretation follows the narrative flow of the story, pointing out the free decisions of the actors and God's responses to them. It is argued that the figures of Hagar and Ishmael fully represent the unfulfilled status of the promise that God will bless all nations through Abraham's offspring. Their expulsion demonstrates the scandalous nature of existence, one in which people are cast out through no fault of their own. Nonetheless, God still responds to them graciously. This theological interpretation provides a framework for a discussion concerning Augustine's doctrines of original sin and infant baptism as well as Karl Barth's doctrine of election in Christ. The interpretation of the Sarah-Hagar narrative allows one to take insights from both theologians. The article concludes with a statement regarding infant baptism and the church's current location between promise and fulfillment.

Abstract This article interprets the story of Sarah and Hagar in terms of the relative freedom of humanity in creation and the absolute freedom of God for creation. The interpretation follows the narrative flow of the story, pointing out the free decisions of the actors and God's responses to them. It is argued that the figures of Hagar and Ishmael fully represent the unfulfilled status of the promise that God will bless all nations through Abraham's offspring. Their expulsion demonstrates the scandalous nature of existence, one in which people are cast out through no fault of their own. Nonetheless, God still responds to them graciously. This theological interpretation provides a framework for a discussion concerning Augustine's doctrines of original sin and infant baptism as well as Karl Barth's doctrine of election in Christ. The interpretation of the Sarah-Hagar narrative allows one to take insights from both theologians. The article concludes with a statement regarding infant baptism and the church's current location between promise and fulfillment.

Due to its highly contextual character the doctrine of original sin has been generating much discussion and controversy in regards to its proper meaning. This is particularly manifest as the classical formulation of this doctrine is confronted with the outcomes of contemporary science concerning the evolutionary scenarios of the origin and the development of the human species. The aim of the inquiry presented in this paper is to clearly present and discuss the main challenges that these scenarios present to the classical doctrine on original sin and how the different aspects are addressed and resolved within the novel interpretations, which shift their focus from the literal historical reading of original sin to treating is as a metaphor for the fundamental condition of human nature. The inquiry is additionally supported by the basic outcomes of the contemporary exegesis of the Book of Genesis, as well as a survey of some basic methodological issues pertaining to the nature of theological language. Finally, an extension to an existing interpretation of original sin is proposed, aimed at improving the consistency of its understanding with the evolutionary (dynamic) picture of the Universe.

AbstractIn this paper, I examine the four elements—universal sinfulness, natural sinfulness, inherited sinfulness, and Adamic sinfulness—of the doctrine of original sin in both the Reformed confessions, with particular attention to the Canons of Dort, and the Council of Trent’s definitive teaching on Original Sin. I give particular attention to the question regarding how all men are implicated in the sin of Adam. Realism and federalism will be analyzed as answers to this question. Even if a theological account is given that justifies the claim that God may justly impute Adam’s sin to his posterity, that still leaves unanswered the question of unconditional negative reprobation, also called, preterition (praeteritio), namely, that God passes over some and not others. Does preterition jeopardize the Church’s call to evangelization? That question will need to be reconsidered briefly, and in conclusion, in light of the doctrine of divine election and its implications for the preaching and hence proclamation of the gospel.

In this article, I discuss the extent to which St. Paul’s view of the doctrine of Original Sin ought to be taken as authoritative for confessing Christians today. I begin with the observation that there are, in the main, two camps represented in the contemporary literature. On the one hand, there are those who affirm the presence of Original Sin in Rom. 5, and consequently embrace the doctrine; on the other hand, there are those who deny Original Sin any substantive anchor in the text, and as a result conclude it is not necessary to believe today. I argue that things are not so straightforward, and present what I take to be a legitimate via media between these two positions. In the first main section of the article, I argue on exegetical grounds that Rom. 5:12–21 can be rendered adequately intelligible only when we admit that something like the Augustinian view of Original Sin is present at least in nuce. This I attempt to demonstrate in conversation with Douglas Moo and C. E. B. Cranfield (plus a bonus thought from Luther). While not, of course, the full-blown Augustinian doctrine, St. Paul's mind is, I contend, much nearer to the former’s view of Original Sin than is commonly supposed. However, in the second main section I turn my attention to the question, So what? I discuss a number of theological and exegetical considerations which make it clear, I think, that St. Paul is not urging belief in Original Sin so much as he is utilizing an “intertestamental expansion” of an OT text to paint a picture about Christ and what we ought to believe about him. As such, I encourage and defend the application of a relatively mild hermeneutical principle which will allow the theologian a clear and biblically faithful way around the doctrine of Original Sin, if this is what is desired.

Debt—as it has been frequently noted—seems inextricably tied, semantically as well as historically, to the notion of guilt. Less attention, however, has been paid to the Christian origin of this guilt complex in the doctrine of ‘the original sin’. The present article argues that Kierkegaard’s critique of the doctrine of original sin, formulated on the brink of high capitalism, can be read as a critical reflection on the uses and abuses of the concept of history to suit doctrinaire ends. Kierkegaard’s critique then, its shortcomings notwithstanding, pertains to a wider problematic concerning the ideological instrumentality of historico-philosophical myths of origin. In the history of capitalism, as Marx pointed out, the doctrine of the original sin is transposed from the sphere of religion to that of political economy, where it figures as ‘original accumulation’. Within this critical framework—and drawing on recent Marxist feminist critiques from Silvia Federici and Roswitha Scholz, respectively—the article further pursues to expose and critique the ideological default of the idea of an original accumulation.

Scandal was defined in the medieval church as the sin of causing another's fall by providing a bad example in word or deed. The theology of scandal was developed particularly by Peter the Chanter (d1197) and his early thirteenth-century followers Robert Courson, Stephen Langten, and Thomas of Chobham, and it was crystallized by Thomas Aquinas into the doctrine which survives in the Catholic Church today. Scandal was a sin against charity, since it endangered the souls of others, and most thirteenth-century writers on the subject agreed that it could be a mortal sin, depending on the kind of sin it provoked in another. It was so serious that it was to be avoided at all costs, except where the truths of life (the Christian way of living to attain eternal life), doctrine (Christian teaching), and justice (Christian law and order, and rectitude) were concerned.

The Catholic doctrine on original sin was dogmatized in the 16th century at the Council of Trent. Since then a lot has changed: the way of interpreting the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, the scientific paradigm describing the beginning of the world and human existence on earth, and finally the philo-sophical paradigm. This situation has contributed to various contemporary reinterpretations of the truth about original sin, despite the conservative posi-tion of the Church’s Magisterium. Among the various trends of contemporary reinterpretations of the doctrine of original sin, the author puts himself in the trend of reinterpretation based on the redemption story and tries to present the dogmatized teaching of the Church, taking into account the problems of the contemporary vision of the world and the scientific paradigm.

A crucial objection to the doctrine of original sin is that it conflicts with a common intuition that agents are morally responsible only for factors under their control. Here, I present an account of moral responsibility by Michael Zimmerman that accommodates that intuition, and I consider it as a model of original sin, noting both attractions and difficulties with the view.

El presente trabajo aborda el tema de las cláusulas suelo desde el momento en que su repercusión social lo hace recalar en el Senado hasta la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, de 25 de marzo de 2015. La síntesis efectuada ha recogido la interpretación realizada por la doctrina científica sobre disposiciones legales vigentes, en particular, la problemática originada por concretas modificaciones legislativas como consecuencia de la transposición de la Directiva 93/13/CEE al ordenamiento jurídico español. El tratamiento del asunto sería incompleto sin considerar la función y la doctrina vinculante del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) generada mediante el mecanismo de las cuestiones prejudiciales. El trabajo recoge los pronunciamientos más notorios de nuestros juzgados y audiencias, de cuya meritoria labor conjunta puede afirmarse, sin tacha de exageración, que ha producido el análisis de todo lo discutible, desde el punto de vista formal como material. Con la doctrina del Tribunal Supremo (TS) sobre la transparencia de las cláusulas suelo y la valoración que dicha construcción ha merecido a las voces más autorizadas pondremos fin a esta labor.The current work deals with the issue of floor clauses from the moment when it reaches the Senate, due to its social repercussions, until the High Court sentence March 25th 2015. The synthesis that has been carried out reflects the interpretation made by the most competent authorities doctrine about the current legal provisions, especially the problems caused by specific legal modifications and as consequence of the transposition of the EC Directive 93/13 to the Spanish legal system. The treatment of this matter would be incomplete if we don´t take into account the function and binding doctrine of the European Union Court of Justice, generated by the mechanics of preliminary issues. This work compiles the most remarkable pronouncements of our judges and magistrates whose commendable combined task can be said without exageration to have produced a complete analysis of every arguable matter from the formal point of view as well as from the material one. We will finish this work with the High Court doctrine about the transparency of floor clauses and the assesment that the most authorised voice have made about this.

Christian teachings on ‘sin’ have met a number of barriers in their historical encounters with the East Asian context. However, since the end of World War II, indigenous Christianities in China, Japan and South Korea have experienced growing interests in this hated doctrine. ‘Sin’ has become a valuable category to address the existential concerns found in those societies. This has developed in an East Asian discourse about intellectual foundations and, in certain instances, has resulted in a revival of Christian belief. This paper will discuss the development of this rediscovery and connect it to a re-evaluation of millennia-old understandings of the existence of evil.

This article argues that the doctrine of the Fall into sin is necessary to avoid compromising Scriptural teaching on the universality of sin or the goodness of creation. A new theory of the Fall, indebted to Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and the author’s monograph Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution, is proposed, on which the Fall is comparable to the loss of a gifted inheritance.

The article presents reflections based mainly on three sermons: 80, 81, 82 from the series Super Cantica by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, a representative of the so-called monastic theology and the twelfth century Renaissance. The Abbot is intrigued by the problem of sin in the life of the Christian community and the evident tendency to commit sins by baptized faithful, endowed with free will. The soul, created in the image and likeness of God, is subject to the fall of original sin. This issue is addressed in two works: De gratia et libero arbitrio and Sermons 80, 81, and 82 on the Song of Songs. The issues are interpreted differently in these works, although the medieval author pointed out that they were: “different (...), but not opposing”.The main source for the article is the critical edition of the saint’s works: Sancti Bernardi opera omnia, vol. I-VIII, Recensuerunt J. Leclercq, H. Rochais, C.H Talbot, Romae 1957-1977. In the Sermons on the Song of Songs, the thought is expressed that man, after original sin, loses integrity, that is, nobility as simplicity (rectitudo), while greatness (magnitudo) remains. It can be said that the soul retains greatness, that is, among other things, immortality, and its vocation to eternal life with God. The likeness to God is indestructible, but it can be darkened, or covered with a “cloak”. The effect of original sin is a soul that tends to the low and earthly things, but that is constantly looking for something that leads to God. The will becomes the slave of sin. The common thought of the two doctrines is expressed in the greatness of man created in the image of God (or the Word); a greatness that can be in the freedom or ability that man has for God. There is also a similarity (similitudo), which in the first doctrine is destroyed but recover able; in the second doctrine it is darkened by a form of “covering dissimilarity”. Only The Lord, by His grace, leads man on the way back to the Father.

In this paper, I investigate the relationship between a nonlapsarian, evolutionary account of the origin of sin and the potential ramifications this might have for theodicy. I begin by reviving an early twentieth century evolutionary model of the origin of sin before discussing the most prominent objection which it elicits, namely, that if sin is merely the misuse of natural animal passions and habits, then God is ultimately answerable for the existence of sin in the human sphere (the “Responsibility Argument”). Though I suggest that this argument likely misfires, my main concern lies elsewhere. For the proponent of the Responsibi- lity Argument will customarily reject an evolutionary account of sin’s origin and instead endorse something like the traditional Fall account—the doctrine of Origi- nal Sin. I argue, however, that the Fall theory is also clearly subject to a parallel Responsibility Argument, so long as we take God to possess (minimally) Molina’s scientia media. While I will not pretend to have solved every issue in my discus- sion of Molinism, still the desired conclusion should emerge unscathed: if the Responsibility Argument is a problem for an evolutionary account of the origin of sin, then it is a problem for the Fall doctrine, too.

The Oromo of Ethiopia, the largest ethnic group, have their own indigenous religion known as Waaqeffanna. They believe in one Waaqa guraacha (black God) – the God who created the universe and the various forms of life. Waaqa has multiple attributes. Waaqa is He who is before everything else. Waaqa is Uumaa (a creator of everything in the world). Waaqa is hunda beekaa (omniscient). Waaqni gonkumaa kan hin Duune (God is immortal). Waaqa is hundaa tolaa (omnibenevolent). Waaqa is hunda danda’aa (omnipotent). Nothing is impossible with Waaqa. Waaqa is the source and lover of dhugaa (truth). Waaqa is Qulqulluu (pure). The Oromo people believe that in the olden days Waaqa was living on the Earth and only later that Waaqa left the Earth in anger because of personal sin and became invisible. Waaqa is one and at the same time manifests Himself in different ways. This paper teases out and highlights core Oromo views of God, his relationship with the world and the problem of evil.

The article answers some questions about the doctrine of St. Augustine about original sin, since his first approaches until the Ad Simplicianum libri duo from 396. One of the questions is when and why St. Augustine, besides the concept of original sin, began to think that all the descendants of Adam are guilty of this sin, and also about the punishments of the forefathers. It also presents how Saint Augustine began to explain or express the descendants’ share in the guilt of the original sin.