Basic HTML Version
212
say how temptation could find a point of contact in a holy person. And it is still more difficult to
explain the origin of sin in the angelic world.
E. THE EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
Naturally, a consistent theory of evolution cannot admit the doctrine of the fall, and a number
of liberal theologians have rejected it as incompatible with the theory of evolution. It is true,
there are some rather conservative theologians, such as Denney, Gore, and Orr, who accept,
though with reservations, the evolutionary account of the origin of man, and feel that it leaves
room for the doctrine of the fall in some sense of the word. But it is significant that they all
conceive of the story of the fall as a mythical or allegorical representation of an ethical
experience or of some actual moral catastrophe at the beginning of history which resulted in
suffering and death. This means that they do not accept the narrative of the fall as a real
historical account of what occurred in the garden of Eden. Tennant in his Hulsean Lectures on
The Origin and Propagation of Sin[Chap. III.] gave a rather detailed and interesting account of
the origin of sin from the evolutionary point of view. He realizes that man could not very well
derive sin from his animal ancestors, since these had no sin. This means that the impulses,
propensities, desires, and qualities which man inherited from the brute cannot themselves be
called sin. In his estimation these constitute only the material of sin, and do not become actual
sins until the moral consciousness awakens in man, and they are left in control in determining
the actions of man, contrary to the voice of conscience, and to ethical sanctions. He holds that
in the course of his development man gradually became an ethical being with an indeterminate
will, without explaining how such a will is possible where the law of evolution prevails, and
regards this will as the only cause of sin. He defines sin “as an activity of the will expressed in
thought, word, or deed contrary to the individual’s conscience. to his notion of what is good
and right, his knowledge of the moral law and the will of God.”[p. 163.] As the human race
develops, the ethical standards become more exacting and the heinousness of sin increases. A
sinful environment adds to the difficulty of refraining from sin. This view of Tennant leaves no
room for the fall of man in the generally accepted sense of the word. As a matter of fact,
Tennant explicitly repudiates the doctrine of the fall, which is recognized in all the great
historical confessions of the Church. Says W. H. Johnson: “Tennant’s critics are agreed that his
theory leaves no room for that cry of the contrite heart which not only confesses to separate
acts of sin, but declares; ‘I was shapen in iniquity; there is a law of death in my members.’”[Can
the Christian Now Believe in Evolution? p. 136.]
F. THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST SIN.
The first transgression of man had the following results: