Basic HTML Version
224
raised against Pelagianism are pertinent. The idea that original righteousness was
supernaturally added to man’s natural constitution, and that its loss did not detract from
human nature, is an un-Scriptural idea, as was pointed out in our discussion of the image of
God in man. According to the Bible concupiscence is sin, real sin, and the root of many sinful
actions. This was brought out when the Biblical view of sin was considered.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.
Has philosophy succeeded in explaining the origin of sin?
Does Scripture bear out the view that sin originally had no ethical quality? What objection is
there to the view that sin is mere privation? Must we conceive of sin as a substance? With
whose name is this view associated? Does this sin exist apart from the sinner? How can we
prove that sin must always be judged by the law of God? Did Paul favor the old Greek dualism,
when he spoke of “the body of sin” and used the term “flesh” to denote man’s sinful nature? Is
the present tendency to speak of ‘evil’ rather than of ‘sin’ commendable? What is meant by the
social interpretation of sin? Does this recognize sin for what it is fundamentally?
LITERATURE:
Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. III, pp. 121-158; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De Peccato, pp. 27-
35; Hodge, Syst. Theol. II, pp. 130-192; Vos, Geref. Dogm, II, pp. 21-32; Dabney, Syst. and
Polem. Theol., pp. 306-317; McPherson, Chr. Dogm., pp. 257-264; Pope, Chr. Theol. II, pp. 29-
42; Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin; Moxon, The Doctrine of Sin; Alexander, Syst. of Bibl.
Theol. I. pp. 232-265; Brown, Chr. Theol. in Outline, pp. 261-282; Clarke, An Outline of Chr.
Theol. pp. 227-239; Orr, God’s Image in Man, pp. 197-246; Mackintosh, Christianity and Sin, cf.
Index; Candlish, The Bibl. Doct. of Sin. pp. 31-44; Talma, De Anthropologie van Calvijn, pp. 92-
117; Tennant, The Concept of Sin.