Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution

Houck, Daniel W.

doi:10.1017/9781108642927

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, whatever his sociobiological heredity, Aquinas's Adam, as endowed with original justice, would not have experienced any tension or conflict between his reason and the pull of animalistic desire. Daniel Houck (2020), in developing a “new Thomist” view of the Fall, has suggested that this claim “stands in tension with evolutionary theory” (205), since evolutionary theory tells us that human beings did inherit and so would have struggled against, most notably, a tendency to aggressive violence. Consequently, Houck considers (though does not necessarily favor) an alternative scenario that he says is more in line with evolutionary theory: God afforded the first human beings the supernatural, sanctifying grace they needed freely to resist the temptation to commit violent actions even though they continued to struggle against that temptation.…”

Section: Original Justice Versus Original Frailtymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, Houck considers (though does not necessarily favor) an alternative scenario that he says is more in line with evolutionary theory: God afforded the first human beings the supernatural, sanctifying grace they needed freely to resist the temptation to commit violent actions even though they continued to struggle against that temptation. Although, he also admits that embracing this latter view may also entail affirming “that evil is built into creation” (2020, 205).…”

Section: Original Justice Versus Original Frailtymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is impossible to conceive of wholly good beings in a wholly good world becoming sinful” (62–63, 250). Similarly, articulating what he calls the “Paradisal Problem” (or, more recently, the problem of “Paradisiacal Motivation” (2020, 89–91)), Schneider (2012) asks, “How could anyone enjoying Beatific Personhood possibly become arrogant to the extent of defying God, self‐deceived to the extent of seeing this as good rather than completely evil, a better existential course and not the ruination of everything?” (962). Only a being who is “spiritually fragile in some key respect” could have fallen in this blatantly defiant and destructive way (2012, 962).…”

Section: Aquinas's Adam and The Free Fall From Gracementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In Defense of Aquinas's Adam: Original Justice, the Fall, and Evolution

Macdonald¹

2021

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I show how traditional Thomistic claims about the creation and fall of the first human beings-or "Adam"are compatible with the claims of evolutionary science concerning human origins. Aquinas claims that God created Adam in a state or condition of original justice, wholly subject to God and so fully virtuous, as well as internally immune to bodily corruption, suffering, and natural death. In defense of "Aquinas's Adam," I first argue that affirming that the prelapsarian Adam was internally immune to suffering and death does not require denying that these things predated his emergence within evolutionary history, or that he would have faced real challenges posed to him by his natural environment. Next, I rebut the claim that Adam must have been spiritually and morally fragile, given the traits he inherited from his evolutionary ancestors. Finally, I dispute the claim that Adam only could have fallen if he existed in a spiritually and morally fragile state.

show abstract

Section: Original Justice Versus Original Frailtymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Original Justice Versus Original Frailtymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Aquinas's Adam and The Free Fall From Gracementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In Defense of Aquinas's Adam: Original Justice, the Fall, and Evolution

Macdonald¹

2021

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4. For a recent study that is unique in allowing for elaboration in both traditional and nonlapsarian directions, see Houck (2020). 6 I have in mind here especially Rea (2007) and Hudson (2009) and (2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does St. Paul Believe in Original Sin? Yeah, but so What?

Spencer

2021

JAT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The notion that the early chapters of Genesis describe historical events is integral to my understanding of the fall and original sin (see Madueme 2020). Furthermore, the number of different proposals to bridge the gap between Christian theology and evolutionary biology keeps growing apace (see, e.g., Houck 2020). My own confessional Presbyterian tradition historically has had a diversity of opinions on such matters (see, e.g., Livingstone 1987; Roberts 1988; Gundlach 2013), some of which would take issue with aspects of my own account.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Theological Problem With Evolution

Madueme¹

2021

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores hamartiological questions at the interface of evolutionary biology and theology. Such questions include the problem of evil, the possibility of a historical fall, and the meaning of human sinfulness in light of biology. First, I examine some of the leading accounts of animal theodicy, including John Schneider's aesthetic theodicy, Christopher Southgate's compound theodicy, and Joshua Moritz's free creatures' defense. Second, I review several non-lapsarian accounts of how sin originated within the human story (e.g., Robert Russell's concept of entropy as the physical origin of sin). Then third, I discuss noteworthy attempts to revise the doctrine of original sin in light of evolutionary psychology. Although the quest for a post-Darwinian doctrine of sin has prompted fascinating areas of research, I conclude that an evolutionary hamartiology remains a remarkably difficult project.

show abstract

Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution

Cited by 9 publications

References 77 publications

In Defense of Aquinas's Adam: Original Justice, the Fall, and Evolution

In Defense of Aquinas's Adam: Original Justice, the Fall, and Evolution

Does St. Paul Believe in Original Sin? Yeah, but so What?

The Theological Problem With Evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About