Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## C.O.BuchananSacrament.docx
– ## CharlesSherlockTheTransmissionofSin.docx
– CreationImageofGodandHumanity.pdf
**## C.O.BuchananSacrament.docx**
C. O. Buchanan
“Sacrament”
**Sacrament** (Lat.
_sacramentum_, military oath) has been commonly used by the Christian church to denote rites or ceremonies used in Christian worship, which have both an outward sign and an inner signification. It is not a word used in Scripture, or one with a settled meaning in the early church. It has come to denote a distinctive class of ceremonies, though there has also been disagreement on how the distinctiveness should p 607 be defined. The original definition of a sacrament is attributed to Augustine, summed up in
_The Book of Common Prayer_ as ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’. Augustine’s categorization included, however, around thirty ceremonies as
_sacramenta_, among which were, for instance, the making of the sign of the cross as well as baptism and communion.
The number of the sacraments was systematized by Peter Lombard in his
_Libri Quattuor Sententiarum_. The fourth book distinguishes between sacraments, of which there are seven, and ‘sacramentals’ which are lesser rites with some sacramentality about them. The seven became the norm for medieval Christendom, and were further systematized by Thomas Aquinas. They were: baptism; confirmation, communion, matrimony, penance, (extreme) unction (see Anointing), and ordination (see Ministry). These varied somewhat between themselves and it was not at all clear whether there was in truth an outward sign in penance, or
_what_ it was in confirmation and ordination, or whether it was a
_churchly_ ministration in matrimony.
The Reformers viewed these definitions as encrusted by a traditionalism which cried out for reform. Thus the definition was sharpened by the addition to the definition of ‘ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel’ (
_cf._ Article XXV of the Thirty-nine Articles). This established baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two ‘sacraments of the gospel’—the only two rightly called sacraments. The other medieval sacraments were downgraded as ‘those five commonly called sacraments’. The two remaining sacraments had explicit command of Christ (
_cf._ Mt. 28:19–20; Lk. 22:19–20), and were thus clearly differentiated from the five. They corresponded to circumcision and the passover in the old covenant, one once-for-all-for-life sacrament of initiation, one repeatable sacrament of consolidation and growth. On this analogy the two also have a complementary role in relation to each other, in which baptism may be regarded as admitting to communion (
_cf._ Acts 2:37–47; 1 Cor. 10:1–2), although in Protestantism practice has rarely been so straightforward (see Confirmation).
The Reformers not only corrected the medieval systematization, but also revised the understanding of the means by which God works through the use of sacraments. They denied the doctrine of
_ex opere operato_ (the understanding that God works simply through the act or deed of administering the outward element) and laid greater emphasis upon the efficacy of a sacrament depending upon its being received with faith. The medieval doctrine was, of course, always qualified by the proviso ‘unless the recipients present a barrier (
_obex_) to God’s grace’—which may actually lead to a doctrine nearer to the Reformers’ understanding than either side would have been happy to concede. The Reformers compared sacramental efficacy closely to that of the ministry of the word, which enabled them to ascribe power to the ministry of the sacraments as being akin to the ministry of the word. The more rigorous Reformers confined the ministry of both to the ordained ministers of the church because they saw correspondence between the two kinds of ministry of God’s grace or found them linked in Mt. 28:19–20. And the Reformers generally retained a ‘high’ view of the benefits conferred by God in his sacraments, varying from the medieval and Counter-Reformation authors not so much in this question as in the setting out of the conditions under which God might be expected to confer that grace. Particular issues arose about the two sacraments separately, such as whether infants should continue to be baptized (see Baptism), and what the Lord meant by ‘this is my body’. Many such issues have relevance to general questions about the sacraments (
_e.g._, their relation to OT ordinances).
In recent times the liturgical movement and the ecumenical movement have both emphasized a factor which is present in the 16th-century discussions, but not to the forefront of them. This is the sacraments’ ecclesial significance, particularly in the face of an unbelieving world. The sacraments incorporate believers into the visible people of God (see Church) and sustain them in that membership. They thus represent to the recipients their calling to fulfil the loving, peacemaking, missionary and other tasks of God in the world. Their significance is impaired in a divided church, but they stand as a witness to the catholic and undivided character of the people of God in the scriptural revelation against which we have to measure ourselves. They are understood by being done, and it is in the context of obeying the Lord’s p 608 commands and celebrating the liturgical acts—in other words, in our sacramental worship—that we may expect to be led into a true understanding of the sacraments.
**Bibliography**
D. Baillie,
_The Theology of the Sacraments_ (London, 1957); G. C. Berkouwer,
_The Sacraments_ (Grand Rapids, MI, 1969); J. Calvin,
_Institutes_ IV. xiv–xix; N. Clark,
_An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments_ (London, 1957); P. T. Forsyth,
_The Church and the Sacraments_ (London, 1917); B. Leeming,
_Principles of Sacramental Theology_ (London, 1956); O. C. Quick,
_The Christian Sacraments_ (London, 1927).
**[footnoteRef:1]** [1: C. O. Buchanan, “Sacrament,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 606–608.]
**## CharlesSherlockTheTransmissionofSin.docx**
**THE TRANSMISSION OF SIN[footnoteRef:1]** [1: Charles Sherlock, “The Transmission of Sin,” in The Doctrine of Humanity, ed. Gerald Bray, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 233–238.]
by
Charles Sherlock
Sin is a desperately critical aspect of human life as we experience it. Major aspects of its place in Christian thought, including the concept of original sin, have been discussed in chapters 2 and 3. The basic concept of original sin is not difficult to grasp, namely that we sin because there is a fundamental flaw at the centre of our being, the ‘origin’ of sin. Sins are the fruit of sin, not discrete acts of evil independent of each other. Given the amount of suffering, pain, injustice and moral evil present in the world as we know it, the fact of each human’s having a radical flaw, a corrupted ‘root’ at the core of his or her being, is not difficult to defend.
It is one thing to assert that human life as we know it—though not as God made it or intends it to be—is sinful in every respect. It is quite another to explain how it is that such a tragic state
_comes about_. Note the present tense in this sentence; mainstream Christian faith ascribes the beginning of sin to the disobedience of human beings described in Genesis 3. However puzzling, p 234 inexplicable and stupid may be the riddle of beings made in the image of God rejecting their Maker, Christian theology can offer an answer to the question how this tragic state
_came_ about.[footnoteRef:2] The question as to how this beginning of sins is passed on to the race as a whole is given a far less ready response. In short, the
_reality_ of sin and sins is not difficult either to grasp or to defend, but how sin and its origin are
_transmitted_ is an extremely complicated matter. [2: This topic moves into the question of the problem of evil, which lies beyond the scope of this book. A terse, realistic treatment is Geisler, Part IV. Geisler is an American evangelical philosopher who has engaged in public discussion of many issues of social morality.]
The following three propositions have been formulated to try to clarify the issues involved. Each one is held as true in Christian thought, and has been repeatedly discussed in this book. The problem is how to hold all three as true at the same time. A number of theories have been developed in order to do this, each of which has been significant at differing times in the history of the Christian tradition. The purpose of this appendix is to review these, in the light of the Scriptures, so that Christian life today may be lived with appropriate awareness of both the seriousness of sin and the wonder of our salvation from its power and consequences.
1. All humans are created in the image and likeness of God, to be like Christ.
2. All humans are affected by sin, which distorts their being at its root; the effects of sin are seen in every aspect of human life, in sins.
3. All humans are responsible for their actions, and liable for their consequences.
To deny the first statement undermines what it means to be human; as created, we are essentially ‘very good’. Some Christians so emphasize the truth of the second statement that the first is obscured, forgotten or denied, while others have held too optimistic a view of humanity as we know it. The third statement is rarely denied, but frequently overemphasized, especially when the idea of free will is discussed without reference to the reality of sin; sin does not remove our will, but renders it incapable of doing the will of God. As can readily be seen, it is no easy matter to hold all three statements together. The core of the problem is how humanity as God intends it relates to humanity as we know it; the way in which the corruption of sin is transmitted has been the issue around which the debate has formed and re-formed.
p 235 The debates about the transmission of sin are complex. In particular, they affect the way in which the full humanity of Christ is understood. Though without sin, and so more truly human than any other, he took sin upon himself for the sake of those held captive to its power. The web of sin extends to every aspect of human life, and any who enter this world as we know it cannot avoid its entanglement Jesus was not exempt from this, but lived without being caught in its net until his ‘hour’ came, when he freely gave himself up to be ‘made … sin’, according to the will of God (
_cf._ Jn. 12:23–33; 2 Cor. 5:19–21). In so turning the other cheek to sin, taking on himself all its consequences, he absorbed all its poison and set humankind free from its power. In Jesus we see a truly and fully free will, continuing to pursue the will of God even when that meant coming under the curse of sin.
How then are these statements to be held together? At least eight theories have been formulated;[footnoteRef:3] the two extremes are noted first. [3: Contemporary systematic theologies do not often discuss these theories in detail: an older but full discussion is Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. II (1871; Eerdmans, 1952), chapter VIII. A useful work which seeks to relate grace and sin to pastoral concerns such as self-esteem, and surveys carefully the historical debates, is Neil Ormerod (ed.), Grace and Disgrace (E. J. Dwyer, 1992). Ormerod teaches theology at St Paul’s Seminary, Sydney, and is known for clear thinking about Christian faith in its Australian contexts.]
1.
_Pelagianism_ overemphasizes the third statement, holding that if we have been given a command by God, we must be able to obey it. This denies the second statement entirely, so that sins are regarded as distinct acts, rather than as the fruits of sin. There is no origin of sin at all, and so nothing is transmitted.
2. The other extreme, going back to Augustine, is
_realism_: each and every human being sinned in Adam, and this original sin is transmitted physically through conception and birth. Not only original sin is passed on, but also ‘original guilt’, the consequences of that sin, so that humanity is seen as a ‘lump of perdition’. This certainly takes the seriousness of sin seriously, but renders the third statement almost meaningless. In practice it can also obscure the first statement, and has been responsible for much harm in Christian attitudes to sexuality.
In between these wholly opposed stands are several other theories. Three were formulated in the debates following that between Augustine and the Pelagians, but continue to have influence today.
3. The
_deprivation_ theory was formed by medieval scholastics who stressed the significance of the will, arguing that we are at least capable of preparing to turn to God. Sin is seen as depriving us of an original righteousness which Adam knew, p 236 rather than depraving our being and rendering it incapable of turning to God. It is not so much that an origin of sin is transmitted, but that a positive goodness foils to be passed on, so leaving us open to the influence of evil. The problem here is that while the reality of sin is acknowledged, its effects are minimalized.
4. A slightly stronger view is called
_semi-Pelagianism_: sin is a disease rather than a lack. We are sick and need healing, and without it we will die. Sin is passed on like a disease—which leaves us with problems similar to those of realism when it comes to the first statement.
5. The
_nature-person_ theory takes up both these ideas, yet strengthens the approach to the seriousness of sin. We not only foil to receive an original goodness, and are diseased, but human nature as a whole is corrupted. Each human being thus receives a corrupted nature, but is not thereby a sinful person until he or she commits actual sin. The pastoral usefulness of such a view is evident and it can be seen behind Article IX of the Thirty-nine Articles. The distinction between nature and person is used classically in Christology as well as in terms of sin, which increases the attractiveness of this view, though the distinction has become difficult to defend in modern times.
6. Close to the last view, but expressed in quite different terms, is the perspective of
_the eastern churches_.[footnoteRef:4] There has been little substantial debate of these matters in the eastern Christian tradition, so that it is difficult to be precise. The main ideas of the three statements listed above are held, but related through death rather than sin. Adam fell from a state of ‘undeveloped simplicity’ rather than from a great height, and so ‘is not to be judged too harshly for his error’. The main consequence of this act was the entry of death and corruption into the world: our ‘inheritance is of death rather than of sinfulness or guilt’. [4: See John Chryssavgis, “Original Sin—An Orthodox Perspective,” in Ormerod, pp. 197–206, from whom both quotations in this paragraph come. Chryssavgis, an Orthodox deacon, teaches at St Andrew’s Seminary, Sydney, and is known for seeking to build bridges between the Orthodox and churches of an English background.]
The Reformation period saw vigorous debates in these areas, initially over the capacity of the will to turn to God.[footnoteRef:5] In terms of the work of Christ, justification came to be understood as ‘imputation’ rather than ‘impartation’; we are in the right with God because of an external change in our status before God, rather than by an internal renovation. As Luther put, Christ is ‘for us’
_(pro nobis)_ before being ‘in us’
_(in nobis)_. Just as the concepts of nature and person had been used in classical Christology and p 237 anthropology, so the concept of imputation now came to be applied in the area of sin. In order to defend the priority of grace over and against Rome, the first generation of Reformers tended towards the realist view, though it came increasingly to be seen as problematic. As the Reformation consolidated, fierce debates over the extent of election and the nature of sin broke out in the Protestant churches. Some continued to hold to one of the scholastic views noted above, especially the last; but in Reformed theology two major views emerged. [5: Berkouwer, in Sin, chapters 12–14, discusses these matters in some detail, and with pastoral sensitivity.]
7. The theory known as
_mediate imputation_ accepts the realist premise that we all sinned in Adam, but questions the notion that this sin is transmitted directly to us. With the scholastics, the fallen position of the race as a whole is acknowledged, though sin is not imparted so much as imputed to each member of the race. This last expression is used to avoid the implication that each human is sinful in essence; Adam’s sin is imputed to each person because of his or her participation in fallen humanity, not directly so much as mediated. Corresponding to this, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to each person in Christ, mediated through the effectual preaching of the gospel, and sealed in baptism.
8. The other Reformed theory is known as
_immediate imputation_ or
_federalism_: the sin of Adam is imputed to the race immediately, not mediated individually. Adam is thus our representative ‘federal head’, in whom we all sinned, and whose sin is passed on to all. This view comes close to the realist view, but is more subtle. There is some debate about whether the parallel between the imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness can appropriately be made, partly because in this schema it would seem to imply universalism, and partly out of concern to differentiate the role of the will in sin and in grace.[footnoteRef:6] [6: These two theories also came to be associated respectively with traducianist and creationist views of the soul, since the transmission of sin was discussed in relation to transmission of the soul; see chapter 10 above.]
Having listed these theories, there is a very real danger that sin can come to be viewed as a mere theory about which Christians disagree. That idea would itself demonstrate the deceptive character of the effects of sin. It must be admitted that some of the debates were unseemly, and conducted with little sensitivity to the theological, anthropological and cultural presuppositions which cloud understanding, especially the different approaches to sin of women and men (see chapters 8 and 9 above).
p 238 Whatever theory of the transmission of sin and its origin we hold, the reality is that everyone who reads this book is a sinner. Each of us needs constantly to turn to Christ, admit our need for forgiveness and healing, renounce sin and evil, and so live gladly the life which the Holy Spirit brings to birth in us. Only in that way can the old humanity be killed off, and the fruits of the Spirit flourish (
_cf._ Col. 3:1–17). Our prime concern is not with the transmission of sin, but the anticipation of our restored nature as we participate in the new humanity in Christ In the terms of the eighth view above, we are not to look to Adam, but to cling to Christ as our ‘head’,[footnoteRef:7] both now and in the ages to come.[footnoteRef:8] [7: See Henri Blocher, Original Sin: Untangling the Riddle (Apollos, 1997), the Moore College (Sydney) lectures for 1995.] [8: Charles Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity, ed. Gerald Bray, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 233–238.]
**CreationImageofGodandHumanity.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/creationimageofgodandhumanity-pdf)
**CreationImageofGodandHumanity.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/creationimageofgodandhumanity-pdf)
**## C.O.BuchananSacrament.docx**
C. O. Buchanan
“Sacrament”
**Sacrament** (Lat.
_sacramentum_, military oath) has been commonly used by the Christian church to denote rites or ceremonies used in Christian worship, which have both an outward sign and an inner signification. It is not a word used in Scripture, or one with a settled meaning in the early church. It has come to denote a distinctive class of ceremonies, though there has also been disagreement on how the distinctiveness should p 607 be defined. The original definition of a sacrament is attributed to Augustine, summed up in
_The Book of Common Prayer_ as ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’. Augustine’s categorization included, however, around thirty ceremonies as
_sacramenta_, among which were, for instance, the making of the sign of the cross as well as baptism and communion.
The number of the sacraments was systematized by Peter Lombard in his
_Libri Quattuor Sententiarum_. The fourth book distinguishes between sacraments, of which there are seven, and ‘sacramentals’ which are lesser rites with some sacramentality about them. The seven became the norm for medieval Christendom, and were further systematized by Thomas Aquinas. They were: baptism; confirmation, communion, matrimony, penance, (extreme) unction (see Anointing), and ordination (see Ministry). These varied somewhat between themselves and it was not at all clear whether there was in truth an outward sign in penance, or
_what_ it was in confirmation and ordination, or whether it was a
_churchly_ ministration in matrimony.
The Reformers viewed these definitions as encrusted by a traditionalism which cried out for reform. Thus the definition was sharpened by the addition to the definition of ‘ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel’ (
_cf._ Article XXV of the Thirty-nine Articles). This established baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two ‘sacraments of the gospel’—the only two rightly called sacraments. The other medieval sacraments were downgraded as ‘those five commonly called sacraments’. The two remaining sacraments had explicit command of Christ (
_cf._ Mt. 28:19–20; Lk. 22:19–20), and were thus clearly differentiated from the five. They corresponded to circumcision and the passover in the old covenant, one once-for-all-for-life sacrament of initiation, one repeatable sacrament of consolidation and growth. On this analogy the two also have a complementary role in relation to each other, in which baptism may be regarded as admitting to communion (
_cf._ Acts 2:37–47; 1 Cor. 10:1–2), although in Protestantism practice has rarely been so straightforward (see Confirmation).
The Reformers not only corrected the medieval systematization, but also revised the understanding of the means by which God works through the use of sacraments. They denied the doctrine of
_ex opere operato_ (the understanding that God works simply through the act or deed of administering the outward element) and laid greater emphasis upon the efficacy of a sacrament depending upon its being received with faith. The medieval doctrine was, of course, always qualified by the proviso ‘unless the recipients present a barrier (
_obex_) to God’s grace’—which may actually lead to a doctrine nearer to the Reformers’ understanding than either side would have been happy to concede. The Reformers compared sacramental efficacy closely to that of the ministry of the word, which enabled them to ascribe power to the ministry of the sacraments as being akin to the ministry of the word. The more rigorous Reformers confined the ministry of both to the ordained ministers of the church because they saw correspondence between the two kinds of ministry of God’s grace or found them linked in Mt. 28:19–20. And the Reformers generally retained a ‘high’ view of the benefits conferred by God in his sacraments, varying from the medieval and Counter-Reformation authors not so much in this question as in the setting out of the conditions under which God might be expected to confer that grace. Particular issues arose about the two sacraments separately, such as whether infants should continue to be baptized (see Baptism), and what the Lord meant by ‘this is my body’. Many such issues have relevance to general questions about the sacraments (
_e.g._, their relation to OT ordinances).
In recent times the liturgical movement and the ecumenical movement have both emphasized a factor which is present in the 16th-century discussions, but not to the forefront of them. This is the sacraments’ ecclesial significance, particularly in the face of an unbelieving world. The sacraments incorporate believers into the visible people of God (see Church) and sustain them in that membership. They thus represent to the recipients their calling to fulfil the loving, peacemaking, missionary and other tasks of God in the world. Their significance is impaired in a divided church, but they stand as a witness to the catholic and undivided character of the people of God in the scriptural revelation against which we have to measure ourselves. They are understood by being done, and it is in the context of obeying the Lord’s p 608 commands and celebrating the liturgical acts—in other words, in our sacramental worship—that we may expect to be led into a true understanding of the sacraments.
**Bibliography**
D. Baillie,
_The Theology of the Sacraments_ (London, 1957); G. C. Berkouwer,
_The Sacraments_ (Grand Rapids, MI, 1969); J. Calvin,
_Institutes_ IV. xiv–xix; N. Clark,
_An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments_ (London, 1957); P. T. Forsyth,
_The Church and the Sacraments_ (London, 1917); B. Leeming,
_Principles of Sacramental Theology_ (London, 1956); O. C. Quick,
_The Christian Sacraments_ (London, 1927).
**[footnoteRef:1]** [1: C. O. Buchanan, “Sacrament,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 606–608.]
**## CharlesSherlockTheTransmissionofSin.docx**
**THE TRANSMISSION OF SIN[footnoteRef:1]** [1: Charles Sherlock, “The Transmission of Sin,” in The Doctrine of Humanity, ed. Gerald Bray, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 233–238.]
by
Charles Sherlock
Sin is a desperately critical aspect of human life as we experience it. Major aspects of its place in Christian thought, including the concept of original sin, have been discussed in chapters 2 and 3. The basic concept of original sin is not difficult to grasp, namely that we sin because there is a fundamental flaw at the centre of our being, the ‘origin’ of sin. Sins are the fruit of sin, not discrete acts of evil independent of each other. Given the amount of suffering, pain, injustice and moral evil present in the world as we know it, the fact of each human’s having a radical flaw, a corrupted ‘root’ at the core of his or her being, is not difficult to defend.
It is one thing to assert that human life as we know it—though not as God made it or intends it to be—is sinful in every respect. It is quite another to explain how it is that such a tragic state
_comes about_. Note the present tense in this sentence; mainstream Christian faith ascribes the beginning of sin to the disobedience of human beings described in Genesis 3. However puzzling, p 234 inexplicable and stupid may be the riddle of beings made in the image of God rejecting their Maker, Christian theology can offer an answer to the question how this tragic state
_came_ about.[footnoteRef:2] The question as to how this beginning of sins is passed on to the race as a whole is given a far less ready response. In short, the
_reality_ of sin and sins is not difficult either to grasp or to defend, but how sin and its origin are
_transmitted_ is an extremely complicated matter. [2: This topic moves into the question of the problem of evil, which lies beyond the scope of this book. A terse, realistic treatment is Geisler, Part IV. Geisler is an American evangelical philosopher who has engaged in public discussion of many issues of social morality.]
The following three propositions have been formulated to try to clarify the issues involved. Each one is held as true in Christian thought, and has been repeatedly discussed in this book. The problem is how to hold all three as true at the same time. A number of theories have been developed in order to do this, each of which has been significant at differing times in the history of the Christian tradition. The purpose of this appendix is to review these, in the light of the Scriptures, so that Christian life today may be lived with appropriate awareness of both the seriousness of sin and the wonder of our salvation from its power and consequences.
1. All humans are created in the image and likeness of God, to be like Christ.
2. All humans are affected by sin, which distorts their being at its root; the effects of sin are seen in every aspect of human life, in sins.
3. All humans are responsible for their actions, and liable for their consequences.
To deny the first statement undermines what it means to be human; as created, we are essentially ‘very good’. Some Christians so emphasize the truth of the second statement that the first is obscured, forgotten or denied, while others have held too optimistic a view of humanity as we know it. The third statement is rarely denied, but frequently overemphasized, especially when the idea of free will is discussed without reference to the reality of sin; sin does not remove our will, but renders it incapable of doing the will of God. As can readily be seen, it is no easy matter to hold all three statements together. The core of the problem is how humanity as God intends it relates to humanity as we know it; the way in which the corruption of sin is transmitted has been the issue around which the debate has formed and re-formed.
p 235 The debates about the transmission of sin are complex. In particular, they affect the way in which the full humanity of Christ is understood. Though without sin, and so more truly human than any other, he took sin upon himself for the sake of those held captive to its power. The web of sin extends to every aspect of human life, and any who enter this world as we know it cannot avoid its entanglement Jesus was not exempt from this, but lived without being caught in its net until his ‘hour’ came, when he freely gave himself up to be ‘made … sin’, according to the will of God (
_cf._ Jn. 12:23–33; 2 Cor. 5:19–21). In so turning the other cheek to sin, taking on himself all its consequences, he absorbed all its poison and set humankind free from its power. In Jesus we see a truly and fully free will, continuing to pursue the will of God even when that meant coming under the curse of sin.
How then are these statements to be held together? At least eight theories have been formulated;[footnoteRef:3] the two extremes are noted first. [3: Contemporary systematic theologies do not often discuss these theories in detail: an older but full discussion is Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. II (1871; Eerdmans, 1952), chapter VIII. A useful work which seeks to relate grace and sin to pastoral concerns such as self-esteem, and surveys carefully the historical debates, is Neil Ormerod (ed.), Grace and Disgrace (E. J. Dwyer, 1992). Ormerod teaches theology at St Paul’s Seminary, Sydney, and is known for clear thinking about Christian faith in its Australian contexts.]
1.
_Pelagianism_ overemphasizes the third statement, holding that if we have been given a command by God, we must be able to obey it. This denies the second statement entirely, so that sins are regarded as distinct acts, rather than as the fruits of sin. There is no origin of sin at all, and so nothing is transmitted.
2. The other extreme, going back to Augustine, is
_realism_: each and every human being sinned in Adam, and this original sin is transmitted physically through conception and birth. Not only original sin is passed on, but also ‘original guilt’, the consequences of that sin, so that humanity is seen as a ‘lump of perdition’. This certainly takes the seriousness of sin seriously, but renders the third statement almost meaningless. In practice it can also obscure the first statement, and has been responsible for much harm in Christian attitudes to sexuality.
In between these wholly opposed stands are several other theories. Three were formulated in the debates following that between Augustine and the Pelagians, but continue to have influence today.
3. The
_deprivation_ theory was formed by medieval scholastics who stressed the significance of the will, arguing that we are at least capable of preparing to turn to God. Sin is seen as depriving us of an original righteousness which Adam knew, p 236 rather than depraving our being and rendering it incapable of turning to God. It is not so much that an origin of sin is transmitted, but that a positive goodness foils to be passed on, so leaving us open to the influence of evil. The problem here is that while the reality of sin is acknowledged, its effects are minimalized.
4. A slightly stronger view is called
_semi-Pelagianism_: sin is a disease rather than a lack. We are sick and need healing, and without it we will die. Sin is passed on like a disease—which leaves us with problems similar to those of realism when it comes to the first statement.
5. The
_nature-person_ theory takes up both these ideas, yet strengthens the approach to the seriousness of sin. We not only foil to receive an original goodness, and are diseased, but human nature as a whole is corrupted. Each human being thus receives a corrupted nature, but is not thereby a sinful person until he or she commits actual sin. The pastoral usefulness of such a view is evident and it can be seen behind Article IX of the Thirty-nine Articles. The distinction between nature and person is used classically in Christology as well as in terms of sin, which increases the attractiveness of this view, though the distinction has become difficult to defend in modern times.
6. Close to the last view, but expressed in quite different terms, is the perspective of
_the eastern churches_.[footnoteRef:4] There has been little substantial debate of these matters in the eastern Christian tradition, so that it is difficult to be precise. The main ideas of the three statements listed above are held, but related through death rather than sin. Adam fell from a state of ‘undeveloped simplicity’ rather than from a great height, and so ‘is not to be judged too harshly for his error’. The main consequence of this act was the entry of death and corruption into the world: our ‘inheritance is of death rather than of sinfulness or guilt’. [4: See John Chryssavgis, “Original Sin—An Orthodox Perspective,” in Ormerod, pp. 197–206, from whom both quotations in this paragraph come. Chryssavgis, an Orthodox deacon, teaches at St Andrew’s Seminary, Sydney, and is known for seeking to build bridges between the Orthodox and churches of an English background.]
The Reformation period saw vigorous debates in these areas, initially over the capacity of the will to turn to God.[footnoteRef:5] In terms of the work of Christ, justification came to be understood as ‘imputation’ rather than ‘impartation’; we are in the right with God because of an external change in our status before God, rather than by an internal renovation. As Luther put, Christ is ‘for us’
_(pro nobis)_ before being ‘in us’
_(in nobis)_. Just as the concepts of nature and person had been used in classical Christology and p 237 anthropology, so the concept of imputation now came to be applied in the area of sin. In order to defend the priority of grace over and against Rome, the first generation of Reformers tended towards the realist view, though it came increasingly to be seen as problematic. As the Reformation consolidated, fierce debates over the extent of election and the nature of sin broke out in the Protestant churches. Some continued to hold to one of the scholastic views noted above, especially the last; but in Reformed theology two major views emerged. [5: Berkouwer, in Sin, chapters 12–14, discusses these matters in some detail, and with pastoral sensitivity.]
7. The theory known as
_mediate imputation_ accepts the realist premise that we all sinned in Adam, but questions the notion that this sin is transmitted directly to us. With the scholastics, the fallen position of the race as a whole is acknowledged, though sin is not imparted so much as imputed to each member of the race. This last expression is used to avoid the implication that each human is sinful in essence; Adam’s sin is imputed to each person because of his or her participation in fallen humanity, not directly so much as mediated. Corresponding to this, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to each person in Christ, mediated through the effectual preaching of the gospel, and sealed in baptism.
8. The other Reformed theory is known as
_immediate imputation_ or
_federalism_: the sin of Adam is imputed to the race immediately, not mediated individually. Adam is thus our representative ‘federal head’, in whom we all sinned, and whose sin is passed on to all. This view comes close to the realist view, but is more subtle. There is some debate about whether the parallel between the imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness can appropriately be made, partly because in this schema it would seem to imply universalism, and partly out of concern to differentiate the role of the will in sin and in grace.[footnoteRef:6] [6: These two theories also came to be associated respectively with traducianist and creationist views of the soul, since the transmission of sin was discussed in relation to transmission of the soul; see chapter 10 above.]
Having listed these theories, there is a very real danger that sin can come to be viewed as a mere theory about which Christians disagree. That idea would itself demonstrate the deceptive character of the effects of sin. It must be admitted that some of the debates were unseemly, and conducted with little sensitivity to the theological, anthropological and cultural presuppositions which cloud understanding, especially the different approaches to sin of women and men (see chapters 8 and 9 above).
p 238 Whatever theory of the transmission of sin and its origin we hold, the reality is that everyone who reads this book is a sinner. Each of us needs constantly to turn to Christ, admit our need for forgiveness and healing, renounce sin and evil, and so live gladly the life which the Holy Spirit brings to birth in us. Only in that way can the old humanity be killed off, and the fruits of the Spirit flourish (
_cf._ Col. 3:1–17). Our prime concern is not with the transmission of sin, but the anticipation of our restored nature as we participate in the new humanity in Christ In the terms of the eighth view above, we are not to look to Adam, but to cling to Christ as our ‘head’,[footnoteRef:7] both now and in the ages to come.[footnoteRef:8] [7: See Henri Blocher, Original Sin: Untangling the Riddle (Apollos, 1997), the Moore College (Sydney) lectures for 1995.] [8: Charles Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity, ed. Gerald Bray, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 233–238.]
**CreationImageofGodandHumanity.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/creationimageofgodandhumanity-pdf)
**## C.O.BuchananSacrament.docx**
C. O. Buchanan
“Sacrament”
**Sacrament** (Lat.
_sacramentum_, military oath) has been commonly used by the Christian church to denote rites or ceremonies used in Christian worship, which have both an outward sign and an inner signification. It is not a word used in Scripture, or one with a settled meaning in the early church. It has come to denote a distinctive class of ceremonies, though there has also been disagreement on how the distinctiveness should p 607 be defined. The original definition of a sacrament is attributed to Augustine, summed up in
_The Book of Common Prayer_ as ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’. Augustine’s categorization included, however, around thirty ceremonies as
_sacramenta_, among which were, for instance, the making of the sign of the cross as well as baptism and communion.
The number of the sacraments was systematized by Peter Lombard in his
_Libri Quattuor Sententiarum_. The fourth book distinguishes between sacraments, of which there are seven, and ‘sacramentals’ which are lesser rites with some sacramentality about them. The seven became the norm for medieval Christendom, and were further systematized by Thomas Aquinas. They were: baptism; confirmation, communion, matrimony, penance, (extreme) unction (see Anointing), and ordination (see Ministry). These varied somewhat between themselves and it was not at all clear whether there was in truth an outward sign in penance, or
_what_ it was in confirmation and ordination, or whether it was a
_churchly_ ministration in matrimony.
The Reformers viewed these definitions as encrusted by a traditionalism which cried out for reform. Thus the definition was sharpened by the addition to the definition of ‘ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel’ (
_cf._ Article XXV of the Thirty-nine Articles). This established baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two ‘sacraments of the gospel’—the only two rightly called sacraments. The other medieval sacraments were downgraded as ‘those five commonly called sacraments’. The two remaining sacraments had explicit command of Christ (
_cf._ Mt. 28:19–20; Lk. 22:19–20), and were thus clearly differentiated from the five. They corresponded to circumcision and the passover in the old covenant, one once-for-all-for-life sacrament of initiation, one repeatable sacrament of consolidation and growth. On this analogy the two also have a complementary role in relation to each other, in which baptism may be regarded as admitting to communion (
_cf._ Acts 2:37–47; 1 Cor. 10:1–2), although in Protestantism practice has rarely been so straightforward (see Confirmation).
The Reformers not only corrected the medieval systematization, but also revised the understanding of the means by which God works through the use of sacraments. They denied the doctrine of
_ex opere operato_ (the understanding that God works simply through the act or deed of administering the outward element) and laid greater emphasis upon the efficacy of a sacrament depending upon its being received with faith. The medieval doctrine was, of course, always qualified by the proviso ‘unless the recipients present a barrier (
_obex_) to God’s grace’—which may actually lead to a doctrine nearer to the Reformers’ understanding than either side would have been happy to concede. The Reformers compared sacramental efficacy closely to that of the ministry of the word, which enabled them to ascribe power to the ministry of the sacraments as being akin to the ministry of the word. The more rigorous Reformers confined the ministry of both to the ordained ministers of the church because they saw correspondence between the two kinds of ministry of God’s grace or found them linked in Mt. 28:19–20. And the Reformers generally retained a ‘high’ view of the benefits conferred by God in his sacraments, varying from the medieval and Counter-Reformation authors not so much in this question as in the setting out of the conditions under which God might be expected to confer that grace. Particular issues arose about the two sacraments separately, such as whether infants should continue to be baptized (see Baptism), and what the Lord meant by ‘this is my body’. Many such issues have relevance to general questions about the sacraments (
_e.g._, their relation to OT ordinances).
In recent times the liturgical movement and the ecumenical movement have both emphasized a factor which is present in the 16th-century discussions, but not to the forefront of them. This is the sacraments’ ecclesial significance, particularly in the face of an unbelieving world. The sacraments incorporate believers into the visible people of God (see Church) and sustain them in that membership. They thus represent to the recipients their calling to fulfil the loving, peacemaking, missionary and other tasks of God in the world. Their significance is impaired in a divided church, but they stand as a witness to the catholic and undivided character of the people of God in the scriptural revelation against which we have to measure ourselves. They are understood by being done, and it is in the context of obeying the Lord’s p 608 commands and celebrating the liturgical acts—in other words, in our sacramental worship—that we may expect to be led into a true understanding of the sacraments.
**Bibliography**
D. Baillie,
_The Theology of the Sacraments_ (London, 1957); G. C. Berkouwer,
_The Sacraments_ (Grand Rapids, MI, 1969); J. Calvin,
_Institutes_ IV. xiv–xix; N. Clark,
_An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments_ (London, 1957); P. T. Forsyth,
_The Church and the Sacraments_ (London, 1917); B. Leeming,
_Principles of Sacramental Theology_ (London, 1956); O. C. Quick,
_The Christian Sacraments_ (London, 1927).
**[footnoteRef:1]** [1: C. O. Buchanan, “Sacrament,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 606–608.]
**## CharlesSherlockTheTransmissionofSin.docx**
**THE TRANSMISSION OF SIN[footnoteRef:1]** [1: Charles Sherlock, “The Transmission of Sin,” in The Doctrine of Humanity, ed. Gerald Bray, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 233–238.]
by
Charles Sherlock
Sin is a desperately critical aspect of human life as we experience it. Major aspects of its place in Christian thought, including the concept of original sin, have been discussed in chapters 2 and 3. The basic concept of original sin is not difficult to grasp, namely that we sin because there is a fundamental flaw at the centre of our being, the ‘origin’ of sin. Sins are the fruit of sin, not discrete acts of evil independent of each other. Given the amount of suffering, pain, injustice and moral evil present in the world as we know it, the fact of each human’s having a radical flaw, a corrupted ‘root’ at the core of his or her being, is not difficult to defend.
It is one thing to assert that human life as we know it—though not as God made it or intends it to be—is sinful in every respect. It is quite another to explain how it is that such a tragic state
_comes about_. Note the present tense in this sentence; mainstream Christian faith ascribes the beginning of sin to the disobedience of human beings described in Genesis 3. However puzzling, p 234 inexplicable and stupid may be the riddle of beings made in the image of God rejecting their Maker, Christian theology can offer an answer to the question how this tragic state
_came_ about.[footnoteRef:2] The question as to how this beginning of sins is passed on to the race as a whole is given a far less ready response. In short, the
_reality_ of sin and sins is not difficult either to grasp or to defend, but how sin and its origin are
_transmitted_ is an extremely complicated matter. [2: This topic moves into the question of the problem of evil, which lies beyond the scope of this book. A terse, realistic treatment is Geisler, Part IV. Geisler is an American evangelical philosopher who has engaged in public discussion of many issues of social morality.]
The following three propositions have been formulated to try to clarify the issues involved. Each one is held as true in Christian thought, and has been repeatedly discussed in this book. The problem is how to hold all three as true at the same time. A number of theories have been developed in order to do this, each of which has been significant at differing times in the history of the Christian tradition. The purpose of this appendix is to review these, in the light of the Scriptures, so that Christian life today may be lived with appropriate awareness of both the seriousness of sin and the wonder of our salvation from its power and consequences.
1. All humans are created in the image and likeness of God, to be like Christ.
2. All humans are affected by sin, which distorts their being at its root; the effects of sin are seen in every aspect of human life, in sins.
3. All humans are responsible for their actions, and liable for their consequences.
To deny the first statement undermines what it means to be human; as created, we are essentially ‘very good’. Some Christians so emphasize the truth of the second statement that the first is obscured, forgotten or denied, while others have held too optimistic a view of humanity as we know it. The third statement is rarely denied, but frequently overemphasized, especially when the idea of free will is discussed without reference to the reality of sin; sin does not remove our will, but renders it incapable of doing the will of God. As can readily be seen, it is no easy matter to hold all three statements together. The core of the problem is how humanity as God intends it relates to humanity as we know it; the way in which the corruption of sin is transmitted has been the issue around which the debate has formed and re-formed.
p 235 The debates about the transmission of sin are complex. In particular, they affect the way in which the full humanity of Christ is understood. Though without sin, and so more truly human than any other, he took sin upon himself for the sake of those held captive to its power. The web of sin extends to every aspect of human life, and any who enter this world as we know it cannot avoid its entanglement Jesus was not exempt from this, but lived without being caught in its net until his ‘hour’ came, when he freely gave himself up to be ‘made … sin’, according to the will of God (
_cf._ Jn. 12:23–33; 2 Cor. 5:19–21). In so turning the other cheek to sin, taking on himself all its consequences, he absorbed all its poison and set humankind free from its power. In Jesus we see a truly and fully free will, continuing to pursue the will of God even when that meant coming under the curse of sin.
How then are these statements to be held together? At least eight theories have been formulated;[footnoteRef:3] the two extremes are noted first. [3: Contemporary systematic theologies do not often discuss these theories in detail: an older but full discussion is Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. II (1871; Eerdmans, 1952), chapter VIII. A useful work which seeks to relate grace and sin to pastoral concerns such as self-esteem, and surveys carefully the historical debates, is Neil Ormerod (ed.), Grace and Disgrace (E. J. Dwyer, 1992). Ormerod teaches theology at St Paul’s Seminary, Sydney, and is known for clear thinking about Christian faith in its Australian contexts.]
1.
_Pelagianism_ overemphasizes the third statement, holding that if we have been given a command by God, we must be able to obey it. This denies the second statement entirely, so that sins are regarded as distinct acts, rather than as the fruits of sin. There is no origin of sin at all, and so nothing is transmitted.
2. The other extreme, going back to Augustine, is
_realism_: each and every human being sinned in Adam, and this original sin is transmitted physically through conception and birth. Not only original sin is passed on, but also ‘original guilt’, the consequences of that sin, so that humanity is seen as a ‘lump of perdition’. This certainly takes the seriousness of sin seriously, but renders the third statement almost meaningless. In practice it can also obscure the first statement, and has been responsible for much harm in Christian attitudes to sexuality.
In between these wholly opposed stands are several other theories. Three were formulated in the debates following that between Augustine and the Pelagians, but continue to have influence today.
3. The
_deprivation_ theory was formed by medieval scholastics who stressed the significance of the will, arguing that we are at least capable of preparing to turn to God. Sin is seen as depriving us of an original righteousness which Adam knew, p 236 rather than depraving our being and rendering it incapable of turning to God. It is not so much that an origin of sin is transmitted, but that a positive goodness foils to be passed on, so leaving us open to the influence of evil. The problem here is that while the reality of sin is acknowledged, its effects are minimalized.
4. A slightly stronger view is called
_semi-Pelagianism_: sin is a disease rather than a lack. We are sick and need healing, and without it we will die. Sin is passed on like a disease—which leaves us with problems similar to those of realism when it comes to the first statement.
5. The
_nature-person_ theory takes up both these ideas, yet strengthens the approach to the seriousness of sin. We not only foil to receive an original goodness, and are diseased, but human nature as a whole is corrupted. Each human being thus receives a corrupted nature, but is not thereby a sinful person until he or she commits actual sin. The pastoral usefulness of such a view is evident and it can be seen behind Article IX of the Thirty-nine Articles. The distinction between nature and person is used classically in Christology as well as in terms of sin, which increases the attractiveness of this view, though the distinction has become difficult to defend in modern times.
6. Close to the last view, but expressed in quite different terms, is the perspective of
_the eastern churches_.[footnoteRef:4] There has been little substantial debate of these matters in the eastern Christian tradition, so that it is difficult to be precise. The main ideas of the three statements listed above are held, but related through death rather than sin. Adam fell from a state of ‘undeveloped simplicity’ rather than from a great height, and so ‘is not to be judged too harshly for his error’. The main consequence of this act was the entry of death and corruption into the world: our ‘inheritance is of death rather than of sinfulness or guilt’. [4: See John Chryssavgis, “Original Sin—An Orthodox Perspective,” in Ormerod, pp. 197–206, from whom both quotations in this paragraph come. Chryssavgis, an Orthodox deacon, teaches at St Andrew’s Seminary, Sydney, and is known for seeking to build bridges between the Orthodox and churches of an English background.]
The Reformation period saw vigorous debates in these areas, initially over the capacity of the will to turn to God.[footnoteRef:5] In terms of the work of Christ, justification came to be understood as ‘imputation’ rather than ‘impartation’; we are in the right with God because of an external change in our status before God, rather than by an internal renovation. As Luther put, Christ is ‘for us’
_(pro nobis)_ before being ‘in us’
_(in nobis)_. Just as the concepts of nature and person had been used in classical Christology and p 237 anthropology, so the concept of imputation now came to be applied in the area of sin. In order to defend the priority of grace over and against Rome, the first generation of Reformers tended towards the realist view, though it came increasingly to be seen as problematic. As the Reformation consolidated, fierce debates over the extent of election and the nature of sin broke out in the Protestant churches. Some continued to hold to one of the scholastic views noted above, especially the last; but in Reformed theology two major views emerged. [5: Berkouwer, in Sin, chapters 12–14, discusses these matters in some detail, and with pastoral sensitivity.]
7. The theory known as
_mediate imputation_ accepts the realist premise that we all sinned in Adam, but questions the notion that this sin is transmitted directly to us. With the scholastics, the fallen position of the race as a whole is acknowledged, though sin is not imparted so much as imputed to each member of the race. This last expression is used to avoid the implication that each human is sinful in essence; Adam’s sin is imputed to each person because of his or her participation in fallen humanity, not directly so much as mediated. Corresponding to this, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to each person in Christ, mediated through the effectual preaching of the gospel, and sealed in baptism.
8. The other Reformed theory is known as
_immediate imputation_ or
_federalism_: the sin of Adam is imputed to the race immediately, not mediated individually. Adam is thus our representative ‘federal head’, in whom we all sinned, and whose sin is passed on to all. This view comes close to the realist view, but is more subtle. There is some debate about whether the parallel between the imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness can appropriately be made, partly because in this schema it would seem to imply universalism, and partly out of concern to differentiate the role of the will in sin and in grace.[footnoteRef:6] [6: These two theories also came to be associated respectively with traducianist and creationist views of the soul, since the transmission of sin was discussed in relation to transmission of the soul; see chapter 10 above.]
Having listed these theories, there is a very real danger that sin can come to be viewed as a mere theory about which Christians disagree. That idea would itself demonstrate the deceptive character of the effects of sin. It must be admitted that some of the debates were unseemly, and conducted with little sensitivity to the theological, anthropological and cultural presuppositions which cloud understanding, especially the different approaches to sin of women and men (see chapters 8 and 9 above).
p 238 Whatever theory of the transmission of sin and its origin we hold, the reality is that everyone who reads this book is a sinner. Each of us needs constantly to turn to Christ, admit our need for forgiveness and healing, renounce sin and evil, and so live gladly the life which the Holy Spirit brings to birth in us. Only in that way can the old humanity be killed off, and the fruits of the Spirit flourish (
_cf._ Col. 3:1–17). Our prime concern is not with the transmission of sin, but the anticipation of our restored nature as we participate in the new humanity in Christ In the terms of the eighth view above, we are not to look to Adam, but to cling to Christ as our ‘head’,[footnoteRef:7] both now and in the ages to come.[footnoteRef:8] [7: See Henri Blocher, Original Sin: Untangling the Riddle (Apollos, 1997), the Moore College (Sydney) lectures for 1995.] [8: Charles Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity, ed. Gerald Bray, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 233–238.]
**CreationImageofGodandHumanity.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/creationimageofgodandhumanity-pdf)
– 1
– 2
– 3