Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series) Paperback – June 30, 2020

I'll agree with the reviews in the book that each perspective we presented strongly. No position was weakened by less compelling argument. So, it you're looking to understand the wide scope of responses to the original sin question, this is the book.

Excellent for reach in this area. The five most commonly held views of Original Sin are discussed.

John Wesley only wrote one full-length systematic treatise, The Doctrine of Original Sin: According to Scripture, Reason, and Experience (1757). In it he declared without this doctrine “the Christian system falls at once.” That statement would lead one to conclude that there is only one view of original sin within orthodox Christianity. However, Thomas Oden observed, “Few liberal Protestants have ever heard a sermon on original sin, except in the guise of a political appeal against economic injustice or war or racism or social oppression.” Within this book, however, five views or variations are presented. The Calvinist view holds that there was no animal death before the first human sin. Adam is the biological head of the entire human race and that his first sin condemns all subsequent people. Oliver Crisp is in basic agreement, but argues that original sin and original guilt must be separated. Arminius made this distinction, but Wesley affirmed original guilt. However, Wesley said we are liable for the guilt of Adam’s first sin due to the unconditional benefits of the atonement. So we end up at the same point, practically speaking. The third view by Joel Green, is purported to be the Wesleyan view. Green starts with Wesley, but his conclusions do not represent Wesley. After getting off to a good start, Green dismisses the primary texts which support Wesley’s understanding. Green cannot accept Genesis 3 because it does not comport with modern evolutionary biology. Green cannot accept Romans 5:12 because he cannot accept what he thinks it teaches. Therefore, Green concludes that Romans 5 does not address the origin of sin, but the common ground of sin between Jew and Gentiles. As the Calvinist contributor pointed out, Green does not have an adequate view of biblical authority. He accepts much of evolutionary biology while he tries to demonstrate its consistency with the doctrine of sin. But he glosses over significant areas of conflict and comes out with a doctrine informed primarily by science instead of divine revelation. He concludes that we cannot know for certain how Wesley might have responded had he had the benefit of modern evolutionary biology. Here Green becomes a poster boy for BioLogos, of which editor J. B. Stump is vice-president. Apparently they are willing to discard the doctrine of original sin if it implies a historical Adam as the biological father of the human race. As a Wesleyan I find it embarrassing that the Calvinist contributor suggests that Green could have done a better job had even adopted a premise of limited inerrancy — although that position has its own insuperable problems. As it stands, Green ends up not knowing anything for sure, but thankful to have been reared in the Wesleyan-Methodist world. Eastern Orthodoxy does not accept original sin. However, they believe there was a fall and death resulted from that ancestral sin. We are born into a web of sin which has accumulated and we need deification. But we are not born with a sinful nature. This seems to be very nearly what Pelgius taught except perhaps for the Eastern concept of theosis. The fifth and final position simply states that original sin is the failure to love properly. This “reconceived view” is basically psychological and in line with some contemporary Nazarene theologians are now saying. In fairness, however, Kenneth Grider and Sam Powell are Nazarene theologians who clearly affirm a doctrine of original sin. Kenneth Collins explained “a weak doctrine of original sin could only result in an equally weak doctrine of the new birth. For if the extensiveness of the problem was relinquished or soft-pedaled, the radical nature of the solution would be lost as well.” Since we were born in sin, we must be born again. Oden explained, “A high doctrine of original sin is the premise and companion of a high doctrine of grace.” Unfortunately, many of the best “evangelical” scholars are not very sure of anything.

How do we make sense of the Christian doctrine or original sin? How do we understand the fall? How is guilt transmitted from one generation to the next, if it is at all? How are we to understand Genesis, and what is the interplay between faith and modern science?I enjoy the Spectrum Multiview Series. I enjoyed this installment. The contributors are Hans Madueme, Oliver Crisp, Joel Green, Andrew Louth, and Tatha Wiley. Their viewpoints are described, in corresponding order, as Augustinian-Reformed, Moderate Reformed, Wesleyan, Eastern Orthodox, and Reconceived. Madueme's view is the most traditional, or conservative, and Wiley represents the most modern or progressive presentation. The initial essays arguing each position, as well as the response essays, are excellent.I find myself closest to Crisp's view, with slight modifications. But I like to understand other viewpoints, while sharpening my own. If you are trying to understand the doctrine of original sin and the fall, and are thinking critically about how those doctrines are to be taught, preached, and applied today, consider this book.

I just finished reading “Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views”. Each of the following 5 views by 5 authors has an in-depth essay plus feedback/responses from the other 4 authors.1) An Augustinian-Reformed View2) A Moderate Reformed View3) A Wesleyan View4) An Eastern Orthodox View5) A Reconceived View (Catholic)The book is academic and requires a good amount of context. I did enjoy learning about the different positions and think this would be helpful for seminary students and academic types interested in this topic. Personally, I wish it were more accessible, but I appreciate reading the various perspectives.