Chapter 09.2 - The Nature of Man

The Nature of Man (Part II) The Nature of Man

Reinhold Niebuhr makes the statement that "all modern views of human nature are adaptations, transformations, and varying compounds of primarily two distinctive views of man: (a) the view of classical antiquity, that is of the Graeco-Roman world, and (b) the Biblical view."¹ The Christian faith has always had the difficulty of letting the classical view dominate itself. Niebuhr also states:

“The Christian view of man is sharply distinguished from all alternative views by the manner in which it ". . emphasizes the height of self-transcendence in man’s spiritual stature in its doctrine of the `image of God;’ [. . . by its insistence] on `man’s weakness, dependence and finiteness’ [and its affirmation that] `the evil in man is a consequence of his inevitable though not necessary unwillingness to acknowledge his dependence, to accept his finiteness and to admit his insecurity, an unwillingness which involves him in the vicious circle of accentuating the insecurity from which he seeks escape.’ " ²

Classical Greek

Much of the thought of the early Christian thinkers, as well as medieval Catholicism, was influenced by Plato and Aristotle. There are two emphases that come from Greek thought which determined the direction early Christian thought would take. First, the rational nature of man was given the most prominent place. Reason was the creative principle and as such was "identical with God."³ Second, a dualism was maintained between the body and mind or reason. The mind or spiritual principle was good in contrast to the body which was evil⁴ The body was considered the prison house of the soul and consequently inferior. One can see the influence of this type of thinking in early monastic practices of fleeing the world and subjecting the body to austere practices, practices quite inconsistent with the Hebrew Scriptures..

We cannot emphasize too strongly that the Bible records nothing of this type of dualism. To that we now turn.

Biblical View of Man In the Bible man is spoken of as a living soul. Traditionally, man’s nature was spoken of as being composed of body and soul. It is biblically more correct to speak of him, however, as a living soul. The biblical emphasis is on the unity of man in his existence. One sees this in Barth when he declares, "I am not only my soul; I am my soul only as I am also my body. I am not only my body; I am my body only as I am also my soul. Hence it is certainly not only my body but also my soul which has awareness, and it is certainly not only my soul but also my body which thinks." ⁵

Because of the unity of man it is not correct to divide up functions of being into substances. One cannot attribute thinking to the soul, but the one man thinks. One cannot say simply that the body suffers and the soul cannot suffer, but that the one man suffers. Our descriptions of our existence are often more unified than our thinking. We say rightfully "I think," not just my mind thinks; "I am hungry," not just my body is hungry. These and other statements are the utterance of the one subject I, who at the same moment is soul and body.⁶

Another question of importance is the relation between soul and spirit. Spirit and soul are never separated in the New Testament. When they are distinguished, "spirit is the principle of the soul." ⁷ To speak in other words, man, being a besouled body, has spirit, "but we cannot simply say that he is spirit." ⁸ Only as man has spirit can we speak of his becoming a soul. This distinguishes man from the beast. When the sustaining power of God’s Spirit is withdrawn from man’s bodily life, death comes, and the body returns to the dust of the earth while the person of the body enters the judgment of his Creator.

It has been customary for some to speak of the immortality of the soul separated from the body. Note carefully that this term technically means that after death the soul lives on endlessly and the body is dead endlessly. Of course, this is the Greek concept of human existence and not the biblical idea. Immortality of the soul implies an indestructible substance created by God and it has no end. This is also Greek thought and not biblical anthropology. The soul, according to biblical thought, can be conceived as immortal only as long as God gives it its existence. It has no existence on its own right or power. Soul is continually dependent upon Spirit for life. The Christian speaks of the everlasting life because of sustained existence by the power of God. It is incorrect to speak of eternal life for man, for eternal life belongs only to God. Man’s life has a beginning; God’s being does not. The difference in attitude toward life and death can be viewed in comparing the accounts of the death of Socrates and Jesus. For Socrates, death was a release to be experienced without fear and agony. Jesus displayed the Hebraic view of death in which death is a real threat to personal existence.

Dichotomy or trichotomy: A question debated from the early centuries of the Christian church is whether man is of two parts (body and soul-- dichotomy), or three distinct parts (body, soul, and spirit-- trichotomy) . The dichotomist appeals to scriptural passages such as Gen 2:7; Job 32:8; Job 33:4; Mat 10:28; 1Co 5:3, and others. The trichotomist appeals to these passages also but seeks to clinch his argument particularly from 1Th 5:23 and Heb 4:12. The first passage speaks of "spirit and soul and body." The second passage speaks of the living Word of God, "piercing to the division of soul and spirit." With regard to these it is obvious that completeness and depth of soul are the intended ideas. Nobody argues for man’s nature being divided into four parts or five. Yet, Jesus spoke of loving the Lord God with "all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). One may ask, why should one argue for a trichotomy on the basis of 1 Thessalonians and Hebrews and not argue for a quadripartite or more? The argument over the two points of view has gone on since the early church. Perhaps it may be said that the dichotomists have been the more influential. However, if one emphasizes that man is not divided in his existence, but is a unitary being, then the question of dichotomy or trichotomy is not a very significant one.

Origin of the soul: If man is a living soul, how does each newborn babe obtain his spiritual nature? This question has been spoken of traditionally as the origin of the soul. Generally three answers have been offered: preexistence of the soul, traducianism, and creationism.

1. Preexistence of the soul. This viewpoint has had little support in the history of Christian thought and is dependent on Greek philosophical thought for its origin. One Christian exponent of it was Origen, who declared that God had created in the beginning a fixed number of rational essences. These souls, or rational essences, were all endowed with free will and were by their very nature supposed to imitate God. It was dependent upon them to follow him or fall away by neglecting him. The rational essences became involved in the rebellion of the devil or other demons, and so God made the world as the place for their punishment. Thus each soul was imprisoned in a body as its punishment.⁹ Therefore, each new human offspring is a product of punishment in which God places within the human body a soul. Its imprisonment remains until death when the soul is released. In one sense, man is similar to being a "fallen angel."

One of the main reasons that this view has had so little support in the history of Christian thought is that it is not dependent upon biblical statements for its evidence.

2. Traducianism. The word comes from "traduce," meaning to transfer, cross over. Theologically it means that the soul is inherited, along with the body, from the parents. Traducianism was held also in the second century. Tertullian formulated it and, under his and later writers’ influence, it came to be widely held.

Traducianism means that the souls of men are contained in Adam in some sense, because each soul has been derived ultimately from the original breath of God breathed into Adam. There is much more to be said for this viewpoint than the one above. First, the Bible says nothing about a continuing in breathing of the breath of life into each new human being. Propagation seems to be by physical means alone. Second, the passages used to argue against the position (Ecc 12:7; Isa 42:5; Zec 12:1; Heb 12:9; Num 16:22 ) do not necessarily mean any more than the fact that God is Creator of man’s soul in an ultimate sense.

Objections are raised on the basis that it is a type of materialism. Traducianism seems to make the soul a piece of material that is transmitted from generation to generation. However, this seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the words regarding man’s spiritual nature. His spiritual essence is not flesh, but it is something. It seems there are certain qualities of personality that can be transmitted from generation to generation, such as a family of musicians and musical ability, and this need not be conceived in physical terms.

3. Creationism. Creationism is the idea that each new soul is a direct creation of God. Each new soul is ethically and morally pure. It then comes into contact with the body that is sinful or fallen. Berkhof says, "It may simply mean that the soul, though called into being by a creative act of God, yet is pre-formed in the physical life of the foetus, that is, in the life of the parents, and thus acquires its life, not above and outside of, but under and in, that complex of sin by which humanity as a whole is burdened."¹⁰

Creationism, like the other viewpoints, was held early in the history of the church. It was held by such men as Ambrose, Jerome, and Pelagius. The objections to creationism are mainly two. First, the strongest objection is that it involves God as the author of evil, at least indirectly, for God places a pure soul within a body that will ultimately corrupt it. The second great objection is that it makes the parents responsible for the body of the child but omits the impartation of the soul so that it is an independent element apart from the parents. The issue of creationism versus traducianism is one that is difficult to solve. Even the great Augustine, who was very much concerned about this problem, could come to no solution. J. O. Buswell, in his Systematic Theology, concludes, "I would conclude with Augustine therefore, that on biblical grounds we cannot firmly establish either the traducian or the creationist view of the origin of the human soul."¹¹

One problem in the whole discussion has been the either/or terms of the question. It is possible that both of these are aspects of the real truth. We agree with Brunner in his statement about the synthesis of the problem:

“I, this human being, am evidently both a product of my ancestors and a new creation of God. We must assign the continuity to the preservation, the new element to the creation of God, whereby the question may remain open whether or not as a whole and apart from man each individual as such, in spite of all continuity and explicability of its elements from its antecedents, is something new. This must in any case indubitably be claimed for the human person. Every human being is a new creation of God; every one is an original, and none is a product of a series, although in its cultural manifestation the originality may be very slight. Each human being is not only an individual but a person, and therefore directly related to God as its Creator.”¹² The Beginning of Sin In any discussion of the biblical story of the beginning of sin, one must face the prior question of "from where did sin come?" The Bible does not offer a philosophical answer to the origin of sin. Certain presuppositions are found there however. God is holy and cannot be regarded as originating sin. God is not such that he can be tempted to sin. Beyond this, there are only hints recorded in the Bible concerning the origin of sin. The Gospel of John records the words of Jesus in saying that the devil is a murderer from the beginning ( 8 : 44 ).The first letter of John speaks of the devil as sinning from the beginning ( 3:8) . 1Ti 3:6 alludes to the sin of the devil as being that of pride. Jude 1:6 declares that the angels kept not their own principality but left their proper habitation.

If the sin of the angels was a sin with regard to turning away from God in process of questioning his goodness, this does find its parallel in the temptation story in Gen 3:1-24. What had been successful in the angelic realm turned out to be quite successful in the human realm. The account of the serpent in Gen 3:1-24 is important. Niebuhr avers that the Christian has not been wrong "in identifying the serpent with, or regarding it as an instrument or symbol of, the devil. To believe that there is a devil is to believe that there is a principle or force of evil antecedent to any evil human action. Before man sinned the devil sinned.. The devil is, in fact, a fallen angel. His sin and fall consist in his effort to transcend his proper state and to become like God. This definition of the devil’s fall is implied in Isaiah’s condemnation of Babylon." ¹³

There are several lessons in the Genesis story. First, even the devil himself was created good, and evil comes from his transgression against God. In this sense, evil involves the turning from the Good, the Creator, to the self. Second, the appearance of the devil within the Garden of Eden story shows that man’s rebellion is not a matter of caprice or evil perversity on his part. The circumstances were not rigged so that man was forced to sin. Third, man himself is not the inventor of evil. There is a basic difference between man’s sin and the sin of the devil. The devil is the inventor of sin and the first one involved in it. His sin is "pure defiance, pure arrogance, purely intellectual and spiritual sin. Human sin always contains an element of frailty, of the nonspiritual, or the sense element."¹⁴ Fourth, the sinful creature--either angelic or human--tends to corrupt those surrounding it. The guilty party becomes an evangel of evil. The conclusion, then, that we must reach in beginning the story of man’s departure from obedience to God is that man was created good. Sin is an intruder from the outside, and man begins his walk into sin by turning from obedience to God. The Nature of the First Sin The first sin of man was not a sexual one. In Letters from the Earth, Mark Twain caricatures the story of Genesis and speaks of Adam and Eve’s discovery of sex.¹⁵ Not only did Twain not understand the psychology of sex, but he also did great injustice to the biblical picture of sex. He speaks of it as something that is forbidden and evil. This is a perversion of the biblical concept of God making man and woman for each other. In a more serious vein, theologians have attempted to characterize the first sin under some single word, as rebellion, pride, unbelief, but this is an attempt to simplify matters. It is perhaps true that all of these things are involved in the first sin of mankind. The first sin of man must also have some relationship to that which is recorded about man later in his history. The New Testament speaks of certain features of sin, and in this case, it is pride that is the beginning of consequent sins. Niebuhr declares that "pride is more basic than sensuality and that the latter is, in some way, derived from the former."¹⁶ Pascal defines sin in these terms, "This I is hateful. . . . In one word it has two qualities: It is essentially unjust in that it makes self the center of everything and it is troublesome to others in that it seeks to make them subservient; for each I is the enemy and would be tyrant of all others." ¹⁷ Pride issues in the self willfulness of man in which he exalts himself in the place of God. The ultimate end is self-glorification. Further, pride issues in the attempt to gain freedom from God.

Reinhold Niebuhr, in his classic work The Nature and Destiny of Man, speaks of the sin of man in terms of pride. Unfortunately, the word "pride" has come to mean for us a conceited or swelled-head attitude. But pride in the sense that Niebuhr uses it is related to self-centeredness. It refers to over concern with one’s self. Speaking then in terms of pride, pride is treated under three different categories by Niebuhr, although they are never quite distinct: pride of power, pride of knowledge, and pride of virtue.¹⁸ The pride of power is dealt with on two different levels. "The first form of the pride of power is particularly characteristic of individuals and groups whose position in society is, or seems to be, secure." ¹⁹ However, one can never find this sort of security, for doom may be impending around the corner. The second form of the pride of power is more obviously "prompted by the sense of insecurity. It is the sin of those, who knowing themselves to be insecure, seek sufficient power to guarantee their security, inevitably of course at the expense of other life."²⁰ This type of power issues in forms of greed, insecurity, fear of obscurity, and in other ways.²¹ The second form of pride is the intellectual pride of man. "Intellectual pride is thus the pride of reason which forgets that it is involved in a temporal process and imagines itself in complete transcendence over history."²² The ultimate consequence is that one who is guilty of intellectual pride is unaware or is ignorant of his own ignorance. It is the sin of making one’s self think that he has become the final thinker. The third type is moral pride. "Moral pride is revealed in all `self-righteous’ judgments in which the other is condemned because he fails to conform to the high arbitrary standards of the self. Since the self judges itself by its own standards, it finds itself good. It judges others by its own standards and finds them evil when their standards fail to conform to its own. This is the secret of the relationship between cruelty and self-righteousness." ²³ Niebuhr concludes that "the sin of moral pride, when it has conceived, brings forth spiritual pride. The ultimate sin is the religious sin of making the self-deification apply in the moral pride explicitly."²⁴ Results of Original Sin and the Problem of Guilt

Even when the Bible is not received as the revelation of God, it can be freely admitted that there is something radically wrong with man. Man’s inhumanity to man makes the thoughtful observer wonder what can adequately explain all of these problems. Why is it that man takes to selfishness and sin naturally? Any answer given to this question will probably bring into the discussion the phrase "original sin."

Original sin is used to describe what Adam did in corrupting himself as well as the human race.²⁵ The latter implication, i.e., what we inherit by being sons of Adam, is vitally important to any doctrine of man-in-sin, for it involves the issue of guilt. Another term, the "fall of man,’ describes man’s departure from God into sin and rebellion. The two ideas are summed up in the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

"The sinfulness of that estate whereunto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want (lack) of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it."²⁶ This definition can be accepted, but the real issue comes in adding the answer of Question 16, which speaks of the covenant being made with Adam. Then it says, because of Adam’s transgressions, "All mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression." This is the aspect of the doctrine of man that offends modern consciousness. This view is still defended by men of the Reformed tradition who are conservative in their theology. Brunner, however, remarks that although the theory of original sin has been held from the time of Augustine, it is "completely foreign to the thought of the Bible." ²⁷ He adds that the Bible does say that in Adam all have sinned, but it does not tell us how all of this took place.²⁸

We have two basic questions closely related to each other: What are the effects of Adam’s sin upon his descendants? Where does guilt enter the life of the individual? Before any proposals are offered, it must be noted that the source of disagreement centers around the passages of Paul in Rom 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.29 How are we to interpret these passages? In what sense do all die in Adam? If all die in Adam, am I guilty in Adam? Or to put it another way, can there be vicarious guilt? Can I be blamed for something I did not do? In the following exposition we shall state the proposed answers and attempt to relate the two basic questions. The Augustinian-Calvinistic View From the time of Irenaeus there have been those who regarded Adam as the source of all the sinfulness of mankind. Through Adam’s sin men have become enslaved to the devil.³⁰ In this instance the passage in Romans is understood as saying that death has come upon all men because they all sinned in the one man Adam. Augustine, as did Calvin later, spoke of the fall or sin of Adam as producing a human race of perdition. Man is so permeated with sin that the Reformers spoke of his being totally depraved. Even the virtues of the heathen were regarded as splendid vices; that is, his outward acts of charity were corrupted through ulterior motives. Nothing good was to be found in man and his only good was to find salvation in Christ. From the Calvinistic perspective one may say that man is permeated with sin from the top of his head to the sole of his feet.

However, such a statement concerning the moral position of man can be misleading. The idea does not mean that man is as bad as he can be, nor does it exclude the idea that man does have individual acts that can be said to be praiseworthy. It means "first, that sinners have no natural affection for God; secondly, that they cannot remedy this defect by resident moral powers. They can only vent pride and selfishness on new and more refined levels." ³¹ It also means that man’s sin has made it impossible for him to find God. The position sounds quite severe. It means that man by birth becomes a sinner. How is this so?

Adam is regarded as standing in a twofold relationship to the human race. He is first the natural head of the human race, the father of all living. We are all sons of Adam by birth; from him we have our physical body. This itself does not imply any involvement of his offspring with the problem of sin and guilt except to ask ultimately how can righteousness be the offspring of the unrighteous? The second aspect is that of Adam’s covenant relationship. Because Adam was the representative of all his descendants, his act of will, therefore, was also their act of will. The Reformed theologian Berkhof wrote,

“Because he was the federal representative of his race, his disobedience affected all his descendants. In his righteous judgment, God imputes the guilt of the first sin committed by the head of the covenant to all those who are federally related to him, and as a result, they are born in a depraved and sinful condition as well, and this inherited corruption also involves guilt. This explains why only the first sin of Adam, and not his following sins nor the sins of other forefathers, is imputed to us, and also safeguards the sinlessness of Jesus, for He was not a human person and therefore not in the covenant of works." ³²

Man is therefore born with the defects of Adam along with being guilty because of his sin. The great objection is that it runs contrary to man’s sense of fairness. How can he be blamed for something that happened before he was born. Equally as serious is the question: Can there be guilt without personal involvement and responsibility? It does not solve any of these questions to reply that "you were there in Adam." I was in my father in the same sense but I do not inherit his goodness any more than I am responsible for his sins. If there is anything evident in the book of Romans, it is personal responsibility for one’s own sins--not somebody else’s.

Neo-Pelagian View

Close to the end of the fourth century a British monk named Pelagius came to Rome. He taught that there is no relationship between Adam’s sin and the corruption of the race, nor is there any guilt involved. Man is born innocent and free, like Adam before his rebellion against God. Man has the ability also to live a sinless life if he so desires. He even believed that some men before the birth of Jesus had lived without sinning. The assumption is made that man is capable of fulfilling the commands of God. They are not impossible of performance, because God as Creator would command only what we are capable of doing. The views of Pelagius are adopted by modern Christian existentialists. Some modern theologians reject any connection between Adam and the sin of any other man. Basically, each man is born in a state of innocence and, like Adam, faces daily the matter of deciding his relationship to God. This has much in common with Pelagius but it departs in affirming that all men in fact have sinned and men do not live in perfection. The passage in Romans is to be understood in the sense that all men die because all men sinned in their own right and not particularly because Adam sinned. Niebuhr asserts that even Augustine, who rejected Pelagianism and spoke of inherited corruption, inserted a qualification on the passage in Rom 3:23 so that it read, "For all have sinned--whether in Adam or in themselves--and come short of the glory of God." ³³ In describing such a position, Brunner states that no connection exists between the first sin and the sin of the tiny child. When then does the first sin take place? Brunner rejects the possibility of any reconstruction of the matter. If forced to make some decision he declared: "It is the moment when the little child first becomes conscious of himself as an `I,’ and when he actually expresses it, the very moment which Fichte extolled as the birth of man."³⁴ Although born innocent, the only recollection we have is that we have always been sinners. Such is also the history of man in general-- history is seen to be filled with sin.

What does this view do then with the early chapters of Genesis? The Genesis account is understood as the story of every man. It is a true fact that all men come to place themselves in opposition to God. All men refuse their creatureliness and place their own word above the word that God has concerning them. The problem in this position is to explain why every man always does this. Brunner’s solution is as follows:

“Our solidarity in sin also refers to past generation. It refers to our individual past as well as to that of humanity. We are not aware of any moment in our existence when we were not sinners. So far as our consciousness is concerned, the state of "being a sinner" began with our first sin. But this first sin cannot be reconstructed by us in psychological fashion; it is lost in the mists of infancy or childhood. So far as our recollection as persons is concerned, we are aware of ourselves as sinners. The same is true of humanity as a whole. So far as it can be perceived in history, it is seen to be sinful.”³⁵

Why is it then that men do turn aside into sin? Two answers may be advanced among others. Paul Tillich, a modern existential theologian, speaks of the creation of man as synonymous with the fall. It seems to be the nature of the created to make the transition "from essence to existence. He creates the newborn child; but, if created, it falls into the state of existential estrangement."³⁶ However, one may well ask if this does not imply that the creative work of God is really bad? This is especially true concerning the first man. The second answer would be that sin is a corporate thing, and humanity has been involved in sin for so long that the innocent child quickly learns to express his own will against the wills of those around him.

Although this view is strong in establishing the fact of personal responsibility and of making guilt a consequence of personal sin, it is weak in explaining the universal phenomena of why men depart into sin. The objection raised against the Reformed view (How can I be blamed for something I wasn’t there to do? ) is revised to read, "How can I be blamed for something when I was too young to know better?" In summary, Neo-Pelagianism denies a relation between Adam’s sin and his descendants and between Adam’s guilt and personal guilt. The Roman Catholic View

First suggested by Athanasius, eventually accepted by Thomas Aquinas, (and called Thomist view) the Roman Catholic theory stands between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. The Roman Catholic view depicts Adam as having two types of life. He had the natural life to which was added as a gift the supernatural life. The supernatural life includes the theological virtues of faith, charity, and a desire to be with God. When man disobeyed God, he lost the supernatural life. In consequence, man is simply deprived of something that he once had. After Adam’s sin, he still has his natural life but now it is tainted with the tendency toward sin, but yet having the ability of the will to do otherwise. "Original sin is thus described negatively. It is the privation of something which does not belong to man essentially and, therefore, cannot be regarded as a corruption of his essential nature."³⁷ With regard to guilt, a child is born neutral, or innocent. In this there is similarity to Pelagianism, but with a difference. The unbaptized child, who dies in infancy, because of moral neutrality, is neither condemned to hell nor admitted to heaven. Neutrality is not innocence, for the child is denied the beatific vision of God. Baptism becomes the key for full restoration to God’s fellowship. (This position has been modified in the new catechism as noted above.)

Romanism is not fully consistent in its view of sin and man. It attempts to explain why children take to sin as they do being born with a tendency to sin but this is very little improvement over Calvinism. The unbaptized infant who dies is theologically no better off in Romanism than in Calvinism. The fact of rejection from God’s presence without baptism logically means that concupiscence, or the inherited tendency to sin, is condemnatory for men. It is a distinction without significance! In essence, the unbaptized child bears the result of somebody’s guilt a fact similar to the Reformed position. The View of SomeBaptists and Others

Some Baptists have spoken of Adam’s sin resulting in a tendency of his descendants to sin. The question of Job about the impossibility of a clean thing coming from an unclean one is pertinent. How can the innocent come from the sinful? How is it that my child manifests selfishness in ways that he has never observed in anyone else. The question, is man a sinner because he sins or does he sin because he is a sinner, has been posed in an either/or fashion. For this position, both sides are true. Man takes to sin readily because he is man, he appears to be born with a bent toward selfishness. At a very early age a child moves from making legitimate demands for his physical needs to demanding constant attention, entertainment, and care. If the perceptive parent is not aware, the child will build a small universe around himself. Selfishness continues to grow with age unless it is disciplined--and it does require discipline. The second part of the question is man a sinner because he sins? is also true. Here is where guilt really enters. There cannot be guilt without personal involvement in sin. To be clear in the matter, we must say that there is no guilt involved in the things that a child does in his early "un-responsible years." Yet, during this time, as a son of Adam he manifests the usual sins of adulthood: selfishness, self-centeredness, anger, and so on. It is only when the child comes to an age in which he realizes that these actions are wrong and that he is a responsible being for his actions that guilt may enter. Is there biblical precedent for such a position? We are really dealing with what is called "the age of accountability." Although the phrase does not appear in the Scriptures as a definite term, one may see the idea in the Jewish practice of Bar Mitzvah ceremonies in which a boy of thirteen assumes the obligations of the religious law of God. In this sense can be understood the words of Paul when he wrote, "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died" (Rom 7:9 ) . In a similar sense can one understand John 1:9 : "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world." This is saying that all men at one point in their lives are enlightened so that they are regarded as responsible for their own decisions. Much must be made of personal decision about sin and about God. The advantages of this position are obvious. It has affinity to those positions that affirm man’s helplessness in working out his own salvation. It affirms the sola gratia (by grace alone) platform of the Reformation. It emphasizes, in contrast to the Reformed position, the aspect of freedom and responsibility. It is concerned with present personal guilt rather than with the guilt of someone who lived in the past. It attempts to account for the universal turn toward sin but not at the expense of freedom. It limits guilt to what one is personally involved in. It grants that children do not merely learn to be sinful, they manifest their heart’s departure into sin. At the same time it is not freighted with implications of guilt for which there is no ground of responsibility at an early age. In conclusion to this section, it is worth noting that a great deal of attention can be focused on how man has gotten himself into this mess. The following chart may help focus attention on the different views we have dealt with in this section.

MAN Relation of Adam to His Descendants

Calvinism:    Human nature is depraved in Adam; man does evil in attempting even to do good.

Romanism    Human nature is deprived with a tendency to sin which can be overcome.

Pelagian:    All men are born innocent with no relation to Adam’s sin. Sin is learned, but can be avoided.     

Baptist:        Man has a bent toward sin, may do outwardly good deeds occasionally, but is helpless in helping himself.

CHILD Relation of Adam to His Descendants Concerning Guilt Calvinism : guilty in Adam, faith in Christ redeems Romanism neutral (?) baptism restores Pelagian: no guilt in Adam, faith for those who sin Baptist: no guilt until responsibility. Personal faith in Christ is necessary

It is evident that we all find ourselves in sin. We are also aware that we are responsible for our actions personally. All of the concern about "how I got this way" may cause us to overlook "how I can get out of it." The central affirmation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that man has a way out, an exit from the guilt of personal sin--and there can be no sin that is not personal. God has provided an escape. The mature man sees it as his only hope.

Excursus Problems in the Doctrine of Man The man of faith does have certain problems with the doctrine of man. The problem of guilt inherited, as implied in the Reformed doctrine, has been highly criticized by modern theologians. Brunner is particularly critical of it. He says, "The `stumbling block’ of the ecclesiastical doctrine, however, consists in this, that we are made responsible for sin which someone has committed."³⁸ He continues to insist that sin and responsibility stand together, or the idea of guilt is meaningless. He points up the fact that in the Bible, wherever one speaks of sin it is with reference to responsibility.³⁹ He argues that men can inherit much from their past, but "sin, godlessness, alienation from God, can never be inherited." ⁴⁰ He objects to the Reformed doctrine in that it seems to make sin something that is communicated as a biological inheritance. He likewise points out that the Reformer’s attempt to emphasize the helplessness of man in sin went to the point of having a "crude form of determinism." ⁴¹ The very meaning of the image of God, according to Brunner, is that man is always in a position of responsibility, whether in sin or out of sin. On the other hand, it is quite difficult for the modern mind to appreciate the concepts involved in the Reformed position. Individualism is a concept that we have lived with, but corporateness is the word connected with the Reformed doctrine. It speaks of humanity as a mass and with a representative. The Reformers never deemphasized personal responsibility. Calvin would not acknowledge vicarious sin. Yet both concepts-- inability to not sin, and responsibility--are held in common. At last, for Calvin, the two must be resolved in mystery in which God in his justice has a greater understanding of justice than man does. The problem of freedom--"The essence of man is his freedom." ⁴² Sin is meaningless without the possibility of its coming into being from freedom. Freedom "is his creaturely mode. It is adapted and therefore proper" to man.⁴³ The matter of freedom is important. It is interesting to contrast the first three centuries and the sixteenth with regard to freedom. It was developed against the Stoic doctrine of fate, and one can see it expressed in Justin, Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers, as well as Chrysostom.⁴⁴ In the sixteenth century the emphasis is on the bondage of man in sin and his inability.

What is the freedom we must speak of? First, there is not such a thing as absolute freedom. P. T. Forsyth said that if there were absolute freedom, it would be the worst kind of tyranny. The freedom of man is the freedom of being in dependence on God. "Man is only free when he is united with God."⁴⁵ Freedom is not such that one can turn away from his responsibility before God. "It is never freedom to sin."⁴⁶ The fact that man does sin brings about an enslavement. The freedom of man is that which Jesus spoke about in Mat 16:1-28. In retaining our independence, we lose it. In denying ourselves, we gain freedom. To exert our freedom in sinning, we enslave ourselves and destroy our freedom. Modern man’s problem is that he seeks freedom apart from responsibility. He has yet to learn that "in the Divine Love to have oneself and to lose oneself is the same thing." ⁴⁷ TheNew Covenant and the role of women in the church.

We have a document called the New Testament. Not everything in the New Testament is related to the New Covenant. In fact, there is some material that is the finest of the Old Covenant, even though it is in the New Testament, or the New Covenant Books. For example, consider the question that the rich young man asked Jesus. "Teacher," he asked," what good thing must I do to receive eternal life?" The answer of Jesus was: "Keep the commandments if you want to enter life." (Mat 19:16-17) What else could Jesus say at this point? This was the best of Judaism. There are other statements that Jesus made that are examples of the finest in Judaism. What are the two great commandments? His answer reflects the accepted view of Judaism that we love God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves.

Something happened that made the greatest difference in the question of how to have eternal life. That happening was the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. This is the before and after of Jewish-Christian history. In the death event of Jesus there came into being something that is fairly well accepted in people’s thinking, but at the same time has been sadly neglected in theological literature. I refer to the words of Jesus at the last supper. There He instituted the New Covenant. Jeremiah and other prophet had proclaimed a new covenant to come.

"The time is coming when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. Although I was like a husband to them, they did not keep that covenant. The new covenant that I will make with the people of Israel will be this: I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. None of them will have to teach his fellow countryman to know the Lord, because all will know me, from the least to the greatest. I will forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs. I the Lord have spoken." (31:31-34) At the last Supper, Jesus took the bread and wine, and spoke the words, "This cup is God’s new covenant sealed with my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luk 22:20) The New Covenant begins with Jesus’ own life being poured out in contrast to the founding of the first covenant with Abraham in which blood of animals was used. (Gen 15:9-18). It is only after the New Covenant begins in the death and resurrection of Jesus that a different answer to the question," what must I do to have eternal life?" comes forth. The contrast can be seen in the question of the jailer of Philippi who asked: Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" The answer was not to fulfill the law, but "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved-you and your family." (Acts 16:30-31)

These two different answers make sense only when we recognize the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the New Covenant proceeding out of these events. Otherwise, the two contrasting answers of Jesus and Paul cannot be reconciled with one another. We cannot combine the best of the Old Testament with the New Covenant. However, the Roman Catholic tradition seeks to do this and that is why there is a large emphasis on religious works rather than grace alone. The Reformation traditions emphasized the grace of God and the importance of being justified by faith, not works. If we are to be really Christian in our interpreting the New Testament, we must realize the differences that exist in the Gospels and Epistles concerning the Old and the New Covenants. Just as there are elements of the best of Judaism in the teachings of Jesus, there are also elements of Judaism reflected in some of the comments that Paul and Peter made in their letters. Not all issues regarding Christian living were worked out in the first century. In many matters the practice of the early church was slow to catch up with its theology. The issue of slavery was such a matter. The Old Testament allowed slavery, but limited it to 7 years, though under certain circumstances longer periods were allowed.

Under the New Covenant, the advice to the Christians comes within a changed concept of theology. It took a while for the theology to influence the practice. Until it did, the Christian slaves were to be obedient to their masters. But Gal 3:28 sets forth a theology for the elimination of slavery. Gal 3:28 declares that there is no difference in Christ between slave and free. To Philemon, Paul counsels that Onesimus should be taken back as a brother, no longer a slave. The theology is there to destroy slavery in the Christian framework. It took time to do it and even Christians were blinded by economic reasons to the theology of the New Covenant of Grace concerning slavery. The theology of the New Covenant is that God has broken down all walls (Eph 2:14) and redeems people whoever they are and makes them fellow-heirs with Christ. Here we can see, in the case of slavery, cultural practices being carried over into the Christian era, practices that were basically contradictory to the theology of grace and equality in Christ.

Let us consider something that is really important for the Gospel:. The practical, but theological conclusion brought about because of the death of Christ is the statement of Paul in Gal 3:26-28.

"It is through faith that all of you are God’s sons in union with Christ Jesus. You were baptized into union with Christ, and now you are clothed, so to speak, with the life of Christ himself. So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free men, between men and women; you are all one in union with Christ Jesus." The Book of Ephesians repeats this theology with greater detail. Eph 2:1-22 talks about being brought into union with Christ; Christ has made Jew and Gentile one people. "you Gentiles are not foreigners or strangers any longer; you are now fellow citizens with God’s people and members of the family of God." Fellow citizens does not sound like second class citizens. We are warned in Scripture to avoid the return to Judaism, as in Galatians, and we are warned against continuing to live like the heathen. (Eph 4:17) The new way is that of union with Christ and equality of all believers, including women.

Moreover, He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and its rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself....by his death he united both races into one body and brought them back to God... you Gentiles are now fellow citizens and members of the family of God." (Eph 2:18-19) One has to remember the great contrast the Jewish tradition held concerning the terrible position of the Gentiles. As always, when a new thought or procedure is introduced there are those who are slow to receive it, still retaining their commitment to the old ideas. It is interesting to note that Paul criticized Peter for giving in to the Jewish influences as he records in Gal 2:11. That criticism was important for it involved the place of faith and grace in contrast to the Law and ritualism of Judaism. Yet in spite of the fact that Paul condemned Peter on this issue and went on to write and teach so eloquently in defense of the New Covenant, he, himself, resorted to Judaism in an effort to solve some practical problems arising from the culture of his time. Consider the advice to the churches concerning the place and activity of women.

He told the church at Corinth (1Co 14:33-34) that "women are not allowed to speak, as the Jewish Law says, they must not be in charge....It is a disgraceful thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting." (Good News Translation) One may ask what the Jewish law has to do with the Gospel of grace of the New Covenant. It would appear that Paul is guilty of the same thing he accused Peter of, but in a different way. The synagogue was the only model that existed for the early Christian community and it had a time-honored history, but it was not consistent with the theology of the New Covenant. Paul resorted to a practical solution to deal with a minor problem, not a theological solution, which puts him in the rather awkward position of returning to the law waffling on his own teaching on theological matters.

Other examples can be viewed in the same way. The advice given to Timothy (1Ti 2:9-15) is that women should learn in silence. They are not to teach or have authority over men; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God’s law. What are we to make of such a comment? It is not consistent with the theology of Gal 3:28. Moreover, it is theologically irrelevant since the theology of the fall is related to Adam, not Eve. Rom 5:12 states that sin came into the world through one man, not one woman. In fact, in this extremely important passage, (Rom 5:12) there is not a single reference to Eve, only Adam. If the Timothy passage is to be used in the issue of the place of women, it puts God in the unusual situation of holding a grudge against woman, and being unforgiving toward her, but not toward man. Such a conclusion would negate all the important statements of grace as reflected in the New Covenant. This may sound rather critical of Paul, but we must remember his statement that he became all things to all people. To the Jews he lived like the Jews and to the Gentiles he lived in the grace of God and its freedom. Hence, for him to draw on his heritage to solve a practical problem would not be unusual. But it is not consistent with his theological position of the equality we have in Christ.

Peter gives us a similar situation in his first epistle. Wives were to submit to their husbands as Sarah did to Abraham. Submissive wives become her "daughters" now if they do good deeds. We must admit that the New Testament reflect the very beginnings of Christianity and role models are difficult to come by so early. But the equality of the Gospel of Christ cannot go back to an Old Covenant model, as good as it may have been. (There are some negative aspects of that model, namely, giving your husband your concubine if you can’t have children.) The book of Hebrews develops other implications of the New Covenant. We are told that "if there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one. (Heb 8:7) Moreover, "by speaking of a new covenant. God has made the first one old; and anything that becomes old and worn out will soon disappear." (8:13) In Heb 10:1 we are told that the "Jewish Law is not a full and faithful model of the real things; it is only a faint outline of the good things to come."

If we are to take the words of Jesus seriously about the establishment of a new covenant, as well as the theology of Paul, and the very plain comments of Hebrews, we must live as people of the New Covenant, and be very careful about relapsing into the Old Covenant. Much of Christendom’s preaching today is based on the Old Covenant. The Gospel may be proclaimed in contrast to the Law concerning how to be saved, but once a person has committed to Christ, the instruction proceeds more out of the Old Covenant than the New Covenant in some cases. The attitude that the Church has had toward women illustrates this sad point.

If we fail to take the position of women seriously as these doctrinal statements do, we are in danger of adopting either the Old Testament, or pagan ways of viewing women, thus nullifying the new covenant. Eph 4:20-24 states, "that was not what you learned in Christ. You certainly heard about him, and as his followers you were taught the truth that is in Jesus. So get rid of your old self, which made you live as you used to--the old self that was being destroyed by its deceitful desires. Your hearts and minds must be made completely new, and you must put on the new self, which is created in God’s likeness and reveals itself in the true life that is upright and holy ." How ironic and self-contradictory to claim renewal of one’s heart and mind, and yet regard women as unequal as many do. The new beginning for us in Christ is for both male and female.

What are the implications of this for women?

1. Marriage. Christian marriage must be related to the New Covenant and the equality we have in Christ. Not only is this the implication of the New Covenant, but it is an application of the nature of love. Love seeks equality. If there is not equality in love, there can never be more than a master/servant relationship. The greatest example of love is that God became an equal with man, even a servant. The wonder of the Incarnation is that the Infinite God should assume a level of humans, to be equal with us and redeem us at the same time. If I really love my wife, I want to do things for her, rather than have her as a servant for me. It is the nature of love to be giving, not demanding. Eph 5:21 speaks of mutual submission, and this is an outgrowth of love. Male domination is a rejection of the equality we have in Christ as well as a misunderstanding of what love is. Forceful domination of any kind is contrary to the example of Christ. Many cultures of the past and present regard women as subordinate to man. In the Muslim culture women’s place now and in Paradise is subordinate to the male. In the Hindu culture women do not have the same rights as men. No such subordination exists concerning the place of women when we talk about union with Christ. Jesus indicated that there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage in heaven. Cultural marriages always want to make the woman subordinate and cater to man’s ego. The New Covenant concept is that union with Christ brings spiritual equality and unity in Christ. Such shall be the situation in heaven, but it is to begin with the New Covenant of grace on earth When we consider some normal application of the New Covenant to statements of the epistles we cannot understand them in any normal way without the concept of equality of the sexes in Christ. Php 2:2 b tells us: "be humble toward one another, always considering others better than yourself." Are we to think only in terms of men to men and women to women? No such distinction is possible in the Philippian church where Paul wrote: "Having the same thoughts, sharing the same love, and being one in soul and mind" is only possible in Christ where all are one in union with Him.

.

2. Economics. Equal pay for equal work reflects the implication of the New Covenant. The inequity of pay reflects a master/servant mentality. It also keeps women in a role of dependency on men. It rejects the idea of equality in Christ. Secular society may not want to live up to the ideal of Christian equality, but the Christian community should certainly hold to that model. Without equality in pay, women are always going to be suffering at the hands of men. In many societies a divorced woman is forced into prostitution for economic survival. In our society she is often forced into the dead end of welfare and her children suffer with her.

3. Ministry. If we are equal in Christ, who can forbid that women engage in ministry in any form they are capable of doing. The advice given to Timothy about Bishops and Deacons is related to men. Obviously, it is modeled on the synagogue where the men were the leaders. The men were allowed to study the Law and be educated, but the women were not. The men were the teachers and the women were not. So for the immediate situation, trained leaders were sought out. This is a pragmatic solution. Is it a theological one? Absolutely not!

     If we are going to be followers of the New covenant, we have to say that we are equal in Christ and that there is no difference between male and female in God’s eyes. God therefore calls people to serve in all kinds of ways. Ministry is one of those ways. There is nothing magical about ordination, and one can recognize the gifts and abilities of women as well as men. There are lots of men who should not be in the ministry. On the positive side, women have talent, intelligence, and capability that should be developed for the benefit of mankind. There is a tremendous loss, and we cannot fathom what has been lost, in the neglected talents, minds, and abilities of women who have been kept from using what God has given to them.

It must be observed that the only institutional model in the beginning of Christianity was the synagogue. In that case the only possible leader would be a man according to the culture and the Old Theology. Even today in Orthodox and Conservative synagogues have a position on women that is reflected in their meetings. There may be 200 women present and only 5 men. There are certain prayers that cannot be said without a minyan (quorum) of ten men. This subordinate position has been around for centuries. The theology of the Gospel was not carried forward in application to the organization of the church. There are some interesting issues at hand, but they are subordinate to the main issue of a new covenant. It may be that women were not educated, not allowed to study the Torah, not allowed to teach or whatever. All of this was true, but not a sufficient reason for these Old Testament applications in the early church. What must become important is that there is a theology of equality in Christ regardless of whether one is male or female. Equality would make it possible, even necessary, to study, to develop one’s mind, to make positive contributions. The theology is there. The church has traveled at a snail’s pace in bringing its practices in line with the New Covenant.

4. Opportunities. Consider the terrible situation of a father saying to his brilliant daughter, I am sorry but you cannot be anything you want to be. You have to ignore your talents and be submissive to a man who may not be your equal in intelligence, abilities, or talents, but who is superior by virtue of being a man. This is the status of hundreds of millions of women around the world. But more particularly, it goes on in Christian communities because they are yet living in the Old Covenant, not the New. Consider the case of a bright, intelligent daughter who excelled in Greek and other studies wanting to go into the ministry. However, her father told her that no church (of their denomination) would accept her. She could never be called to a church. There may be psychological rejections to a woman pastor, but that is not the same issue as theology. Women have a perspective on issues that men do not, but need. Only in recent times in Christian areas have we seen the gradual freedom of women. Hundreds of millions of women are denied education, opportunity to develop themselves, and their minds are lost to the benefit of humanity.

5. Rights. It has been customary in many societies to deny women the right to inherit. One rationale is that women are married into another family and wealth they may receive would be taken out of the family. This is one more way of saying that women do not count for anything. While these things occur in Hindu, Muslim, Chinese, or whatever culture, there is no basis for this in the New Covenant. Equality in Christ means equality. There are no hedges, no perimeters, no caveats. and no exceptions. Whatever the world may do without Christ, the Christian must not conform to the world, "but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind." (Rom 12:2)

We have one of the most dynamic ideas in the Scripture from the lips of Jesus. A new covenant that begins afresh in all our relationships, our ideas, our standards. The Christian church has not done very well in giving even lip service to these words. These are words that relate to all of us. If we fail to observe these words, we will revert to the Old Covenant in dealing with women and probably everyone else and all social problems.

In many cultures women have few options, either submit or be exploited in prostitution for economic survival. In Indian culture, women whose husbands have died are left with few options. The deceased husband’s family does not want her, her own family does not want her. She is an economic liability. It is for this reason that in the recent episode suttee ( the wife throwing herself on the burning funeral pyre of her husband) the young wife who did so, was exalted to the status of a heroine. In non-Christian cultures the low status of women is lamentable. But in the Christian community where the status of women is declared as "fellow-heirs" in Christ, there is no excuse for keeping women subordinated. It is to surrender to a culture that is not Christian in doctrine or practice.

There are about 1 billion Muslims around the world and about 1 billion Hindus. It is a tragic fact that a half billion Muslim women and a half billion Hindu women are denied the use of their minds and abilities while both cultures are denying themselves a potential that cannot be fathomed or imagined. It is lamentable that equality of women has come only from two great sources in today’s world, Christianity and Communism. Communism elevated women primarily for economic reasons. Christianity has the potential, indeed, the obligation, to elevate women for intrinsic reasons: she is one with man in union with Christ.

If we are really people of the New Covenant, we must put New Covenant theology into practice and cast off the standards of the world culture regardless of whether they came from the Old Covenant or from pagan practices. If we take Gal 3:28 seriously, we can never treat women in any other fashion that being our equal in Christ.

9.2 The Nature of Man, Part II ¹ Op. cit., p. 5.

² Ibid., p. 150.     

³ lbid., p. 7.

⁴ There are two strains in Greek thought in contradiction to each other. One stresses the idea that the body, being material, is evil. The other emphasis stressed body culture. The Olympic games stem from this heritage.

⁵ Church Dogmatics, III-2, 400. One cannot come to the conclusion that there is no thinking without the body, for "the soul is man’s self-consciousness taking place in the body."

⁶ lbid., 394.

⁷ Niebuhr, op. cit., p. 151.

⁸ Barth, Church Dogmatics, III-2, 354.

⁹ Kelly, op. cit., pp. 180-81.    

¹⁰ Berkhof, op. cit., p. 199

¹¹ I, 252.

¹² Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. 35.

¹³Nature and Destiny, p. 180.

¹⁴ Brunner, Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. 108.

¹⁵Letters from the Earth, ed. Bernard Devoto (New York: Harper & Row; 1962).

¹⁶ Op. cit., p. 186.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 187.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 188 ¹⁹ lbid., p. 189.

20 Ibid., p. 199.

²¹ Cf. Paul Tillich: "Hubris is not one form of sin besides others. It is sin in its total form, namely, the other side of unbelief or man’s turning away from the divine center to which he belongs. It is turning toward one’s self as the center of one’s self and one’s world. This turning toward one’s self is not an act done by a special part of man, such as his spirit. Man’s whole life, including his sensual life, is spiritual. And it is in the totality of his personal being that man makes himself the center of his world. This is his hubris; this is what has been called `spiritual sin.’ Its main symptom is that man does not acknowledge his finitude."-Systematic Theology, II, 50-51.

²² Niebuhr, op. cit., p. 195.

²³ Ibid., p. 199 ²⁴ Ibid., p. 200.

²⁵ William Hordern, in The Case for a New Reformation Theology, says that the term "original sin," despite its misuses, "must be retained. It points up the fact that all man’s sins stem from his original sin, the sin that is logically first" (p. 130). Further, he says, "It is also original in the sense that it describes a situation that we inherit. . . Sin is something that has somehow got its hold upon the human race as a whole:’ However, Hordern goes on to say that the doctrine of original sin has brought much confusion and embarrassment to the Christian faith. He declares that one cannot "reconcile the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his descendants. We do not need help from Adam to make us guilty. Our own sin is quite sufficient for that" (p. 131).

²⁶ Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 18.

²⁷ The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. 103.

²⁸ Man in Revolt, p. 142.

²⁹ "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom 5:12 ) . "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" ( 1Co 15:22).

³⁰ Kelly, op. cit., p. 171.

³¹ Edward John Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), p. 72.

³² op, cit., pp. 242-43. Buswell in his Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion follows much the same line of thinking, basing his viewpoint on the Westminster Shorter Catechism in which "the Covenant being made with Adam not only for himself but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression" (I, 312 ) .

³³ op, cit., p. 261.

³⁴ Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. 100.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Tillich, Systematic Theology, II, 44.

³⁷ Niebuhr, op. cit., p. 248.

³⁸ Brunner, Man in Revolt, p. I43.

³⁹ Brunner, Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, p. I04.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 105.

⁴¹ Brunner, Man in Revolt, p. 146.

⁴² Niebuhr, op. cit., p. 17.

⁴³ Barth, Church Dogmatic , III-2, 194.

⁴⁴ Kelly, op. cit., pp. 166 and 349.

⁴⁵ Brunner, Man in Revolt, p. 129.

⁴⁶ Barth, Church Dogmatics, III-2, 197 ⁴⁷ Brunner, Man in Revolt, p. 231.