Theology, 134-309. For criticism of them, see Hodge, in Princeton Rev., Jan. 1868:63 sq ., and 368-398 ; also, Tyler, Letters on the New Haven Theology. Neither Hopkins nor Emmons on the one hand, nor Taylor on the other, represent most fully the general course of New England theology. Smalley, Dwight, Woods, all held to more conservative views than Taylor did, or than Finney, whose system had much resemblance to Taylor?s. All three of these denied the power of contrary choice which Dr. Taylor so strenuously maintained, although all agreed with him in denying the imputation of Adam?s sin or of our hereditary depravity. These are not sinful, except in the sense of being occasions of actual sin.
Dr. Park, of Andover, was understood to teach that the disordered state of the sensibilities and faculties with which we are born is the immediate occasion of sin, while Adam?s transgression is the remote occasion of sin. The will, though influenced by an evil tendency, is still free but the evil tendency itself is not free, and therefore is not sin. The statement of New School doctrine given in the text is intended to represent the common New England doctrine, as taught by Smalley, Dwight, Woods and Park. Although the historical tendency, even among these theologians, has been to emphasize less and less the depraved tendencies prior to actual sin, and to maintain that moral character begins only with individual choice, most of them, however, holding that this individual choice begins at birth. See Bibliotheca Sacra, 7:552, 567; 8:607-647; 20:462-471, 576-593; Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 407-412; Foster, Hist. N. E. Theology.
Both Ritschl and Pfleiderer lean toward the New School interpretation of sin. Ritschl, Unterricht, 25 ? ?Universal death was the consequence of the sin of the first man, and the death of his posterity proved that they too had sinned.? Thus death is universal, not because of natural generation from Adam, but because of the inch individual sins of Adam?s posterity. Pfleiderer, Grundriss. 122 ? ?Sin is a direction of the will which contradicts the moral idea. As preceding personal acts of the will, it is not personal guilt but imperfection or evil. When it persists in spite of awaking moral consciousness and by indulgence become habit, it is guilty abnormality.?
To the New School theory we object as follows:
A. It contradicts Scripture in maintaining or implying:
(a) That sin consists solely in acts and in the dispositions caused in each case by man?s individual acts, and that the state which predisposes to acts of sin is not itself sin.
Was this article helpful?