“If the Fall did not actually happen, then Christian teaching on human nature makes no sense.”
Discuss.
Introduction
Define: Human nature- The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of humans.
Importance: If the fall did not happen, then there is no justification for imperfect human nature of a
justification for suffering in the world.
Scholars: Augustine, Pelagius, Hick, Rousseau, Xun Zi
Conclusion: If the Fall did not actually happen, then Christian teaching on human nature makes no
sense however, teachings on the fall are justifiable.
Paragraph 1
Point: The fall did actually happen which justifies teachings on human nature.
Argument: Adam and Eve acted out of pride and disobedience, desiring to be more like God, they
used their free will but were influenced by Satan (the snake), whose ‘ambition was to worm his way,
by seductive craftiness, into the consciousness of man’ as he envied their unfallen state.
Augustine: ‘They would not have arrived at the evil act if an evil will had not preceded it.’ Augustine
uses the fall to define human nature. Pre-fall- perfect, post-lapsarian-corrupt.
Xun Zi agrees with Christian teaching on human nature– “Human nature is evil, and goodness is
caused by intentional activity.”
Counterargument: Sartre - We do not come into this world already determined by a ‘nature’,
culture or anything else. We are completely free as individuals to decide who we are and what we
want to become. This can be frightening, but also liberating.
Pelagius: We are all created in the same state as Adam. We are only responsible for our own sin. We
become sinners not at birth but when we choose to sin.
Paragraph 2
Point: The fall did not actually happen but the Fall symbolises the state of humanity, but non-
literalists Christians do not interpret it literally like Augustine does.
Argument: Many non-literalist Christians may reject Augustine’s literal understanding of the fall,
especially given modern understandings of the Big Bang and evolution, which contradict Genesis,
Most Christians find key truths within Genesis, such as that God is responsible for the universe and
life, which he created with order; that humans have a special role on the planet and they used their
free will to reject what they’d be given, thus alienating themselves from God. Augustine’s view of
the Fall as a single moment when human nature became tainted would be wrong. Perhaps Genesis
illustrates human nature, meaning basic human nature is flawed.
Counterargument: Augustine would not agree with this.
, Paragraph 3
Point: The fall did not actually happen
Argument: Perhaps life is a process of development, as suggested by Hick in his ‘Vale of Soul Making’
theodicy. Perhaps human nature only seems flawed because we are trying to compare it with
the summum bonum, and it is not essentially flawed. Perhaps human nature is flawed simply
because we are physical beings and not God. In this case, it might be possible to retain some of
Augustine’s points. We could also say that the Genesis account illustrates the first act of sin that all
humans inevitably make at some point in their lives. If this is the case then Original Sin is not passed
on (Pelagius- social not biological), but sinfulness can be seen as something common to humans
which would affect human societies (as Rousseau suggested). Each human individual therefore
needs God’s grace to overcome this essential aspect of human nature.
Counterargument: Augustine’s view seems to correspond with our own experiences of life – we are
torn in different directions, even when they are wrong.
Discuss.
Introduction
Define: Human nature- The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of humans.
Importance: If the fall did not happen, then there is no justification for imperfect human nature of a
justification for suffering in the world.
Scholars: Augustine, Pelagius, Hick, Rousseau, Xun Zi
Conclusion: If the Fall did not actually happen, then Christian teaching on human nature makes no
sense however, teachings on the fall are justifiable.
Paragraph 1
Point: The fall did actually happen which justifies teachings on human nature.
Argument: Adam and Eve acted out of pride and disobedience, desiring to be more like God, they
used their free will but were influenced by Satan (the snake), whose ‘ambition was to worm his way,
by seductive craftiness, into the consciousness of man’ as he envied their unfallen state.
Augustine: ‘They would not have arrived at the evil act if an evil will had not preceded it.’ Augustine
uses the fall to define human nature. Pre-fall- perfect, post-lapsarian-corrupt.
Xun Zi agrees with Christian teaching on human nature– “Human nature is evil, and goodness is
caused by intentional activity.”
Counterargument: Sartre - We do not come into this world already determined by a ‘nature’,
culture or anything else. We are completely free as individuals to decide who we are and what we
want to become. This can be frightening, but also liberating.
Pelagius: We are all created in the same state as Adam. We are only responsible for our own sin. We
become sinners not at birth but when we choose to sin.
Paragraph 2
Point: The fall did not actually happen but the Fall symbolises the state of humanity, but non-
literalists Christians do not interpret it literally like Augustine does.
Argument: Many non-literalist Christians may reject Augustine’s literal understanding of the fall,
especially given modern understandings of the Big Bang and evolution, which contradict Genesis,
Most Christians find key truths within Genesis, such as that God is responsible for the universe and
life, which he created with order; that humans have a special role on the planet and they used their
free will to reject what they’d be given, thus alienating themselves from God. Augustine’s view of
the Fall as a single moment when human nature became tainted would be wrong. Perhaps Genesis
illustrates human nature, meaning basic human nature is flawed.
Counterargument: Augustine would not agree with this.
, Paragraph 3
Point: The fall did not actually happen
Argument: Perhaps life is a process of development, as suggested by Hick in his ‘Vale of Soul Making’
theodicy. Perhaps human nature only seems flawed because we are trying to compare it with
the summum bonum, and it is not essentially flawed. Perhaps human nature is flawed simply
because we are physical beings and not God. In this case, it might be possible to retain some of
Augustine’s points. We could also say that the Genesis account illustrates the first act of sin that all
humans inevitably make at some point in their lives. If this is the case then Original Sin is not passed
on (Pelagius- social not biological), but sinfulness can be seen as something common to humans
which would affect human societies (as Rousseau suggested). Each human individual therefore
needs God’s grace to overcome this essential aspect of human nature.
Counterargument: Augustine’s view seems to correspond with our own experiences of life – we are
torn in different directions, even when they are wrong.
