BEESON DIVINITY SCHOOL

SIN AND JESUS CHRIST

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. MARK DEVINE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DVHD602 TWENTIETH CENTURY HISTORY

AND DOCTRINE

Mike White

May 8, 2014

White

Box 251

This essay seeks to trace the trajectory of the

church’s understanding of sin and Christology over the last

2000 years.1 The format is relatively straightforward.

First, we will attempt to map the trajectory of the doctrine

of sin throughout church history. While we do consult the

creeds we seek to allow even more voices to contribute to

our understanding. We will also examine what the 2000

Baptist Faith and Message has to say about sin since the

author (more or less) identifies with the Southern Baptist

Convention.2 Second, we will conduct an extended dialogue 1 The official prompt calls for an examination of the creedal tradition and Barth’s conception of sin. We found it methodologically and structurally necessary to simply limit our examination of the creeds (and the entire tradition) to the doctrine of sin and to let this examination demonstrate how closely the doctrine of sin is connected to other vital doctrinesin the confessions of the church. What drives our work here is the fundamental commitment that the various loci of theology are often unhelpfully distinguished from one another. Discourse aboutsin necessarily includes considering a whole host of other doctrines, including but not limited to the Trinity, Christology,pneumatology, the sacraments, and more. The creeds themselves area great example of this, for in them we find mention of most all of these loci, all strung together in a confessional manner. 2 Our church context, Christ Fellowship Church here in Birmingham, is an autonomous church plant of the Church at Brook

2

White

with section 60 of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics.3 Here, in his

mature Christology, Barth advocates a doctrine of sin that

is both ontologically and epistemologically Christological

in structure.

The biblical conception of the doctrine of sin

emphasizes the fallenness of humanity from God’s original

and benevolent will. Adam and Eve’s original sin in the

garden is multi-faceted; idolatry, disobedience, and pride

have all been touted as the main reason why the Fall

happened. Paul understood sin to be God’s giving man over to

desires contrary to His will (Romans 1:18-32). Man refused

to honor God as Lord and chose instead to create idols to

worship. Sin, then, is God honoring man’s deepest desire by

giving us over to a life of sin. Sin always and everywhere

leads to death, and in the meantime a life whole curved in

on the self. Instead of living for others according to the

Hills. We are affiliated with the SBC and give to the CooperativeFund. Nevertheless we look different than a lot of Baptist churches in Alabama because of the more liturgical of our worship. Also, our church beliefs are not from the Baptist Faith and Message but are adapted from the Gospel Coalition. 3 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4 vols. in 13 pts, ed. G.W. Bromileyand T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956–75). Hereafter cited in the text.

3

White

original intent of creation, sinful humanity devotes itself

instead to navel-gazing. The one act of the original humans

impacts all of humanity (Rom 5:12-14).

The patristic period of church history reveals a rich

hermeneutical wrestling with the doctrine of sin. We start

our survey by examining the creeds confessed at Nicaea and

Chalcedon. Leith notes the importance of the creeds for

theology, “Christianity has always been a creedal religion

in that it has always been theological… Understanding is

necessary for man’s full commitment. Hence faith must be

spoken of and made intelligible.”4 The focus of the Nicene

Creed (321) insisted that in Christ God really came. The

creed itself does not mention the word “sin”; Christ came

for “us men and our salvation,” a salvation only necessary

because of sin.5 The Constantinopolitan Creed (381)

virtually preserves the Nicene language: “for us men and

because of our salvation.” The creed confesses “one baptism

4 John Leith, ed. Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present (Louisville: John Knox, 1982), 1. All our subsequent reflections on the creed in this section will be from this resource and will not be explicitly cited each time we use aquotation. 5 Ibid., 31.

4

White

for the forgiveness of sins,” clearly drawing on the

biblical imagery about baptism being so closely tied to the

death of Christ and redemption.6 According to Leith it was

very early employed during baptismal liturgies. The

Chalcedonian Definition (451) expands the Christology of the

previous two creeds by confessing the relationship between

Christ’s divine and human natures. The creed is clear that

Christ is “like us in all respects, sin only excepted.” The

fathers consistently wanted to maintain that the humanity

Jesus assumed is human nature all the way down except when it

comes to our sin nature.7

We now examine the wider patristic date on the

doctrine. Nearly all the major figures of the patristic

6 Confessionally, we do not feel the need to overly read a sacramental perspective into this creed. We believe it sufficientto confess that Scripture communicates a close relationship between baptism and redemption (cf. Rom 6:4; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12). 1 Peter 3:21 is not as strong of a critique of the Baptist perspective as some make it sound. 7 There is an ongoing debate in contemporary theology about how we consider this issue. Gregory of Nazianzus maintained that “hatis not assumed is not healed”, implying that Christ must have indeed taken on our sinfulness in order to accomplish redemption.Oliver Crisp helpfully distills the two sides in his essay “Does Christ have a fallen human nature” in Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 90-117.

5

White

period penned treatises on Genesis 1-3.8 Augustine himself

wrote four works on the subject and, as Bray notes, the

general message is the same: creation was created good and

sin is a corruption or distortion of this original goodness.

Sin has impacted the world so greatly that nothing inherent

in the created order can remedy its effects. Something

external, namely Jesus Christ, must be the remedy. The

fathers understood sin as an inherited sickness that all

subsequent humanity receives from Adam and Eve. Sin and evil

is personified in the fallen angels and Satan, who enticed

the original man and woman toward sin in Eden. Pannenberg

asserts that most of the fathers, and Augustine in

particular, saw desire as the cause of Adam’s

transgression.9 Whatever the true underlying sin, 8 For much of the following we are indebted to Dr. Gerald Bray’s essay “Sin in Historical Theology” in Christopher Morgan and Robert Peterson, eds., Fallen: A Theology of Sin (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013) 163-86. It is interesting to consider that Dr. Morgan, one of the editors of this book, was our theology professor in undergrad in CA while Dr. Bray teaches at Beeson. In some sense, then, one can see the evidence of this student’s entire theological education in this paper. 9 “The classical significance of Augustine for the Christian doctrine of sin consists in the fact that he viewed and analyzed the Pauline link between sin and desire more deeply than Christian theology had hitherto managed to do.” See Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology vol 2, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

6

White

Augustine’s most famous outlet for developing the patristic

conception of sin was his refutation of Pelagius. A British

monk in Rome around the year 418, Pelagius denied the

doctrine of inherited guilt and sinfulness. Augustine’s

response seems predictable, showing his impact on Western

theology: God’s grace unto salvation is needed and nothing

inherent in humanity can reach Him. Sin has affected the

very will of humanity, perverting our desires from our

original state of communion with God to pride and self-

sufficiency. Our best attempts at reaching God or remedying

the condition we find ourselves are ultimately fruitless;

nothing in ourselves can cure us.

Augustine’s work has a massive impact on the medieval

period, where much of Western10 theology focused on the

1994), 24110 A caveat: much of what we are considering in this essay is Western theology. A tertiary intention of this essay is to let the very structure of our historical surveys say something about the discipline of historical theology: it is never wholly objective. Each theologian, whether actual or prospective, who reflects on the trajectory and progress of church history is necessarily situated in a particular context that limits one’s perspective. To pretend that every fundamental insight from Christ to the present time can be distilled into a comprehensive survey is to expect the impossible. Instead of bemoaning this fact, however, theologians must let is chasten and humble our work.

7

White

doctrine of the atonement. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo sought to

examine the means and extent of Christ’s death as a

sacrifice for sin. Like Augustine before him, Anselm

maintained that mankind’s sin is so great that only God

could deal with it. God does so in Jesus Christ who takes

the sins of the world on Himself to satisfy God’s righteous

demands. His resurrection means that sacrifice is in heaven

with Him “as a kind of deposit and guarantee for the

redemption of mankind.”11

The great impact of the Reformation12 was Luther’s work

on justification by faith alone. Rejecting the medieval

belief that sanctification is tied to penitential acts,

Luther read in Paul a conception of the radical sinfulness

of humanity and that nothing by God in Jesus Christ could

fix the human situation. Christ did not die, according to

11 Bray, Fallen, 170. Bray notes a parallel development in the Western church at this time that was concerned with sin as a stain. Interestingly, this view contributed much of the development of the doctrine of the sinlesseness of Mary. 12 Space constraints prohibit me from speaking to all the interesting insights the Reformation provided. In keeping with our comments above about the patristic consensus of just what sinis Althaus notes Luther’s insistence that the unbelief is the root of sin. Cf. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960), 144-46.

8

White

Luther, for sins but for sinners. Justification comes from

being united with the crucified Christ and receiving God’s

righteousness. Christians, cleansed of a sin nature, have

Christ’s Spirit and thus Christ’s mind, which always leads

to a spirit of repentance and forgiveness. For Luther, the

Christian life is a continual trip to the cross of Christ.

An examination of the Augsburg Confession, presented at

the Diet of Augsburg, serves as a fantastic creedal

representative of the Lutheran conception of sin. Section II

affirms that all men born by the normal course of nature are

affected by Adam’s sin, meaning that all of humanity is

“full of evil lust and inclinations from their mother’s womb

and unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith

in God.” Sinful man cannot will the good much less express

subservient fear of God. He is continually incurvatus in se,

bent in on himself. Unless cleansed by baptism and the Holy

Spirit this sin will bring God’s eternal wrath. The

Confession explicitly identifies its language as against

“the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin is

9

White

sin.”13 Thus for the Lutherans it was important to retain

both the vitality and continued existence of sin in every

person.

For Calvin, the image of God, though not fully

destroyed by sin,14 perverts every part of human nature away

from God (2.1.8). Knowledge of God, the end of all mankind,

turns inward on the self (1.4.1); Creaturely existence is

now dominated by unfaithfulness and resistance to the will

of God. Consequently, the remedy must be something outside

of man and flow from the divine will. Divine election must

be an external act of God outside of man (2.3.8), an act

that comes to us through Jesus Christ via God’s pre-temporal

decree.

As a creedal representative for Reformed orthodoxy we

will use the Second Helvetic Confession, produced by, among

others, Heinrich Bullinger and Martin Bucer. Chapter 14 of

the Confession speaks of sin in relation to repentance

flowing from awareness of the gravity of sin and that even 13 Leith, Creeds, 68. 14 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1.15.4. Subsequent citations will be in the text.

10

White

faith itself is a gift from God. The Confession cites the

example of the prodigal son who, over and against the

Pharisee, confessed his sins against both heaven and his

father. Ministers of the gospel “remit sins” by offering the

keys of the kingdom to the repentant, an image clearly drawn

from Matthew 16. Our Lord commanded those He healed to “go

forth and sin no more”; the Second Helvetic Confession

confesses

To be sure, by these words he did not mean that any man, as long as he lived in the flesh, could not sin; he simply recommends diligence and a careful devotion, so that we should strive by all means, and beseech God in prayers lest we fall back into sins from which, as it were, we have been resurrected, and lest we be overcome by the flesh, the world and the devil.15

The Reformed, broadly speaking, affirm the creedal

trajectory of the Christian tradition. Their particular

emphases concerning are apparent in how sin exists after

salvation. In this life—and presumably, although the

Confession does not go into incredible detail here, until

the eschaton—sin will not be completely eradicated. What is

needed in the meantime is careful and prayerful devotion.

15 Leith, Creeds, 131-191.

11

White

After the Reformation it is possible to say that the

doctrine of sin fell on hard times. In the 16th century some

groups, particularly the Socinians, described the doctrine

of original sin as unbiblical and rejected it because it

seemed “morally objectionable that God should impute the sin

of Adam to his descendants even before they committed any

evil act themselves.”16 Pannenberg notes that key figures of

the modern period17 like Kant and Kierkegaard were indebted

to Augustine’s basic insight regarding evil and sin as a

perversion of the ranking of goods. For Kant, sin is the

perversion in the ranking of impulses of action where the

moral law is subordinated to agreement with self-love. Moral

law must be valued higher than love for the self. In The

Sickness Unto Death Kierkegaard posits the self as a relation

that can only find harmony and rest (read: freedom from sin)

in the unity of the self with the Eternal.18 In his

rejection of original sin in The Reasonableness of Christianity John

16 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 231-3217 Though we do not have a representative creed for the modern period it would not be out of order to consider Descartes’ cogito ergo sum the “creed” of modernity. 18 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 246-68.

12

White

Locke offered two criticisms of original sin (the first

echoing the Socinian rationale): 1) it is unreasonable that

God would punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin.

Rather, we are punished with a lack of immortality and

death; and 2) original sin is a punishment that only

exacerbates the problem of sin. Sin becomes merely a moral

shortcoming for Locke that needs to be remedied by the

“surer and shorter” revelation of God. Jonathan Edwards,

himself simultaneously a fan and critic of Locke, asserted

that God does not communicating a sinful nature to us. It is

God’s withdrawing that does this. Only if one views the self

as essentially autonomous will original sin be a problem.

Two kinds of properties in man: the inferior (which is mere

human nature) and the superior (the possibility of

attributes ignited by the presence of God). When Adam

sinned, the withdrawal of God’s presence silenced the

superior properties, allowing the inferior properties to

take over.19

19 Much of these insights, though not explicitly cited, come from our notes from Modern History and Doctrine with Dr. Malysz.

13

White

Moving forward to the dawn of the 21st century we now

consider the 2000 revision of the Southern Baptist

Conventions confession, The Baptist Faith and Message. This

creed does have a particular section about sin; rather, it

addresses the doctrine under the third section entitled

“Man.” After highlighting the nature of the imago dei and

gender, it says the following,

In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin intothe human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action,they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God.20

Like most of the creeds we have examined thus far the

Baptist Faith and Message affirms much of what the tradition

affirms with regard to the doctrine of sin. This section

emphasizes the original innocence of Adam and Eve and the

20 Since Leith’s book was published in the 1980s it preceded the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message. We accessed this document at http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp on May 3, 2014

14

White

possibility before them to live their lives in the intended

fellowship with God and in charge of extending their

dominion over all the earth. Freedom here seems to echo the

posse non peccare paradigm of Augustine. The original couple

had the freedom to continually live in the bliss of the

garden in uninterrupted fellowship with God and to carry out

the creational mandate. Essentially, Adam and Eve had the

choice to follow the commands of God or not to follow them.

Consequently, the fall was a free choice that Adam and Eve

each consciously made.21 Though Satan enticed them, the

Bible puts blame squarely on humanity. This original sin

went against God’s explicit command to not eat of the tree

of the knowledge of good and evil and the results are

catastrophic. Man inherits both a sin nature that radically

perverts his will and desires and must leave the sanctity of

Eden for a world that groans because of sin, which has

impacted the very created order. Subsequent humanity thus

faces the condemnation of God’s wrath; sin affects both the

21 This statement might reflect a tendency among those who facilitated this revision away from the conclusion that God caused the fall.

15

White

lived life of humanity and promises us only separation from

God. Like virtually the entire tradition before it this

confession affirms the necessity of something—or, rather,

Someone—extra nos as the only means of redemption. Further,

this restored relationship with God enables man to fulfill

His original creative purpose.

We not turn to the insights of the most significant

theologian of the twentieth century, Karl Barth. Barth wrote

much on the doctrine of sin, including a fascinating

analysis of sin as nothingness in Church Dogmatics III/3.22

Sin, for Barth, has no positive ontological existence.

Rather, it only exists insofar as it is negated by God is

the No He speaks in Jesus Christ. Our focus here, however,

will be his more mature Christological reflections in CD

IV/1, particularly section 60.23 Here Barth, like many other

22 Augustine was the originator of this material concept, althoughBarth, as is his tendency, reworked it along Christological lines. 23 While there is certainly a decent amount of secondary literature available on Barth’s conception of sin (including a famous book by Wolf Krötke entitled Sin and Nothingness in the Theology of Karl Barth), we have mostly limited out examination to the Church Dogmatics.

16

White

places in CD, insists on understanding the doctrine of sin

according to the hermeneutical key that is the history of

Jesus Christ. All conceptions of sin we bring to bear in our

theological meditations that precede the knowledge of Jesus

Christ are ultimately abstractions because they are not

grounded in the true existence that Jesus Christ reveals in

His humanity:

We have seen the danger which threated from the very first, that the knowledge of human sin against the background of this arbitrary construction will finally prove to be only a dramatized form of the self-knowledge of man left to himself, and that in this confrontation there can be no knowledge of the real sinby which man is accused by God and of which he is guilty before Him. (387)

Barth uses two small-print “exegetical” sections to

show that this is the error of theologians like

Schleiermacher, Troeltsch, and others; they have developed

an understanding of sin from sources wholly other than the

Word of God. In so doing their conceptions of sin end up

being projections of predetermined notions of anthropology

projected into the metaphysical realm instead of defined by

divine revelation. The doctrine of sin becomes safe,

17

White

“something innocuous, something that we can survey and

master in the form of all kinds of distinctions and

syntheses” (388). To abstract the doctrine of sin from

Christ is to sin (perhaps the “main form of sin”, 389) for

it is just another attempt on the part of man to subvert the

divine will. For Barth it is “only when we know Jesus Christ

do we really know that man is the man of sin, and what sin

is, and what it means for man” (389).24 In Jesus we have the

instantiation of the second member of the Trinity as a man.

Consequently, Barth understands the event of Jesus Christ as

revealing all that the Godhead is,

He, the true God, is the One whose Godhead is demonstrated and plainly consists in essence in the fact that , seeing He is free in His love, He is capable of and wills this condescension for the very reason that in man of all His creatures He has to do with the one that has fallen away from Him, that has been unfaithful and hostile and antagonistic to Him. (130) 25

24 We see in Barth here an approach quite different from the otherthinkers we have surveyed. Barth is, as we mentioned above, concerned with both the ontological and epistemological status ofthe doctrine of sin in the church’s practice. 25 This is vitally important for understand Barth’s Christology. There is no God behind the incarnation of Jesus Christ, no Deus absconditus. Christ reveals all that God is when He reveals Himselfprecisely because He is the unity of the act and being of God.

18

White

This Jesus discloses and takes up the sinfulness of

humanity as our fellow-man. But Jesus is not our fellow-man

“in the sense that we can separate ourselves from His

standpoint and opinion and judgment”, by objectifying him

and consequently freeing ourselves from His authority (402).

In declaring Himself one with sinners Jesus “tore up” any

abstract conception of sin. Jesus died “for the whole man,

man in his unity of being and activity” (405). In Christ we

have God’s unequivocal No to sin, for Christ is the man of

sin for us. In true Augustinian fashion, evil and sin have

no positive significance for Barth:

Sin is the enemy of God, and God is the enemy of sin. Sin has no positive basis in God, no place in His being, no positive part in His life, and therefore no positive part in His will and work. It is not a creature of God. It arises only as the exponent, and inthe creaturely world the most characteristic exponent, of what God has not willed and does not will and will not will, of that which is absolutely not, r is only asGod does not will it, of that which lives only as that which God has rejected and condemned and excluded. (409)

Following Calvin, Barth asserts, “sin is unbelief” and

“apostasy from God’s grace” (414). The produce of unbelief

is disobedience, and the resolve of humanity is tested in

19

White

encounter with Christ, whose majesty “demands faith and the

obedience of faith” (416). Humanity needs Christ because

without Him man wanders aimlessly and lacks a definitive

identity. He lacks the encounters necessary to define his

humanity,

He is responsible, but he does not know what he is talking about when he asserts is responsibility becausehe is no longer confronted by God. And he is not reallya man who thinks and speaks and acts independently, butsimply a marionette philled by wires in a group of men who all share the same illusion of independence. When he is no longer confronted by God… he is no longer confronted by his fellow-man, who can properly confronthim only in God. (465)

Sin affects the very being of man and, in so doing,

disrupts the community in which he is supposed to exist. Sin

prohibits humanity from being present to each other in any

real way because we have willingly separated ourselves from

the definitive divine confrontation. Something is clearly

needed to affirm humanity.26 In Jesus Christ we find this

26 Eberhard Jüngel, himself a student of and research assistant toBarth, offers a helpful Barthian/Lutheran perspective on this by more explicitly emphasizing the language of justification: “So the justifying Word remakes our human existence anew, by relatingus to Jesus Christ and there bringing us to ourselves, outside ourselves (extra se/extra nos). Thus this external reference is not something inferior and superficial, but a relationship which defines us in our inmost being. We are simply not ourselves when

20

White

very confrontation, a confrontation whose shape is contrary

to expectation. Jesus became a servant, whose rule consists

in “the obligation of the Son to the Father and His bring to

us men” (432). The pride and arrogance of man is defeated by

the humility of the Son of God:

Taking our place, bearing the judgment of our sin, undertaking our case, He gave Himself to the depth of the most utter helplessness in which He could not and would not dispose even of the help of God… He the man who was Himself also the Son of God. He did this for us. This is—in its sharpest form—the humility of the act of God which took place for us in Jesus Christ. (458)

In sum, Barth understands sin as that which mankind is

wholly responsible for. Sin exists because we have refused

to acknowledge the Lordship of God in unbelief,

disobedience, and idolatry. We even sinfully seek to

we are only by ourselves. We cannot find ourselves by 'going intoourselves'. We must come out of ourselves in order to come to ourselves. In a very clear sense we are called out of ourselves by the Word of justification: 'By faith he rises above himself unto God'. By faith we are able to 'rise above ourselves' becausethe Word of justification addresses us in such a way that we knowwe are related to the person of Jesus Christ and of God who acts in him. This is why we can speak of justification as a renewal ofour inner persons who are also placed outside ourselves. It is impossible to imagine a more thorough-going renewal. So righteousness imputed to sinners is also righteousness which is imparted to them and renews them - by the Word alone.” See his Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2001), 213-14.

21

White

understand sin from any other source but the One we

transgress.27 In the lived history of Jesus Christ for us we

find both the instantiation of and cure for the sin of the

world. God affirms humanity with the divine Yes and negates

sin with a decisive No. In so doing, He places humanity

firmly in relationship with God and others; humanity is

confronted by God in the gracious self-giving of Jesus

Christ, cleansed of the consequences of sin, and placed in

the community of the church. All of this is because of

Christ. Barth is the foremost theological representative of

an incredible truth in Christian theology: Christology must

inform everything.

With this historical survey we have attempted to

outline 2,000 years of church doctrine about sin and Christ.

Through examining the creedal manifestations of Christian

confession we believe it has become evident just how

uniquely intertwined the doctrines of sin and Christ are. We

27 Feuerbach’s famous insight regarding God as the projection of the human ideal ends up being correct for the man of sin: “The error of man concerning God is that the God he wants to be like is obviously only a self-sufficient, self-affirming, self-desiring supreme being, self-centered and rotating about himself.Such a being is not God.” CD IV/1, 422.

22

White

cannot stop here, however, for Christology necessarily and

vitally impacts anthropology. The humanity Christ assumes

presses proleptically against all previous humanity and all

subsequent humanity. Failure to understand just how

radically Christ informs human existence and the discipline

of theology means missing out on the most beautiful and

influential truth the world has ever known.

23

White

Works Cited

Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1960.

Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, 4 vols. in 13 pts, ed. G.W.

Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1956–75).

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols, ed. John T.

McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1960.

Crisp, Oliver, Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Jüngel, Eberhard, Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith, London:

T&T Clark, 2001.

Leith, John, ed. Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine

from the Bible to the Present, Louisville: John Knox, 1982.

McCormack, Bruce, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its

Genesis and Development, 1909–1936, Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1995.

24

White

Morgan, Christopher and Robert Peterson, eds., Fallen: A

Theology of Sin, Wheaton: Crossway, 2013.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Systematic Theology vol 2, Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1994.

Southern Baptist Convention, “The Baptist Faith and

Message”, http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp.

Accessed May 3, 2014.

25