Table Of ContentOXFORD STUDIES IN ANALYTIC THEOLOGY
Series Editors
MICHAEL C. REA
and
OLIVER D. CRISP
OXFORD STUDIES IN ANALYTIC THEOLOGY
AnalyticTheologyutilizesthetoolsandmethodsofcontemporaryanalytic
philosophyforthepurposesofconstructiveChristiantheology,payingattention
totheChristiantraditionanddevelopmentofdoctrine.Thisinnovativeseries
ofstudiesshowcaseshighquality,cuttingedgeresearchinthisarea,inmonographs
andsymposia.
:
MetaphysicsandtheTri-PersonalGod
WilliamHasker
TheTheologicalProjectofModernism
FaithandtheConditionsofMineness
KevinW.Hector
TheEndoftheTimelessGod
R.T.Mullins
RitualizedFaith
EssaysonthePhilosophyofLiturgy
TerenceCuneo
InDefenseofConciliarChristology
APhilosophicalEssay
TimothyPawl
Atonement
EleonoreStump
HumilityandHumanFlourishing
AStudyinAnalyticMoralTheology
MichaelW.Austin
Humility,Pride,andChristianVirtueTheory
KentDunnington
Essays in Analytic
Theology
Volume 2
MICHAEL C. REA
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©MichaelC.Rea2020
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2020
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2020944362
SetISBN 978–0–19–886679–4
Volume1 978–0–19–886680–0
Volume2 978–0–19–886681–7
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198866817.003.0001
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby
ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgements
WiththeexceptionofChapter9andthepostscriptstoChapters7and8,allofthe
essaysinthisvolumehavebeenpreviouslypublished.Ihavemadenochangesto
the previously published material except to correct a few minor errors, add an
occasional editorial note, and make some formatting changes for the sake of
uniformity. I am grateful to the following publishers for permission to reprint
themateriallistedhere.
‘The Metaphysics of Original Sin’, pp. 319–56 in Persons: Human and Divine,
editedbyDeanZimmermanandPeter vanInwagen (Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press,2007).ReprintedbypermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.
‘Hylomorphism and the Incarnation’, pp. 134–52 in The Metaphysics of the
Incarnation, edited by Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill (Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress,2011).ReprintedbypermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.
‘TheIll-MadeKnightandtheStainontheSoul’,EuropeanJournalforPhilosophy
ofReligion11(2019):1–18.
‘In Defence of Sceptical Theism: A Reply to Almeida and Oppy’ (with Michael
Bergmann),AustralasianJournalofPhilosophy83(2005):241–51.
‘Wright on Theodicy: Reflections on Evil and the Justice of God’, Philosophia
Christi 10 (2008): 461–70. Philosophia Christi is the journal of the Evangelical
PhilosophicalSociety(http://epsociety.org).
‘Skeptical Theism and the “Too-Much-Skepticism” Objections’, pp. 482–506 in
The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, edited by Justin McBrayer and
DanielHoward-Snyder(Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell,2014).
‘Narrative, Liturgy, and the Hiddenness of God’, pp. 76–96 in Metaphysics and
God: Essays in Honor of Eleonore Stump, edited by Kevin Timpe (New York:
Routledge,2009).
‘Hiddenness and Transcendence’, pp. 210–25 in A. Green and E. Stump (eds),
Hidden Divinity and Religious Belief (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2015).CopyrightCambridgeUniversityPress.Reprintedwithpermission.
I am also grateful to Michael Bergmann for his permission to reprint our ‘In
DefenceofScepticalTheism:AReplytoAlmeidaandOppy’,toOliverCrisp,Hud
Hudson, and the anonymous referees for Oxford University Press for very
helpful comments on the introductions and postscripts, and to Callie Phillips
viii
forpreparingtheindex.Finally,IwouldliketothankOliverCrispforencouraging
me to publish these essays here and in the companion volume, for our ongoing
collaboration on all things analytic-theological, and, most of all, for our many
yearsoffriendship.ItisingratitudeforallofthisthatIdedicatedthefirstvolume
tohim.ThissecondvolumeIdedicatetomyyoungestson,Matthias.
To
MatthiasRea
Introduction
This book is the second of two volumes collecting together the most substantial
workinanalytictheologythatIhavecompletedbetween2003and2019.Volume
Icontains chapters focused,broadlyspeaking,onthenatureofGod;thissecond
volumecontainschaptersfocusedmoreondoctrinesabouthumanity,thehuman
condition,andhowhumanbeingsrelatetoGod.ThechaptersinPartIdealwith
the doctrines of the incarnation, original sin, and atonement; those in Part II
discuss the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness, and a theological
problem that arises in connection with the idea that God not only tolerates but
validates a response of angry protest in the face of these problems. The section
headings of this introduction match the part divisions of the book; but, as in
VolumeI’sintroduction,theaimhereisnottosummarizethechaptersincluded
ineachsection’scorrespondingpart,butrathertosupplementthemwithamore
general discussion of some of my past and current thinking on the various loci
coveredbythechaptersinthevolume.¹
1. Incarnation, Sin, and Atonement
The WestminsterShorterCatechism opens with the question,‘What is thechief
endofMan?’andthenoffersthefollowinganswer:‘ToglorifyGodandenjoyhim
forever.’ Gender-exclusive language notwithstanding, this captures the heart of
Christian teaching about the human telos. It implies that we cannot flourish
outside of a relationship with God, that the purpose for which we are created is
wholly oriented towardsGod,that we are capable of living forever, andthat our
purposeincludeseternalenjoymentofGod.
ButChristianityalsoteachesthathumanbeingsarenotcapableontheirownof
cominganywhereclosetorealizingtheirtelos.Theyneeddivinehelp,owingtoa
further (contingent) fact about human nature. In short, human nature has been
damaged, or become corrupted. (Different traditions within Christianity have
different views both about whether it is better to say that human nature is
‘wounded’ or ‘corrupted’ and also about the precise nature and extent of the
¹ ForsomeofthecontentofthisintroductionIhavedrawnonpartofanotheressaynotincluded
here—onewhichIcharacterizedatthetimeIwroteitas‘aminiaturesketchofapartialsystematic
theology’(Rea2017).Iamgratefultothepublisherforpermissiontoreusethismaterial.
EssaysinAnalyticTheology:VolumeII.MichaelC.Rea,OxfordUniversityPress(2020).©MichaelC.Rea.
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198866817.003.0001
2 :
woundorcorruption.²HenceforthIwillsimplyspeakof‘damage’inaneffortto
straddle the lines between these different views.) This damage is supposed to be
something we are born with, a result somehow of the first human sin, and a
conditionthatmakesitverylikely—manywouldsayinevitable—thatwefallinto
furthersin.Theseclaimsconstitutethemainpartofthedoctrineoforiginalsin.³
Theotherpart,morecontroversial,isthedoctrineoforiginalguilt,whichimplies
thatthedamagetoournatureissufficient,evenintheabsenceofvoluntarysinin
our earthly lives, to preclude us from eternal life with God unless it is somehow
remedied.⁴
Bothpartsofthisdoctrinearepuzzling;bothpartsaretheologicallyimportant.
Whyshouldthefirsthumansin(assumingtherewasasingle,definiteeventthat
constituted the first sin) result in universal damage? Why should such damage
presentinusfrombirthposeanobstacletoourrelationshipwithGodeveninthe
absenceofvoluntarysinonourpart?Therearenoeasyanswerstothesequestions,
astheextendeddiscussionofalternativesinChapter1makesclear.Butneitheris
it easy simply to abandon the doctrine. Original sin (taken to include original
guilt) is supposed to explain two facts about the human condition. First, sin is
universal. Everyone is disposed to sin, and everyone who lives long enough to
becomeafull-blownmoralagentdoessin.Second,everyoneneedssalvation.The
supposition that there was a first sin that damaged human nature explains the
universalityofsinwithoutimplyingthatGodcreatedusinadamagedcondition,
orthatitissheercoincidencethatwearealldamaged.Thesuppositionthatitis
human nature that got damaged, and damaged in such a way as to separate us
fromGod,explainswhyeveryhumanbeingneedssalvation.
Ithinkthatthetwofactsjustmentionedcanbeacceptedindependentlyofthe
doctrine of original sin, simply on the strength of the scriptural evidence that
supportsthem.Ialsothinkthatthedoctrineitselfcanbereasonablyaccepted as
an article of faith, even in the absence of answers to the challenging questions
mentionedabove.Still,itwouldbenicetohaveatleastsomeideaofhowthefirst
sin might have resulted in the consequences that the doctrine affirms.⁵ I do not
haveafulltheorytooffer;butIcantakesomeinitialstepsinthatdirection.
² Forexample,theCatechismoftheCatholicChurchemphasizesthe‘wound’toournature,and
explicitly denies that it is totally corrupted (see 1.7.3, esp. para. 405), whereas theologians in the
Reformedtraditiontypicallyinsistthatoriginalsinisaformofcorruption.
³ Or‘ancestralsin’inEasternChristianity;butmycharacterizationmorecloselyfollowsWestern
linesofthought.
⁴ IntheconfessionsoftheReformedtradition,thedoctrineoforiginalguiltisnormallytakento
includetheclaimthatweareguiltyforthecorruptionofournature,orthatGodblamesusforit.Itis
alsocommonlysaidthatGodisangrywithusforit.Idonotrejectthesestatementsoutright,butIthink
thattheyareapttomislead;andIthinkthatthe‘divinewrath’claimsareparticularlyunfortunatein
thisregard.SinceIcannotpossiblyhopetodothemjusticeintheshortspaceallottedhere,Isimplyset
themaside.
⁵ We might also ask howbelief in a ‘first sin’ or an ‘historical Adam’ could be reconciled with
evolutionarytheory.Thisisamatterofinterestingcontroversy,andseveralproposalsstrikemeas
promising;butIshallnotpursuethisissuefurtherhere.
