Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

all moral value. It is only as an exponent of character that a deed has the moral value
that is ascribed to it.
d. The Pelagian theory can give no satisfactory account of the universality of sin.
The bad example of parents and grandparents offers no real explanation. The mere
abstract possibility of man’s sinning, even when strengthened by the evil example, does
not explain how it came to pass that all men actually sinned. How can it be accounted
for that the will invariably turned in the direction of sin, and never in the opposite
direction? It is far more natural to think of a general disposition to sin.
D. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW OF SIN.
Though the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent are somewhat ambigious in
the doctrine of sin, the prevailing Roman Catholic view of sin may be expressed as
follows: Real sin always consists in a conscious act of the will. It is true that the
dispositions and habits that are not in accord with the will of God, are of a sinful
character; yet they cannot be called sins in the strict sense of the word. The indwelling
concupiscence, which lies back of sin, gained the upper hand in man in paradise, and
thus precipitated the loss of the donum superadditum of original righteousness, cannot be
regarded as sin, but only as the fomes or fuel of sin. The sinfulness of Adam’s
descendants is primarily only a negative condition, consisting in the absence of
something that ought to be present, that is, of original righteousness, which is not
essential to human nature. Something essential is wanting only if, as some hold, the
justitia naturalis was also lost.
The objections to this view are perfectly evident from what was said in connection
with the Pelagian theory. A bare reminder of them would seem to be quite sufficient. In
so far as it holds that real sin consists only in a deliberate choice of the will and in overt
acts, the objections raised against Pelagianism are pertinent. The idea that original
righteousness was supernaturally added to man’s natural constitution, and that its loss
did not detract from human nature, is an un-Scriptural idea, as was pointed out in our
discussion of the image of God in man. According to the Bible concupiscence is sin, real
sin, and the root of many sinful actions. This was brought out when the Biblical view of
sin was considered.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY. Has philosophy succeeded in explaining the origin
of sin? Does Scripture bear out the view that sin originally had no ethical quality? What
objection is there to the view that sin is mere privation? Must we conceive of sin as a
substance? With whose name is this view associated? Does this sin exist apart from the
258