Guilt Concepts in Reformed Doctrines on Original Sin

Abstract

This research aims to identify the guilt concepts used in Reformed doctrines on the origin and transmission of sin and to evaluate them in light of the criteria of biblical authenticity, rational plausibility, fairgrounds of culpability, and the principle of causing non-harm. The results show that the Reformed tradition predominantly employs the notions of original guilt, inherited guilt, collective ‘species’ guilt (realism), ‘devolved’ collective guilt (federalism), and actual guilt. Actual guilt is the only guilt concept that satisfies all of the stated criteria, as it preserves the link between human agency and human accountability. The question that flows from this observation is: Can Reformed original sin doctrines be purged from harmful guilt concepts without subverting the essence of the doctrine? The article suggests that the notion of actual guilt is perfectly capable of carrying the basic message of the original sin doctrines, provided that we keep the personal and collective dimensions of actual guilt together and that we refrain from espousing comprehensive causal-explanatory theories on the transmission of sin.