In response to dgzylstra’s post, I think a common concept between the Lutheran theology and Augustinian would be the notion that sin/evil is irrational, and for that reason, (morally) inexplicable. Of course Augustine saw sin/evil as not only irrational, that is, the absence of rationality, but also as the absence of being. Now there’s an abstraction worthy of Sartre, or Heidegger!

But is abstraction really all that bad? More importantly, is abstraction really all that avoidable? I realize that our anti-abstractionistic tendencies are part and parcel of the postmodern world of thought (largely influenced at this point by Nietzsche’s insightful critiques of much of western philosophy), but of course as many have pointed out, even the most consistent postmodernist makes their own abstractions (as did Nietzsche). It reminds me of those who argue that we need to eschew systematic theology altogether, and focus instead entirely on biblical and exegetical theology. But not only does such a reduction neglect to draw the obvious implications demanded by a biblical and exegetical theology (i.e., systematic syntheses arise quite naturally and unavoidably from a comprehensive biblical theology), but also, for this very reason, often becomes unconsciously ‘guilty’ of developing a systematic (if piecemeal) theology all of its own. E.g., NT Wright’s (who, as far as I know, has no beef with ST per se, but many of his fans that I’ve met do) reconstruction of post-exilic and pre-advent history of Judaism presupposed in his biblical theology shapes a systematic soteriology, particularly in a theory of the atonement. I’m thinking here of his argument that in the death of Christ (who, it is argued, recapitulates Israel’s history and identity), Israel’s exile has been fulfilled (this, he argues, is the thrust of Gal.3:13). Now there’s an abstraction!

In asking this question, what does Scripture teach about sin, we are by definition engaged in systematic theology. And I think that this is a legitimate question…

Looking at Augustine’s four-fold distinction in particular, I do not find it to be nonsensical. Rather I find it to be coherent and helpful. I agree that we need to look at sin in its particulars. E.g., the exegetical question of what ‘iniquity’ means here in this passage (btw, I could not find the particular nuance you attributed to this word [socio-economic crimes] in any of my Hebrew lexicons, but rather found the general sense to be: to twist, bend, pervert) and the biblical-theological question of what does sin/transgression/iniquity mean in Genesis 1-3, and how is that developed throughout the remainder of Genesis 4-11, the remainder of the book, and the litarary unit of the entire Pentateuch. For an interesting and insightful study of ‘hamartology’, I heartily recommend Plantinga’s “Not the Way Its Supposed to Be”. Has anyone read it? What do you think?

But getting back to the original post, I think the question of original sin and its significance turns on our interpretation of the important passage in Romans 5:12-14, and related to this, Paul’s theology of Christ as the second Adam (Ro.5:15ff.; 1Co.15:21), bringing righteousness, life, and redemption (in the place of sin, death and damnation) to humanity. And behold, a Pauline abstraction!