What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol 1
Has some pnecil and ink underlines in about three chapters in the middle of the book. covers sshow wear. A used looking paperback in tight condition should last 50 more years.
305 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1940
10 people are currently reading
741 people want to read
About the author
Reinhold Niebuhr
125 books250 followersU.S. theologian. The son of an evangelical minister, he studied at Eden Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School. He was ordained in the Evangelical Synod of North America in 1915 and served as pastor of Bethel Evangelical Church in Detroit, Mich., until 1928. His years in that industrial city made him a critic of capitalism and an advocate of socialism. From 1928 to 1960 he taught at New York's Union Theological Seminary. His influential writings, which forcefully criticized liberal Protestant thought and emphasized the persistence of evil in human nature and social institutions, include Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), The Nature and Destiny of Man, 2 vol. (1941 – 43), and The Self and the Dramas of History (1955).
from The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
A 1958 interview with Reinhold Niebuhr: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html
from The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
A 1958 interview with Reinhold Niebuhr: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/niebuhr_reinhold.html
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
owned-for-years-but-still-not-read
December 13, 2007I'm pretty sure Lesley left this here with me when she moved to Boston to play house with a Rockabilly who came from the Interweb. How I wound up leaving Don Quixote on the curb in Brooklyn but dragging this through four apartments in three boroughs in the years since is a complete mystery to me.... must have something to do with human nature, which is honestly not something I know much about. And you know what? I never will, and I can say that with some certainty because I just noticed this is "VOLUME ONE" of two, which confirms absolutely what I've long suspected, which is that I'm definitely never going to crack open this book, no matter what happens.
I'll probably carry it around with me, though, everywhere I move for the rest of my life, just to make myself feel weirdly guilty or something. And I'll do this because.... well, because that's how I roll. I don't know why. Must have something to do with the mysteries of human nature....
I'll probably carry it around with me, though, everywhere I move for the rest of my life, just to make myself feel weirdly guilty or something. And I'll do this because.... well, because that's how I roll. I don't know why. Must have something to do with the mysteries of human nature....
December 9, 2016
From the 1920s to near the time of his death in 1971, Reinhold Niebuhr was a leading voice among Christians in the United States, at least those within the mainline Protestant denominations. Niebuhr was a native of Missouri who became a Lutheran minister. Beginning with his time working in a parish in Detroit in the 1920s, Niebuhr experienced and strove to understand the problems and complexities of social injustice. His understanding of the world around him complimented a deep appreciation of the Christian and philosophical traditions of the West. His best-known work—and perhaps his greatest one—Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics was published in 1932. This book brought Niebuhr’s thought and outlook to the attention of many because of its mixture of social criticism, “realist” politics, and Christianity.
Niebuhr’s thought, however, was never fixed, and between his first publications at the end of the First World War to the advent of the Second, he changed a good deal.
... About midway in my ministry which extends roughly from the peace of Versailles [1919] to the peace of Munich [1938], measured in terms of Western history, I underwent a fairly complete conversion of thought which involved rejection of almost all the liberal theological ideals and ideas with which I ventured forth in 1915. I wrote a book [Does Civilization need Religion?], my first, in 1927 which ... contains almost all the theological windmills against which today I tilt my sword. These windmills must have tumbled shortly thereafter for every succeeding volume expresses a more and more explicit revolt against what is usually known as liberal culture.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (April 26, 1939). "Ten Years That Shook My World". The Christian Century. in Baritz, Loren, ed. (1960). Sources of the American Mind. II. pp. 542–46.
In 1939, Niebuhr gave the prestigious Gifford Lectures in Scotland, an honor accorded to the foremost minds in theology and philosophy, a list that includes among his American predecessors, Josiah Royce, William James, and John Dewey. The two-volume collection of Niebuhr’s lectures were published in 1940, and this gave Niebuhr an opportunity for a thorough reformation and account of this thinking. In 1998, the Modern Library listed The Nature and Destiny of Man as one of the top 100 non-fictions works of the 20th century. I can’t disagree (and I haven’t gotten to volume 2 yet!).
Volume 1 is entitled Human Nature. In it, Niebuhr patiently reveals and then dissects common attitudes toward human nature, ranging from Classical Greece and Rome, through modern rationalism, liberalism, Romanticism, and Marxism. Niebuhr doesn’t work with blunt words or assessments, but he calmly teases apart these different perspectives to expose their unique weaknesses. After this exposition and exposure, Niebuhr delves more deeply into the Christian tradition. Here, too, Niebuhr lays out alternatives and dispatches those he finds wanting. Reaching back to the New Testament sources and then on into the early Fathers (Irenaeus and Clement, just to name two), and on to Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther, he surveys the tradition fully. No figure is beyond scrutiny, each has his use. In the end, we get Niebuhr’s unique and persuasive take on the human condition.
Niebuhr is not a scold, but he doesn’t shy away from the problem of sin, including a good deal about the problem of original sin. Put most succinctly, Niebuhr’s Christian visions sees humankind as caught between the finitude of the body and the transcendence of the mind. This creates both pride and anxiety (Niebuhr references Kierkegaard several times in a German edition—this was, I think before Kierkegaard was published in English translation). Niebuhr finds pride to be the lynchpin of human sin, not sensuality (concupiscence, cupititas). Thus, Niebuhr concentrates less on the sins of human weakness than on the sins of human overweening. (Compare Dante’s ranking of the seven deadly sins on Mount Purgatory in his Purgatorio. Pride is at the bottom level; lust is closest to heaven. Pride, Envy, Wrath, Acedia (sloth), avarice, gluttony, lust. The first three are the nastiest. I think Dante and Niebuhr agree.) Niebuhr comes to a conclusion, as he often does, marked by paradox, uncertainty, and sometimes tragedy. Humankind must traverse a steep path.
One note of particular interest to me. Niebuhr briefly addresses the topic of self-deception, one that I find fascinating (because I’m so good at it?). Niebuhr delves deeply into the subject.
Our analysis of man’s sin of pride and self-love has consistently assumed that an element of deceit is involved in the self-glorification. This dishonesty must be regarded as concomitant, and not as the basis, of self-love. Man loves himself inordinately. Since his determinate existence does not deserve the devotion lavished upon it, it is obviously necessary to practice some deception in order to justify such excessive devotion. While deception is constantly directed against competing wills, seeking to secure their acceptance and validation of the self’s too generous opinion of itself, it primary purpose is to deceive, not others, but he self. The self must at any rate deceive itself first. It’s deception of other is partly an effort to convince itself against itself. The fact that this necessity exists is an important indication of the vestige of truth which abides with the self in all its confusion and which it must placate before it can act. The dishonesty of man is thus an interesting refutation of the doctrine of man’s total depravity. (203)
. . . .
The dishonesty which is an inevitable concomitant of sin must be regarded neither as purely ignorance, nor yet as involving a conscious lie in each individual instance. The mechanism of deception is too completed to fit into the category of either pure ignorance or pure dishonesty. (204)
. . . .
The deception of sin is rather a general state of confusion from which individual acts of deception arise. Yet the deception never becomes so completely a part of the self that it could be regarded as a condition of ignorance. In moments of crisis the true situation must be vividly revealed to the self, prompting it to despairing remorse or possibly to a more creation contrition. The despair of remorse is essentially the recognition of the lie involved in sin without any recognition of either the truth or the grace by which the confusion of dishonesty might be overcome. (205)
. . . .
This truth, which the self, even in its sin, never wholly obscures, is that the self, as finite and determinate, does not deserve unconditioned devotion. But through the deceptions are need they are never wholly convincing because the self is the only ego fully privy to the dishonesties by which it has hidden its own interest behind a façade of general interest.
The desperate effort to deceive others must, therefore be regarded as, on the whole, an attempt to aid the self in believing a pretention it cannot easily believe because it was itself the author of the deception. If other will only accept what the self cannot quite accept, the self as deceiver is given an ally against the self as deceived. All efforts to impress our fellowmen, our vanity, our display of power or goodness must, therefore, be regarded as revelations of the fact that sin creates the insecurity of the self by veiling its weakness with veils which may be torn aside. The self is afraid of being discovered in its nakedness behind these veils and being recognized as the author of the veiling deceptions. Thus sin compounds the insecurity of nature with a fresh insecurity of spirit. (206-207)
Compare this with the work of C. Terry Waner and the Arbinger Institute. This is a fundamental insight.
This book is not easy, although the exposition and discussion are thorough and straight forward. But it’s deep thought and challenges the reader at a personal level. Even if one is not a Christian or even a believer, just someone who wants more profound insights into the human condition, one would be hard-pressed to find a modern work so insightful and rewarding as this.
Niebuhr’s thought, however, was never fixed, and between his first publications at the end of the First World War to the advent of the Second, he changed a good deal.
... About midway in my ministry which extends roughly from the peace of Versailles [1919] to the peace of Munich [1938], measured in terms of Western history, I underwent a fairly complete conversion of thought which involved rejection of almost all the liberal theological ideals and ideas with which I ventured forth in 1915. I wrote a book [Does Civilization need Religion?], my first, in 1927 which ... contains almost all the theological windmills against which today I tilt my sword. These windmills must have tumbled shortly thereafter for every succeeding volume expresses a more and more explicit revolt against what is usually known as liberal culture.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (April 26, 1939). "Ten Years That Shook My World". The Christian Century. in Baritz, Loren, ed. (1960). Sources of the American Mind. II. pp. 542–46.
In 1939, Niebuhr gave the prestigious Gifford Lectures in Scotland, an honor accorded to the foremost minds in theology and philosophy, a list that includes among his American predecessors, Josiah Royce, William James, and John Dewey. The two-volume collection of Niebuhr’s lectures were published in 1940, and this gave Niebuhr an opportunity for a thorough reformation and account of this thinking. In 1998, the Modern Library listed The Nature and Destiny of Man as one of the top 100 non-fictions works of the 20th century. I can’t disagree (and I haven’t gotten to volume 2 yet!).
Volume 1 is entitled Human Nature. In it, Niebuhr patiently reveals and then dissects common attitudes toward human nature, ranging from Classical Greece and Rome, through modern rationalism, liberalism, Romanticism, and Marxism. Niebuhr doesn’t work with blunt words or assessments, but he calmly teases apart these different perspectives to expose their unique weaknesses. After this exposition and exposure, Niebuhr delves more deeply into the Christian tradition. Here, too, Niebuhr lays out alternatives and dispatches those he finds wanting. Reaching back to the New Testament sources and then on into the early Fathers (Irenaeus and Clement, just to name two), and on to Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther, he surveys the tradition fully. No figure is beyond scrutiny, each has his use. In the end, we get Niebuhr’s unique and persuasive take on the human condition.
Niebuhr is not a scold, but he doesn’t shy away from the problem of sin, including a good deal about the problem of original sin. Put most succinctly, Niebuhr’s Christian visions sees humankind as caught between the finitude of the body and the transcendence of the mind. This creates both pride and anxiety (Niebuhr references Kierkegaard several times in a German edition—this was, I think before Kierkegaard was published in English translation). Niebuhr finds pride to be the lynchpin of human sin, not sensuality (concupiscence, cupititas). Thus, Niebuhr concentrates less on the sins of human weakness than on the sins of human overweening. (Compare Dante’s ranking of the seven deadly sins on Mount Purgatory in his Purgatorio. Pride is at the bottom level; lust is closest to heaven. Pride, Envy, Wrath, Acedia (sloth), avarice, gluttony, lust. The first three are the nastiest. I think Dante and Niebuhr agree.) Niebuhr comes to a conclusion, as he often does, marked by paradox, uncertainty, and sometimes tragedy. Humankind must traverse a steep path.
One note of particular interest to me. Niebuhr briefly addresses the topic of self-deception, one that I find fascinating (because I’m so good at it?). Niebuhr delves deeply into the subject.
Our analysis of man’s sin of pride and self-love has consistently assumed that an element of deceit is involved in the self-glorification. This dishonesty must be regarded as concomitant, and not as the basis, of self-love. Man loves himself inordinately. Since his determinate existence does not deserve the devotion lavished upon it, it is obviously necessary to practice some deception in order to justify such excessive devotion. While deception is constantly directed against competing wills, seeking to secure their acceptance and validation of the self’s too generous opinion of itself, it primary purpose is to deceive, not others, but he self. The self must at any rate deceive itself first. It’s deception of other is partly an effort to convince itself against itself. The fact that this necessity exists is an important indication of the vestige of truth which abides with the self in all its confusion and which it must placate before it can act. The dishonesty of man is thus an interesting refutation of the doctrine of man’s total depravity. (203)
. . . .
The dishonesty which is an inevitable concomitant of sin must be regarded neither as purely ignorance, nor yet as involving a conscious lie in each individual instance. The mechanism of deception is too completed to fit into the category of either pure ignorance or pure dishonesty. (204)
. . . .
The deception of sin is rather a general state of confusion from which individual acts of deception arise. Yet the deception never becomes so completely a part of the self that it could be regarded as a condition of ignorance. In moments of crisis the true situation must be vividly revealed to the self, prompting it to despairing remorse or possibly to a more creation contrition. The despair of remorse is essentially the recognition of the lie involved in sin without any recognition of either the truth or the grace by which the confusion of dishonesty might be overcome. (205)
. . . .
This truth, which the self, even in its sin, never wholly obscures, is that the self, as finite and determinate, does not deserve unconditioned devotion. But through the deceptions are need they are never wholly convincing because the self is the only ego fully privy to the dishonesties by which it has hidden its own interest behind a façade of general interest.
The desperate effort to deceive others must, therefore be regarded as, on the whole, an attempt to aid the self in believing a pretention it cannot easily believe because it was itself the author of the deception. If other will only accept what the self cannot quite accept, the self as deceiver is given an ally against the self as deceived. All efforts to impress our fellowmen, our vanity, our display of power or goodness must, therefore, be regarded as revelations of the fact that sin creates the insecurity of the self by veiling its weakness with veils which may be torn aside. The self is afraid of being discovered in its nakedness behind these veils and being recognized as the author of the veiling deceptions. Thus sin compounds the insecurity of nature with a fresh insecurity of spirit. (206-207)
Compare this with the work of C. Terry Waner and the Arbinger Institute. This is a fundamental insight.
This book is not easy, although the exposition and discussion are thorough and straight forward. But it’s deep thought and challenges the reader at a personal level. Even if one is not a Christian or even a believer, just someone who wants more profound insights into the human condition, one would be hard-pressed to find a modern work so insightful and rewarding as this.
September 17, 2021
A very difficult book (for me) to rate. I was as tempted to give it a 5 as I was a 3. It contains some extremely penetrating and helpful insights regarding core distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism. But it also points in some theological directions that I find pretty dangerous. A book to be read carefully, gratefully, and critically.
December 11, 2018
I think this is the best description of the condition of a human being and the best discussion of the place of theology in explaining the dilemma that faces each human being. The insecurity which prompts the arrogance, the over reaching of our efforts to make ourselves somebody; the ways in which our virtues become vices and our vices may actually be acceptable. It is very much an apology for the Christian faith but he does discuss and explores the positives and weaknesses of other attempts at describing our human condition.
March 28, 2022
...for Niebuhr, political and moral insight are bound up inseparably with the reality of God, who both calls us to freedom and sets limits on it.
Human Nature/Freedom...
"[A] free society prospers best in a cultural, religious, and moral atmosphere which encourages neither a too pessimistic nor a too optimistic view of human nature." Reinhold Niebuhr (1959)
"The essence of man is his freedom."
"...the final exercise of freedom in the transcendent human spirit is its recognition of the false use of that freedom in action. Man is most free in the discovery that he is not free. "...the discovery of this sinful taint is an achievement of freedom."
"Man does not know himself truly except as he knows himself confronted by God. Only in that confrontation does he become aware of his full stature and freedom and of the evil in him. It is for this reason that Biblical faith is of such importance for the proper understanding of man, and why it is necessary to correct the interpretations of human nature which underestimate his stature, depreciate his physical existence and fail to deal realistically with the evil in human nature..."
The anxiety that we all feel upon recognizing our own finitude provokes us to deny that finitude and magnify our freedom. That attempt to become the source of our own security epitomizes what Christians have called sin, turning away from the true God to other gods of our own making. The only resolution to this tension in which one element of our nature, our freedom, is at war with another, our finitude, is a complete trust in God which alleviates all anxiety and thus relieves us of the need to make ourselves the object of our trust.
"...the two main emphases of Western culture, namely the sense of individuality and the sense of a meaningful history [are] rooted in the faith of the Bible and had primarily Hebraic roots."
Individuality...
"...individual selfhood is expressed in the self's capacity for self-transcendence and not in its rational capacity for conceptual and analytic procedures. Thus a consistent idealism and a consistent naturalism both obscure the dimension of selfhood, the former by equating the self with universal reason (as in Plato and Hegel), and the latter by reducing the self to an unfree nature not capable of viewing itself and the world from the position transcending the flow of events, causes and sequences."
..."the idea and the fact of individuality achieve their highest development in the Christian religion."
Meaningful History...
"The effort to discern meaning in all the confusions and cross purposes of history distinguishes Western culture and imparts historical dynamic to its striving."
...reviews classical, Christian, and modern views of human nature and makes the point that Biblical faith, with its emphasis on the universality of sin, contrasts with modern people's essentially easy conscience. One main emphasis of Western culture was the sense of individuality rooted in the faith of the Bible. Niebuhr traces the development of that sense of individuality. Chapter 1 "Man as a Problem to Himself" examines classical, Christian and modern understandings of human nature. Chapter 2 "The Problem of Vitality and Form in Human Nature" presents rationalistic and romantic approaches to human nature. Chapter 3 "Individuality in Modern Culture" explores various conceptions of individuality. Chapter 4 "The Easy Conscience of Modern Man" addresses how idealism attempts to depreciate the pervasiveness and perserverance of evil. In Chapters 5 "The Relevance of the Christian View of Man", 6 "Man as Image of God and as Creature", 7 "Man as Sinner" and 8 "Man as Sinner (continued)" Niebuhr argues the Christian view of human nature is more adequate for understanding human nature than the modern view. Chapter 9 "Original Sin and Man's Responsibility" examines Pelagian and Augustinian doctrines as well as the ongoing responsibility despite the inevitability of sin. Chapter 10 "Justitia Originalis" examines original righteousness.
I. MAN AS A PROBLEM TO HIMSELF
The Classical View of Man
The Christian View of Man
The Modern View of Man
II. THE PROBLEM OF VITALITY AND FORM IN HUMAN NATURE
The Rationalistic View of Human Nature
The Romantic Protest Against Rationalism
The Errors of Romanticism
III. INDIVIDUALITY IN MODERN CULTURE
The Christian Sense of Individuality
The Idea of Individuality in the Renaissance
Bourgeois Civilization and Individuality
The Destruction of Individuality in Naturalism
The Loss of the Self in Idealism
The Lost of the Self in Romanticism
IV. THE EASY CONSCIENCE OF MODERN MAN
The Effort to Derive Evil from Specific Historical Sources
Nature as a Source of Virtue
The Optimism of Idealism
V. THE RELEVANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MAN
Individual and General Revelation
Creation as Revelation
Historical and Special Revelation
VI. MAN AS IMAGE OF GOD AND AS CREATURE
Biblical Basis of the Doctrines
The Doctrine of Man as Creature
VII. MAN AS SINNER
Temptation and Sin
The Sin of Pride
The Relation of Dishonesty to Pride
VIII. MAN AS SINNER CONTINUED
The Equality of Sin and the Inequality of Guilt
Sin as Sensuality
IX. ORIGINAL SIN AND MANS RESPONSIBILITY
Pelagian Doctrines
Augustinian Doctrines
Temptation and Inevitability of Sin
Responsibility Despite Inevitability
Literalistic Errors
X. JUSTITIA ORIGINALIS
Essential Nature and Original Righteousness
The Locus of Original Righteousness
The Content of Justitia Originalis as Law
The Transcendent Character of Justia Originalis
Human Nature/Freedom...
"[A] free society prospers best in a cultural, religious, and moral atmosphere which encourages neither a too pessimistic nor a too optimistic view of human nature." Reinhold Niebuhr (1959)
"The essence of man is his freedom."
"...the final exercise of freedom in the transcendent human spirit is its recognition of the false use of that freedom in action. Man is most free in the discovery that he is not free. "...the discovery of this sinful taint is an achievement of freedom."
"Man does not know himself truly except as he knows himself confronted by God. Only in that confrontation does he become aware of his full stature and freedom and of the evil in him. It is for this reason that Biblical faith is of such importance for the proper understanding of man, and why it is necessary to correct the interpretations of human nature which underestimate his stature, depreciate his physical existence and fail to deal realistically with the evil in human nature..."
The anxiety that we all feel upon recognizing our own finitude provokes us to deny that finitude and magnify our freedom. That attempt to become the source of our own security epitomizes what Christians have called sin, turning away from the true God to other gods of our own making. The only resolution to this tension in which one element of our nature, our freedom, is at war with another, our finitude, is a complete trust in God which alleviates all anxiety and thus relieves us of the need to make ourselves the object of our trust.
"...the two main emphases of Western culture, namely the sense of individuality and the sense of a meaningful history [are] rooted in the faith of the Bible and had primarily Hebraic roots."
Individuality...
"...individual selfhood is expressed in the self's capacity for self-transcendence and not in its rational capacity for conceptual and analytic procedures. Thus a consistent idealism and a consistent naturalism both obscure the dimension of selfhood, the former by equating the self with universal reason (as in Plato and Hegel), and the latter by reducing the self to an unfree nature not capable of viewing itself and the world from the position transcending the flow of events, causes and sequences."
..."the idea and the fact of individuality achieve their highest development in the Christian religion."
Meaningful History...
"The effort to discern meaning in all the confusions and cross purposes of history distinguishes Western culture and imparts historical dynamic to its striving."
...reviews classical, Christian, and modern views of human nature and makes the point that Biblical faith, with its emphasis on the universality of sin, contrasts with modern people's essentially easy conscience. One main emphasis of Western culture was the sense of individuality rooted in the faith of the Bible. Niebuhr traces the development of that sense of individuality. Chapter 1 "Man as a Problem to Himself" examines classical, Christian and modern understandings of human nature. Chapter 2 "The Problem of Vitality and Form in Human Nature" presents rationalistic and romantic approaches to human nature. Chapter 3 "Individuality in Modern Culture" explores various conceptions of individuality. Chapter 4 "The Easy Conscience of Modern Man" addresses how idealism attempts to depreciate the pervasiveness and perserverance of evil. In Chapters 5 "The Relevance of the Christian View of Man", 6 "Man as Image of God and as Creature", 7 "Man as Sinner" and 8 "Man as Sinner (continued)" Niebuhr argues the Christian view of human nature is more adequate for understanding human nature than the modern view. Chapter 9 "Original Sin and Man's Responsibility" examines Pelagian and Augustinian doctrines as well as the ongoing responsibility despite the inevitability of sin. Chapter 10 "Justitia Originalis" examines original righteousness.
I. MAN AS A PROBLEM TO HIMSELF
The Classical View of Man
The Christian View of Man
The Modern View of Man
II. THE PROBLEM OF VITALITY AND FORM IN HUMAN NATURE
The Rationalistic View of Human Nature
The Romantic Protest Against Rationalism
The Errors of Romanticism
III. INDIVIDUALITY IN MODERN CULTURE
The Christian Sense of Individuality
The Idea of Individuality in the Renaissance
Bourgeois Civilization and Individuality
The Destruction of Individuality in Naturalism
The Loss of the Self in Idealism
The Lost of the Self in Romanticism
IV. THE EASY CONSCIENCE OF MODERN MAN
The Effort to Derive Evil from Specific Historical Sources
Nature as a Source of Virtue
The Optimism of Idealism
V. THE RELEVANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MAN
Individual and General Revelation
Creation as Revelation
Historical and Special Revelation
VI. MAN AS IMAGE OF GOD AND AS CREATURE
Biblical Basis of the Doctrines
The Doctrine of Man as Creature
VII. MAN AS SINNER
Temptation and Sin
The Sin of Pride
The Relation of Dishonesty to Pride
VIII. MAN AS SINNER CONTINUED
The Equality of Sin and the Inequality of Guilt
Sin as Sensuality
IX. ORIGINAL SIN AND MANS RESPONSIBILITY
Pelagian Doctrines
Augustinian Doctrines
Temptation and Inevitability of Sin
Responsibility Despite Inevitability
Literalistic Errors
X. JUSTITIA ORIGINALIS
Essential Nature and Original Righteousness
The Locus of Original Righteousness
The Content of Justitia Originalis as Law
The Transcendent Character of Justia Originalis
March 25, 2016
If you want to understand why people act the way they do, you will learn much more from Niebuhr than from Freud, Jung, or Skinner.
October 17, 2022
"Without the presuppositions of the Christian faith, the individual is either nothing or becomes everything. In the Christian faith man’s insignificance as a creature, involved in the process of nature and time, is lifted into significance by the mercy and power of God in which his life is sustained. But his significance as a free spirit is understood as subordinate to the freedom of God. His inclination to abuse his freedom, to overestimate his power and significance and to become everything is understood as the primal sin. It is because man is inevitably involved in this primal sin that he is bound to meet God first of all as a judge, who humbles his pride and brings his vain imagination to naught (p. 92)."
Challenging and profound, The Nature and Destiny of Man Part 1 is one of those books that I feel as though I am missing critical philosophical context & background to gain the full benefit from. At least for the first couple of chapters where there are so many references to various modern philosophical systems. It is truly amazing how fluently Niebuhr compares, contrasts and summarizes classical philosophical systems (Plato/Aristotle/Stoics), modern philosophical systems (rationalism/idealism/romanticism) and classical and modern Christian's (Augustine/Calvin/Luther/Kierkegaard/Barth). As the saying goes, some books deserve to be skimmed, some to be read carefully, and some to be devoured and re-read. I put this into that third category! Probably the most impactful portions of this book were in the later portion of the book, on the nature of sin, how sin operates within groups, and the nature of original sin. The part that's so thought-provoking is the explanatory power it offers to so many contemporary social issues. Highly recommend. But also make sure you reserve some mental energy!
Challenging and profound, The Nature and Destiny of Man Part 1 is one of those books that I feel as though I am missing critical philosophical context & background to gain the full benefit from. At least for the first couple of chapters where there are so many references to various modern philosophical systems. It is truly amazing how fluently Niebuhr compares, contrasts and summarizes classical philosophical systems (Plato/Aristotle/Stoics), modern philosophical systems (rationalism/idealism/romanticism) and classical and modern Christian's (Augustine/Calvin/Luther/Kierkegaard/Barth). As the saying goes, some books deserve to be skimmed, some to be read carefully, and some to be devoured and re-read. I put this into that third category! Probably the most impactful portions of this book were in the later portion of the book, on the nature of sin, how sin operates within groups, and the nature of original sin. The part that's so thought-provoking is the explanatory power it offers to so many contemporary social issues. Highly recommend. But also make sure you reserve some mental energy!
February 27, 2021
This is a majestic book. It has breadth, depth, comprehensiveness, and clarity of thought. There are, of course, places in this 300-page work where I differ from Niebuhr. However, he spent more time contemplating this topic, so I humbly and tentatively differ from him. I found it odd that he argued against a historical Adam and Eve. It seems to me that the biblical text requires that there were an actual Adam and Eve. Whether directly created as the first humans or chosen as the human race's federal head doesn't seem important, but existence does. But a flaw of this sort does not undo the core argument of this book.
I was encouraged to read a feminist critique of this model of sin. Either I misunderstand the feminist critique, or they misunderstood Niebuhr. His central premise is that the human desire to be independent of God is the root of sin. This independence may lead us to overreach and try to take God's place. Or we may underreach and choose someone or something other than God as a god. Either way, we have sinned in not being dependent on God. The feminist critique claims that Niebuhr's model of sin only applies to men because, as oppressed beings, women cannot generally overreach themselves. This seems patently false. However, it is true, and Niebuhr makes this point, that those oppressed or dominated by the more powerful will sin less against their oppressor than they are sinned against. Certainly, the person in a position of power is more likely to overreach and think they are more worthy than the powerless. Likewise, the powerless may underreach and substitute the powerful oppressor or some alternative "escape" as their focus instead of God, and thus also sin.
This work is a vital read for all serious thinkers about evil.
I was encouraged to read a feminist critique of this model of sin. Either I misunderstand the feminist critique, or they misunderstood Niebuhr. His central premise is that the human desire to be independent of God is the root of sin. This independence may lead us to overreach and try to take God's place. Or we may underreach and choose someone or something other than God as a god. Either way, we have sinned in not being dependent on God. The feminist critique claims that Niebuhr's model of sin only applies to men because, as oppressed beings, women cannot generally overreach themselves. This seems patently false. However, it is true, and Niebuhr makes this point, that those oppressed or dominated by the more powerful will sin less against their oppressor than they are sinned against. Certainly, the person in a position of power is more likely to overreach and think they are more worthy than the powerless. Likewise, the powerless may underreach and substitute the powerful oppressor or some alternative "escape" as their focus instead of God, and thus also sin.
This work is a vital read for all serious thinkers about evil.
June 26, 2021
Beggars the imagination, and my current ability, to adequately review this volume - Niebuhr’s central point- of the modern(post Enlightenment) society’s negation of sin in its understanding of human nature and therefore of the limitations on our race’s(human) appreciation of any accurate measurement of our progress is central to his thesis. It’s not a tough read or a slog, it is both challenging and invigorating in its demands of the reader and the rewards to be reaped from it.
February 26, 2016
This is a fascinating examination of human nature. Niebuhr analyzes the history of philosophical and theological thought on the topic, including the nature of good and evil and the paradox between the ideas of original sin and free will. I particularly appreciated Niebuhr's examination of the Fall of humankind as a symbolic and transcendent event rather than a historical fait accompli. I would have given this book a 5 star rating except that it is such dense theological trading that it is sometimes difficult to understand.
April 23, 2016
This is an AMAZING book on religion, philosophy, and a wealth of other topics, as they touch on these central themes. However, almost EVERYTHING the author says about Judaism, both modern and ancient is WRONG and shows signs of deep prejudice, largely of the type often displayed by Christians, demonstrating utter lack of comprehension of Torah and "the law", but occasionally reaching the point of ugliness. Nonetheless, I recommend this book highly to any monotheist, but keep the author's bias in mind.
May 27, 2011
I read this volume half through & had to return it to the library. Hope to read a bit on vacation... I have the Scribner Library Edition with the green cover. Inside the front cover it reads: "3/12/85 Dear Shely, If you read this book, something wonderful would happen to you — you might come to agree with my view point. Julie"
Book is very clean with no notes or underlining and only a crease in the back cover: I'm afraid Shely never read it.
Book is very clean with no notes or underlining and only a crease in the back cover: I'm afraid Shely never read it.
February 16, 2024
Amazing.
Does help to have a fairly good grasp of problems in philosophy and theology. As a theology student, I felt the second half of the first volume more pertinent for my inquiry. Niebuhr's profundity should bring enjoyment on the first read, and even more enjoyment on subsequent readings.
Does help to have a fairly good grasp of problems in philosophy and theology. As a theology student, I felt the second half of the first volume more pertinent for my inquiry. Niebuhr's profundity should bring enjoyment on the first read, and even more enjoyment on subsequent readings.
September 10, 2016
Niebuhr is obviously brilliant and eminently quotable, but I can't help wondering if there is a place for the ideals of Jesus (for example, the Sermon on the Mount) in his Christian realism. Maybe that's why he so rarely quotes from the Gospels!
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews