{
  "id": "a_slikfeik",
  "oid": 165502,
  "revision": 1,
  "revision_oid": 165503,
  "work": "orthodoxy",
  "edition": "pg16769-r1",
  "title": "Denying the Fall without denying sin",
  "anchors": [
    {
      "unit": "CH08.P005",
      "oid": 198,
      "role": null,
      "edition": "pg16769-r1",
      "paragraph": "CH08.P005",
      "exact": "the innovations that are the notes of the new theology or the modernist church",
      "start": 25,
      "end": 103,
      "prefix": "Now let us take in order ",
      "suffix": ". We concluded the last chapter ",
      "url": "/orthodoxy/pg16769-r1/CH08.P005#char=25,103"
    }
  ],
  "body_markdown": "Campbell's denial of original sin does not mean that he denies human wrongdoing. In chapter IV of *The New Theology* (1907), he defines sin as selfishness, expressly answering critics who accuse him of abolishing it. What he rejects is the historical Fall and its inherited consequences. He calls that doctrine an obstacle to hopeful work for humanity; his evolutionary alternative still acknowledges cruelty and selfishness. The inspected witness is Project Gutenberg's transcription of the Macmillan New York edition, published March 1907 and reprinted in April. [Campbell, chapter IV, ‘The nature of sin,’ ‘The Fall’ and ‘Science and the Fall’](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/27500/pg27500-images.html).\n\nThe disagreement therefore concerns which account of wrongdoing supports reform, not simply whether wrongdoing exists. Chesterton sees inherited moral frailty as a protection against oligarchic self-exemption; Campbell sees the inherited doctrine as discouraging efforts to improve humanity. Campbell's hopeful political intention cannot by itself answer Chesterton's objection about consequences. But neither does rejecting the historical Fall entail regarding actual rulers as morally faultless. Campbell's introduction also warns that his book states his own position, not a creed binding everyone called a New Theologian. The chapter's later naming of him makes the comparison relevant without identifying every ‘modernist church’ with his views.",
  "sources": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/27500/pg27500-images.html",
      "title": "R. J. Campbell, The New Theology (1907)",
      "locator": "Title and copyright leaves; Introduction; chapter I, 'The New Theology is spiritual socialism'; chapter IV, 'The nature of sin', 'The Fall', 'Science and the Fall'; chapter XIII, 'Modern industrialism and the church', 'Christianity and Collectivism'",
      "exact": null
    }
  ],
  "citations": [],
  "external_references": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/27500/pg27500-images.html",
      "title": "Campbell, chapter IV, ‘The nature of sin,’ ‘The Fall’ and ‘Science and the Fall’"
    }
  ],
  "limits": [
    "This comparison establishes a relevant contemporary disagreement, not the identity of every movement included in Chesterton's phrase 'modernist church'."
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "run": "chapter-08-restart-2026-11-07",
    "paragraph_investigator": "P005",
    "task": [
      {
        "approach": "Interlocutors and historical debates",
        "question": "What did Campbell's New Theology actually say about the Fall and social emancipation?"
      },
      {
        "approach": "Philosophical contextualization: then and since",
        "question": "Does the political argument from human fallibility require the theological doctrine of original sin?"
      }
    ],
    "model": "gpt-6.1-sol"
  },
  "content_sha256": "sha256:88201f365aacbdb6b07703d2883f0a933d72334b3ca406567e576752e485c89e",
  "created_at": "2026-11-07T18:31:03Z",
  "is_current": true,
  "url": "/a/a_slikfeik",
  "revision_path": "/a/a_slikfeik/r/1",
  "cited_by": []
}