A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE FALL IN PAUL RICOEUR

SUBMISSION AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR A HEALTHY CHRISTIAN LIVING

By

Oghenevwede Wealth Imoyi

1
 Table of Contents

Introduction 1

The Account of the Fall 2

A Philosophical Perspective of the Fall in Paul Ricoeur’s Submission 6

Philosophy of the Will 6

Voluntary and Involuntary 7

Fault 9

Implications for a Healthy Christians Living 11

The power of God is made manifest in the inability of man 11

Man is fallible 13

Sin brings about Separation between man and God 13

Sin must have deprived man but does not destroyed the image of God in Man 13

The Fall bring about death 14

Provision for Redemption is made available in the Fallen State of Man 15

Conclusion 15

Bibliography 16

2
INTRODUCTION

The fall of man is a term used in to describe the transition of the first man and woman

from a state of innocent obedience to God to a state of guilty disobedience. The

doctrine of the Fall comes from a biblical interpretation of Genesis, chapters 1-3. At

first, Adam and Eve lived with God in the Garden of Eden, but the serpent tempted

them into eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God had

forbidden. After doing so, they became ashamed of their nakedness and God expelled

them from the Garden to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and becoming

immortal.

The biblical story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) recounts the story of the first

human sin and its consequences. The traditional story of the fall of Adam and Eve

does not seem consistent with either an evolutionary account of human origins or

what we know about human history more generally. On some understandings,

questions about the historicity of the Fall are not properly philosophical questions at

all. Yet it does seem like a properly philosophical task to articulate a doctrine of the

fall that is both internally consistent and consistent with other things we know to be

true. Moreover, the doctrine of the Fall is conceptually connected to other aspects of

the doctrine of sin as well as to the doctrine of salvation.1

There are philosophical questions raised by nearly all Christian doctrines and

practices with respect to the fall of man, and so there are many fertile areas of inquiry

that still remain comparatively underexplored. This brief survey has focused on a

philosophical perspective of the Fall in Paul Ricoeur submission and its implication

for a healthy Christian Living.

THE ACCOUNT OF THE FALL

1
William Schweiker, Paul Ricoeur and the Return of Humanism. Journal of French
Philosophy. 16, 2. (2006): 21-41
3
 From Latin “Humanitas”, the concept of Man means human nature, general

culture of the mind. It is also “men” in general, the human race taken as a unit. Most

philosophers defined as any human being endowed with reason. What man is the

ultimate metaphysical question. In Aristotle’s Anthropology edited by Keil and Kreft,

man was defined as a rational being, which includes an ability to think, to form

concept, to reason, to weigh alternatives, and to initiate actions. 2 Harrison-Barbet

ascertained further that man is both rational and social beings, and that the rationality

affirmed by philosophers, who have seen man as the creature of God, made in God’s

image, possessing of a soul, which become corrupted after the fall and not been able

to attain the original potential without divine assistance. 3 The above definition sees

man as being that have the ability to reason and not gender based.

According to Genesis 2, God created the first man, Adam, and placed him in

the Garden of Eden. He caused all kinds of trees to grow in the Garden, including two

special trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God told

Adam that he was free to eat of any tree in the garden, but not of the Tree of the

Knowledge of Good and Evil. "In the day you eat of it, you will die," God warned

(Gen. 2:17). Seeing that Adam was alone, God then created Eve out of his rib (Gen.

2:22). Adam names the animals and calls Eve "woman." They are both "naked and

unashamed."

However, one day, a serpent came to Eve and persuaded her to eat it. "God

knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened," he told her, "and you will be

like God, knowing good and evil." The serpent showed Eve that the fruit was, "good

2
Geert Keil and Nora Kreft ed., Aristotle’s Anthropology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2019), 25.
3
Anthony Harrison-Batbet, Mastering Philosophy (New York: Palgrave Publishers, 2001)
405-406.
4
for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom," and so she

ate it. She then gave some of the fruit to Adam, and he too ate. Adam and Eve

immediately realized that they were naked, and became of ashamed of this, using fig

leaves to cover their private parts. Lewis and Demarest opined that, if Adam and Eve

had done otherwise instead of disobeying the instruction of God and the result would

have been positive instead of the negative.4 Enlightenment thinking describes sin, evil

and redemption as creation of man’s imbecility and misery. Amoran has this to say

that nothing in life happen by chance or contingency, occurrence is believed to be

determined by casualty; all occurrences is either orchestrated either physically or

spiritually.5 The fall of man has a cause and of course, God wouldn’t have been the

cause of the fall, it definitely will be traced to the wilful desire of human to disobey

the order of God, having been deceived by Satan, which was disguised as a serpent,

the agent of temptation for the first man and woman.

Soon after, God walked through the Garden looking for Adam and Eve, but he

could not find them, because they were hiding from him. God called out to Adam:

"Where are you" (Gen. 3:9). Adam responded, "I heard your voice, and I was afraid,

because I was naked." God replied: "How did you know you were naked? Did you eat

of the fruit of the tree I told you not to eat of?" By asking a question instead of

judging and condemning him, God gave Adam the opportunity to own up to what he

had done and repent. However Adam did not take responsibility for his action and

instead put the blame on Eve. When God asked Eve a question, she too failed to take

responsibility and instead she blamed the serpent. Since freedom and responsibility go

4
Gordon R. Lewis & Bruse A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, Historical, Biblical,
Systematic, Apologetic-Practical. (Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996) 77.
5
Oluwafemi Samuel Amoran, “ Philosophical Proposition of Determinism and its Ad-
Judgement of Sin and Evil in the Church” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology XX, 3 (2017): 1-12.
5
hand in hand, when Adam and Eve denied they were responsible for their own

actions, they denied they were free beings. In this way also they indicated that they

were under the dominion of Satan. 6

As a result of these events, God cursed all three of the characters in the drama:

The serpent must crawl on his belly and eat dust; the woman must suffer increased

pain in childbearing and be ruled by her husband; and the man must labor for his food

instead of eating freely of what grows in the Garden, for the land too is cursed. (Gen.

3:14-19) These curses can be seen as analogues to the blessings given earlier in Gen.

1:28.

However, the curse upon the serpent contains what Christian exegetes have

long regarded as a hidden prophecy of Christ to come in the words, "He (the woman's

seed) will bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15) This is said to

foretell the crucifixion, by which Christ will strike the head of Satan while taking

damage in his flesh.7

God recognizes that man has eaten the forbidden fruit: "The man has now

become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:21) To prevent Adam from

also partaking of the Tree of Life and living forever, God casts him out of the Garden,

posting cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the entrance. The death that Adam

and Eve underwent when they ate the fruit was a spiritual death—separation from

God and His blessings. Physically, they lived for many more years.

Apostle Paul is often credited for propounding the first definite doctrine of the

Fall. "For as in Adam all die," he wrote, "so in Christ all will be made alive." (1

6
John P. Newport, Life’s Ultimate Questions, A Contemporary Philosophy of Religion
(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1989) 189-190.
7
Norman l. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume One, p 1036
6
Corinthians 15:22) Although earlier Jewish writers had alluded to similar themes, the

human inability to obey God's Law is a frequent and central theme in Paul's writings.

Catholic and Orthodox teaching hold to this basic Pauline doctrine of the Fall,

as do most Protestants. There are differences of opinion, however, as to how

drastically the Fall affected human nature. The formal doctrine of Original Sin, as

articulated by Saint Augustine, holds that the Fall resulted in a fundamental change in

human nature, so that all descendants of Adam and Eve are born in sin, which is

transmitted through sexual intercourse. Humans are thus basically depraved and can

only be redeemed by divine grace. The Eastern tradition generally took a somewhat

more optimistic view holding that human nature was not totally depraved, while

agreeing that without the Church and its sacraments, salvation is impossible. 8 The

Western tradition firmly rejected the even more optimistic view of Pelagianism,

which taught that the Christian believer could attain spiritual perfection through moral

efforts.

The Protestant Reformation, in its early stages, reaffirmed the strict

Augustinian viewpoint, criticizing the Catholic Church for teaching that "works"—

such as confession, fasting, penance, and indulgences—could produce salvation from

sin, rather than "grace alone."9 Reformers such as John Wesley and his Methodism

provided a greater role for human efforts in transforming one's character into a more

Christ-like one. Nevertheless, they held that these efforts are efficacious only because

they are grounded in Christ's saving grace, who by his sacrifice on the Cross redeems

us of the sin of the Fall.

8
Kenneth John Ryan, ed. The Confessions of Saint Augustine by of Hippo Saint Augustine
(New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., 1960), 138.
9
Ibid., 139.
7
 Contemporary Protestants hold a variety of views on the issue. Mainstream

liberal theologians tend to interpret the Fall allegorically rather than historically.

Some recent movements such as Christian Science reject the doctrine of the Fall

altogether. Others, such as the Unification Church, reaffirm the importance of the Fall

to understanding the human condition.

A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE FALL IN PAUL RICOEUR’S

SUBMISSION

If Paul Ricoeur remains to be a philosopher who seeks the meaning of being human,

then this philosophy of the Will is properly understood within this ‘search.’ With the

idea of the will, one may presuppose that man is, first and foremost, an ens volens,

that is, a willing being. One do not assume that Ricoeur simply defines or describes

the nature of man as to answer the perennial questions, “What is man?” or “Why is

man like this or that?” One could rather settle with a conviction that Ricoeur deals

with the nature of man’s nature. In this sense, the understanding of (or the attempt to

understand) man as the one who wills shall naturally focus on his willing aspect. To

ask, “How is it to be human? is not to address his nature to will but to know the nature

of his will. I shall try to confirm my claim by going through the perflexed Ricoeur’s

philosophy of the will.10

Philosophy of the Will:

The details of Ricoeur’s philosophy of the will is supposed to be found in a

three-volume work: first, Freedom and Nature." The Voluntary and the Involuntary;
10
Wendell Allan A. Marinay, Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy of the Will (The PhilPapers
Foundation, 2015), 1
8
secondly, Finitude and Culpahility which appears in two parts namely Fallible Man

and The Symbolism of Evil; and Poetics of the Will. Ricoeur “begins with a

descriptive phenomenological style to present the essence of the phenomena of the

will in Volume One, and continues on to a descriptive, hermeneutic-

phenomenological style concerning the empirical facts of the Will in Volume Two.

Throughout these volumes he foreshadows the projected style and content of

the elusive unwritten third volume, the Poetics of the Will.” One can say that Ricoeur

focuses first on the forms (not the contents) of human action, that is, primarily

describing or knowing the conditions or structures of the will before gaining insight

into the constitution of the (one) willing or actual existence of man. Ricoeur proceeds

into the reality of human freedom (or human will) by way of a rigid approach of

phenomenology stemming from Husserl and the profundity of existentialism referring

to the likes of Marcel and Merleau-Ponty.11 In phenomenology, Ricoeur deals with

the acts of consciousness; in existentialism, he analyzes the acts of lived body. 12

Voluntary and Involuntary:

In the problem of human freedom in relation to nature, Ricoeur begins his

inquiry by some kind of a rational, pure description of the voluntary and the

involuntary aspects of human existence. This twofold notion of the voluntary and the

involuntary connotes complementarity rather than duality. Indeed, they differ from

each other but they are not totally different. Their distinction points to a dynamism

11
Marcel and Merleau-Ponty “Incarnation, Situation and the Problem of History” Human
Studies, 10, no. 2 (1987): 225-245, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20008998 ?seq=1#metadata_ info_tab
_contents, accessed November, 2021.
12
Ricoeur, 83
9
that gives meaning to being human. The idea of reciprocity between voluntary and the

involuntary comes into the picture to imply a harmony, not seamless though.13

Garcia puts it this way, “This relation of reciprocity implies that the voluntary

has no meaning of its own. It asserts that only the relation of the voluntary and the

involuntary is intelligible.” In same vein, Pellauer asserts that “the very idea of the

involuntary [...] is dependent upon its being considered in relation to voluntary

action.14 Otherwise we end up trying to conceive of something beyond our experience

that is unnamable. If one can in fact call it the involuntary, it is because we already

presuppose our lived experience of what Ricoeur calls the voluntary.”15

Interestingly, the implications in the phenomena of the voluntary and the

involuntary is such a bloody affair. It points to a real task to reflect on, to recognize,

realize. To begin with, we shall deal with the affairs, or at least a glimpse, of the

voluntary understood from the idea of the human action. Seen in the light of deciding,

human action is a capacity to plan out things and to act upon the plan. 16 As a human

capability, deciding is being decisive implying both thought and action in the process.

So also, deciding does not happen out of the blue. We assume a factor that moves man

to decide knowing quite well that man deliberatively decides for a reason, that is, with

some motives / motivations. Deciding therefore appears alongside motive. ‘For a

reason’ entails something ‘good’ that motivates him to decide. This is the same reason

which leads him to perform intentionally and un-intentionally. With the idea of need

13
Bartholomew. Craig, G. and Goheen, Michael W. Christian Philosophy A Systematic and
Narrative Introduction. Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2013.
14
David Pellauer, A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Continuum International Publishing
Group, 2007), 26.
15
Leovino Garcia, Paul Ricoeur: Philosopher of Responsibility and Hope, Chicago:
Northwestern University Press, 1971), 57.
16
Allan, 12
10
and pleasure, we understand how man ‘thinks’ and ‘acts’ within and without of

himself.

As embodied, man needs something for his body. And such a need is driven

out of lack which can be fully satisfied with a decisive choice. However, before this

actual decision (or choice), there was still no choice. This is because man is impeded

by hesitation. But as soon as man decides, the apprehension fades away and

decisiveness enters into the picture. While it is true that the “exploration of the will

must begin identically because an understanding of the most profound possibilities of

the voluntary subject emerges only out of a descriptive analysis of the involuntary,”

the philosophical quest must also continue to taking a “new phenomenology that

would disclose a ‘living being which from all time has, as the horizon of all its

intentions, a World, the world,’ and not merely ‘an idealist subject locked within its

systems of meanings”17

Fault:

Moving to the question of the human condition, the discussion on evil is set forth into

various phases beginning from Fallible Man wherein evil is still apparent until

Symbolism of Evil where evil is already evident. And the phases carry on certain

approaches in understanding the problem of evil, undergoing a gradual change from

empirical to hermeneutical or a combination of both. 18 Indeed, the problem of evil is

one basic question of life that is embedded in the language of the people. As such, it

is, for Pellauer, a “concrete mythics,” that needs to be understood from how the

people talk about it. This means that it is something real and true and that speaks of

the life of man since time immemorial. It is not therefore mythical in today’s usage
17
Ibid., 14
18
Simon Kouessan Degbe, “Sin, Evil and Redemption in Public Spirituality- Examples from
Ghana” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology XX11, 1 (2017) 1-26.
11
that is something fictional or untrue. This myth on evil was science for the people,

although not that scientific in contemporary language. This means that myth is

something true. But then, it uses a language that needs to be understood from a certain

direction and angle. Man, more specifically, the fallible man is the locus of such

interpretation on evil, particularly its possibility.

For Ricoeur, there is in man something pathetique that makes him

inconsistent. This is not something or someone other than himself. This pertains to

something in relation to his own self. The Fallible man is already there in attentive

man - and this also is the case for what the late Ricoeur will call the “capable human

being.19 In other words, man is by nature fallible. With this make-up, there is the

possibility of evil. This is more than just the physical make-up that man is confronted

here. This is about the strong tendency to go against himself. This tendency does not

make but unmake him, hence, something that brings about his suffering, his disregard

to life, hampering eventually his choice and right action. 20

Here, evil is dealt with as a possibility by virtue of man’s fallibility. This is to

say that the emergence of evil can be made impossible by virtue of his capability. For

instance, we can view and re-view things. Our viewing or perspective is not only true

in thought but also in our deeds. An ‘aha’ experience can actually change our course,

and rightly so, the direction of our life. 21 The evil in man can in turn be out of sight,

not in terms of existence but as long as man is capable of overcoming it. By enabling

19
Paul Ricoeur, Philosophical Anthropology, English edition (Cambridge UK: Polity Press,
2013), xii
20
Garcia, 58

21
Simon A. Kolawole, “Sin and Evil in the Contemporary Society” Ogbomoso Journal of
Theology, 11, 2017: 28-49.
12
himself, man gains his self (again).

However, the possibility of evil or fault is not to be taken as a sequel towards

the reality of evil. The actual existence of evil is tried and tested under the symbolic

auspices. With such a symbolical and mythical backing, the reality of evil is to be

understood within the bounds of linguistics. Since symbolic language implies

ambiguity or multi-layered meanings, analogy is to be employed. With the symbolic

lens, the existence of evil is not portrayed as an ugly, two-horned devil, with a tail.

Evil exists in our consciousness in different forms: cosmic, oneiric, and poetic. The

examples are the symbolic of stain, sin and guilt.

IMPLICATIONS FOR A HEALTHY CHRISTIANS LIVING

The fall of man, to a large extent had exposed that frangibility and fallibility is an

inherent nature of man. This section will therefore explores the implication of the fall

and lessons contemporary Christians can learn from it for a healthy Christian living.

The power of God is made manifest in the inability of man:

According to Ricoeur, Christianity in particular has imposed a pessimistic

view of the human condition, thus justifying philosophical criticism in the name of

reason and emancipation.22 However, the question that arises is whether the unity

between religion and misery is constitutive or not. Ricoeur asserts that an assiduous

reading of religious traditions leads to the conclusion that such unity cannot be

considered so fatal, and that the image of the mankind who looms is not ambiguous.

Therefore, religion plays a role in defense of the human condition, against the

accusation that only philosophy and other disciplines can do.

22
Paul Ricoeur, Réflexion faite, (Paris: Esprit, 1995), 108.
13
 It used to be said that religions had a responsibility in imposing a negative

view of the human condition, the selfdeprecation of human capacities that go hand in

hand with the magnificence of God's power. It is precisely against this backdrop and

analyzes that Ricoeur takes the defense of the “able man” (l'homme capable) through

a path of return, of deconstruction of the evidences of thinkers with marked scientific

rigor. And it is precisely in his book Soimême comme un autre, where he answers and

explains what the is able man: it is the answer to the question of I can speak, I can do,

I can tell and imputable. In any case, it is the question: who can speak, who can do,

who can be counted, who can be counted on his own actions, and thus Ricoeur takes

possession of the notion of “narrative identity” in two expressions: mêmeté (durability

in time) e Ipséité (principal of change ane novelty) the socalled hermeneutics of self.23

Ricoeur's effort consists in giving the guilty man access to the “able man”. 24

Hence, the idea “I can speak” is located in the active and suffering subjects of the

epic, tragedy and Aristotelian theory of action, where the subjects are interlocutors.

For example, Homeric characters and tragic heroes do not stop talking about their

actions. They are named when they make themselves known, the philosopher makes

them speak of their actions. The ego is not a lexical term of the system of a language,

but a self-referential expression by which it designates itself as something

irreplaceable.25 In addition, this self-designation of the speaking subject is located in a

context of interlocution composed of the otherness: the spoken word is addressed to

the other. A subject capable of saying: “I, so and so, my name is Paul Ricoeur.” 26 The

23
Paul Ricoeur, Soimême comme un autre, (Paris: Seuil, 1990), 167.
24
Gerardo Loja, Paul Ricoeur and Religion (Paul Ricouer E A Religião), AUFKLÄRUNG,
JoãoPessoa, 5, no 1,(2018): 29-38.
25
Ricoeur, 170
26
Ibid., 146
14
establishment of “able man” means that he or she is able to speak, act, be responsible

morally, legally and politically.

Man is fallible:

Man can fall at any point no matter how upright and righteous he may be. Man is

never beyond mistake, this is dues to the fallibility in the nature of man. Adam and

Eve Fall due to the human nature in them. Therefore it is pertinent for all Christians to

be cautioned against the schemes of the devil, and not to be over confidence of

themselves. Hence Apostle Paul affirm in 1 Corinthians 10:12 “so if you think you are

standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” (NIV)27

Sin brings about Separation between man and God:

Man needs the continuous indwelling presence of God to live a healthy

Christian life. Adam and Eve lost their fellowship and communion with God as a

result of their sin in the Garden of Eden. 28 In the same way, when Christians sin

today the presence of God which they enjoy in communion through Holy Spirit is

lost. It is worthy of note that separation from God brings about a spiritual death.

Sin must have deprived man but does not destroyed the image of God in Man:

Although sin can bring about a separation between God and man, but the

image of God cannot be destroyed by sin. To this, Augustine holds a contrary view,

he believed that "the act of sin by which the soul cuts loose from God brought it under

an evil necessity. As a result of the entrance of sin into the world, man can no more
27
The Holy Bible, New International Version
28
L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapid, Michigan: W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing
CO, 1977) 225-226.
15
will the true good..." He also believed in “Total Depravity” 29 that sin affected man in

the totality of his nature so that no element or faculty can be eliminated from his

fallen condition. Image also affirmed that “Augustine see the Fall as having changed

human nature, for example when he says the habit of sin has been turned into nature

(in naturam versa) by Adam’s sin.”30 This view of Augustine with respect to total

depravity. Total depravity is “the claim that no aspect of our humanity is untouched

by sin.”31 Furthermore, Brian Abasciano asserts that

Humanity was created in the image of God, good and upright, but fell from its
original sinless state through willful disobedience, leaving humanity in the
state of total depravity, sinful, separated from God, and under the sentence of
divine condemnation (Rom 3:23; 6:23; Eph 2:1- 3). Total depravity does not
mean that human beings are as bad as they could be, but that sin impacts every
part of a person’s being and that people now have a sinful nature with a
natural inclination toward sin.32

Grudem traditionally sees “total depravity” as a total lack of spiritual good and

inability to do good before God. However, to use the phrase “total depravity” is easily

subject to misunderstanding.33 It can give the impression that no good in any sense

can be done by unbelievers, a meaning that is certainly not intended by that term or by

this doctrine. This is in opposition to Augustine’s point of emphasis.

The Fall bring about death:

29
Kenneth John Ryan, ed. The Confessions of Saint Augustine by of Hippo Saint Augustine
(New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., 1960), 148.
30
Image Isabella, The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers: The Will and Original Sin
between Origen and Augustine, 95.
31
McFarland, In Adam’s Fall: A Meditation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, p x.
32
Brian Abasciano, The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical
Doctrines of Grace. Articles of the Remonstrance. Retrieved from http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-
five-articlesofremonstrance/ accessed September, 2021
33
Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine, p 430.

16
 God created man to live eternally, but not without a condition. Scripture

records that, “the Lord God commanded the man, ‘you are free to eat from any fruit in

the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ for

when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen. 2:16-17, NIV). Unfortunately, man

disobeyed the instruction not to eat the fruit in the middle of the Garden and wilfully

choose death. Apostle Paul in his doctrine of the Fall reaffirm this, "for as in Adam

all die," he wrote, "so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Provision for Redemption is made available in the Fallen State of Man:

God did not leave the fallen man helpless; He made provision for his

redemption in the account of the fall. For God said, the Seed of the woman shall

crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). This is God’s redemption plan for the fallen

man initiated. Later in the New covenant God sent His son who died for the

redemption of man and who so ever believe in Him the same shall be save.

17
CONCLUSION

Ricoeur’s application of phenomenology to the existential human condition brings us

to an understanding of human freedom in the light of an embodied human existence

that is acting or willing or choosing freely, voluntarily, and responsibly. It can be

emphatically said that the fall of man was due to his intentional choice of what he did

with his free will. Man responded to impulse on hearing what he will gain if he eat of

the forbidden fruit (not knowing it was a deceit) and thus, paid attention to the wrong

person (devil) and object (the forbidden fruit) instead of God’s command. To be

redeemed from the fall, man will have to intentionally choose to be saved. To be

saved is an intentional act by man with the help of the Holy Spirit. This is why Jesus

said to them “if any man wants to follow me, let him deny himself and take up his

cross daily and follow me.” (Luke 9:23). The actions such as self-denier and to take-

up one’s cross as listed in the above Bible passage are intentional actions and these

actions could not be taken as response to impulse but to attention. Therefore, if man

had wilfully chosen to fall, man have to intentionally chose to be save (through the

help of the Holy Spirit) to enjoy the redemptive provision by God.

18
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abasciano Brian, The Facts of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the
Biblical Doctrines of Grace. Articles of the Remonstrance. Retrieved from
http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-five-articlesofremonstrance/ accessed
November, 2021

Amoran Oluwafemi Samuel, “ Philosophical Proposition of Determinism and its Ad-

Judgement of Sin and Evil in the Church” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology
XX, 3 (2017): 1-12.

Berkhof L., Systematic Theology. Grand Rapid, Michigan: W. M. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co, 1977.

Craig Bartholomew and Goheen, Michael W. Christian Philosophy A Systematic and

Narrative Introduction. Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2013.

Degbe Simon Kouessan, “Sin, Evil and Redemption in Public Spirituality- Examples
from Ghana” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology XX11, 1 (2017) 1-26.

Garcia Leovino, Paul Ricoeur: Philosopher of Responsibility and Hope. Chicago:

Northwestern University Press, 1971.

Geisler Norman, Systematic Theology, Volume One,

Grudem Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine. Grand

Rapids, Michigan, USA: Inter-Varsity Press and Zondervan Publishing House,
1994.

Harrison-Batbet Anthony, Mastering Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Publishers,

2001.

Isabella Image, The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers: The Will and Original Sin
between Origen and Augustine, 1995.

Keil Geert and Kreft Nora ed., Aristotle’s Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2019.

Kolawole Simon A., “Sin and Evil in the Contemporary Society” Ogbomoso Journal
of Theology, 11, 2017: 28-49.

19
Lewis R. Gordon & Demarest A. Bruse, Integrative Theology, Historical, Biblical,
Systematic, Apologetic-Practical. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1996.

Loja Gerardo, Paul Ricoeur and Religion (Paul Ricouer E A Religião),

AUFKLÄRUNG, JoãoPessoa, 5, no 1,(2018): 29-38.

Marcel and Merleau-Ponty “Incarnation, Situation and the Problem of History”

Human Studies, 10, no. 2 (1987): 225-245,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20008998 ?seq=1#metadata_ info_tab _contents,
accessed November, 2021.

Marinay Wendell Allan, Paul Ricoeur’s Philosophy of the Will. The PhilPapers
Foundation, 2015.

McFarland, In Adam’s Fall: A Meditation on the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin.

Newport John P., Life’s Ultimate Questions, A Contemporary Philosophy of Religion.

Dallas: Word Publishing, 1989.

Pellauer David, A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum International

Publishing Group, 2007.

Ricoeur Paul, Soimême comme un autre. Paris: Seuil, 1990.

Ricoeur Paul, Réflexion faite. Paris: Esprit, 1995.

Ricoeur Paul, Philosophical Anthropology, English edition. Cambridge UK: Polity

Press, 2013.

Ryan Kenneth John, ed. The Confessions of Saint Augustine by of Hippo Saint
Augustine. New York: Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., 1960.

Schweiker William, Paul Ricoeur and the Return of Humanism. Journal of French
Philosophy. 16, no 2. (2006): 21-41

The Holy Bible, New International Version

20