Seite 108 [108]
HANS ERICH BÖDEKER
conception that man alone was capable of conquering it. Atonement, prayer
and divine assistants were no longer necessary; what was needed was a rational¬
ethical conscience. The notion of the total corruption of human nature was
replaced by ideas of weakness, flaws and misdirected inclinations, which in
every case the human being was capable of overcoming with the aid of reason.
Directly connected with these efforts to play down the hereditary nature of
human corruption or even to deny it altogether were attempts to repudiate the
pessimistic Christian understanding of man.
The rejection of the dogma of original sin by Enlightened theologians culmi¬
nated in the 1770s. As early as 1745, when he still accepted most other dogmas,
Jerusalem was already attacking the doctrine of original sin.“ He saw Adam
as just a human being who had sinned, but “this sin was not hereditary; nor
can there be any question of Adamite sin being imputed to his descendants”.””
Sharply criticizing “morose Augustine”, Jerusalem denied that man was “totally
incapable of doing good"." On the contrary, he insisted that there was “a good
direction” in human nature.” Jerusalem explicitly asserted this Enlightened
view of man against the official, orthodox one.”
In 1777 Semler, also sharply criticized Augustine’s teachings. In Semler’s
assessment, Augustine’s interpretation of original sin had turned “all humans
without distinction into a completely equal massa perditionis.””* Consequently,
he did not count it among the “basic articles of faith”,®° and anyone could re¬
ject it. “Nobody, not a single human being, will be damned by God because
of original sin.”*' For the Enlightenment, such damnation would be totally
incompatible with God’s goodness and justice. Once again, Hermann Samuel
Reimarus expressed this most clearly when he stated that it was tantamount to
blasphemy to suggest that “God would charge all humans with someone else’s
sin and then punish them for it.” *
The existence of absolute evil was equally firmly denied by Friedrich Schlei¬
ermacher.® His guiding theological principle was that of inherent human
™ Cf. ANER, Theologie der Lessingzeit, (note 3), 158ff.
75 Tbid., 160.
76 Tbid., 160.
77 Thid., 162.
JERUSALEM, Johann Friedrich Wilhelm, Betrachtungen tiber die vornehmsten Wahrheiten der
Religion, Part 2, vol. 2, 4th ed. Braunschweig, Waisenhaus, 1779, 707.
79 SEMLER, Freie Lehrart (note 26), 362.
80 Tbid., 368.
81 Tbid., 362.
# Alexander, Gerhard (ed.), REIMARUS, Hermann Samuel, Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die
vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes, Frankfurt/M., Insel, 1972, vol. 2, 466.
Cf. Quapp, Erwin H. U., Christus im Leben Schleiermachers. Vom Herrnhuter zum Spinozisten,
* 106 +