THE POINTS OF CONTENTION AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN FROM PRIMARY SOURCES
“Stated summarily, the Western (or Augustinian) doctrines of the fall and original sin affirm (1) that Adam and Eve’s violation of God’s primordial commandment against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16 – 17; 3:6) caused a fundamental deformation in humanity’s relationship to God, each other, and the rest of creation; and (2) that this “fall”includes among its consequences that all human beings thereafter are born into a state of estrangement from God –an “original” sin that condemns all individuals prior to and apart from their committing any “actual ”sins in time and space.” - McFarland, In Adam’s Fall, p. 29-30
PROPOSED HISTORIC CITATIONS FOR ORIGINAL SIN
The Shepherd of Hermas, 100 AD - 160 AD
Citation #1:
“They were obliged,” he answered, “to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.” - Book III, Similitude 9, Chapter XVI
Response:
Some proponents of original sin see The Shepherd of Hermas as an early witness to their perspective. Essentially, they interpret the deadness Hermas refers to men possessing before bearing the name of the Son as a condition from birth. A spiritual deadness that is caused by mankind being guilty of Adam's sin. Unfortunately, a later statement in Similitude 9 in addition to other comments made by Hermas renders this interpretation suspect and implausible.
“And they who believed from the ninth mountain, which was deserted, and had in it creeping things and wild beasts which destroy men, were the following: they who had the stains as servants, who discharged their duty ill, and who plundered widows and orphans of their livelihood, and gained possessions for themselves from the ministry, which they had received. If, therefore, they remain under the dominion of the same desire, they are dead, and there is no hope of life for them; but if they repent, and finish their ministry in a holy manner, they shall be able to live.” - Book III, Similitude 9, Chapter XXVI
Later in Similitude 9, Hermas connects this idea of being dead to remaining under the dominion of a host of sins. It seems that being "dead" in this sense is grounded in personal sins rather than an impersonal perpetually inherited guilt of someone else's sin. Yet, this latter idea is exactly what the original sin position demands for Hermas to mean. Elsewhere in Hermas' writings, infant children are used as models for those who have no evil in their hearts and dwell in the kingdom of God (Book III, Similitude IX, Chapter XXIX). We see multiple mentions of infants being models of innocence (Book III, Similitude IX, Chapter XXXI) and not knowing wickedness (Mandate II.1). This author did not seem to believe that humans are spiritually dead and guilty from conception due to possessing Adam's guilt. Rather, humans are guileless, innocent, and have no evil in their hearts as infants.
Justin Martyr, 100 AD - 165 AD
Citations #1-2:
“Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; that ‘we are born sinners;’ and that we are entirely flesh, and no good thing dwells in us; he asserts the weakness and disability of men either to understand or perform spiritual things, and denies that man, by the natural sharpness of his wit, can attain to the knowledge of divine things, or by any innate power in him save himself, and procure eternal life,” - Epist. ad Zenam, p. 506
“Having sometime before convinced us to of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life, hath now shown us the Savior, who is able to save that which otherwise were impossible to be saved,” - Epist. ad Diognet. p. 500
Response:
The most glaring issue with these prooftexts is that they're likely not authentic. We have access to all of Justin's known works and have not been able to verify either of these quotes. These quotes have been cited online by various people in an attempt to demonstrate that Justin affirmed original sin. For examples, see here, here, and lastly here. They're most likely either pulled from a much later "Pseudo-Justin" source, the commentary of a Reformed scholar extrapolating on something Justin said, or something else. The first quote given is the most relevant one. The idea of being "born sinners" is relevant to the points of contention. However, the second quote is less relevant. We don't believe humans can attain immortality by our own nature and efforts. Salvation, life, and immortality are gifts from God. The inability to save ourselves does not mean that we are guilty of someone's sin who is not ourselves. To demonstrate that Justin Martyr was not a proponent of original sin, we will cite a few historians and scholars saying as much. We have also provided quotes of Justin that seem to be in alignment with our view of ancestral sin in this article here.
“But he [Justin] is equally clear that there is no inheritance of sin; each person is responsible for his or her own sins:” - Toews, The Story of Original Sin, p. 49
“Although Adam may be the protosinner, Justin makes plain that subsequent sin is a matter entirely of human free choice, not of destiny or the influence of some bacillus of original sin:” - Bouteneff, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives, p. 62
“The underlying suggestion, however, appears to be simply that the sin of Adam and Eve, consisting as it did in their yielding to the Devil’s blandishments, is the prototype of our sin. So he interprets Ps. 82, 7 (‘Ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes’) as signifying that men die in the same way as Adam and Eve, and fall in the same way as Satan. His nearest approach to a corporate conception of sin (and even here original sin in the later sense is excluded) is his assertion that, having been born without our own knowledge and consent, we have been trained up in wicked ways by our environment, and in this sense perhaps may be called ‘children of necessity’.” - JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 167-168
Theophilus of Antioch, ? AD - 185 AD
Citation #1:
"so also for the first man, disobedience procured his expulsion from Paradise. Not, therefore, as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from his disobedience did man draw, as from a fountain, labour, pain, grief, and at last fall a prey to death." - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXV
Response:
This prooftext is cited by Catholic Answers here but it falls short of demonstrating the distinct points of original sin. None of what Theophilus lists as what Adam drew from his disobedience is an exclusive distinctive to the original sin position. If anything, Theophilus' list of things that Adam drew is more in alignment with our position of ancestral sin. He doesn't list a perpetually inherited guilt that makes all humans spiritually condemned and under wrath from conception. However, since Theophilus seems to be speaking only about things that pertain to Adam and doesn't clarify that this list is all consequences for all people, it seems inappropriate to place him confidently in any particular view. Even so, there is additional insight we can gain from Theophilus that further disconfirms him as an early voice for original sin.
"And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mysticallywritten in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal. And as to God’s calling, and saying, Where art thou, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession." - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXVI
“but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him.” - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXVII
"Apparently meaning, that God turns death, which man brought on himself by disobedience, into a blessing." - Philip Schaff, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume II, Footnote 604
Theophilus' comments about human mortality seem to nullify any attempt at connecting perpetually inherited guilt to physical mortality. Theophilus' focus on mortality is God's great kindness. God did not want humans to remain in sin forever. God's goal through this was to restore humans. Theophilus uses the imagery of vessels to make his point that through God's kindness, humans don't have to remain in a flawed state. Humans can become new and entire again. This is made possible by the banishment of humans from Paradise which prevented physical immortality in a flawed state. Concerning Chapter XXVII, Schaff comments on how Theophilus means that God turned death into a blessing as a result of Adam's disobedience. In light of this, attempts to draw the notion of an inherited Adamic guilt from Theophilus' comment about Adam falling "a prey to death" in the above prooftext are unconvincing.
Irenaeus of Lyon, 130 AD - 202 AD
Citation #1:
"For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord." - Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXII
Response:
We respond to this citation by pointing out that our interlocutors misunderstand our view of infants. Infants are in need of saving from many consequences of the fall. We just don't affirm that one of those consequences is perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. Infants aren't inherently sanctified and holy. They aren't good or evil by nature which is something Irenaeus himself affirms (cf. Against Heresies 4.37). Despite infants having done nothing good, upon the death of an infant it is our view that God graciously grants them entrance into His kingdom, fellowship with Him, immortality, and participation in the eternal state with a glorified body that is free from corruption and sinful inclinations. Obviously, nobody can give themselves immortality and a glorified body. All people including infants depend on God to perform that work, save them, and provide them with that gift. We can also point out how Irenaeus didn't view infants as guilty yet. He conveyed that they're innocent and have no sense of evil (cf. Against Heresies 3.23, 4.28, and Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 14).
Citation #2:
“But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
Response:
You can find this prooftext from Irenaeus formatted this way by Catholic Answers here and Catholic Fidelity here. The reason this prooftext is used in support of original sin is the last part of the quote where we inherit the title "of sin". What are our objections to this?
"But this is Adam, if the truth should be told, the first formed man, of whom the Scripture says that the Lord spake, “Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness;” and we are all from him: and as we are from him, therefore have we all inherited his title." - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
The problem with the prooftext the way it's given is that the bracketed words "of sin" are not Irenaeus' words and are an interpolation that alters the passage's meaning. This is not a case where brackets are added to help a clunky translation or re-identify a person, place, or event. Contextually, the title that Irenaeus is talking about is the title of man or human. This is the title of our race; it's the human race. We have inherited this title from Adam because he was given this title as well and we descend from him. We see Irenaeus use the title of "man" interchangeably with Adam elsewhere in the same chapter. Irenaeus is not talking about the title "of sin" as various sources insert into the text to erroneously bolster their position.
Citation #3:
“As also David says, “The alienated are sinners from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born.”” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter X
“declares that John, when preparing the way for Christ, said to those who were boasting of their relationship [to Abraham] according to the flesh, but who had their mind tinged and stuffed with all manner of evil, preaching that repentance which should call them back from their evil doings, said, “O generation of vipers, who hath shown you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham [to our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” He preached to them, therefore, the repentance from wickedness,” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter IX
“For He called all men that mourn; and granting forgiveness to those who had been led into captivity by their sins, He loosed them from their chains, of whom Solomon says, “Every one shall be holden with the cords of his own sins.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter IX
“Truly of Him who said that John had something even “more than a prophet,”and that “among those born of women none is greater than John the Baptist;” who did also make the people ready for the Lord’s advent, warning his fellow-servants, and preaching to them repentance, that they might receive remission from the Lord when He should be present, having been converted to Him, from whom they had been alienated because of sins and transgressions.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter X
Citation #4:
“All therefore speak falsely who disallow his (Adam’s) salvation, shutting themselves out from life for ever, in that they do not believe that the sheep which had perished has been found. For if it has not been found, the whole human race is still held in a state of perdition. False, therefore, is that, man who first started this idea, or rather, this ignorance and blindness—Tatian.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
Response:
This prooftext is essentially a case of seeing buzzwords like "human race" and "state of perdition" in a text, and putting them together in your mind as saying "The human race is in a state of perdition because we're all guilty of Adam's sin". Unfortunately, Irenaeus is actually making the opposite point to say that the human race is not in a state of perdition. There are several comments he makes in this chapter that undermine the idea of him being an early voice in favor of original sin. Let's work our way from the beginning of Chapter XXIII to understand the point Irenaeus is making.
“It was necessary, therefore, that the Lord, coming to the lost sheep, and making recapitulation of so comprehensive a dispensation, and seeking after His own handiwork, should save that very man who had been created after His image and likeness, that is, Adam, filling up the times of His condemnation, which had been incurred through disobedience,—[times] “which the Father had placed in His own power.” [This was necessary,] too, inasmuch as the whole economy of salvation regarding man came to pass according to the good pleasure of the Father, in order that God might not be conquered, nor His wisdom lessened, [in the estimation of His creatures.] For if man, who had been created by God that he might live, after losing life, through being injured by the serpent that had corrupted him, should not any more return to life, but should be utterly [and for ever] abandoned to death, God would [in that case] have been conquered, and the wickedness of the serpent would have prevailed over the will of God.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
“It was for this reason, too, that immediately after Adam had transgressed, as the Scripture relates, He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: “God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man.”….But the curse in all its fulness fell upon the serpent, which had beguiled them. “And God,” it is declared, “said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above all the beasts of the earth.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
"[These act] as Cain [did, who], when he was counselled by God to keep quiet, because he had not made an equitable division of that share to which his brother was entitled, but with envy and malice thought that he could domineer over him, not only did not acquiesce, but even added sin to sin, indicating his state of mind by his action. For what he had planned, that did he also put in practice: he tyrannized over and slew him; God subjecting the just to the unjust, that the former might be proved as the just one by the things which he suffered, and the latter detected as the unjust by those which he perpetrated. And he was not softened even by this, nor did he stop short with that evil deed; but being asked where his brother was, he said, “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?” extending and aggravating [his] wickedness by his answer. For if it is wicked to slay a brother, much worse is it thus insolently and irreverently to reply to the omniscient God as if he could battle Him. And for this he did himself bear a curse about with him, because he gratuitously brought an offering of sin, having had no reverence for God, nor being put to confusion by the act of fratricide." - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
“The case of Adam, however, had no analogy with this, but was altogether different. For, having been beguiled by another under the pretext of immortality, he is immediately seized with terror, and hides himself; not as if he were able to escape from God; but, in a state of confusion at having transgressed His command, he feels unworthy to appear before and to hold converse with God.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
“Therefore, when man has been liberated, “what is written shall come to pass, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting?” This could not be said with justice, if that man, over whom death did first obtain dominion, were not set free. For his salvation is death’s destruction. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
“Thus also do those who disallow Adam’s salvation gain nothing, except this, that they render themselves heretics and apostates from the truth, and show themselves patrons of the serpent and of death.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
Citation #5:
“But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.” - Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XVI
“The apprehension of sin we find in Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) stands in contrast to what became the dominant Christian perspective shaped by Augustine in the fifth century.” - Wiley, Original Sin, p. 62“Adam’s first sin was one of thoughtlessness rather than of malice. The primary blame for Adam’s misstep rests with the devil who acquired power over him unfairly, by a trick. It is not surprising that Irenaeus did not attach a high degree of guilt or culpability to Adam’s sin. God pitied, rather than condemned, his frail, imperfect, inexperienced creature for succumbing to the wiles of a cunning and powerful foe. The sin of Adam was far less serious than Cain’s. Adam’s transgression, though not an infection transmitted to subsequent generations, did lead to death, which Irenaeus also interpreted as a divine mercy.” - Toews, Original Sin, p. 52“It is probable that lrenaeus believed that we inherited death in Adam just as we have since inherited life in Christ, but we cannot be held responsible for the former any more than we can be held responsible for the latter. The essence of our inheritance from Adam is that we have lost the gift of life, so that death now passes by descent to the entire human race.” - Bray, Original Sin in Patristic Thought, p. 42-43“Regarding the doctrine of inherited guilt, we find that Irenaeus rejects the idea….We see here that Irenaeus made ample statements concerning the Fall, certainly different in nature than Augustine’s position.” - Jaros, Original Sin in the Gallic Monks, p. 92-93
"Not only the Greco-Roman critics of the faith, but also its heretical opponents seemed to err chiefly on the side of emphasizing the inevitability of sin at the expense of the responsibility for sin; in fact, Athanasius linked the heretics with "some of the Greeks" on this issue. It would perhaps be an exaggeration to say that the most explicit doctrines of original sin in the second century were taught not by the church fathers, but by the Gnostics; it is also misleading to speak of a "doctrine of original sin" in church fathers such as Irenaeus." - Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Volume 1, p. 282
“And since Adam was moulded from this earth to which we belong, the Scripture tells us that God said to him, “In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat thy bread, until thou turnest again to the dust from whence thou wert taken.” If then, after death, our bodies return to any other substance, it follows that from it also they have their substance. But if it be into this very [earth], it is manifest that it was also from it that man’s frame was created; as also the Lord clearly showed, when from this very substance He formed eyes for the man [to whom He gave sight]. And thus was the hand of God plainly shown forth, by which Adam was fashioned, and we too have been formed;” - Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XVI
“Now “the pain of the stroke” means that inflicted at the beginning upon disobedient man in Adam, that is, death; which [stroke] the Lord will heal when He raises us from the dead, and restores the inheritance of the fathers, as Isaiah again says: “And thou shall be confident in the LORD, and He will cause thee to pass over the whole earth, and feed thee with the inheritance of Jacob thy father.” - Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXXIV“And of this tabernacle Moses received the pattern in the mount; and nothing is capable of being allegorized, but all things are stedfast, and true, and substantial, having been made by God for righteous men’s enjoyment. For as it is God truly who raises up man, so also does man truly rise from the dead, and not allegorically, as I have shown repeatedly. And as he rises actually, so also shall he be actually disciplined beforehand for incorruption, and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the Father.” - Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXV
“It is probable that lrenaeus believed that we inherited death in Adam just as we have since inherited life in Christ, but we cannot be held responsible for the former any more than we can be held responsible for the latter. The essence of our inheritance from Adam is that we have lost the gift of life, so that death now passes by descent to the entire human race.” - Bray, Original Sin in Patristic Thought, p. 42-43
"Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire] that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God." - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
Now, we must also point out that for Irenaeus, God removed Adam from Paradise, not for retribution or punitive reasons. Rather, God did this out of pity and to prevent Adam from being a sinner forever. God's aim was to cause a ceasing of sin. Irenaeus conveys that we can't truly "live to God" while we are sinning on earth. One might conclude that it would therefore be impossible to ever really "live to God" if we were immortally in sin. And therefore, mortality is compassion from God rather than wrath to introduce humans into a state where they can truly "live to God". With this in mind, our interlocutors should not argue from Irenaeus that inheriting physical mortality from Adam conveys with it an inheritance of guilt.
Tertullian of Carthage, 155 AD - 220 AD
Citations #1-3:
“Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.” - Treatise on the Soul, Chapter XL
“On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation” - The Testimony of the Soul 3:2
“‘Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection’ [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word ‘man,’ who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ” - Against Marcion 5:9:5
These are the three most common texts circulating for Tertullian being an early witness to original sin. We will be looking at these three prooftexts together. The text from Against Marcion seems to pretty clearly be talking about physical death and resurrection which isn't a point of contention or something distinct to the original sin perspective. Our focus is on the first two citations. First, let's review some statements from theologians concerning Tertullian's understanding of the fall and its consequences.
“Tertullian's bias toward sin is not the equivalent of original sin as actual sin, as it will be understood later in the tradition. A central clue is found in Tertullian's Homily on Baptism, the earliest known patristic treatise on Christian initiation. This treatise offers clear evidence that infant baptism was practiced by this Tertullian attacked the custom as a novelty and rejected its necessity. Even with the corruption of human nature brought about by Adam's transgression, Tertullian did not see the need for baptizing infants. In other words, this inclination toward sin due to Adam was not itself a sin for which forgiveness was required.” - Wiley, Original Sin, p. 68
“Western thought was not markedly different. Tertullian, as we have seen, did not interpret the corruption of Adam’s progeny as involving the transmission of actual guilt,” - Fisher, A History of Christian Doctrine, p. 157
“Even Tertullian’s On the Soul, which arguably provides the most coherent account of the effects of Adam’s sin in this period, falls far short of a developed doctrine in the Augustinian sense. Its primary focus is the refutation of pagan philosophical and heretical Christian ( “ Gnostic ” ) views that divide the soul from the body. Tertullian’s theory of the biological transmission of sin is introduced only late in the treatise, as a corollary of his belief in the inseparability of soul and body. Moreover, even his strong emphasis on resulting depravity of human nature does not amount either to the denial of human freedom or to the doctrine of congenital guilt characteristic of later, Augustinian theology.” - McFarland, In Adam’s Fall, p. 31
“The conclusion must be that, though he may have been drifting in the direction of a conception of ‘Original Guilt,’ he had not consciously arrived at it. It is probably safe to sum up this Father’s position in the statements (1) that he taught no explicit doctrine of ‘ Original Guilt’;” - Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin, p. 241
“With his belief in a solidarity with Adam and the transmission of the soul, Tertullian brings about the first evidences of an Augustinian version of Original Sin. In spite of these features to his view, he never quite went as far as Augustine later would on the inheritance of guilt or the idea of inability. Tertullian’s emphasis was on the transmission of the corrupted human nature and soul, not on the transmission of the guilt.” - Jaros, The Gallic Monks on Peccatum Originale, p. 74-75
“It is a short step from this anthropology to the doctrine of “original sin;” if all human souls are detached portions of the original soul which sinned, they must bear the moral responsibility for the primordial sin. But it is not clear that Tertullian took that small but momentous step. His writings offer conflicting testimony….While it is not clear that Tertullian linked the hereditary bias towards evil derived from Adam’s sin to the hereditary responsibility for Adam’s sin,” it is evident that Tertullian was moving in the direction of a conception of “original guilt.” - Toews, The Story of Original Sin, p. 64
Many scholars like Wiley, Fisher, McFarland, Williams, Jaros, and Toews who have seriously analyzed Tertullian and these texts in their works on Adam and the fall don't see Tertullian as a clear bastion and shining example of original sin in early Christianity. To be certain, he is a critical piece in the development of the doctrine especially regarding his theory of Traducianism, but Tertullian falls "far short" as McFarland says regarding having the characteristics of the doctrine as it came to be understood later. With the totality of his corpus in mind, many scholars see Tertullian's statements about being "unclean", "actively sinful", and "infected" as referring to bias toward sin, inclination to sin, and corruption of human nature. None of this, as Fisher says, includes the transmission of actual guilt which would make the possessors guilty, spiritually condemned, and under God's wrath from conception. Tertullian's anthropology certainly makes analysis more tricky with his solidarity language about the transmission of souls; but as Jaros notes, Tertullian's emphasis was on the transmission of souls and human nature with the corruption of bias toward sin. His emphasis was not on the transmission of guilt. To put it one way, Adam transmitted that which brings guilt and condemnation, but not guilt and condemnation properly speaking.
With this now in mind, what are some of the other texts from Tertullian that make scholars arrive at these conclusions? Why are they hesitant to slap the original sin label on him and hoist him up as an early witness? Why do they see him as a stepping stone in the direction of original sin rather than an affirmer of it himself? Multiple texts could bring one to these conclusions. Let's look at just three.
"We therefore maintain that every soul, whatever be its age on quitting the body, remains unchanged in the same, until the time shall come when the promised perfection shall be realized in a state duly tempered to the measure of the peerless angels. Hence those souls must be accounted as passing an exile in Hades, which people are apt to regard as carried off by violence, especially by cruel tortures, such as those of the cross, and the axe, and the sword, and the lion; but we do not account those to be violent deaths which justice awards, that avenger of violence. So then, you will say, it is all the wicked souls that are banished in Hades. (Not quite so fast, is my answer.) I must compel you to determine (what you mean by Hades), which of its two regions, the region of the good or of the bad. If you mean the bad, (all I can say is, that) even now the souls of the wicked deserve to be consigned to those abodes; if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent?" - Treatise on the Soul, Chapter LVI
"But, behold, Christ takes infants, and teaches how all ought to be like them, if they ever wish to be greater. The Creator, on the contrary, let loose bears against children, in order to avenge His prophet Elisha, who had been mocked by them. This antithesis is impudent enough, since it throws together things so different as infants and children, —an age still innocent, and one already capable of discretion—able to mock, if not to blaspheme." - Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter XXIII
"The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins”?" - On Baptism, Chapter XVIII
When Tertullian actually addresses the status of infants, he does not seem to have in mind the idea that they are guilty of Adam's sin and therefore under condemnation and wrath. They are deemed pure, innocent, and presumably in a position where they have no sins to remit. He does not see their default fate as eternal damnation as the historical position of original sin asserts. Rather, he sees deceased infants as included in the good afterlife.
“Still there is a portion of good in the soul, of that original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature. For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than extinguished. It can be obscured, indeed, because it is not God; extinguished, however, it cannot be, because it comes from God.” - Treatise on the Soul, Chapter XLI
Interestingly, one chapter after the given prooftext from his treatise on the soul where he says souls are unclean, Tertullian speaks about the soul in ways that don't sound clearly aligned with a fully developed conception of original sin. It is "obscured", but there is still a portion of genuine good in it. This may speak more directly to a denial of Total Depravity from Tertullian. Nonetheless, this goes to show we must be careful with how we interpret his language of uncleanness, infection, etc. It is for these reasons and more that many scholars don't find Tertullian to be a clear early witness to original sin. However, he did introduce ideas that would develop into original sin as they became prominently understood and solidified later on in his region of Northwest Africa.
Citations #1-2:
"It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed were aware that in everyone was sin’s innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit." - Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter 9.11
"To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins, that, according to the observance of the Church, that baptism also be given to infants; since, certainly, if there were nothing in infants that ought to pertain to forgiveness and indulgence, then the grace of baptism would appear superfluous." - Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 8.5
Response:
“He treated the Genesis 3 narrative as an allegorical story of the collective fall of humanity in the transcendent world, a worldview he received from the Greek philosopher Plato. Adam did not represent an individual historical figure, according to Origen, but an allegory of humanity and the fall of humanity before history. The evils and injustices experienced in this life were due to transgressions committed in a previous, other worldly life; that is, Origen believed in the theory of a pre-natal or extra-temporal “fall” of individual souls." - Toews, The Story of Original Sin, p. 56
"We have already seen that Origen postulated a pre-cosmic fall of the spirits to explain the hierarchy of beings and the different lots human beings receive at birth and that the human souls are united to bodies as a punishment for their sins…Origen regards the story of the garden and Adam's expulsion from it as an allegory of the pre-cosmic fall, pointing out that where Moses seems to be speaking of an individual he really has human nature as a whole in mind. As a result, Origen seems to deny any doctrine of corporate sinfulness, for his allegorical interpretation of Genesis suggests that if human beings are sinful from birth, their wickedness is the legacy of their own misguided choices in the transcendental world, and has nothing to do with the disobedience of anyone first man." - Phan, Grace and the Human Condition, p. 90-91
“Origen read Genesis 3 as an allegory, transforming it as he did so into a cosmic myth. Because the soul originated in the heavenly realm, not in an earthly paradise, the origin of sin was in the transcendent realm. In the transcendent realm, Origen argued, God had created rational essences endowed with free will (souls). Each soul had departed from the good in varying degrees. As a consequence, each was banished from the transcendent world to a material world. The fall was a descent of the transcendent soul into a material and historical body. The soul suffered defilement by this fall. Only through baptismal cleansing and rebirth through the Holy Spirit could the soul begin its ascent back to the transcendent realm from which it came…“Origen's theory of original sin was not dependent on a principle of humankind's solidarity in sin with Adam. The defilement of the soul did not originate in an act of an historical person…Origen's theory of original sin was not dependent on a principle of humankind's solidarity in sin with Adam. The defilement of the soul did not originate in an act of an historical person.” - Wiley, Original Sin, p. 85-86
“Origen believed that infants were guilty of sin, but not for the reasons one might think. These souls had sinned before entering the body (from the pre-cosmic Fall) and that was the rationale for believing in the inheritance of guilt… their own, not Adam’s. Like his predecessor, he believed that Genesis 3 was not a literal historical account. Rather, the account was an allegory of all of humanity. Origen held to the platonic notion of the preexistence of the soul, so he believed that infants were guilty ‘because of prior choices in the transcendent realm.’ He believed that infant baptism was an apostolic tradition and that it was done for the remission of those sins and to cleanse the ‘filth of birth.' - Jaros, Original Sin in the Gallic Monks, p. 123
“Such is Origen’s earliest reconstruction of the idea of the Fall. The question still remains to be answered, What, in his view, were the results of the pre-natal transgression, other than the banishment of the peccant soul to this world ? It will be seen at once that the substitution of a series of individual and transcendental ‘ falls’ for a single ‘ Fall’ in time of a common ancestor entirely does away with any idea of an inherited bias towards evil (‘ Original Sin’) or of an inherited status of guilt (‘ Original Guilt ’).. Given this hypothesis, it is impossible to speak of any sort of sinfulness as inherited : whatever moral infirmity or consciousness of guilt may inhere in the individual has been acquired by him, as the result of his own act, pre-natal or post-natal.” - Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin, p. 216
"His belief in the pre-cosmic fall of pre-existent souls required that the sinfulness attested by Job and the Psalmist was the legacy, not of solidarity with Adam’s sin, but of each soul’s previous transgression." - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 31
"For as those whose business it is to defend the doctrine of providence do so by means of arguments which are not to be despised, so also the subjects of Adam and his son will be philosophically dealt with by those who are aware that in the Hebrew language Adam signifies man; and that in those parts of the narrative which appear to refer to Adam as an individual, Moses is discoursing upon the nature of man in general. For “in Adam” (as the Scripture says) “all die,” and were condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, the word of God asserting this not so much of one particular individual as of the whole human race. For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception. And the expulsion of the man and woman from paradise, and their being clothed with tunics of skins (which God, because of the transgression of men, made for those who had sinned), contain a certain secret and mystical doctrine (far transcending that of Plato) of the souls losing its wings, and being borne downwards to earth, until it can lay hold of some stable resting-place." - Against Celsus, Book IV, Chapter XL
There are multiple statements Origen makes that display these points. For the sake of brevity, this one will do. Notice that Origen interprets the expulsion from paradise as allegorically referring to souls losing their wings and "being borne downwards to earth." He refers to Adam as an allegorical signification of the totality of human souls. At this point, I want you to notice a parallel. In the first citation we listed from Origen's commentary on Romans, he refers to this tradition of infant baptism from the apostles as something among the "secret and divine mysteries" that had been committed to them. Notice in our citation regarding the fall that Origen says his theology of a pre-cosmic fall is a "certain secret and mystical doctrine of the souls losing its wings, and being borne downward to earth." Is it possible that Origen is saying the apostles received and passed down this doctrine of the pre-cosmic fall and that it's the reason the Church was baptizing infants? It seems plausible and likely given his language. To conclude, Origen's framework of the fall absolutely does not allow for an idea of inherited/imputed guilt from the historical Adam. In Origen's mind, human souls were guilty of their own sins from a prior transcendent existence.
Citation #3
“Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live” - Homilies on Jeremiah, 8:1
Response:
As a preface to our comments on this citation, please read what we've said concerning Origen up to this point. When it comes to everyone falling prostrate under sin, it really comes down to what is extrapolated from this. We affirm all are under sin in the sense that we're all under its power and influence. We live in a fallen world and sinful environments. All humans inevitably become spiritually condemned due to their own sins. It's not our position that humans aren't under sin. While Origen does paraphrase/quote the popular original sin prooftext of 1 Corinthians 15:22, we caution against interpreting this in a way that's favorable to original sin. To understand why, we will look to Origen's comments on Romans 5.
"This natural law then speaks to all who are under the law. From its precepts it appears to me that little children alone are exempt, for whom the judgment of right and wrong does not yet exist. Now whether those who, for whatever reason, are mentally incompetent ought to be joined to these as well is a question which needs to be investigated. Apart from these exceptions, however, no human being, it seems to me, escapes this law." - Commentary on Romans, Book III, Chapter VI.3
"Therefore sin did indeed begin to exercise dominion in this world from the one Adam. And it reigned in those who pursued the imitation of Adam’s transgression; and for that reason, “judgment came from the one leading to condemnation.” But on the other hand through our one Lord Jesus Christ grace began to reign through righteousness. It will reign in all who obey him and keep his words, and by this means they come from many transgressions to the justification of life." - Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter II.15
"Well then, what he says, “By the transgression of the one, death exercised dominion through the one,” shows that dominion is granted to death through transgression; it cannot exercise dominion in anyone unless it receives the right to rule from transgression. What seems to be made known in this is that since a soul created by God is itself free, it leads itself into slavery by means of transgression and hands over to death, so to speak, the IOU of its own immortality which it had received from its own Creator. “For the soul that sins will die.” That soul, after all, cries out through the prophet, saying, “You have led me down to the dust of death.” This assuredly could not have come to pass to the person except as a result of transgression. Therefore it seems plain that the soul had composed its own IOU with death by means of transgression, so that, having lost the freedom of immortality, it took up the yoke of sin and the dominion of death." - Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter III.3
"So then Adam offered sinners a model through his disobedience; but Christ, in contrast, gave the righteous a model by his obedience. As it is written in another passage, “But you have become obedient from the heart to the same model of teaching to which you were entrusted.” It is also on this account that he “became obedient unto death,” in order that those who follow the example of his obedience might be made righteous by righteousness itself, just as those others were made sinners by following the model of [Adam’s] disobedience." - Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter V.9
Origen's understanding of Romans 5 and the typology between Adam and Christ completely undermines original sin and its distinctive points. He doesn't affirm that all humans were present in/with Adam when he sinned. He articulates a distinction between mortality and spiritual condemnation. Humans become spiritually condemned/dead because of their own sins. Furthermore, mortality and sinful inclinations are the primary things directly passed on from Adam to the exclusion of perpetually inherited guilt of Adam's sin. Origen is clear that sin reigns in those who imitate Adam's transgression. He says that each soul leads itself into slavery through personal sin. Adam is a model and archetype that all fallen humans follow. It's in this way that we all fall prostrate under sin. For all this and the above reasons, this citation from Origen fails to provide convincing evidence in favor of original sin's distinctive points.
Ephrem the Syrian, 306 AD - 373 AD
Citation #1:
“Adam sinned and earned all sorrows — likewise the world after His example, all guilt.— And instead of considering how it should be restored — considered how its fall should be pleasant for it.— Glory to Him Who came and restored it!” - Hymns for Epiphany, Hymn 10.1
Response:
With this prooftext, it is argued that Adam earned the world his own guilt because his guilt was inherited/imputed to all humans from conception. Our first observation in this very prooftext is that it seems to convey the opposite of what is being argued. Rather than Adam earning the world his own guilt through an unconditional and unilateral transmission, it seems like Ephrem is saying that Adam sinned and earned himself guilt. Likewise, the world follows his example (of sinning) and therefore earns the world "all guilt" (not a singular guilt that's perpetually imputed). So Adam earned guilt for all by introducing a world with conditions where all will follow after his example (of sinning). This is extremely problematic for any conception of original sin where we were seminally and really present with Adam when he sinned. This is a common understanding amongst those who affirm a Traducian theory of the soul. The reason this language is problematic is that if Ephrem meant to say that humanity sinned in/with Adam in some way, saying guilt is earned by following "after his example" is the wrong language to use. Because "after his example" conveys we weren't really in/with Adam when he sinned. This language conveys Adam as an archetype and pattern that all humans after him fall into. We all sin and earn guilt. For these reasons, this prooftext itself does not seem like a clear affirmation of original sin. Let's look at other statements in Hymns for Epiphany.
“The judgment that came of the fruit, was Adam's condemnation:— but for you victory, has arisen this day.” - Hymns for Epiphany, Hymn 13.4
In these Hymns, Adam is mentioned 23 times. Of course, the mere mention of Adam, his house, or his children does not point in one direction or another. This text three chapters later than the given prooftext seems relevant to our discussion. Of all the times Ephrem mentions Adam, this would arguably be the best place to say something about original sin because he's talking about judgment and condemnation through the sin in the garden. But he doesn't use language that would convey humanity is condemned or judged in/with Adam when he sinned. Rather, he says it's Adam's condemnation that came from the fruit. This indicates to us that perhaps Ephrem didn't believe that the entirety of humanity was judged and condemned in/with Adam when he first sinned.
“If we momentarily throw aside the veil from our eyes and glance at that place, we will rue our delay which we have prolonged in this world, the harbor of debts,* where merchants each day suffer great loss, where ships are wrecked and cargoes are seized. Blessed are the children who have passed through it without toil. In Paradise these sheep may pasture without fear, while Satan laments that he has left no mark on them; lust too is downcast, not having stained them, but virginity rejoices as she reigns in these chaste temples that were in no wise sullied. Happy the person held worthy to reach their place of meeting.” - Hymns on Paradise, 14.10-11
Elsewhere in Ephrem's corpus, he speaks of children who have passed through the world without toil, hadn't been marked by Satan, and weren't stained by lust. Ephrem doesn't unpack all of this language for us clearly. It seems proper however to see him as saying the children aren't corrupted in various ways that would have corrupted them presuming they lived longer. Considering what else he says in Paradise 7.8 and 10.13 about deceased infants being like "spotless angels" this could be a reference to innocence and guiltlessness. In light of the weakness of the prooftext itself and other statements in Ephrem's corpus, we don't see this text as a compelling witness to original sin.
Ambrosiaster, 366 AD - 384 AD
Citation #1:
“In whom—that is, in Adam—all sinned. Although he is speaking of the woman, he said in whom because he was referring to the race, not to a specific type. It is clear, consequently, that all sinned in Adam as in a lump. Once he was corrupted by sin, those he begat were all born under sin. All sinners, therefore, derive from him, because we are all from him. When he transgressed, he lost the gift of God,” - Commentary on Romans, p. 96-97, on Romans 5:12
“It is, indeed, doubtful whether Ambrosiaster himself really intended to place on this clause (im guo omnes peccaverunt) the sense which Augustine took him to intend, and which has been adopted without question, on Augustine’s authority, by so many later writers in Western Christendom. For, in commenting on v. 14 of the same fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he lays down a principle which logically seems to exclude ‘ Original Guilt’ altogether.” - Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin, p. 309“Where Ambrosiaster differs markedly from Augustine, and the Latin tradition he fathered, is in his denial of corporate guilt or spiritual death on account of original sin. For Ambrosiaster it is only those who mimic Adam’s sin, that is, a knowing rejection of God and a refusal to give him due honor, that incur spiritual death or damnation. What is remarkable is that Ambrosiaster explains this position at some length in his commentary on Romans 5. First he differentiates between the physical death that does follow from Adam’s sin and the spiritual death that does not,” - Cartwright, St. Paul in the Middle Ages, p. 65
When he transgressed, he lost the gift of God, having become unworthy to eat of the tree of life, and as a result he died. This death is the separation of the soul from the body. There is another death—called the second death—in gehenna. We do not undergo it on account of the sin of Adam; it is acquired by the opportunity one has for one’s own sins." - Commentary on Romans, p.96-97, on Romans 5:12
Immediately following the prooftext above, Ambrosiaster distinguishes between bodily death which is received from Adam, and the second death which is contingent on personal sins only. This distinction is completely at odds with the historical understanding of original sin as it came to be known in the 4th and 5th centuries. As we've covered elsewhere, in the historical doctrine of original sin, Adam's sin did actually cause damnation even for those who had not personally sinned, and water baptism was seen as the remedy for this fate. When we keep reading on, it becomes further evident that Ambrosiaster did not hold to original sin.
“It is clear that death did not reign over everyone, because they did not all sin after the manner of Adam’s transgression; that is, they did not all sin by disrespecting God. But who are those who sinned by disrespecting God, if not those who, having disregarded the creator, served creatures, making gods for themselves whom they worshiped to the dishonor of God?….So too, these people, by overlooking God when they serve creatures, sin in a similar way—not in the same way, because the expression “in a similar way” usually includes something that is different. It cannot be said that these people also received the command not to eat of the tree, as did Adam.” - Commentary on Romans, p. 100-101, on Romans 5:14
“For Adam is the type of Christ in this regard alone: the sin that one person committed, one person rectified. For if many died through one person’s trespass, how much more have the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one person Jesus Christ abounded in more people. That is, if many died through one person’s trespass when they imitated his transgression, the grace of God and the gift abounded even further in more people when they took refuge in him. For more people receive grace than died through Adam’s trespass. From this it is clear that the apostle was not referring to the death that is common to all, since absolutely all people die and yet all people do not receive grace. It also is clear that death did not reign in all people, but only in those who are denoted as having died as a result of Adam’s trespass, that is, those whom the apostle says sinned after the manner of Adam’s transgression.” - Commentary on Romans, p.105, on Romans 5:15
"It is clearly different, because as a result of Adam’s one sin those who sinned after the manner of his transgression were condemned, whereas the grace of God through Christ justified people not from a single trespass but from many sins by granting them forgiveness of sins." - Commentary on Romans, p.106, on Romans 5:16
"That is, just as through one person’s trespass all who sinned in the same way deserved condemnation, so too in one person’s righteousness will all who believe be justified."- Commentary on Romans, p.107, on Romans 5:18
“Those whom he spoke of above as all, he here refers to as more and many. For more people—not all—followed Adam’s trespass by transgressing, and many people—not all—will be made righteous through faith in Christ. Death did not reign, therefore, in those who did not sin after the manner of Adam’s transgression.” - Commentary on Romans, p.107, on Romans 5:19
Ambrosiaster says multiple times that it's only those who themselves "sinned after the manner of Adam's transgression" that will experience the second death. So while the ancestry being under sin can be traced back to Adam, his sin doesn't condemn anyone's soul. God doesn't hold anyone else guilty for that sin. In his comments on Romans 5:14, he says that death does not reign in everyone and draws a distinction between Adam's sin and everyone else's sin. They are different types and participation is not the same. In his comments on Romans 5:15, he clarifies how many die through Adam's sin by personally imitating him. It's not an unconditional and unilateral spiritual deadness upon all humans from conception. Rather, it's appropriated by personal sins. It's in this way that humans sin "in a lump" with Adam.
Citation #1:
“Indeed, one man’s sin, that of Adam, had the power to bring death to the world. If by the transgression of one man, death reigned over the world, why should not life more fittingly reign by the righteousness of one man [Jesus]? If they were cast out of paradise because of the tree and the eating thereof, shall not the believers now enter more easily into paradise because of the tree of Jesus [the Cross]? If that man first formed out of the earth ushered in universal death, shall not he that formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, since he himself is life?” - Catechetical Lectures, XIII.1
Response:
None of what Cyril says in this passage touches on a point of contention. The ancestral sin position affirms that Adam brought death into the world and reigned because of his sin. We affirm that death is an unavoidable reality for all humans. Let's look at what else Cyril said in his Catechetical Lectures regarding Adam and the transmission of sin.
"And learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin , but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will. Listen not, I pray you, to any one perversely interpreting the words, But if I do that which I would not Romans 7:16: but remember Him who says, If you be willing, and hearken unto Me, you shall eat the good things of the land: but if you be not willing, neither hearken unto Me, the sword shall devour you, etc. Isaiah 1:19-20: and again, As you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification." - Catechetical Lectures, IV.19
"And you must know your soul to be endowed with free-will, and to be God’s fairest work in the image of himself. It is immortal in as far as God grants it immortality. It is a rational living creature not subject to decay, because these qualities have been bestowed by God upon it. And it has the power to do what it chooses. For you do not sin because you were born that way, nor if you fornicate is it by chance. And do not take any notice of what some people say, that the conjunctions of the stars compel you to fall into unclean living. Why should you avoid acknowledging that you have done wrong by blaming it onto the stars that had nothing to do with it?" - Catechetical Lectures, IV.18
Citation #1:
“Now hear, Julian, what John says in agreement with the other Catholic doctors. Writing to Olympia, he says: 'When Adam sinned that great sin, and condemned all the human race in common, he paid the penalties in grief.' Again, on the raising of Lazarus, he says: 'Christ wept because mortality had transgressed to the point that, cast out from eternity, it loved the world of the dead. Christ wept because the Devil made mortal those who could have been immortal.' What could be said more clearly? What will you answer to this? If Adam by his great sin condemned all the human race in common, can an infant be born otherwise than condemned?” - Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, Book 1, Chapter 6
“For when Adam sinned that grievous sin which condemned, along with himself, the entire human race, he was condemned to distress. But there was one who committed a greater sin—a sin so much greater than Adam’s that his might not even be accounted as a sin; for the Scripture says, “Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression.” This one, who was deceived and fell into transgression, and who thus prepared a potion harmful to herself and to the man—she was condemned to a greater sorrow than being extended in strenuous toil; for as it says, “In your multiplying, I will multiply your sorrow and your groaning; you will bear children in sorrows.” Not at all does he say in “pain,” or “sweat,” or “toil,” but in “sorrow and groaning.” And this torture counterbalances a myriad of pains and deaths, and is much more grievous.” - Letters to Saint Olympia, Letter 10, 3.A
“It is the nature of death to be so exceedingly frightful. Every succeeding day it holds sway over our race, such that the appearance of someone dead suddenly terrifies each one of us, and throws us into confusion, and constricts us. Being watchful about the time [of our death] does not suffice to provide us consolation, even if we brace ourselves each day to behold it. And the sadness and stupor that it brings do not diminish with the passage of time, but are renewed and strengthened continually: and each day the fear comes again, undiluted, bursting forth afresh.” - Letters to Saint Olympia, Letter 10, 3.F
In the following paragraphs of letter 10 section 3, John repeatedly touches on physical mortal death. This seems to be what he was referring to back in the beginning of section 3. It would appear that Augustine is reading his own concepts of what's included in the "condemnation" of Genesis 3 into John's usage of the same word. When we further observe John's own thoughts, it becomes clear that he does not view a perpetually inherited guilt as one of the consequences of the fall in Genesis 3.
How then did death come in and prevail? “Through the sin of one.” But what means, “for that all have sinned?” This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal." - Homilies on Romans, Homily X, Para. 1
"For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner." - Homilies on Romans, Homily X, Para. 7
"We look in vain in Chrysostom’s writings for the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrines of absolute predestination, total depravity, hereditary guilt, irresistible grace, perseverance of saints, or for the Lutheran theory of forensic and solifidian justification. He teaches that God foreordained all men to holiness and salvation, and that Christ died for all and is both willing and able to save all, but not against their will and without their free consent. The vessels of mercy were prepared by God unto glory, the vessels of wrath were not intended by God, but fitted by their own sin, for destruction. The will of man, though injured by the Fall, has still the power to accept or to reject the offer of salvation." - Philip Schaff, The life and work of John Chrysostom, Chapter XIII
"Nor indeed is it possible for a soul, torn away from the body, to wander here any more. For “the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God;” and if of the righteous, then those children's souls also; for neither are they wicked: and the souls too of sinners are straightway led away hence." - Homilies on Matthew, Homily XXVIII.3
“It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation; whereas the apostle says: “Judgment from one offence to condemnation,” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 21
To conclude, Augustine hastily assumes the usage of language about Adam and condemnation aligns with his view. The entirety of John's statement does not convey the idea that a perpetually inherited guilt from conception is included in the "condemnation" of Genesis 3. Additionally, the entirety of John's corpus does not align with the distinct premise and conclusion of the original sin perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment