Hello and welcome. In this article, we examine human nature after the fall and seek to understand if merely having a fallen human nature merits guilt and, as a result, condemnation and wrath from God. This question is related to the doctrine of the fall and its potential consequences. Our primary article on ancestral sin, which outlines our view of the consequences of Adam's sin for humanity, can be read here. To answer this question, we will examine biblical texts and historical sources.
AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF ORIGINAL SIN
Thus far on our blog, when discussing the fall and its consequences, we've used the terminology of original sin to include and identify the view that Adam's guilt is either imputed or inherited by all subsequent humans at conception. The idea that after the fall, human nature itself merits or incurs guilt arrives at the same conclusion (that all humans are guilty of sin from conception), but has a slightly different understanding of the immediate cause of acquiring this guilt. In classical articulations of original sin (which you can read some of here and here), it was normally understood that the guilt of Adam's sin in the garden was either passively inherited through procreation or actively imputed by God at conception. In addition to this, all of the main perspectives would affirm that humans are born with a nature that is fallen. However, there are various schools of thought and disagreements on what constitutes the fallen nature.
In contemporary times, we've noticed especially in online discourse that some want to maintain that humans are guilty from conception, but remove the affirmation of Adam's guilt being inherited or imputed. The underlying reasons for this distinct idea vary. It is sometimes offered as a counterargument to how we define and argue against original sin. Instead, in this view, the fallen human nature, which is passed on through procreation, incurs guilt itself for whoever possesses it, irrespective of any personal sin being committed yet. Essentially, in this view, we receive a guilty human nature rather than the guilt of sin committed by Adam, along with a human nature. Hypothetically, it could also be articulated that both Adam's guilt is inherited, and we are also guilty on account of our fallen nature as well. We will not be focused on that combination of affirmations in this article. We have extensively analyzed the concept of Adam’s guilt being inherited elsewhere on our blog. Our whole focus here is on this question about human nature. This idea of the fallen human nature being guilty of sin and conferring guilt to whoever possesses it is usually extrapolated from one of the following concepts:
1. Mortality is part of human nature, and mortality conveys guilt. (We have a whole separate article working through mortality and its connection to guilt, which you can read here.) We won't be touching on that in this article.
2. Because of our nature, we are predisposed to and have an inclination to sin.
3. Human nature isn't perfect and righteous. Therefore, those who possess it merit guilt.
There are perhaps other concepts, but these are the main three we're aware of.
On the surface, this position seems significantly weaker than the traditional original sin view. Because the traditional view could agree with us that condemnation and wrath from God are grounded on actions and sins committed, but adds that the guilt of Adam’s sinful action is transmitted to all humans. And therefore condemnation and wrath truly are upon all humans from conception. But the guilty nature view (specifically if an inherited guilt is denied) would have to say that no, condemnation and wrath are not only grounded on actions and sins committed, there’s an additional category of a nature being possessed that brings this about, and while infants aren’t guilty of actions committed, they are guilty of possessing this nature.
FRAMING OUR CONCERNS AND POINTS OF CONTENTION
Before we dive into this question, let's outline our concerns, contentions, and what we'll be going over in this article.
1. A view that says Adam's guilt is not inherited or imputed, but humans are still guilty from conception because of our fallen nature, is in discontinuity with various councils and historical articulations of original sin. This point might not be relevant to everyone. But for those who either desire to be or claim to be in agreement with various councils and historical figures on this issue while holding to this alternative, it's noteworthy to bring up.
2. This alternative view misidentifies what the Bible says guilt and wrath are conditioned and predicated by. Natures are not moral agents or subjects. Moral guilt is not assigned to natures. It’s assigned to moral agents when they abuse and misuse their nature contrary to God’s commands. God does not condemn natures, God condemns moral agents.
3. Various patristic witnesses seem to favor and align with our view of what guilt and wrath are conditioned and predicated by.
Additionally, we would like to make some preliminary clarifying points.
1. We most certainly affirm that human nature has been affected by Adam's sin. Our nature is "fallen". It is perfectly acceptable to speak of human nature as damaged, suffering from corruptions, imperfect, etc. These things are not a point of contention. In light of this, the question is, do these things merit and bring guilt themselves by merely possessing a human nature with these conditions?
2. When we say guilt, we have a very precise definition. By guilty, we do not mean just negatively impacted by something in a general sense. By guilty, we mean meriting and possessing wrath and condemnation from God in the scriptural sense that we see for those who are guilty of sin.
3. If possessing the guilt of Adam's sin is removed from the equation (which would seem to obviously carry guilt and condemnation with it), and we are instead just looking at the state of fallen human nature, the questions we are really asking is: When God looks upon a newly conceived or born human who possesses this fallen nature, what does He see and think towards them? Is His wrath and anger kindled toward them? Have they offended or broken God's moral standards for his creation in some way? Does He see them as worthy subjects of condemnation and eternal death? Or, does He see them as imperfect, vulnerable, damaged, and in need of healing, yet not being counted thus far as kindling his anger, wrath, condemnation, etc.?
4. Our view would be like saying a caterpillar brings forth a butterfly, but itself is not a butterfly. And it would be incorrect to say that if you possess a caterpillar, then you simultaneously have a butterfly. Rather, you possess what will eventually and inevitably bring forth a butterfly. The caterpillar, then, is the root and source of what will eventually bring forth a butterfly. There are many other examples of this concept in nature. In the same way, a person in possession of a fallen human nature eventually and inevitably brings forth sin, which merits guilt. However, possession of the former does not equate in a 1:1 manner with possession of the latter.
It’s completely fine to speak of the body, the heart, the mind, etc., as the origin of sin or what brings forth sin. That’s not an issue or point of contention.
DISCONTINUITY WITH ORIGINAL SIN AS HISTORICALLY ARTICULATED
From the outset, this point serves two purposes. 1. To demonstrate that we are accurately assessing original sin as we have defined it (in light of historical authoritative sources) as including the inheritance/imputation of Adam's guilt along with other aspects of the fall. 2. To demonstrate for those who care about historical continuity within their own theological framework that this is how original sin has been predominantly understood in respectable and authoritative sources. Let's examine a small sample of sources from various theological traditions.
Augustine of Hippo, 354 AD - 530 AD
“But this sin, which changed man for the worse in paradise, because it is far greater than we can form any judgment of, is contracted by every one at his birth, and is remitted only in the regenerate; and this derangement is such as to be derived even from parents who have been regenerated, and in whom the sin is remitted and covered, to the condemnation of the children born of them, unless these, who were bound by their first and carnal birth, are absolved by their second and spiritual birth.” - Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II, Chapter 58
“We on our side, indeed, can understand the apostle, and see that judgment is predicated of one offence unto condemnation entirely on the ground that, even if there were in men nothing but original sin, it would be sufficient for their condemnation. For however much heavier will be their condemnation who have added their own sins to the original offence (and it will be the more severe in individual cases, in proportion to the sins of individuals); still, even that sin alone which was originally derived unto men not only excludes from the kingdom of God,” - Augustine, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, Book 1, Chapter 15
“Again, if only one soul was made from which are derived the souls of all men who are born, who can say that he himself did not sin when the first man sinned?” - Augustine of Hippo, The Problem of Free Choice, p. 196
On our blog, we have already examined Augustine's theology of the fall at length. For the sake of brevity, let's just look at these three quotes. When speaking of Adam's sin in paradise, Augustine says that this sin is contracted by every human at birth and only remitted through spiritual rebirth and regeneration. Augustine also clarifies that possessing original sin alone is sufficient to actually condemn humans. This clearly conveys a sentence of guilt. He then says that this original sin is the possession or inheritance of "the original offence," and those who add sins on top of having this will have a heavier condemnation. In this statement, we see that Adam's offence is inherited and possessed by all humans, and that it carries guilt and condemnation with it. The last quote touches on Augustine's traducian anthropology, which was his belief that all human souls were derived from Adam's soul, and thereby all humans actually participated with Adam when he sinned. If Augustine believed all humans sinned with Adam when he sinned, and of course this sin incurs guilt and condemnation, then clearly all humans are guilty of Adam's sin.
Second Council of Orange, 529 AD
"If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12)." - Canon 2
The Second Council of Orange was attended by around fifteen bishops and affirmed various aspects of Augustine's theology from the prior century. In Canon 2, in the context of Adam's sin, it's said that there is a sin that is passed from Adam to the whole human race, and this causes spiritual death of the soul.
The Council of Trent, 1545 AD - 1563 AD
"If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, –is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema:" - Council of Trent, Session V, Number III
"If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema." - Council of Trent, Session V, Number V
The Council of Trent was the 19th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church. In the fifth session, we see the authoritative teaching on original sin for Roman Catholics. We're told that the one original sin of Adam is transfused to to all humans by procreation. It's then clarified further that this incurs guilt for all who possess this sin, which guilt is remitted by baptism.
“Therefore we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a guilt or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.” - Epitome, Original Sin, Negative Theses 1
The Formula of Concord is an authoritative statement of faith for Lutherans. We get a clear understanding of the negative theses that the denial is not that original sin is the guilt of Adam's sin and transmitted to the rest of humanity. That concept is affirmed. The denial is that this is the only aspect of original sin without any included corruption of human nature. The Formula of Concord affirms both the inherited guilt of sin committed by Adam as well as the corruption of human nature.
“By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.” - Chapter VI, Paragraph 2-3
“Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.” - Chapter VI, Paragraph 6
The Westminster Confession is one of the foremost Reformed confessions. In Chapter VI, we're told that the guilt of Adam's sin, which initiated the fall, was imputed to all mankind and makes those who possess it guilty, bound over to God's wrath, spiritual death, and eternal death.
The Baltimore Catechism, 1885 AD
“Through the disobedience of our first parents we all inherit their sin and punishment, as we should have shared in their happiness if they had remained faithful.” - Volume 1, 45A
“The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called Original Sin.” - Volume 1, 47A
“The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of Original Sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.” - Volume 1, 50A
The Baltimore Catechism was the national Roman Catholic catechism for North Americans in the late 19th century. This catechism is in line with the Council of Trent from 300 years prior, when it says that all humans inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, which is called "original sin". It's further clarified that this inheritance of sin from Adam incurs guilt for those who possess it.
Pope Pius X, 1835 AD - 1914 AD
“This sin is not Adam’s alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam’s sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin.” -Catechism, p. 18
Pius X was the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church during the very beginning of the 20th century. In his catechism, he says that Adam's sin is our sin, despite not being a sin we committed with our own wills. This sin is said to be transmitted to all humans through procreation.
Ludwig Ott, 1906 AD - 1985 AD
“The dogmatic teaching of original sin is laid down in the Tridentine Decree…The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam lost the sanctity and justice received from God merely for himself alone, and not for us also, and that he had transmitted to his posterity death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by all his posterity by descent, not by imitation, and that it dwells in every single human being.” - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 106
“According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Adam’s sin is transferred by inheritance to all the children of Adam, and dwells as his own property sin in every single one of them:” - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 108
Ludwig Ott was a Roman Catholic theologian from Germany. In his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, he comments on the Catholic teachings at the Council of Trent. Ott says that the Catholic teaching rejects the notion that Adam's guilt of sin is not transmitted to humanity. The Council, according to Ott, dogmatically taught that Adam's sin and guilt are transferred to all of Adam's descendants and are truly sin in every single person.
We've now briefly reviewed historic Augustinian sources, Roman Catholic sources, Reformed sources, and Lutheran sources. They each clearly affirm that part of the original sin doctrine is the imputation or inheritance of Adam's guilt by every human at conception, making each person under God's wrath and spiritually condemned. This historic fact is sometimes either unknown or misunderstood by some who wish to affirm a view that Adam's guilt is not inherited, but humans are still guilty from conception due to possessing a fallen nature. Such a view is out of step with the original sin tradition. The relevance of this fact depends on which theological and historical commitments someone has and what they are choosing to prioritize.
WHAT DOES THE LAW REVEAL?
We believe certain details about the law serve as an undercutting defeater for the concept that fallen human nature is guilty of sin by virtue of a human possessing it. We will make a few points to build out this idea.
1. The law reveals what sin is.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Lev 5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
3. The law contains moral, ceremonial, and civil commands that require either the use or restraint of the human will to abide by them.
Mat 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Rom 13:8-10 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
HOW IS GUILT OF SIN ATTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE?
Our view is that sin, and the resulting guilt/wrath/condemnation as a result, are grounded in the disordered use of the will by surrendering your will to disordered desires and temptation, which have their origin in our body and nature. A possessed nature doesn't sin and isn’t guilty of sin itself. People sin and are guilty of sin through the improper and disordered use of their nature and will contrary to and short of God’s standard and commands. We see this idea fleshed out through multiple themes in the scriptures.
Deu 9:7-8 Remember, and forget not, how thou provokedst the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD. Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.
2Ch 36:16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.
Psa 78:30-32 They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths, The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel. For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.
Psa 106:37-40 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.
Jer 7:18-20 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces? Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.Ezk 22:29-31 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD.
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 2:5-6 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Eph 5:5-6 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:5-6 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
Rev 14:9-10 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Overall, throughout the Bible, we see that God's wrath consistently seems to be connected to specific sins that have been committed. In certain passages, we are given lists of things that bring wrath from God. In those passages, the focus is on deeds and disobedience. The notion of God's wrath being kindled against a nature possessed by humans seems categorically absent from the biblical testimony.
Mat 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.Jhn 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Like God's wrath, we see overlap with what brings judgment and condemnation as well. Judgment and condemnation are grounded on works of unrighteousness that have been committed. The concept of fallen human nature itself possessing guilt, wrath, etc., irrespective of personal sins committed, seems absent from the overall consciousness and awareness of the scriptures. Moral guilt is not assigned to natures. Rather, it’s assigned to moral agents when they abuse and misuse their nature contrary to God’s commands. God does not condemn natures, God condemns moral agents.
DOES AN IMPERFECT AND IMPROVABLE NATURE MERIT GUILT?
Earlier, we mentioned the idea of the fallen human nature being guilty of sin and conferring guilt to whoever possesses it could be potentially extrapolated from the concept that human nature isn't perfect and righteous, and therefore merits guilt for those who possess it. In this section, we will investigate this concept further. All perspectives acknowledge that human nature in its current state is not perfect. Furthermore, it can and will be improved in the future. But does this mean that God views those who possess that which is imperfect and improvable as guilty?
A cursory observation of the state of humans before the fall, as well as Jesus during his earthly life, indicates that this isn't the case.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
First, we see after the sixth day of creation that everything was "very good". This includes Adam and Eve.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:22-23 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
After Adam and Eve disobey, we are told that eating from the tree of life brings immortality. God prevents this from happening to keep humans from being sealed into a state of sinful immortality. The relevance of this event to our question at hand is that it seems that before Adam and Eve ate from either of the two trees, there was a capacity or opportunity for their nature and attributes to be either improved or harmed through their actions. However, all Christians would grant that God did not see Adam and Eve as guilty of some wrong by virtue of existing in a state that could be improved upon. That fact only came about through disobedient actions performed by Adam and Eve.
A similar truth surfaces when we briefly meditate on Jesus' earthly life. Through his glorification and resurrection, Jesus' human nature was renewed and improved from its prior state. All Christians believe that in the future, believers will participate in this same renewal of our human nature and be conformed to the glorified nature of Jesus Christ. In light of this, was Jesus therefore guilty of some wrong because he possessed a human nature that was capable of being improved in the future? All Christians would rightly detest such a concept and adamantly affirm that Jesus was not personally guilty of any wrong.
In light of these points, then, it seems clear that possessing something that can be improved upon and is imperfect does not itself merit guilt.
JESUS' TEACHING: GUILT IS CONNECTED TO KNOWLEDGE AND DISORDERED WILLING
In the gospel of John, there are two interactions that Jesus has where he reinforces the points we've made so far. Specifically, that guilt of sin is not attributed to possessing a fallen human nature, and instead, guilt is attributed to the improper and disordered use of human nature and will contrary to and short of God’s standard and commands. We will begin with a verse from James to frame the issue.
Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
In James' epistle, we see that knowledge of right and wrong, combined with the disordered use of the will, result in sin. This lays the groundwork for these two passages in John.
Jhn 9:39-41 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
These verses follow after the context of Jesus healing the man who was born blind. But now, in discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus turns to speaking about spiritual ignorance or lack of knowledge as "blindness". Jesus connects "your sin remaineth" to the knowledge and response of the Pharisees. Without knowledge, the sin doesn't remain. Therefore, guilt of sin being accounted seems conditioned on knowledge and disordered use of the will. In the case of the Pharisees, having knowledge of Jesus' claims, actions, and miracles but having no faith and claiming he was not of God. The Pharisees claimed to "see" or have knowledge but they were not responding with their wills in congruence with God's desires, standards, and commands. Therefore, they were culpable of sin and guilt.
Jhn 15:20-24 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
Later in John, we see this theme appear again when Jesus speaks privately with his disciples about persecution from the world. Here we're told that having sin in this context is conditioned by both seeing and hating Jesus. We are told that without this "seeing" there would be no sin. As in John 9, seeing here refers to knowledge through being spoken to by Jesus and observing his works. Of course, hating Jesus and the Father is an improper and disordered usage of the will.
With these two passages, we see that sin and guilt before God is tied to moral awareness/knowledge combined with usage of the will against what is good/toward what is evil.
REVIEWING ALTERNATIVE VERSES
We've now gone through a multitude of biblical verses that we believe undermine the idea that fallen human nature itself merits guilt. The alternative to our perspective, which would be the affirmative of this idea, has a handful of verses that might be used in defense of it. The most prominent verse for this concept of fallen human nature itself meriting guilt is almost certainly Ephesians 2:1-3. We have a separate article working through those verses which you can read here.
To briefly summarize our view of Ephesians 2:1-3 -
Eph 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
We see Ephesians 2 as a passage about the habitual practice of humans transgressing themselves and the state of Christians before they were saved by grace through faith. In verse 3, "children" does not inherently denote infancy. Paul is saying being under wrath is the natural state of affairs humans end up in due to being dead in their own sins. This is the state of affairs Christians were in before their conversion and being saved by grace. In Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, two passages where Paul speaks similarly, "children of disobedience" doesn't mean infants in the womb were committing the sins Paul listed. Rather, it contextually makes sense to see it as referring to those who have a desire or affection for disobedience related to the sins Paul mentions.
We are singling out Ephesians 2:1-3 because it's the primary verse that has the words nature and wrath in close proximity. For any other verses that could potentially be extrapolated to teach that fallen human nature itself merits guilt, they are addressed in this article here covering a multitude of biblical texts for original sin.
PATRISTIC COMMENTS ON NATURE AND THE CONDITIONS FOR GUILT AND WRATH
Earlier in this article, we mentioned that various patristic witnesses seem to favor and align with our view of what guilt and wrath are conditioned and predicated by. While by no means the focus of our view or a central argument, we will provide a sample of sources spanning the first 500 years of Christian history to demonstrate historical grounding and support for our perspective. The quotes that follow can largely be grouped into the following concepts.
1. Possessing guilt/blame/condemnation and other spiritual/legal detriments are not merited by our nature itself.
2. The mere capacity or inclination to sin with our natures does not bring guilt.
3. Our nature is explicitly said to not be evil or sinful in and of itself.
4. Regarding guilt/blame/condemnation, it is merited and brought about from the improper disordered use of the will and choices contrary to what is good.
"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life...The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us." - Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 5, Longer Version
"But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both [virtue and vice]." - Second Apology, Chapter VII
"And each of these two orders of creatures was made free to act as it pleased, not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone, but is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault, but the just man be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God. Such is the constitution of things in reference to angels and men." - Address to the Greeks, Chapter VII
"But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets." - Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXVII
“And neither praises nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right, when the soul has not the power of inclination and disinclination, but evil is involuntary. Whence he who prevents is a cause; while he who prevents not judges justly the soul’s choice. So in no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins, and a mistaken judgment sometimes prevails, from which, since it is ignorance and stupidity, we do not take pains to recede, punishments are rightly inflicted.” - The Stromata, Book I, Chapter XVII
“For it is not the nature in us which is the cause of the evil, but it is the voluntary choice which worketh evil; and so our nature is not the cause of righteousness, as if it were incapable of admitting unrighteousness, but it is the principle which we have admitted that makes men righteous; for also you never see the kinds of things in the water changing from the bad kinds of fishes into the good, or from the better kind to the worse; but you can always behold the righteous or evil among men either coming from wickedness to virtue, or returning from progress towards virtue to the flood of wickedness.” - Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Parable XI
“Well, then, the connection of these names with substance is owing to its accidents. For murder is not a substance, nor is any other evil; but the substance receives a cognate name from putting it into practice. For a man is not (spoken of as) murder, but by committing it he receives the derived name of murderer, without being himself murder; and, to speak concisely, no other evil is a substance; but by practising any evil, it can be called evil. Similarly consider, if you imagine anything else to be the cause of evil to men, that it too is evil by reason of its acting by them, and suggesting the committal of evil. For a man is evil in consequence of his actions.” - Concerning Free Will, ANF06.607
"Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with a free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God." - Concerning Free Will, ANF06.610
“For if good be opposed to evil, and unrighteousness be evil, and this be opposed to righteousness and righteousness be good, and good be hostile to evil, and evil be unlike to good, then righteousness is different from unrighteousness. And therefore God is not the cause of evils, nor does He rejoice in evils. Nor does reason commend them, being good. If, then, any are evil, they are evil in accordance with the wants and desires of their minds, and not by necessity. “They perish self-destroyed, By their own fault.” - Discourse VIII, Chapter XVI
"We should be free from vices and sin. For no one is born sinful, but if our affections are given to that direction they can become vices and sinful, but if we use our affections well they become virtues." - Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter XVI
"Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become on or the other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from them." - Homily VIII, Chapter XVI
"The Creator of all things has impressed a natural law upon the soul of every man, as an assistant and ally in his conduct, pointing out to him the right way by this law; but, by the free liberty with which he is endowed, making the choice of what is best worthy of praise and acceptance, because he has acted rightly, not by force, but from his own free-will, when he had it in his power to act otherwise, As, again, making him who chooses what is worst, deserving of blame and punishment, as having by his own motion neglected the natural law, and becoming the origin and fountain of wickedness, and misusing himself, not from any extraneous necessity, but from free will and judgment. The fault is in him who chooses, not in God. For God has not made nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is good can make nothing but what is good. Everything is good which is according to nature. Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work of choice, and not of nature." - The Christian Examiner, Volume One, 1824 Edition, p. 66
"Undoubtedly the will passes for nature—for it is from their will, not their nature, that people are judged. Similarly all the martyrs and the justified are upright not because they were born faithful but because they were reborn so.” - Questions on the Old and New Testaments 115.11
“A fearful thing is sin, and the sorest disease of the soul is transgression, secretly cutting its sinews, and becoming also the cause of eternal fire; an evil of a man’s own choosing, an offspring of the will. For that we sin of our own free will the Prophet says plainly in a certain place: Yet I planted thee a fruitful vine, wholly true: how art thou turned to bitterness, (and become) the strange vine? The planting was good, the fruit coming from the will is evil; and therefore the planter is blameless, but the vine shall be burnt with fire since it was planted for good, and bore fruit unto evil of its own will.” - Catechetical Lectures, II.1
"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
“There is not a class of souls sinning by nature, and a class of souls practising righteousness by nature: but both act from choice, the substance of their souls being of one kind only, and alike in all.” - Catechetical Lectures, IV.20
“The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou acceptest it; if thou wilt not, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity, then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou were a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness: since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” - Catechetical Lectures, IV.21
“If evil is born, it is by nature evil. But no one sins as long as he performs and works that which is by nature. Therefore evil does not sin. But that which does not sin is not in fault. Satan is indeed in fault and is guilty; therefore it is not in-born.” - Patrologia Graeca, Volume 39, p. 1090“Finally, Paul says of himself, and of those who have become holy by the same reasoning, We were by the nature of the children of wrath, like other men, who have hitherto been in sin. Now that which is joined, nature, does not mean that which is from nature, but that which is true. For this he says, We were by the nature of the children of wrath; to declare that those who sin are truly subject to wrath. But just as by nature the son is made angry, for that reason that he is engaged in sin; thus by change, the son of truth and virtue escapes.” - Patrologia Graeca, Volume 39, p. 1090
“The principles of their heresy are, in summary, the following. Men sin, they say, by nature and not by intention; and 'by nature' they do not mean that nature which was in Adam when first created (because this, they say, was good because made by a good God), but that nature which was his later after the fall because of his ill conduct and sin. He received a sinful nature in exchange for the good and a mortal nature in exchange for an immortal; it is in this manner and by nature that men became sinners after having been good by nature. It is in their nature and not by a voluntary choice that they acquired sin. The second point is connected to the preceding propositions. They say that infants, even newly born, are not free from sin because, since the disobedience of Adam, nature is fixed into sin and that this sinful nature, as was said, extends to all his descendants. They quote, he says, the verse, "I was born in sin" and others similar: the holy baptism itself; the communion with the incorruptible body for the remission of sins and the fact that these apply to infants as a confirmation of their own opinion. They claim also that no man is just, and this is thus obviously a corollary of their initial position, "because nothing of flesh can be justified before you," he says, and he cites other texts of the same kind.” - Photius’ Bibliotheca, 177, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Against the defenders of Original sin, para. 3-4“the end of the first volume...which he [Theodore] composed against those who say that sin is present by nature.” - Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part, 162-73, memra 39
.jpg)
“The sin of those who engendered us, that is, the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally mixed with our substance as the evil and impious opinions of the Messalians, in other words the Manicheans, claims, but because they had lost the grace of immortality, the judgement and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition, we are born mortal insofar as we are born of mortal parents, but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature and that it naturally passes from parents to their children.” - Vatican Library, Syriac, 140, Contra Additiones, 79 d-e
No comments:
Post a Comment