There is no doctrine in the Christian church more controversial than the doctrine of original sin which has intrigued the scholars of the church for centuries.

Authors Avatar

There is no doctrine in the Christian church more controversial than the doctrine of original sin which has intrigued the scholars of the church for centuries. While we take a look into the writings of the apostolic fathers, we find most of them dealing with the consequence of the fall of Adam. The apologists wrote more elaborately than the apostolic fathers did about the first sin of Adam, correlating it with church sacraments. However, it was not until the period of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) that the concept of original sin came to be considered as a doctrine. As a result, many contend that Augustine is the innovator of the doctrine of original sin unknown to his predecessors, and reject his thoughts. Conversely, some scholars of the church agree with Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, regarding it as a purely biblical teaching. In the exposition of his doctrine, quoting a biblical semblance, the bishop of Hippo made humans responsible for the sin committed by Adam in whom they sinned. He developed a pessimistic view that as a consequence of original sin, the will and reason of human beings were darkened so that humans can no longer do good. Moreover, going to the extreme, he argued that sin is transmitted through the human seed, and is contracted at birth. Hence, according to Augustine, the lot of unbaptized infants is to be condemned eternally in hell. It is the contention of this paper to show that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is defective because, relying on a mistranslated biblical verse it makes Adam’s descendants responsible for a sin which they did not commit, and it fails to consider the full restoration of the fallen human nature.

        Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is based on Rom. 5: 12 which in modern translations reads: “as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” (NRSV). What Augustine read was the Latin translation that mistranslated the Greek phrase eph ho (because) as in quo (in whom.) Thus Augustine took the phrase “in whom all have sinned” to mean that all have sinned in Adam. But as Oakes suggests, had this been Paul’s message, he would have chosen the word en ho rather than eph ho. Sticking to the mistranslation, Augustine concluded that sin spread, for we have sinned in Adam. He infers that “in and by the one sin all have sinned, since all were that one man.”  Here it is obvious that Augustine regards Adam as a corporate personality in whom the nature of all humanity was contained. Thus when Adam sinned, we sinned together with him so that we are responsible for his guilt. In another words, by virtue of “organic unity” all humans existed as one moral person in Adam, and therefore they inherit the guilt, which they committed with Adam – a doctrine of inherited guilt.

        Nowhere in the Bible is found a verse that approves Augustine’s interpretation of Paul’s text, implying that we are tainted with Adam’s sin. If we follow the right translation of Rom. 5:12, the second part of the verse: “death spread to all because all have sinned” clearly takes death as the consequence of personal sin, not of Adam’s primordial sin. There is no indication in the verse that Adam’s sin is imputed to his descendants.  Also as noted in the lecture note of Dr. Carefoote, the Greek word used in the verse, “amartauo” refers to personal sin, not a corporate or inherited sin. Therefore the verse reflects the universality of sin which allowed death to reign over all humanity. Approving Augustine’s position, Simone contends that why St. Paul did not mention the transmission of sin from Adam to his descendants is because of his interest to lay emphasis on the work of Christ, having made an analethical parallel between it and the work of Adam. Based on such a reason, however, it is impossible to conclude that there is an implication of the transmission of sin in Rom. 5: 12-17. Of course St. Paul clearly indicates the impact of Adam’s sin on his descendants, as noted in v. 15: “many died through the one man’s trespass.” But this is not in harmony with Augustine’s view, which states that we all sinned in Adam. Also Paul makes a clear distinction between Adam’s and his descendants’ sins: “death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam” Rom. 5:14. Therefore Adam’s sin cannot be counted as his descendants’.

        In his dispute with Julian of Eclanum, Augustine tried to show that his doctrine of original sin is in tune with the writings of his predecessors. He quoted from Iraneaus: “ Men cannot be saved in any other way from the ancient wound of the serpent except by believing in him who according to the likeness of sinful flesh was lifted up from the earth on the tree of testimony and drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead.” Considering as a source confidential, he also forwards an excerpted piece from Ambrose, which states that infants contract the contagion of the ancient death by their first birth. While Julian of Eclanum mentioned from John Chrysostom, opposing to Augustine’s view that we inherit the Adamic sin, Augustine replied by correcting the mistake of the translators. The quotation reads: “we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled with sin, in order that there may be given to them holiness, justice, adoption, inheritance, and the brotherhood of Christ that they may be his members.” Augustine contends that the translators have failed to use the plural form “sins,” and by “infants do not have sins” Chrysostom meant that they do not have personal sins committed by themselves. However, Augustine is not successful here, for John Chrysostom does not agree with the idea that we are responsible for the sin committed by Adam, and the Adamic sin is contracted to the innocent infants. In contrast to Augustine’s view, Chrysostom states:  “one man cannot transmit his personal fault to another. One cannot be punished as a sinner if one has not had a part in the sin.” 

        Even though most of the pre-Augustinian fathers wrote about the consequence of Adam’s sin, their understanding differs from Augustine’s. As one can conclude by taking a look at their writings, most of the apostolic fathers wrote about the Fall, focusing on the serpent’s seduction. They did not blame Adam nor pointed out elaborately how much his sin affected us. Among the apologists, Origen the erudite asserts that Adam’s sin has passed on to his descendants. But as quoted by Rondent, he does not dare to conclude like Augustine that we were in Adam when he sinned:

        Whether all the sons of Adam were in his loins and were expelled with

        him from paradise, or whether each one of us was banished personally

        and received his condemnation in some way that we cannot tell and only

        God knows.

Therefore, a common idea is found between Augustine and his predecessors that Adam’s

sin has affected the whole humanity. But all do not agree with his view that we are deemed responsible for the guilt of Adam which is supposed to be contracted at birth, and every human defect is the consequence of Adam’s sin. Chrysostom clearly notes that, we do not die because of Adam’s sin but because of ours so that there is no direct relationship between Adam’s sin and our transgressions. Justin too indicates the consequence of Adam’s sin, laying emphasis on our own sins: “The human race from the time of Adam had been subject to death and deceit of the serpent, each of us having committed sins of our own.”

        The similarities found between Tertullian’s and Augustine’s views of the Adamic sin imply that the latter was influenced by the former. Tertullian believes that all the sons of Adam come to this world under the power of the devil, being stained by the sin of Adam. Also for Tertullian, even infants born from Christian parents are not stainless, since “every soul is considered as pertaining to Adam until it belongs to Christ, it is sinful, unclean.” Therefore in line with Augustine, Tertullian maintains that we have sinned in Adam, as we are linked with him, and all souls were first of all contained in him. While Augustine termed Adam’s sin peccatum originale, Tertullian called it vitium originis (original defect.) All this accumulated leads us to a conclusion that Augustine must have had access to the writings of Tertullian. The fact that Tertullian was an African by origin strengthens the assumption that Augustine, also African, had an easy access to the writings of Tertullian. As Augustine quoted from the writings of his predecessors, it is obvious that he also had referred to the writings of some of the apologists and the fathers of the golden period. But he fully adhered to the views of Tertullian, which he considered more reasonable. Moreover, it can be deduced that it was Tertullian, not Augustine, the one who firstly aroused the idea of the transmission of the Adamic sin, though Augustine developed it as a doctrine, coining the term “original sin,” and adding his own views.

        Even if Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is not admissible, the impact of Adam’s sin on his descendants cannot be denied as Pelagius did. Hence there is a need to amend something in Augustine’s view. This seems the balance that should be maintained between the thoughts of Augustine and Pelagius, for Pelagius’ position sounds problematic as Augustine’s does. According to Pelagius, sin has been spread by imitation of Adam’s sin. His view is unlikely, since Adam is too remote an ancestor to be imitated, and also all the sins committed by his descendants cannot be regarded as sins of imitation. For example, it cannot be said that Cain, Adam’s son, sinned by imitation when he killed his brother Abel because he is the first murderer. Moreover, since Pelagius’ view of imitation makes humans free from the fallen nature that grips them as a result of Adam’s sin, it appears to be close to Celestius’ idea which purports that Adam’s sin did not affect his descendants. Then why did Christ come to the world if humans were not in a depraved condition as a result of Adam’s sin? Thus Pelagius’ view of Adam’s sin is not flawless, as it does not see the direct relationship between the Fall and Christ’s coming to the world for the restoration of human nature. Comparing Augustine’s exaggerated view of original sin with Pelagius’ sheer denial of it, one can find the right attitude in between as discussed below based on the nuance of Augustine’s theological rationale.

        Augustine believes that in their very nature all humans are guilty of Adam’s sin.

As they existed in Adam, they all taken together are regarded as one body of one man so that when Adam sinned they all sinned together. Consequently, everyone is born as a sinner because of the sin that he or she has committed in Adam by the unity of the human race. He clearly describes his position as follows:

Join now!

        All sinned in Adam, when in his nature, by virtue of that innate power

whereby he was able to produce them, they were all as yet the one Adam,

but they are called another’s because as yet they were not living their own

lives, but the life of the one man contained whatsoever was in his future

posterity.

Yarnold infers that before developing such a position, Augustine had taken a much gentler view of original sin, which stresses man’s power to overcome the effects of Adam’s sin. But later, unfortunately, he strengthened the impact of Adam’s sin ...

This is a preview of the whole essay