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 on his descendants and concluded that we are totally crippled by it. In my opinion, Augustine reached to such a conclusion, emphasizing the inheritance of Adam’s guilt and the corruption that befell his descendants because his doctrine was developed in the context of hot polemical confrontation with Pelagius and his followers. In order to attack the Pelagian position which emphasizes our ability to lead a righteous life, Augustine underlined that we cannot do good, as we are naturally tainted with sin, and he went to the extreme, affirming that even we are guilty of Adam’s sin which we participated in.
The assumption that we are responsible for Adam’s sin, which we inherit at birth, is severe. Maintaining a moral union between Adam, the head of human family, and his posterity, Augustine makes them participants of his guilt. But can we be accountable to such a personal guilt committed prior to our existence? Is it agreeable to our mind to reason out that the guilt of Adam who lived 5500 or more years ago makes us sinners? By definition, guilt is an offence personally committed and accounted on the one who committed it. Hence if Adam’s transgression is considered as guilt, it should remain to be his own responsibility. Augustine’s view may imply an idea of guilt by association, and an unjust condemnation of the whole mass. His stand makes us responsible not only for Adam’s sin but also for its consequences. Furthermore, for one’s mind it may occur that it is cruel of God to condemn the whole humanity for the sin of Adam. In like manner, as Pelagius argued, the view of inherited guilt judges God, the author of nature, at fault. Suffice it to say with St. John Chrysostom that “ we should not be blamed for Adam’s sin.…when bad things happen to us, they are not punishment for Adam’s sin but for our own.”
Augustine’s theory of inherited guilt is contradictory to Holy Scripture. We read in Deut. 24: 16 that “ the fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers, a person shall be put to death for his own sin. Likewise, the words of God came to Ezekiel as “the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” Ezek. 18: 20. The merciful God who remits our sins does not impute somebody’s guilt to another.
There is something obscure in the Augustinian inherited guilt theory. According to the theory, we are considered responsible for Adam’s first sin only. But it is clear that Adam committed some other sins after he had been banished from paradise. So then, why we are not responsible also for Adam’s successive sins, since as in the case of Augustine’s view, we were in his seed too when he committed these sins? Also if we take the other side of Augustine’s view, we will face the same problem. Our Lord Jesus Christ is taken to be the second Adam, as St. Paul makes an antithetical parallel between the first Adam and Christ, writing “as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” Rom. 5:19. Therefore as Augustine directly correlated the first Adam’s disobedience with the whole humanity, he should also do the same with the second. That means as he said that we inherit the first Adam’s sin, there is a need to consider the inheritance of the second Adam’s righteousness. This again will result in a conclusion that all humans are made righteous, for Christ assumed a human flesh and soul like them. Obviously, however, to benefit from the righteousness of Christ humans need to believe and abide in him. There is no mere righteousness by inheritance.
We bear the consequence of Adam’s sin, but we do not inherit his actual sin (guilt). Commenting on Rom. 5: 19: “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners,” Chrysostom writes: “how should this word be understood? 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.” For Chrysostom, the verse indicates a consequence of Adam’s sin that made humans mortal. As no verse in the Bible presents Adam as biologically tainting us with his guilt, the semblance quoted by Augustine (Job. 14:4, Ps. 51:5, Rom. 7:24, Eph 2:23) should be understood in the way Chrysostom interpreted Rom. 5:19. All these verses, including Augustine’s favorite verse, Rom. 5:12, reflect the fallen nature of humanity which became universal. In a general sense, they express man’s sinful predicament. So what we inherit from Adam is not his personal guilt but a fallen nature subject to death. Since Adam’s sin effaced our nature, we face its consequence (sufferings, hardship, and death….), but we are not guilty of his actual sin. To clarify my point, here I would like to use an example mentioned by an anonymous writer on the web footnoted. Suppose you are a relative of a certain notorious criminal and a mass murderer who has been put in prison. Whenever people see you, they distance themselves away from you or point at you saying “watch out....he/she comes from a family of mass murderer.” Then, you as his brother, sister or cousin bear the consequence of his action. You feel ashamed of it, and your name is labeled (tainted). But you are not responsible for his crime. No one says that you are guilty of his sin.
To emphasize once more the balanced and sober view that our present condition is the natural consequence of Adam’s disobedience, let me bring the testimony of two Orthodox fathers. Commenting on Rom.5:12 which Augustine’s doctrine of inherited guilt is based on, Chrysostom states:
What does it mean ‘death spread to all men, for all have sinned?’
This: he having once fallen, yet they that had not eaten of the
tree inherited mortality, and by the virtue of his disobedience
all have been marred. Even before the law all die, ‘for death
reigned,’ St. Paul says, ‘from Adam to Moses, even over
those who had not sinned.”
Therefore, it should not be said that we sinned in Adam as if we were around, and ate the fruit with him. As Paul said, the consequence of Adam’s disobedience fell on those “who had not sinned” Rom. 5:14, not on those who sinned with Adam. Harmonious to such deduction, as quoted by Golubov, St. Cyril of Alexndria clearly contends:
Since Adam produced children after falling into the state, we, his
descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It
is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are
punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with
him, for we were not there but that he became mortal and the curse
of mortality was transmitted to offspring born of a mortal source.
So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s
transgression.
As St. Cyril indicated, having the same nature as that of Adam, his posterity derived a corrupt nature from him, but they had not transgressed with him.
Based on the aforementioned position of the Orthodox fathers, regarding the means by which Adam’s descendants inherit the corrupted nature, it can be safely said that they automatically inherit his corruption and mortality, as they belong to his nature. Without inheriting the guilt of Adam’s personal sin, human beings take on a corrupted or damaged human nature in which there is an inclination to sin. There is no specific guilt, which passes through the male’s semen, but there is inherited tendency to sin, which bequeaths us naturally. In another words, the sin of the first Adam should be considered as a condition on the whole humanity not as an object or a stain upon one’s soul transmitted through the seed.
The inherited guilt doctrine of St. Augustine clearly reflects his pessimistic view on human nature. Augustine lays emphasis on the punitive aspect of the Adamic sin that darkened human reason, and views the human nature as irretrievably depraved. In his nuance of the Pauline soteriology, his main focus was more on the wretchedness of humanity than the rehabilitation brought by Christ. He underlined the Apostle’s phrase “in Adam all die,” paying less attention to the second part “so also in Christ shall all be made alive” I Cor. 15: 22. Let it be observed that St. Irenaeus who thought alike Augustine that “we all share Adam’s sin” is more optimistic than Augustine in viewing the restoration of humanity as indicated in his Adversus Haeresus:
When the Word became incarnate and was made man, in his own
person he recapitulated in summary the whole length of human
history and made salvation available to us, so that what we lost
in Adam…our existence in the image and likeness of God we might
recover in Jesus Christ. Just as by the disobedience of one man,
sin made its entrance and through sin death had been triumphant,
so too by the obedience of one man righteousness has entered and
fructified in the life of men who once were dead.
Also it can be said that Augustine’s exaggeration of the sinfulness and depravity of human nature led him to overstatement on the question of free will in a discouraging manner. Though Augustine, in his dispute with Julian, defends himself against Julian’s accusation that his doctrine of original sin vitiates human free choice, there is a room for the accusation of Julian. Of course as a follower of Pelagius, Julian does not consider the consequence of Adam’s sin, and agrees with Pelagius that we can freely lead a life of righteousness by our own efforts. Augustine is right to say that we should not entirely rely on ourselves but on the Lord. As he over emphasizes the punitive aspect of the original sin, however, he sees human beings as hopelessly depraved. Thus according to him we have a weakened will that makes us free only to sin. As a result, sin remains to be inevitable in us. It can be presumed that Augustine’s doctrine of original sin has become the key for his understanding of human character. He maintains that original sin has darkened our reason so that our thinking is of no avail. The human soul is weakened and no one has control over his body. Briefly, according to Augustine, we are in a deformed condition with an indelible mark, caused by Adam’s sin. So if we come to this world in this condition as sinners under the power of evil, where is the freewill that helps us decide by ourselves? It may occur for one that Augustine’s pessimistic ideas taken to their extreme could be discouraging, and for the one indulged in sins “I cannot help it” may be a pretty good excuse.
Dealing with the impact of original sin on human body, Augustine states that its first immediate consequence was concupiscence (sinful desire of the flesh or lust). He comments that as God created Adam, and then Eve from him, the means to be fruitful and multiply would be generation. Also Augustine affirms two kinds of probable sexual experiences before the Fall: either Adam and Eve may use their genitals without any urge as we use our members of the body willingly or the sexual drive would be aroused reasonably under the command of will. He persuades the Pelagians to accept his second view, for they think that concupiscence is quite normal:
If you (Pelagians) wold admit that in the state of paradistian happiness
it would have been possible to generate children through such a carnal
excitation, that did neither run ahead of the will, nor hesitate to follow
the command of the will, nor transgress the injunction of the will, then
we do not contest the point.
Augustine compares the status before the Fall with what happened after it, paying attention to the biblical testimony. As we read in Gen. 2:25, Adam and his wife Eve were both naked without any feeling of shame. But after they had transgressed, “they knew that they were naked and sewed fig leaves for themselves” Gen. 3:8. Thus after the fall they experienced shame, and concupiscence entered human body as a punishment of the first sin of Adam. Augustine states: “In the disobedience to God, that subjected the genital parts of the body only to their own movements, and withdrew them from the power of the will, it is clear enough which penalty has been inflicted for this first disobedience of man.”
Being a desire resulted from the first sin of Adam, according to Augustine, concupiscence is a wound (sickness) in human body. This sinful desire has caused human sexuality to be deteriorated. Its presence in human body made sex to be uncontrollable which creates a kind of submersion of the mind. Thus for Augustine, sex is sinful (shameful) activity that has a direct connection with original sin. He justifies sex only in marriage for procreation purposes. Here it can be said that Augustine’s extreme stress on original sin has forced him to highlight its negative impact, blurring his view of human sexuality. As Rist asserts “Augustine failed to find a clear theory of the goodness of sexuality apart from its obvious necessity for conception.” He views human body as a mass of flesh, which is stirred up by a sinful desire. Because such a view is close to the teachings of Manichaeism, Augustine’s combatant, Julian of Eclanum, suspected that there are Manichean traits in Augustine’s mind. The Manichees teach that through concupiscence that is evil, the devil becomes master of human body. Likewise Augustine thought that through concupiscence human beings are born under the power of the devil.
Even though Augustine does not wholly consent to the Manichean views, his doctrine of original sin in general and his thought of human sexuality in particular were influenced by them. According to Manichaeism, evil entered human body as the result of the primordial conflict between the rival powers of darkness and light. Hence we are not the ones that commit sin but the evil substance within us. As Augustine had been an adherent of Manichaism, it seems that this Manichean view has paved the way to his doctrine of original sin and human sexuality. Bearing in mind what he had heard from the Manichees, and searching for a Biblical semblance for his thought, he infers that human beings come to this world with a guilt which originally goes back to their remote ancestor, Adam. Before being regenerated, in everyone, there is guilt contracted at birth through concupiscence. Therefore, though Augustine does not teach that the human flesh originates from an evil substance as the Manichees do, his view that a sinful nature is imparted from the human body is harmonious to their thought, which regards sin as a naturally imbued defect in human body.
The evil of concupiscence lies on one’s contraction of original sin by birth, which is transmitted through man’s seed. Augustine confidently speaks about the transmission of the original sin through the seed, one of the theories that makes his doctrine of original sin problematic. He teaches that everyone is born, being tainted with original sin contracted at birth. When Adam sinned, we all were present in him as semen so that the seed soiled by sin is transmitted from one to the other. In his words:
For in him were we all, since we all were that one man, who, through
the woman who was made of himself before sin, fell into sin. We
had not our particular forms yet, but there was the seed of our natural
propagation, which being corrupted by sin must need to produce man
of that same nature, the slave to death, and the object of just
condemnation.”
Furthermore, as Augustine clearly puts it in his answer to Julian, the descendants of Adam who were supposed to come from his lineage were infected in him with the hidden corruption of his carnal concupiscence. Starting from Adam then, through the male’s seed, which is ejected while having sex, the original guilt is transmitted from the father to his child.
Thus according to Augustine, the transference of the sin solely lays on the generating power of man. Based on Aristotle’s opinion that the womb of a woman simply receives the semen, and so it has not any part in generation, Augustine explains that the semen is the active principle, which acts as an artist in the woman’s blood. As a result, children are poured off from the man to the woman, being tainted by the sin transmitted through the seed. This has helped Augustine conclude logically that original sin was not transmitted from St. Mary to Jesus. As she did not conceive him through concupiscence of the flesh, the means of transmission, Christ was free from both the original guilt and concupiscence.
Yet, the issue of transmission of sin to Christ brings forth another point regarding the nature of his flesh and ours. As quoted by Augustine himself, Julian argues that “Christ’s flesh differed in no way from sinful flesh, because he was born of Mary and the flesh of that Virgin came from Adam like that of all the rest. We should not suppose that the apostle singled him out when he said he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh” Rom. 8: 3. Conversely, Augustine underlines that Christ was not conceived by concupiscence through which sin is transmitted, and therefore St. Mary did not transmit the original sin to Him. Christ appeared to us in a similar nature to Adam’s status before the Fall so that there was no concupiscence in Him like Adam who was created without concupiscence. However, as Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, he assumed from Mary his mother, the weakness of mortality.
Though Augustine’s stand, which approves Christ’s sinlessness is acceptable, his view of the body of Christ is theologically problematic. It is true that Christ did not commit any sin so that no one blames him for a single sin Jn 8: 46. He was tempted like us, yet without sin (Heb. 4: 15). His sinlessness is so important, because had he been tainted with the original sin, he could not have redeemed us. While all were sinners, Christ came as the redeemer who would pay the debt of their sins. But if we agree with Augustine that Christ’s flesh was like the flesh of Adam before the Fall, and different from the flesh after the Fall, it will be impossible to say that Christ has renewed the fallen nature of Adam which he did not assume. Thus, while one can agree with Augustine that Christ was not held by the original sin, it is difficult to accept his view that the flesh of Christ was like the flesh of Adam before the Fall.
In addition, having stated the impossibility of the transmission of the original sin from St. Mary to Jesus, Augustine makes a distinction between Mary and the rest humanity. As quoted by Scheppard, without any explanation once Augustine had written that, “we do not convey Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth, because that condition was loosed by the grace of regeneration.” Here Augustine is not clear how Mary is distinguished from the rest humanity by not contracting the Adamic sin at her birth. Simply it can be presumed that though Augustine did not claim Mary to be immaculate, by giving her a special status, he had taken the initiative for the notion of Immaculate Conception as confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church.
Leaving the argument of the transmission of the original sin with regard to St. Mary and the Lord Jesus, Augustine tries to convince Julian by correcting his usage of the Aristotelian dialectic, and providing an example of the olive trees. Julian quotes Aristotles dialect: “a thing which exists in a subject, cannot exist without that thing in which it exists,” and argues that the so-called evil in the seed of man cannot be transmitted to his child. In his reply, Augustine reflects the importance of the apsotles words: “through one man sin entered the world and was passed on to all human beings” (Rom. 5:12), paying less attention to Aristotle’s view. Of course Augustine does not reject Aristotle’s dialect. But he argues that Julian is referring to the dialect without understanding it. According to Augustine, as the dialect states, qualities cannot exist without their subject, which they are in. But they can be transferred by affection rather than by physical transference. For example, Ethiopian parents who are black beget black children not by transferring their own colour as a cloak to them, but by affecting their body through propagation. Thus the defect of the parents is passed to their children by affecting them, not by physical transference. Even though the guilt is removed from the already baptized parents, it is transmitted to their children just as wild olives spring from the domesticated ones.
Without being convinced of Augustine’s examples, Julian points out Manichean notions in Augustine’s theory of the transmission of sin. As Julain understands it, Augustine’s claim that through transmission children inherit sins from their parents is the same as the Manichean teaching: “one inherits sin in the sinful body.” For the Manichees, everything that is not spirit is evil, and therefore in our material body there is an evil substance, which we contract by nature. Likewise, Augustine teaches that after the Fall the human seed is soiled by the devil, and the evil of concupiscence has entered human body. The soiled seed transmits the guilt through the evil use of concupiscence so that children are born with the guilt and its evil under the power of the devil. Julian argues that Augustine’s view may make the devil the pregnator of the women and the creator of the children.
Even if Julian’s accusation of Augustine’s view of the transmission of the original sin sounds a bit hyperbolic, for it resulted from a hot polemic dispute, to some extent it can be taken for granted. In effect, the flaws of Augustine’s view would be obvious. The transmission of sin through the seed as stated by Augustine reflects that everyone is born as a sinner tainted with the inherited guilt. Hence, since the time of his birth every child bears a sin transmitted from his parents. This does not sound fair, as it discourages us from undertaking our moral responsibility. When we are told that we were born sinners, we may think that sin is inevitable to our nature, and may easily yield to the temptation to commit sins. Also according to Augustine’s theory, the evil of concupiscence exists in human body, and the semen of the father serves as a means for the imparting of sin. This definitely undermines the dignity of human body. In Genesis we read that the whole creation was good. Even after the creation of man, God saw everything to be very good Gen. 1:31. Thus the human nature was favored by God since the time of creation. Though it was corrupted by the Fall, the incarnated God has renewed it. Augustine’s view of the transmission of sin lacks the consideration of this biblical truth, and simply takes human body as a means for the contraction of evil. As Julian argues, it is tenable to say that Manichean notions have influenced Augustine’s understanding. Of course Augustine was not totally influenced by the Manichean thoughts, since he does not ignore the necessity of marriage like the Manichees nor teaches that our body was created by an evil cosmic power. But his idea of the transmission of sin denigrates the sanctity of marriage, for he contends that in marital intercourse there is an involvement in sin. For him, marital intercourse is approved only for procreation purposes; but even in this case the intercourse serves as a means for transmission of sin. From all these, we are obliged to infer that Augustine’s thought of the transmission of original sin is close to the Manichean disdain of the human body and its rejection of marriage.
Besides, as no biblical proof can be forwarded for the doctrine of original sin, the transmission of sin through the seed cannot be biblically proved either. The crux of Augustine’s claim, Rom. 5: 12, says nothing about the transmission of sin through man’s seed. Augustine simply took the mistranslated phrase: “in whom all have sinned,” from the verse and concluded that we had existed in the seed of Adam when he sinned so that the original guilt is transmitted through every father’s semen to his children. There is no one verse in the Bible, which supports Augustine’s teaching of the transmission of sin. As we read in Rom. 5:15: “many died through the one man’s trespass,” what we bear is the consequence of Adam’s sin. We did not participate in Adam’s sin nor his sin is passed on from one to the other. Therefore, instead of Augustine’s thought which views the original sin like a virus transmitted through man’s semen to his children, it can safely be concluded that since we have the same human nature as that of Adam, we automatically inherit his fallen nature which is remedied by our continual participation in the sacraments of the church.
Augustine’s doctrine of original sin was reinforced by his approval of infant baptism. As infants are not in the age of reason, they do not commit any sin by their own will. However, though they are free from personal sins, they bear the illness stemming from their origin – original sin. They are held guilty of the original sin, which they had committed in Adam and inherited from their parents. Therefore, according to Augustine, the reason why infants are baptized is to be freed from the original sin. As they cannot be convicted of any sin, their baptism approves the transmission of Adam’s guilt to them. Of course, Augustine realizes that infants are also baptized in order that they may be partakers of the kingdom of heaven through spiritual procreation. But as no one is sinless (Job 14: 4-5), and the infants too need Christ as their saviour from the original sin which they are tainted with, their baptism is primarily for the remission of sin.
Being consistent with his doctrine of original sin, Augustine concludes that unbaptized infants would be condemned eternally. They have inherited the guilt of Adam, and as any sin leads to condemnation (Rom 5:16), infants who die without being baptized die with their sin so that they are subject to condemnation. Here Augustine tries to make distinction between the condemnation of the elderly sinners and the unbaptized infants. Since the former had committed sins in their lives guided by their own reason, they deserve the eternal condemnation. But the unbaptised infants had added nothing to the original sin, and therefore they are involved in the mildest (lightest) condemnation of all in hell.
Even if most of the fathers of the church have approved the necessity of infant baptism, their understanding is different from that of Augustine. All the apostolic fathers have written in favour of infant baptism, emphasizing the spiritual benefit, which the infants get from it. For example, Hermas says, “all infants are in honour with the Lord, and are esteemed first of all for the baptism of water.” While approving the necessity of infant baptism, however, Hermas does not take it as a means for the remission of an inherited sin. Among the fathers of the golden age, St. John Chrysostom clearly states the reason why infants are baptized: “we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled with sin,” he goes on, “in order that there may be given to them holiness, justice, adoption, inheritance and the brotherhood of Christ that they may be his members.” Hence according to Chrysostom, infants are baptized to be incorporated to the Christian community, not for the remission of an inherited guilt. Origen too contends that there is no any sin in infants either inherited or personal that leads them to baptism, unless we need to baptize them on the basis of the generalized idea that no one is free from defilement. In opposition to the second century’s practice of baptism that was being administered in haste, Tertullian comments that infants should not be hurried for baptism. From his words: “why should innocent infancy come with haste to the remission of sins” it can be assumed that Tertullian did not see the need for the urgency of infant baptism, since the remission of sins given to the adults does not apply to infants.
Thus contrary to the patristic writings, Augustine’s exaggerated doctrine of original sin has led him to a faulty conclusion in terms of infant baptism. Since he contended that sin is directly transmitted from the parents to their children, he was forced to insist on the need of infant baptism for the remission of sin, and the condemned fate of the unbaptized infants. In another words, his thought of infant baptism is the outcome of his doctrine of original sin. But though Augustine’s view of infant baptism is consistent with his doctrine of original sin, there is no biblical support for it. In fact, there are verses that imply the possibility for the involvement of infants in baptism (Acts 16 : 15, 18: 8 ). But in all cases baptism was not taken as a means for the remedy of a transmitted sin. St. Peter’s advice: “repent, be baptized….so that your sins may be forgiven” was addressed to adults (Acts. 2: 38). In accordance with this biblical testimony, the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed acknowledges baptism for the remission of sin in case of adults: “We believe in one baptism for the remission of sin.” Thus transmission of sin to infants through the seed cannot be approved at all. However, as Christ said about them: “let the little children come to me” (Mtt 19:13), they are not deprived of baptism. They are baptized on the faith of their parents for renewal and regeneration in order to inherit the heavenly kingdom.
Augustine’s position of the fate of the unbaptized infants sounds severe. Though hesitating to some extent over the issue he recommends an intermediate place in hell for unbaptized infants, he firmly states that they are condemned eternally. But this is not agreeable to the nature of our merciful God who is too good to be unkind. It is monstrous of God to send the innocent infants who are without knowledge and will to eternal damnation because of the sin, which they have not committed. Imagine the number of infants in the world who have died without baptism. Is it fair then to conclude that they all will be doomed as a result of God’s justice? Obviously, God considers the case of the infants who cannot decide by themselves so that his mercy may not be far from them. Unfortunately, Augustine takes God’s justice at the expense of his mercy. Also insisting on the effect of baptism on infants, he limits God’s mercy to the sacrament. However, as the benevolent God has his own way of saving, we cannot take sacraments as the only means of his mercy. In fact, the fate of unbaptised infants is a difficult issue. Indicating its confusing nature, one has suggested that unbaptised infants may simply remain without feeling the sorrow, as it is beyond their capacity. Thus it is better to leave the fate of the unbaptized infants to God, since “we are not absolutely certain what is going to happen to infants dying unbaptised.” Briefly, what we can say about Augustine’s position is that his doctrine of original sin has affected his attitude towards the fate of the unbaptised infants, leading him to an unfair conclusion.
In a nutshell, the mistranslated verse: Rom. 5: 12, which Augustine took for granted has made his doctrine of original sin faulty. Sticking to the idea that Adam’s descendants have sinned with him, Augustine makes them responsible for Adam’s guilt. He exaggerates the depravity of human nature, and as a result he nearly overlooks the complete renewal of humanity brought by Christ. As his doctrine highlights the transmission of the first guilt through the human seed from Adam down to his descendants, the whole humanity is taken to be desperately corrupt. Even though the impact of Adam’s sin on his descendants cannot be denied, one finds Augustine’s view of human nature so discouraging. Also Augustine’s doctrine of original sin that reflects the irretrievable corruptibility of human nature is not supported by the writings of the fathers of the church that it appears to be the result of his own thinking. With regard to the means of the transmission of the original sin from one to the other, Augustine exaggerates the role of concupiscence, and in effect undermines the value of human sexuality. In his viewpoint, infants are born through the sinful means of concupiscence so that they come to the world being crippled by the original sin, which they inherit from their parents, undertaking the same responsibility for the sin committed by Adam. If the infants died unbaptised, their fate would be eternal damnation. Augustine does not hesitate to exalt God’s justice above his mercy. Therefore, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, which began with an erroneous biblical translation, has brought forth additional flaws so that it is inadmissible.
Bibliography
I. Primary Sources
Augustine. Against Julian. Vol. 35 of The Fathers of the Church. Trans. Matthew A. Schumacher. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1957.
________. Answer to the Pelagians I and II. The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Trans. Roland J. Teske, S. J. Ed. John E. Rotelle. New York: New City Press, 1997.
________. “Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum,” in Anti-Pelagian Writings. A Select Library of the Nicean and Post-Nicean Fathers. Ist Series Volume V. Trans. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis. Ed. Philip Schaff. Edinburgh: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991.
________. “De Nuptis et Concupiscentia,” in Anti-Pelagian Writings. A Select Library of the Nicean and Post-Nicean Fathers. Ist Series Volume V. Trans. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis. Ed. Philip Schaff. Edinburgh: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991.
________. “De Peccatorum Meritis, et De Baptismo Parvulorum,” in Anti-Pelagian Writings. A Select Library of the Nicean and Post-Nicean Fathers. Ist Series Volume V. Trans. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis. Ed. Philip Schaff. Edinburgh: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991.
________. The City of God. V. II. Trans. John Healey. New York: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd, 1957.
Irenaeus. Adversus Heresus. V. III. Trans. Dominic J. Unger. Ed. John J. Dillon. New York: Paulist, 1992.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Trans. John Henry. London: Baxter Printers, 1982.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Ed. J. C.Winden. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.
Pelagius. The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Trans. Rees, B. R. Woodbtidge: The Boydell Press, 1991.
Turtullian. Homily on Baptism. Trans. Ernest Evans. London: S. P. C. K, 1964.
II. Books, Journal Articles and Online Resources.
Daud, Marcos. The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Addis Ababa: Tinsae Zegubae Printing Press, 1968.
Golubov, Alexander. “Original Sin and Human Nature.” [Online]. Quoted on June 13/03. Available at: http//www.geocities.com/Athens/styx/8676/files/Augustine.html.
Gumpel, Peter. “Unbaptised Infants: May They Be Saved?” in The Downside Review V. LXXII, No. 227. Mcmliv: Catholic Records Press, 1954.
“Infant Baptism.” Online Resource, University of Toronto, 53703, Pref. 1863.
Lamberigts, Mathijs. “A Critical Evaluation of Critiques of Augustine’s View of Sexuality,” in Dodaro, R. and Lawless, G. Augustine and His Critics. London: Routledge, 2000, 176-197.
Oakes, Edward T. “Original Sin: A Disputation,” [Online]. Quoted on June 23/03. Available at: .
“Original Sin.” [Online] Quoted on June 3/03. Available at: A_OLD/St. Augustine-and Original Sin.html.
“Original Sin.” [Online]. Quoted on July 3/2003, Available at: .
“Orthodox View of Original Sin.” [Online] Quoted on June 3/03. Available at: http//www.geocities.com/Athens/styx/8676/files/Augustine.html.
Overstreet, A. T. “Are Men Born Sinners?” [Online] Quoted on June 20/03. Available at: .
Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York: Vintage Books Editions, 1989.
Redding, P. John. The Influence of St. Augustine on the Doctrine of the II Council of Orange Concerning Original Sin. Washington: The Catholic University of America, 1939.
Regnery, Henery. A Guide to the Thought of St. Augustine. Trans. Eugene Portalie. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960.
Rist, John. “Augustine of Hippo” in Evans, G. R. The Medieval Theologians. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, 3-23.
Rondet, Henri. Original Sin: The Patristic and Theological Background. Trans. Cajetan Finegan. Shannon: Ecclesia Press, 1969.
Scheppard, Carol. “The Transmission of Sin in the Seed: A Debate Between Augustine of Hippo and Julian of Eclanum,” in Augustinian Studies V. 27. Wetteren: Villanova University, 1996, 97-106.
Simone, Russell De. “Modern Research on the Sources of St. Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin,” in Augustinian Studies V. 11, No. 1. Rome: Tipugrafia, 1980, 203- 212.
Yarnold, Edward. The Theology of Original Sin. Indiana: Fides Publishers INC, 1971.
One of the theological issues which brought heated debate in the Christian church is the doctrine of original sin which is closely related to the Christian concept of salvation. For centuries it has been haunting the scholars of the Church, and nowhere it is accepted without a sense of hesitation. Thus it is difficult to deal with such great a doctrine in a paper like this. The intention here is simply to present a brief outlook of St. Augustine’s doctrine which he has coined as “original sin.” Having a look to the writings of Augustin’s predecessors, the paper will try to show how the bishop of Hippo developed his doctrine. As Augustine had passed a considerable number of years harling parchments with his contemporary combatants, there would be an attempt to study the doctrine in focus, taking their contrary perspectives into consideration. Also related issues like infant baptism and human sexuality would be presented. Towards the end, showing how Augustine went to the extreme in his thought of human fall, and affected some sacramental issues related to it, the paper tries to contend that Augustine’s theory of original sin is defective.
P. John Redding, The Influence of St. Augustine on the Doctrine of the II Council of Orange Concerning Original Sin, (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 1939), 19.
Edward Yarnold, The Theology of Original Sin, (Indiana: Fides Publishers INC, 1971), 49.
Edward T. Oakes, “Original Sin: A Disputation,” [Online] Quoted on June 23/2003. Available at: .
Augustine, “De Peccatorum Meritis et De Baptismo Parvulorum,” in Anti-Pelagian Writings, A Select Library of the Nicean and Post-Nicean Fathers, Ist Series Volume V. Trans. Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis. Ed. Philip Schaff. (Edinburgh: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991), 19.
A. T. Overstreet, “Are Men Born Sinners?” [Online] Quoted on June 20/2003. Available at: .
Russell De Simone, “Modern Research on the Sources of St. Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin,” in Augustinian Studies, V. 11, No. 1 (Rome: Tipugrafia, 1980), 205.
Augustine, Against Julian, The Fathers of the Church V.35. Trans. Matthew A. Schumacher. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1957), 7.
John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Trans. John Henry, (London: Baxter Printers, 1982) Hom. X, 154.
Henri Rondent, Original Sin: the Patristic and Theological Background, Trans. Cajetan Finegan, (Shannon: Ecclesia Press, 1969), 80.
Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. (New York: Vintage Books Editions, 1989), 108.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ed. J. C.Winden, (Leiden: E. J. Brill,1971), 88.
Op. Cit, Augustine, “De Peccatorum Meritis….”, 18.
Op. Cit, Augustine, “De Peccatorum Meritis…”, 63.
Pelagius, The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers, Trans. B. R. Rees (Woodbtidge: The Boydell Press, 1991), 169.
“ Orthodox View of Original Sin” [Online] Quoted on June 3/03. Available at: http//www.geocities.com/Athens/styx/8676/files/Augustine.html.
Op. Cit, Augustine, “De Peccatorum Meritis…” in Anti-Pelagian Writings, 22
“Original Sin” [Online] Quoted on June 3/03. Available at: A_OLD/ St. Augustine-and Original Sin.html.
Op. Cit, Chrysostom, X, 149.
Alexander Golubov, “Original Sin and Human Nature,” [Online] Quoted on June 13/03. Available at: http//www.geocities.com/Athens/styx/8676/files/Augustine.html.
Irenaeus, Adversus Heresus, III, 21, 10, Trans. Dominic J. Unger. Ed. John J. Dillon. New York: Paulist, 1992.
Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians I, The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Ed. John E. Rotelle. (New York: New City Press, 1997), 117.
“Original Sin” [On Line] Quoted on July 3/2003, Available at: .
Augustine, The City of God, XIV: XXI, Vlm. II, Trans. John Healey, (New York: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd, 1957), 51.
Op. Cit, Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians I, 412.
Op. Cit, Augustine, “Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum,” in Anti-Pelagian Writings…. I, 17.
Op. Cit, Augustine, The City of God, XIV: XVI, 47.
Op. Cit, Augustine, Against Julian, 7.
John Rist, “Augustine of Hippo” in Evans, G. R. The Medieval Theologians, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 21.
Mathijs Lamberigts, “A Critical Evaluation of Critiques of Augustine’s View of Sexuality,” in Dodaro, R. and Lawless, G. Augustine and His Critics, (London: Routledge, 2000), 178.
Carol Scheppard, “The Transmission of Sin in the Seed: A Debate between Augustine of Hippo and Julian of Eclanum,” in Augustinian Studies, V. 27, (Wetteren: Villanova University, 1996), 100.
Op. Cit, Augustine, The City of God XIII: XIV, 10.
Op.Cit, Augustine, Against Julian, 467.
Op.Cit, Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians II, 465.
Op. Cit, Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians II, 364.
Op. Cit, Augustine, “De Nuptis et Concupiscentia,” in Anti-Pelagian Writngs…, 272.
Op. Cit, Augustine, Against Julian, 56.
Op. Cit, Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians I, 73.
“Infant Baptism” Online Resource, University of Toronto, 53703, Pref. 1863.
Op. Cit, Augustine, Against Julian, 23.
Turtullian, Homily on Baptism, Trans. Ernest Evans, (London: S. P. C. K, 1964), 39.
Marcos Daud, The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, (Addis Ababa, Tinsae Zegubae Printing Press, 1968), 173.
Henery Regnery, A Guide to the Thought of St. Augustine, Trans. Eugene Portalie, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960), 212.
Peter Gumpel “Unbaptised Infants: May They Be Saved?” in The Downside Review V. LXXII, No. 227. (Mcmliv: Catholic Records Press), 345.