Original
Sin.
In Christian theology, the state of sin in which mankind has been held captive
since the *Fall (q.v.). Catholic theologians hold that its essential element is
the loss of sanctifying grace. (It is also held by RCs that the BVM was by a
special dispensation preserved from the stain of original sin: see immaculate
conception.)
The scriptural foundation of the doctrine is the Pauline
teaching that ‘through one man [i.e. Adam] sin entered into the world’, so that
‘by the trespass of the one the many died’ (cf. Rom. 5:12–21 and 1 Cor. 15:22).
The doctrine, the significance of which was obscured by other preoccupations in
the age of the *Apostolic Fathers and the *Apologists, began to be developed in
the struggle against the *Gnostic errors by St *Irenaeus. As against the
dualist systems of the heretics, he defended the teaching that evil came into
the world through the sin of Adam. *Origen has the conception of man’s fallen
state, but in him it is bound up with speculations on the prenatal sins of
souls. St *Athanasius in his treatise ‘De Incarnatione’ anticipated later
developments by teaching that the chief result of the sin of Adam, which
consisted in the abuse of his liberty, was the loss of the grace of conformity
to the image of God, by which he and his descendants were reduced to their
natural condition (εἰς
τὸ κατὰ φύσιν) and became subject to corruption (φθορά) and death (θάνατος). The Greek Fathers emphasized the
cosmic or metaphysical dimension of the Fall—men since Adam are born into a
fallen world—but at the same time they held fast to the belief that man, though
fallen, is free, seeing in any encroachment on man’s freedom the threat of
*Manichaeism. The Pseudo-*Macarian Homilies, however, paint a vivid picture of
fallen man’s bondage to sin.
The precise formulation of the doctrine was reserved to
the W. Here *Tertullian, St *Cyprian, and St *Ambrose taught the solidarity of
the whole human race with Adam not only in the consequences of his sin but in
the sin itself, which is transmitted through natural generation, and the
so-called ‘*Ambrosiaster’ found its scriptural proof in Rom. 5:12, translating ἐφʼ ᾧ by in quo and referring it to Adam, ‘in
whom all have sinned’. In this he was followed by St *Augustine, who in his
‘Quaestiones ad Simplicianum’ (396–7) and other pre-Pelagian writings taught
that Adam’s guilt is transmitted to his descendants by concupiscence, thus
making of humanity a massa damnata
and much enfeebling, though not destroying, the freedom of the will. In the
struggle against *Pelagianism the principles of the Augustinian doctrine were
confirmed by many Councils, esp. the Second of *Orange (529).
With the existence of Original Sin firmly established the
medieval theologians were particularly occupied with its nature and
transmission. St *Anselm of Canterbury was the first to open up new ways of
thought, in which he was followed by the great 13th-cent. Schoolmen. He defines
Original Sin as the ‘privation of the righteousness which every man ought to
possess’, thus separating it from concupiscence, with which the disciples of St
Augustine had often identified it. It is transmitted by generation, because the
whole human race was present in Adam seminaliter.
His ideas were not immediately taken up. Whilst *Abelard was condemned by the
Council of Sens (1140) for refusing to recognize Original Sin as guilt, other
12th-cent. theologians, e.g. *Peter Lombard, identified it with concupiscence.
This latter conception was rejected in the next century by *Alexander of Hales
and *Albert the Great, who distinguish a formal element, namely privation of
original righteousness, from the material element of concupiscence. All of them
hold that it is transmitted by the concupiscence accompanying the conjugal act.
St *Thomas Aquinas, who treated the subject five times (esp. in ‘De Malo’ and
in ‘Summa Theol.’ II (1), qq. 81–4), brought in a new element by
distinguishing, in the state of Adam before the Fall, ‘pure nature’ (pura naturalia) from the supernatural
gifts which perfected it. Hence Original Sin consists in the loss of these
supernatural privileges which had directed man to his supernatural end and
enabled him to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason, a rectitude
not natural to a being compounded of soul and body such as man. This conception
entails a more optimistic view of man than that of St Augustine and his
successors in that it leaves to the reason, will, and passions of fallen man
their natural powers. Acc. to St Thomas, Original Sin is transmitted not as the
personal fault of Adam but as a state of human nature, yet constituting a fault
inasmuch as all men are regarded as members of one great organism of which Adam
was the first mover. Thus through his sin his descendants incur a culpability
similar to that of the hand which executes a murder, moved by the human will.
The instrument of transmission is generation, regardless of the accompanying
concupiscence.
The Thomist synthesis was not at once accepted
everywhere. The old rigorous Augustinianism persisted among the *Franciscans,
and esp. in the religious family of St Augustine, whereas, on the other hand,
the rationalist tendencies of Abelard were voiced by others who denied the
guilt (reatus culpae), recognizing
only its punitive consequences (reatus
poenae). The more prominent Scholastics, however, such as *Duns Scotus,
*William of Ockham, and their disciples, accepted the Thomist principles, but
while defining Original Sin exclusively as lack of original righteousness (carentia justitiae originalis debitae),
tended to eliminate the element of concupiscence.
In the subsequent controversy with the Reformers the
teaching was made increasingly precise; to the exaggerated pessimism of M.
*Luther and J. *Calvin, who equated Original Sin with concupiscence and
affirmed that it completely destroyed liberty and persisted even after Baptism,
the Council of *Trent opposed the teaching of the Schoolmen, without, however,
pronouncing on points still disputed by Catholic theologians. In restating the
doctrine of St Thomas, Dominic *Soto eliminated the element of concupiscence
altogether from the definition and identified Original Sin with the loss of
sanctifying grace. His views had a far-reaching influence, being accepted by
authorities like F. *Suárez, R. *Bellarmine, and the *Salmanticenses. But the
official decisions of the RC Church followed the teaching of the older
theologians. In his condemnation of M. *Baius (1567), Pope *Pius V, going
beyond Trent, sanctioned the Thomist distinction between nature and supernature
in the state of Paradise, condemned the identification of Original Sin with
concupiscence, and admitted the possibility of the right use of the freedom of
the will in the unbaptized. In the 17th and 18th cents. the *Jesuits developed
the doctrine along the lines of moderated optimism traced by the Schoolmen,
whereas the French theologians of *Jansenist leanings, such as the circle of
*Port-Royal and J.-B. *Bossuet, inclined towards the old Augustinian pessimism.
From about the 18th cent. there has been a tendency for
the dogma of Original Sin to become increasingly attenuated. It conflicted with
the *Enlightenment’s confidence in human progress, and the accompanying
individualism made the idea of being punished for the sins of another seem
morally intolerable. The theory of evolution both cast doubt on the historicity
of Gen. 2, and at the same time suggested that man’s evil propensities might
derive from his evolutionary origins. None the less, the doctrine of Original
Sin in some form persisted. I. *Kant reaffirmed it in his conception of
‘radical evil’; F. D. E. *Schleiermacher explained the state of sin and
separation from God into which men are born as due to social heredity; G. W. F.
*Hegel regarded Original Sin as evidence of the emergence of moral
consciousness; and S. A. *Kierkegaard found it in man’s Angst (dread or anxiety) in the face of moral possibility. The
traditional doctrine has been strongly reaffirmed by K. *Barth and his
followers. Modern treatments of Original Sin, however, tend to regard it as
belonging to the nature of man rather than to the individual person; they
derive it less from heredity than from the inescapably social character of man.
This tendency is reflected in the emphasis of the Second *Vatican Council on
the corporate aspects of sin and redemption. (The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A.
Livingstone [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], 1202–1204)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
