II.
Original sin. The expression “original sin” indicates both
the personal sin of Adam (the original sin) and the state of sin transmitted to
every person from birth (derived original sin). Even if the doctrine of
original sin is not formally contained in Scripture, there are nevertheless
several texts that establish a biblical foundation for the slow development of
the doctrine of original sin: we are referring in particular to Gen 3:1–20 (the
account of Adam’s sin and its consequences) and Rom 5:12–21 (the necessity and
universality of Christ’s redemption), but also to other passages such as Ps
51:7 (50:7 LXX), Job 14:4 and Eph 2:3. Neither can we ignore the ancient
liturgical practice of infant baptism and the theological notion of the
universality of salvation accomplished by Christ. From these foundations, the
patristic tradition before Augustine adhered to the conviction that humanity
inherited corruption and death from Adam.
Before
Augustine. The typological relationship described by the apostle
Paul, i.e., Adam–Christ, as well as Eve–Mary, respectively the cause of death
and life, frequently appears in the writings of the early Fathers (Justin, Dial. 100, 4–6; Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. 3, 22, 4; 5, 19, 1). Melito
of Sardis developed this position and maintained that people as a consequence
of Adam’s sin inevitably sin and spoke of the “sin that stamps its mark on
every soul and those on whom it stamps are destined to die” (Peri Pascha 54). Even the principle of
the solidarity of every person with Adam and Christ is present and frequently
appears already in the writings of Irenaeus, who for the first time introduced
into theological literature the explicit statement: “In the first Adam we
offended God by not observing his commandment; but in the second Adam we have
been reconciled, having become obedient until the point of death” (Adv. haer. 5, 16, 3; see also 3, 18, 7).
In the West, Tertullian, though unfavorable to the baptism of newborns (Bapt. 18, 5), recognized sin as a vitium originis, which, through the
devil’s work, has become naturale
quodammodo, and explained its transmission with a theory of traducianism (De anima 40–41). And even if it is not
easy to determine the connection of transgression (collegium transgressionis) that connects the nonbaptized with Adam
(De res. 49, 6), this, however,
indicates a participation in the Fall that occurred in the Garden of Eden.
Cyprian, however, maintained the necessity of baptism for children through
which sins are remitted “which are not their own, but that of another,” because,
even if they have not sinned personally, by being born from Adam they contract
“the disease of the ancient death” (Ep.
64, 5). For each theologian, therefore, every person is born into a sinful
condition, from which baptism liberates.
In the East, Origen, recalling the tradition of baptizing
children, affirms that the apostles themselves were aware of that stain of sin
which had to be washed away with water and the Holy Spirit (Comm. Rom. 5:9; Hom. Lev. 8:3; Hom. Luc.
14:5). It was this Alexandrian father who drew the connection between Job
14:4–5 an Ps 51:7 (50:7 LXX) to demonstrate that every person, born in the
flesh, is stained by sin. (*Basil depended on him for the same idea,
using the same texts: see Bapt. 1, 2,
7–9.)
Likewise in the East, in the following century, several
testimonies in favor of original sin come from Syria (Aphraates, Tract. 6, 14; 23, 3; Ephrem, Hymni 4, 1) and the Alexandrian
tradition: Athanasius, though never emphasizing our participation in Adam’s
guilt, declared that “when Adam sinned, sin was transmitted to all people” (Contra Ar. 1, 5); and Didymus the Blind
explicitly declared that human generation was the means of the transmission of
the ancient sin of Adam, from which Christ alone has been exempted because he
was born of a virgin (Contra man. 8).
In sum, the East, which had a more optimistic vision than
the West and was more attentive to emphasizing humanity’s freedom and
responsibility, seems to have excluded a true and proper doctrine of original
sin, in particular the concept of our solidarity with Adam and therefore our
participation in his sin, even though there are not lacking clear testimonies
regarding the transmission of Adam’s sin and its consequences.
But in general, before Augustine, the condition of
humankind was seen more as a state of corruption that led toward sin, and there
only rarely emerged the idea that every person was in some way involved in the
same disobedience of Adam. The appearance of the affirmation that we have all
sinned in Adam gradually increased in the writings of the Fathers, with
specific reference to Rom 7:9–10 and 1 Cor 15:22 (Tertull., De res. 49, 6; Orig., Hom. Jer. 8, 1; Meth. Olymp., De res. 2, 24; Hil. Arles, Comm. Matth. 18, 6; Basil, Hom. Sal. 94, 3; Greg. Naz., Serm. 19, 14; 38, 4; Cyril Jer., Cat. 2, 4–5; Ambr., Exp. Luc. 7, 234, often cited by Augustine). Through his
grammatically imprecise translation of Rom 5:12, where ἐφʼ ᾧ was
translated as in quo omnes peccaverunt,
Ambrosiaster would make a definitive contribution to the formation of that
doctrine on original sin, which was subsequently developed in the West with
greater precision.
Augustine.
Only with Augustine did the theology of original sin obtain its own formulation
and its own terminology, even if he himself had to admit that there is nothing
more difficult to understand than the nature of the “ancient sin” (De moribus Eccl. I, 40). He was the one
to create the ancient expression “original sin”: it seems to have appeared for
the first time around 395 in the De div.
quaest. ad Simpl. 1, 1 to refer to the sin of Adam, but only in the book De peccatrum meritis et remissione (1,
9–10), written in 411–412, does he refer to the sin transmitted as a result of
Adam’s offense.
In any case, it is certain that Augustine gradually
developed his reflection on the matter, even in conjunction and as a
consequence of the development of various other theological themes (the origin
of evil, the efficacy of the sacraments, the necessity of grace, anthropology
and soteriology). Moreover, Augustine was convinced that he stood within the
church’s tradition, which through great thinkers had defended and maintained
the truth of original sin. On several occasions he collected patristic testimonies
on the topic, citing the most representative authors of the East and West:
Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, John
Chrysostom and Jerome (Contra Iul. 1,
3, 5–10; 1, 4, 13–6, 27; 1, 7, 30–34; 2, 10, 33.37; 3, 17, 32; Contra Iul. opus imp. 4, 72–73).
Already during the period of the Donatist controversy,
Augustine, when defending the doctrine of the efficacy of the infant baptism (Bapt. 4, 24), referred to the
ecclesiastical practice of maintaining that baptism given in remissionem peccatorum implies that they too are in some way
sinners, because, even though morally innocent (Pecc. merit. 1, 17, 22; 35, 65; Retract.
1, 13, 5), without Christ’s redemption their entrance into the kingdom of
heaven is denied (Sermo 294, 3).
But it was primarily in the controversy with the
Pelagians that he was led to emphasize and develop the theological meaning of
humanity’s corruption and the absolute and universal necessity of the
redemption, without which Christ’s cross would be emptied (De natura et gratia 7; 9; 19).
To defend the integrity of humanity’s free choice and
will even after the Fall, Pelagius rejected the idea of a transmission of an
original sin, thus reducing it to an evil example, which would certainly have
had disastrous consequences with the introduction of death and a habit of
disobedience, but it did not intrinsically corrupt human nature. As a result,
baptism is a therapeutic and regenerative sacrament, a simple blessing for
children. Grace is only an exterior help and consists fundamentally in the revelation
of the divine law.
Against Pelagius, Augustine defended the absolute
necessity of grace, affirming that all are born with a “sin,” in the sense that
the situation in which every person is born is truly similar to that in which a
person commits a personal sin, deprived of grace and with a will perverted by
the control of concupiscence. His firm belief in the sinful condition in which
every descendant of Adam lives led Augustine to thus devote himself to the
theme of concupiscence, understood as the inheritance from Adam and the origin
of personal sin and, in this perspective, considered to be the cause of sin in
the nonbaptized. One understands, then, why the theology of Augustine
concentrated on developing his anthropology, precisely during the most mature
period of his reflection on original sin. At the center of the question was the
category of freedom: the free will of Adam, whether a sinner or not, was
capable of authentic freedom, i.e., of a choice on the level of being well
deserving of eternal life (the true human end), only if supported by the grace
of God.
The Augustinian notion of original sin therefore includes
three interrelated aspects: the existence of concupiscence, the privation of
grace or the death of the soul, and the moral solidarity of each person with
Adam’s sin, the transmission of which in a certain sense makes all his children
guilty (De nupt. 2, 28, 42; Pecc. merit. 1, 10, 11; Contra Iul. opus imp. 1, 47; Civ. Dei 13, 14). Hence the absolute
need of being saved by Jesus Christ.
The results of Augustine’s doctrinal reflection were
accepted by the ecclesial magisterium. After the interventions of the Council
of Diospolis (Palestine) in the year 415, which, though absolving Pelagius,
condemned the claims of his disciple Caelestius (Aug., De gestis Pel.: NBA 17/2, Appendix,
502–507), and the African Synods of Carthage and Milevis in 416, which were
approved by Pope Innocent (Sermo 131,
10; Contra duas litt. Pel. 2, 3, 5),
the “plenary Council of all Africa,” held at Carthage in 418, confirmed the
doctrine of original sin (DS 222–223), and Pope *Zosimus’s Epistula Tractoria (a few fragments are
found in Augustine’s writings, Ep.
190, 23; Grat. Chr. 2, 21, 24; De anima 2, 12, 17; DS 231) during the
same year renewed the council’s condemnation of Pelagian teachings and those
who had devised them. The Council of *Ephesus (431) ratified the Acts of the Roman synod for this
condemnation (Mansi 4, 1338; for the letter of Pope Celestine, see Mansi 4,
1026). A subsequent intervention took place a century later at the Council of
Orange (529), which reaffirmed the doctrine of original sin (DS 371–372). In
that circumstance, *Caesarius of Arles assumed the duty of resolving
the controversy between Faustus of Riez and Fulgentius of Ruspe. The former,
who tended to be anti-Augustinian, maintained that original sin, connected to
the concupiscence of the procreative act, represented a factor in death only
for the body and not the soul. Fulgentius opposed him, insisting on the truly
sinful character of original sin. The decisions of Orange were approved by Pope
Boniface II (DS 398–400), who made sure to insist that free choice, after sin,
is certainly fallen but not extinct.
Augustine’s theology on original sin was frequently
reiterated both in the theological literature of the West and in the documents
of the ecclesiastical magisterium. As a result, his theology of original sin
would pass into the teaching of scholasticism and its core confirmed by the
Council of Trent. (Agostino Trape and Luigi Longobardo, “Original Sin,” in Encyclopedia
of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover [Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2014], 596-98)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
