Original sin Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ==History of the doctrine== ===Scriptural background and early development=== [[File:Michelangelo Buonarroti 022.jpg|upright=1.3|thumb|right|[[Michelangelo]]'s painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the [[Sistine Chapel ceiling]]]] [[Judaism]] does not see human nature as irrevocably tainted by original sin,{{sfn|Pies|2000|p=xviii}} while for the [[Apostle Paul]], Adam's act released a power into the world by which sin and death became the natural lot of mankind.{{sfn|Boring|2012|p=301}} Early Christianity had no specific doctrine of original sin prior to the 4th century.{{sfn|Obach|2008|p=41}} The idea developed incrementally in the writings of the early Church fathers in the centuries after the New Testament was composed.{{sfn|Wiley|2002|pp=37β38}} The authors of the [[Didache]], the [[Shepherd of Hermas]], and the [[Epistle of Barnabas]], all from the late 1st or early 2nd centuries, assumed that children were born without sin; [[Clement of Rome]] and [[Ignatius of Antioch]], from the same period, took universal sin for granted but did not explain its origin from anywhere; and while [[Clement of Alexandria]] in the late 2nd century did propose that sin was inherited from Adam, he did not say how.{{sfn|Wiley|2002|pp=38β39}} The biblical bases for original sin are generally found in the following passages, the first and last of which explain why the sin is described as "original": * Genesis 3, the story of the expulsion of [[Adam and Eve]] from the [[Garden of Eden]];<ref>{{bibleverse|Genesis|3}}</ref> * Psalm 51:5, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me";<ref>{{bibleverse|Psalm|51:5}}</ref> * Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 5:12β21, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned..."{{sfn|Vawter|1983|p=420}}<ref>{{bibleverse|Romans|5:12β21}}</ref> Genesis 3, the story of the Garden of Eden, makes no association between sex and the disobedience of Adam and Eve, nor is the serpent associated with [[Satan]], nor are the words "sin," "transgression," "rebellion," or "guilt" mentioned;{{sfn|Toews|2013|p=13}} the words of Psalm 51:5 read: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me", but while the speaker traces their sinfulness to the moment of their conception, there is little to support the idea that it was meant to be applicable to all humanity.{{sfn|Alter|2009|p=181}} While Paul in Romans writes that "through one man (i.e., Adam) sin entered into the world," his meaning is not that God punishes later generations for the deeds of Adam, but that Adam's story is representative for all humanity.{{sfn|Boring|2012|p=301}} ===Second Temple Judaism=== [[File:0 Venise, 'La Chute d'Adam et Γve' - Palais des Doges (2).JPG|thumb|right|''The Fall of Adam and Eve'', by [[Antonio Rizzo (architect)|Antonio Rizzo]], 1476]] The first writings to discuss the first sin at the hands of Adam and Eve were early Jewish texts in the [[Second Temple Period]]. In these writings, there is no notion that sin is inherent to an individual or that it is transmitted upon conception. Instead, Adam is more largely seen as a heroic figure and the first patriarch. Demeaning discussions of the beginnings of sin draw greater attention to the stories of [[Cain]] or the sons of God mentioned in [[Genesis 6]].{{cn|date=April 2022}} Despite the lack of a notion of original sin, by the 1st century, a number of texts did discuss the roles of Adam and Eve as the first to have committed sin. [[Wisdom of Solomon]] states that "God created man for incorruption{{nbsp}}[...] but death entered the world by the envy of the devil" (2:23β24).<ref>{{bibleverse|Wisdom of Solomon|2:23β24}}</ref> [[Ecclesiasticus]] describes that "Sin began with a woman, and we must all die because of her" (25:24).<ref>{{bibleverse|Ecclesiasticus|25:24}}</ref>{{efn|name=mcfar}} While this translation suggests a doctrine of original sin, it has also been criticized on precisely those grounds. The notion of the hereditary transmission of sin from Adam was rejected by both [[4 Ezra]] and [[2 Baruch]] in favor of individual responsibility for sin. Despite describing death as having come to all men through Adam, these texts also held to the notion that it is still the individual that is ultimately responsible for committing his own sin and that it is the individual's sin, rather than the sin of Adam and Eve, that God condemns in a person.{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=26β32}} [[Ian A. McFarland|Ian McFarland]] argues that it is the context of this Judaism through which Paul's discussions on the fall of Adam are to be better understood.{{efn|name=mcfar}} ===Paul=== The writings of [[Saint Paul|Paul]] were extremely important in terms of the development of the doctrine of original sin. Paul uses much of the same language observed in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, such as Adam-death associations. Paul also emphasizes the individual human responsibility for their sins when he described the predominance of death over all "because all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).<ref>{{bibleverse|Romans|5:12}}</ref>{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=38β47}} For the first century after the writings of Paul were written, Christians wrote little about the story of the fall or Adam and Eve more broadly. It is only when the writings of authors such as [[Justin Martyr]] and [[Tatian]] were produced in the second half of the second century onwards that increased discussion on the story of Adam's fall begins to be written.{{efn|name=mcfar}} ===Greek Fathers before Augustine=== Justin Martyr, a 2nd-century [[Christian apologist]] and philosopher, was the first Christian author to discuss the story of Adam's fall after Paul. In Justin's writings, there is no conception of original sin and the fault of sin lies at the hands of the individual who committed it. In his [[Dialogue with Trypho]], Justin wrote "The Christ has suffered to be crucified for the race of men who, since Adam, were fallen to the power of death and were in the error of the serpent, each man committing evil by his own fault" (chapter 86) and "Men{{nbsp}}[...] were created like God, free from pain and death, provided they obeyed His precepts and were deemed worthy by Him to be called His sons, and yet, like Adam and Eve, brought death upon themselves" (chapter 124).{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=48β61}} [[Irenaeus]] was an early father appealed to by [[Augustine]] on the doctrine of original sin,{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} although he did not believe that Adam's sin was as severe as later tradition would hold and he was not wholly clear about its consequences.{{sfn|Wiley|2002|pp=40-42}} One recurring theme in Irenaeus is his view that Adam, in his transgression, is essentially a child who merely partook of the tree ahead of his time.{{sfn|Bouteneff|2008|p=79}} [[Clement of Alexandria]] in the late 2nd century did propose that sin was inherited from Adam, but did not say how.{{sfn|Wiley|2002|pp=38β39}} [[Origen of Alexandria]] had a notion similar to, but not the same as original sin. To Origen, Genesis was largely a story of allegory. On the other hand, he also believed in the pre-existence of the soul, and theorized that individuals are inherently predisposed to committing sin on account of the transgressions committed in their pre-worldly existence. Origen is the first to quote Romans 5:12β21, rejecting the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam. To Origen, Adam's sin sets an example that all humanity partakes in, but is not inherently born into. Responding to and rejecting Origen's theories, [[Methodius of Olympus]] rejected the pre-existence of the soul and the allegorical interpretation of Genesis, and in the process, was the first to describe the events of Adam's life as the "Fall".{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=48β61}} Greek Fathers would come to emphasize the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam, human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in [[total depravity]], which is one understanding of original sin among the leaders of the [[Reformation]].{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|pp=255, 258}}{{sfn|Turner|2004|p=71}} During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by [[Gnosticism|Gnostics]], and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.{{sfn|Lohse|1966|p=104}}{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|p=258}} Christian apologists insisted that [[Last judgment|God's future judgment of humanity]] implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.{{sfn|McGiffert|1932|p=101}}{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|pp=258β259}} ===Latin Fathers before Augustine=== [[Tertullian]], perhaps the first to believe in hereditary transmission of sin, did so on the basis of the [[traducianism|traducian theory]]. He posited to help explain the origins of the soul, which stated that each individual's soul was derived from the soul of their two parents, and therefore, because everyone is ultimately a descendant of Adam through sexual reproduction, the souls of humanity are partly derived from Adam's own soul β the only one directly created by God, and as a sinful soul, the derived souls of humanity, too, are sinful. [[Cyprian]], on the other hand, believed that individuals were born already guilty of sin, and he was the first to link his notion of original guilt with [[infant baptism]]. Cyprian writes that the infant is "born has not sinned at all, except that carnally born according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the first death from the first nativity." Another text to assert the connection between original sin and infant baptism was the [[Manichaeism|Manichaen]] ''Letter to Menoch'', although it is of disputed authenticity.<ref>BeDuhm & Mirecki, ''The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World'', Brill 2020, p. 154</ref> In addition was [[Cyril of Jerusalem]], who thought humans were born free of sin, but he also believed that, as adults, humanity was naturally biased towards sinning. [[Ambrose]] accepted the idea of hereditary sin, also linking it, like Cyprian, to infant baptism, but as a shift from earlier proponents of a transmitted sin, he argued that Adam's sin was solely his own fault, in his attempt to attain equality with God, rather than the fault of the devil. One contemporary of Ambrose was [[Ambrosiaster]], the first to introduce a translation of Romans 5:12 that substituted the language of all being in death "because all sinned" to "in him all sinned". Augustine's primary formulation of original sin was based on a mistranslation of Romans 5:12. This mistranslation would act as the basis for Augustine's complete development of the doctrine of original sin, and Augustine would quote Ambrosiaster as the source.{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=62-72}} Some exegetes still justify the doctrine of original sin based on the wider context of Romans 5:12β21.{{sfn|Moo|1996|p=}}{{sfn|Morris|1988|p=}} [[Hilary of Poitiers]] did not clearly articulate a concept of original sin, though anticipates the views of Augustine, as he declared that all humanity is implicated in Adam's downfall.<ref name=":2">{{cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=D. H. |title=Justification by Faith: a Patristic Doctrine |journal=The Journal of Ecclesiastical History |date=October 2006 |volume=57 |issue=4 |pages=649β667 |doi=10.1017/S0022046906008207 |s2cid=170253443 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/4BCD306196706C82B0DDFDA7EC611BC7/S0022046906008207a.pdf/justification_by_faith_a_patristic_doctrine.pdf}}</ref> ===Augustine=== [[File:Sandro botticelli, sant'agostino nello studio, 1480 circa, dall'ex-coro dei frati umiliati, 01.jpg|upright=0.6|thumb|right|[[Augustine of Hippo]] wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}}]] [[Augustine of Hippo]] (354β430) taught that Adam's sin{{efn|name=Aug}} is transmitted by [[concupiscence]], or "hurtful desire",<ref name=ProfMMNinian />{{sfn|Nicholson|1842|p=118}} resulting in humanity becoming a {{lang|la|massa damnata}} (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. He believed that prior to [[Fall of man|the Fall]] Adam had both the freedom to sin and not to sin (''posse peccare, posse non peccare''), but humans have no freedom to choose not to sin (''non posse non peccare'') after Adam's Fall.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Loke |first1=Andrew Ter Ern |title=Evil, Sin and Christian Theism |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |page=123}}</ref> Augustine found the original sin inexplicable given the understanding that Adam and Eve were "created with perfect natures" which would fail to explain how the evil desire arose in them in the first place.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Loke |first1=Andrew |title=Evil, Sin and Christian Theism |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |page=63}}</ref> Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]], not a [[Psychology|psychological]] sense.{{efn|name=ThomAqu}} Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not "a being" but a "bad quality", the [[privation of good]] or a wound.{{efn|name=Non substantialiter}} He admitted that sexual concupiscence (''libido'') might have been present in the perfect human nature in [[paradise]], and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.{{efn|name=Aug2}} In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam that all humans inherit. Although earlier Christian authors taught the elements of physical death, moral weakness, and a sin propensity within original sin, Augustine was the first to add the concept of inherited guilt (reatus) from Adam whereby an infant was eternally damned at birth. Augustine held the traditional view that free will was weakened but not destroyed by original sin until he converted in 412 AD to the Stoic view that humanity had no free will except to sin as a result of his anti-Pelagian view of infant baptism.{{sfn|Wilson|2018|pp=16β18, 157β159, 269β271, 279β285}} Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to his understanding of [[Pelagianism]] that would insist that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, thus denying both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. According to this understanding, the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from their parents, who experience ''libido'' (or ''concupiscence''). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual ''concupiscence'' present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.{{efn|name=Sex}} Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".{{efn|name=Regeneratus}} Augustine used [[Cicero]]nian [[Stoicism|Stoic]] concept of passions, to interpret Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the [[resurrection of the dead]].{{efn|name=De civitate Dei}}{{sfn|Brachtendorf|1997|p=307}} Augustine believed that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.{{efn|name=Infernum}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm |title=Past Roman Catholic statements about Limbo and the destination of unbaptised infants who die? |website=Religioustolerance.org |access-date=24 January 2017 |archive-date=28 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130528132306/http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Latin [[Church Fathers]] who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.<ref>Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), ''[https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized]'', 19β21</ref> In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view. Others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the [[beatific vision]], they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "[[Unbaptized Infants|limbo of infants]]".<ref>Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), ''[https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized]'', 22β25</ref> The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', 1261<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm#VI ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', 1261]</ref> declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them',<ref>{{bibleverse|Mark|10:14}}; cf. {{bibleverse|1 Timothy|2:4}}</ref> allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium{{nbsp}}[...] remains{{nbsp}}[...] a possible theological hypothesis".<ref>Study by International Theological Commission (19 January 2007), ''[https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized]'', secondary preliminary paragraph; cf. paragraph 41.</ref> Augustine also identified male semen as the means by which original sin was made heritable, leaving only Jesus Christ, conceived without semen, free of the sin passed down from Adam through the sexual act.{{sfn|Stortz|2001|pp=93β94}} This sentiment was echoed as late as 1930 by Pope [[Pius XI]] in his {{lang|la|[[Casti connubii]]}}: "The natural generation of life has become the path of death by which original sin is communicated to the children."{{sfn|Obach|2008|p=43}} ====Pelagius' response==== {{main|Pelagianism}} The theologian [[Pelagius]] reacted thoroughly negatively to Augustine's theory of original sin. Pelagius considered it an insult to God that humans could be born inherently sinful or biased towards sin, and Pelagius believed that the soul was created by God at conception, and therefore could not be imbued with sin as it was solely the product of God's creative agency. Adam did not bring about inherent sin, but he introduced death to the world. Furthermore, Pelagius argued, sin was spread through example rather than hereditary transmission. Pelagius advanced a further argument against the idea of the transmission of sin: since adults are baptized and cleansed of their sin, their children are not capable of inheriting a sin that the parents do not have to begin with.{{sfn|Toews|2013|pp=73β89}} ===Cassian=== [[File:John Cassian.jpeg|thumb|upright=0.9|[[John Cassian|John Cassian the Roman]], modern Greek icon.]] In the works of [[John Cassian]] ({{c.|360β435}}), ''Conference'' XIII recounts how the wise monk Chaeremon, of whom he is writing, responded to puzzlement caused by his own statement that "man even though he strive with all his might for a good result, yet cannot become master of what is good unless he has acquired it simply by the gift of Divine bounty and not by the efforts of his own toil" (chapter 1). In chapter 11, Cassian presents Chaeremon as speaking of the cases of Paul the persecutor and Matthew the publican as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of free will is in our own power", and the cases of Zaccheus and the [[good thief|good thief on the cross]] as difficulties for those who say "the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God", and as concluding: "These two then; viz., the grace of God and free will seem opposed to each other, but really are in harmony, and we gather from the system of goodness that we ought to have both alike, lest if we withdraw one of them from man, we may seem to have broken the rule of the Church's faith: for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us: for 'At the voice of thy cry, as soon as He shall hear, He will answer thee'; and: 'Call upon Me', He says, 'in the day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me'. And again, if He finds that we are unwilling or have grown cold, He stirs our hearts with salutary exhortations, by which a good will is either renewed or formed in us."<ref name=Conference13>Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11 [[s:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part II/Conference XIII/Chapter 11]]</ref> Cassian did not accept the idea of [[total depravity]], on which [[Martin Luther]] was to insist.{{sfn|Elton|1963|p=136}} He taught that human nature is fallen or depraved, but not totally. Augustine Casiday states that, at the same time, Cassian "baldly asserts that God's grace, not human free will, is responsible for 'everything [that] pertains to salvation' β even faith".{{sfn|Casiday|2006|p=103}} Cassian pointed out that people still have moral freedom and one has the option to choose to follow God. Colm LuibhΓ©id says that, according to Cassian, there are cases where the soul makes the first little turn,<ref name="Cassian1985">{{cite book|last=Cassian|first=John |title=Conferences|url=https://archive.org/details/conferences00cass|url-access=registration|year=1985|publisher=Paulist Press|isbn=978-0-8091-2694-1|pages=[https://archive.org/details/conferences00cass/page/27 27]β}}</ref> but in Cassian's view, according to Casiday, any sparks of goodwill that may exist, not {{em|directly}} caused by God, are totally inadequate and only {{em|direct}} divine intervention ensures spiritual progress;{{sfn|Moss|2009|p=4}} and Lauren Pristas says that "for Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God's grace".<ref name=Pristas>{{Cite web |url=http://escholarship.bc.edu/dissertations/AAI9329276/ |title=Lauren Pristas, ''The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian'' |access-date=30 November 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100610223355/http://escholarship.bc.edu/dissertations/AAI9329276/ |archive-date=10 June 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref> ===Church reaction=== Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to [[Pelagianism]], arose rapidly.{{sfn|Wallace|Rusk|2011|pp=284β285}} After a long and bitter struggle several councils, especially the [[Second Council of Orange]] in 529, confirmed the general principles of Augustine's teaching within Western Christianity.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} However, while the Western Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.{{sfn|GonzΓ‘lez|1987|pp=58-}} Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with [[concupiscence]]{{efn|name=In Catholic theology|In Catholic theology, the meaning of the word "concupiscence" is the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the "flesh" against the "spirit". "Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man's moral faculties and, without being in itself an offence, inclines man to commit sins."<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8P.HTM ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', n. 2515]</ref>}} in the psychological sense, but Saint [[Anselm of Canterbury]] challenged this identification in the 11th century, defining original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by [[Peter Lombard]] and others,{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, most notably by [[Thomas Aquinas]]. Aquinas distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the [[Franciscans]], though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as [[Duns Scotus]] and [[William of Ockham]], eliminated the element of concupiscence and identified original sin with the loss of sanctifying grace. Eastern Christian theology has questioned Western Christianity's ideas on original sin from the outset and does not promote the idea of inherited guilt.{{sfn|McGuckin|2010|p=}} ===The Protestant Reformation=== [[Martin Luther]] (1483β1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. The second article in [[Lutheranism]]'s [[Augsburg Confession]] presents its doctrine of original sin in summary form: {{blockquote|It is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God. Moreover, this inborn sickness and hereditary sin is truly sin and condemns to the eternal wrath of God all those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Rejected in this connection are the [[Pelagianism|Pelagians]] and others who deny that original sin is sin, for they hold that natural man is made righteous by his own powers, thus disparaging the sufferings and merit of Christ.<ref>Theodore G. Tappert, ''The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church'', (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 29.</ref>}} Luther, however, also agreed with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the [[Immaculate Conception]] (that Mary was conceived free from original sin) by saying: {{blockquote|[Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.<ref>Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968</ref>}} Protestant [[Protestant Reformation|Reformer]] [[John Calvin]] (1509β1564) developed a [[systematic theology]] of Augustinian Protestantism by interpretation of [[Augustine of Hippo]]'s notion of original sin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the [[Calvinism|Calvinistic]] doctrine of "[[total depravity]]") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his [[Imputation of sin|sin by imputation]]. [[Redemption (religious)|Redemption]] by Jesus Christ is the only remedy. John Calvin defined original sin in his ''[[Institutes of the Christian Religion]]'' as follows: {{blockquote|Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works that Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it β such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings β he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" ({{abbr|Gal|Galatians}} 5:19β21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.<ref>John Calvin, ''The Institutes of the Christian Religion'', II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (p. 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html ''Institutes of the Christian Religion''] at the [[Christian Classics Ethereal Library]]</ref>}} ===Council of Trent=== The [[Council of Trent]] (1545β1563), while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm |title=Paul III Council of Trent-5 |website=Ewtn.com |access-date=24 January 2017 |archive-date=22 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190622044114/http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent5.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, [[Pope Pius V]] went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.{{sfn|Cross|1966|p=994}} The Catholic Encyclopedia refers: "Whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).".{{sfn|Harent|1911}} ===Modern theologians=== [[SΓΈren Kierkegaard]], [[Paul Tillich]] and [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] thought that the doctrine of original sin is not necessarily linked to some act of disobedience by the first human beings; rather, the Fall describes every human person's existential situation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Loke |first1=Andrew Ter Ern |title=Evil, Sin and Christian Theism |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |page=124}}</ref> [[Karl Barth]] rejected the concepts of original guilt and original corruption for being, as he thought, deterministic and undermining human responsibility; instead, he advanced, as noted by Loke, "an alternative conception of Original Sin (''UrsΓΌnde'') which rests upon the idea that God sees, addresses, and treats humanity as a unity on account of the disobedience that is universal."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Loke |first1=Andrew Ter Ern |title=Evil, Sin and Christian Theism |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |page=124}}</ref> For Barth, Adam did not pass on sin as corruption. In response to Augustine's problem of the inexplicability of original sin, Loke responds that God is not the first cause of evil, rather created libertarian agents who freely choose evil are the first causes of evil.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Loke |first1=Andrew Ter Ern |title=Evil, Sin and Christian Theism |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |page=69}}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page