The Origin of Original Sin

[featheredprop]

Last week I called Steve during a TNP broadcast to ask about the doctrine of Original Sin. During his response the question arose "when did this teaching first arise?" Steve knew that it could be traced to Augustine, but was not certain if any earlier Church Father wrote on the subject.

I found something written by Irenaeus (late second-century Church Father), which might indicate his belief in the doctrine of Original Sin (that we bear not only a tendency toward sin, but also the guilt of Adam upon birth). Irenaeus wrote:

"But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning." Against Heresies 16:3

Irenaeus may be giving us a glimpse into his theology when he writes that we - in Adam - offended God when Adam did not keep God's commandment. This seems to be supported by the last quoted line wherein he writes that "in the beginning" we sinned against God (presumably in Adam). If I am understanding his writing clearly then it would seem logical to conclude that if Irenaeus believed we sinned against God in Adam, then he would believe we must be guilty of that same sin before God. If so, then it might be that Irenaeus taught the doctrine before Augustine did.

All of this and $4.75 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Do with it what you will ...

peace,

dane

[TK]

The last couple of days readings from oswald chambers talks about this topic.

The Nature of Degeneration

Just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . —Romans 5:12
The Bible does not say that God punished the human race for one man’s sin, but that the nature of sin, namely, my claim to my right to myself, entered into the human race through one man. But it also says that another Man took upon Himself the sin of the human race and put it away— an infinitely more profound revelation (see Hebrews 9:26 ). The nature of sin is not immorality and wrongdoing, but the nature of self-realization which leads us to say, "I am my own god." This nature may exhibit itself in proper morality or in improper immorality, but it always has a common basis— my claim to my right to myself. When our Lord faced either people with all the forces of evil in them, or people who were clean-living, moral, and upright, He paid no attention to the moral degradation of one, nor any attention to the moral attainment of the other. He looked at something we do not see, namely, the nature of man (see John 2:25 ).

Sin is something I am born with and cannot touch— only God touches sin through redemption. It is through the Cross of Christ that God redeemed the entire human race from the possibility of damnation through the heredity of sin. God nowhere holds a person responsible for having the heredity of sin, and does not condemn anyone because of it. Condemnation comes when I realize that Jesus Christ came to deliver me from this heredity of sin, and yet I refuse to let Him do so. From that moment I begin to get the seal of damnation. "This is the condemnation [and the critical moment], that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light . . . " ( John 3:19 ).

The Nature of Regeneration
When it pleased God . . . to reveal His Son in me . . . —Galatians 1:15-16
If Jesus Christ is going to regenerate me, what is the problem He faces? It is simply this— I have a heredity in which I had no say or decision; I am not holy, nor am I likely to be; and if all Jesus Christ can do is tell me that I must be holy, His teaching only causes me to despair. But if Jesus Christ is truly a regenerator, someone who can put His own heredity of holiness into me, then I can begin to see what He means when He says that I have to be holy. Redemption means that Jesus Christ can put into anyone the hereditary nature that was in Himself, and all the standards He gives us are based on that nature— His teaching is meant to be applied to the life which He puts within us. The proper action on my part is simply to agree with God’s verdict on sin as judged on the Cross of Christ.

The New Testament teaching about regeneration is that when a person is hit by his own sense of need, God will put the Holy Spirit into his spirit, and his personal spirit will be energized by the Spirit of the Son of God— ". . . until Christ is formed in you" (Galatians 4:19 ). The moral miracle of redemption is that God can put a new nature into me through which I can live a totally new life. When I finally reach the edge of my need and know my own limitations, then Jesus says, "Blessed are you . . ." ( Matthew 5:11 ). But I must get to that point. God cannot put into me, the responsible moral person that I am, the nature that was in Jesus Christ unless I am aware of my need for it.

Just as the nature of sin entered into the human race through one man, the Holy Spirit entered into the human race through another Man (see Romans 5:12-19 ). And redemption means that I can be delivered from the heredity of sin, and that through Jesus Christ I can receive a pure and spotless heredity, namely, the Holy Spirit.

TK

[mikew]

I tend to agree with that quote TK gives.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one upon all men came condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one there came upon all men unto justification of life. [my modification of esword kjvr version]

Adam was judged since he violated God's commandment. The "condemnation" also can be thought of as a sentence meted out by the court.

Mankind then was just caught up in the sentencing of Adam. Its kind of like the idea of a pregnant mother being in prison in which case the baby would be in prison as a result of the same sentence. Yet the baby hadn't been judged.

(Rom 5:12-21 was not written to show that all men were judged for sin but was written to show the stark contrast between sin and grace such that the Romans would not use grace as a reason to sin. The sequence mainly was of a list of contrasts between sin and grace. The repetition is largely for emphasis, but we easily can get confused by the repetition rather than clarification)

See? Even in Rom 5:13 it was mentioned that there was no guilt unless it was for violation of law. And the only law discussed was that given over the Jews through Moses, as implied by verse 14.

(and a big reason why Jews were under the Law of Moses is that there would be guilt before God which pointed to the need for a savior, to take away this guilt, verses 20 to 21)

[Paidion]

Interesting quote, Dane! It indeed appears that Irenæus taught that we sinned through Adam, and thus have inherited original sin.

For those who wish to look up the quote, the reference Dane gave is correct, and you will find it in Book 5.

[Theophilus]

That is a fascinating quote.

It's still a bit difficult to know for certain how we are to interpret the clause "whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam". Some possibilities could be:

1. Similarity or likeness to Adam "when he did not perform His commandment." So just as the first Adam did not obey at the beginning we also have continued to not obey. State of all men in the first Adam.

2. Literal presence in Adam in the beginning - this is difficult because if we literally sinned in Adam, did we literally obey the Father in Christ on the cross? The redemption on the cross is the work of Christ alone.

3. Inherited guilt - Is Irenaeus talking about something we have inherited or something we have done?

[RickC]

I found this about Irenaeus @

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Irenaeus_of_Lyons
The high point in salvation history is Jesus Christ. Irenaeus believes that Christ would always have been sent, even if humanity had never sinned; but the fact that they did sin determines his role as a saviour. He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did: thus, where Adam was disobedient about the fruit of a tree, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and the Theotokos, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity. Irenaeus is therefore forced to argue that Christ did not die until he was quite old!

With Irenaeus' theology, key words for understanding him are "Corporate Head" as in, we have:
1) Adam {before salvation}, and/or, 2) Christ {after salvation}.
Paul used the same CH concept.

Afaik, a [developed] doctrine of original sin didn't exist in Irenaeus' time. I don't see it in the quote Dane gave, anyway.

Here's a brief {Roman Catholic} link to contrast & compare some Early Fathers: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201frs.asp

Excerpts, with scripture references

Irenaeus
"But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]" (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).'

Irenaeus
"Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Augustine
"Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the sacrament [of baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ" (Letter to Jerome 166:7:21 [A.D. 415]).


Quite a distinction between Augustine & Irenaeus here, no?
Irenaeus seems to have more of an existential focus or in terms of orthopraxy {correct practice in Christian living}. Augustine, on the other hand, has an essential focal point: Each person's "essence" {what one's being "is" upon birth} is utterly sinful. Manichean influence, imo.

Hey Dane,
What date were you on TNP radio? I wanna hear you guys, "context,"

[mattrose]

I thought I would share from a book by Randy Maddox regarding the theology of John Wesley...

"The dominant streams of Western Christianity eventually affirmed two major effects of the Fall upon subsequent humanity: 1)We inherit the guilt of the Original Sin; and 2) as one sign of God's judgment, our human faculties are depraved to the point that we are free to do little more than sin. Eastern Christianity has vigorously denied both of these effects. They contend that the true significance of the Fall was our loss of the Spirit's immediate Presence, resulting in the introduction of mortality into human life."

"[Wesley] ultimately declared that any inherited guilt was universally cancelled at birth, as one benefit of Christ's redemption. In effect, his concession of inherited guilt was now annulled by the invocation of Prevenient Grace... Wesley's growing uncomfortableness with the notion of inherited guilt was not due to any doubt about universal human sinfulness, but rather was an expression of his life-long conviction that God deals responsibly with each individual."

It seems to me that this creates a third option

1) We are born guilty
2) We are not born guilty
3) We are born guilty, but prevenient grace effectually annuls that guilt

[Paidion]

Thanks very much, Rick. Most insightful!

[darinhouston]

I think God does deal primarily with individuals, but the bible does seem to deal with collective groups as well and it can be difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. Maybe this is a virtue of the lack of individualism inherent in ancient Hebrew and Greek "thought," but it's hard to draw the distinctions sometimes while I feel confident there are distinctions to be drawn. It's interesting that even Irenaeus' quote uses the colletive "we" and is not expressing a thought of a specific individual inheriting the guilt of original sin.

Analogies fail, but consider for the moment that I am an employer with a surplus of jobs and I have always admired graduates from my alma mater. I have a purpose and practice that I consider anyone from my alma mater as being "qualified" for the jobs I hire. Though I'm smart enough to know that things can and likely will happen I have no reason to suspect their credentials, and I have no shortage of job openings, so I elect to proceed on this basis until proven otherwise. I don't even see a need to interview them. For years, I have unquestionably hired people from my alma mater. Then one day I hire someone and they turn in a project that reflects not just a fundamental misunderstanding of some key point, it is clear to me that this has to reflect on the alma mater and after finding out that they had slipped many classes, now decide that I can't rely on the alma mater. From then on, I know that I can no longer make assumptions about the quality of the graduates, and interview them rigorously, check credentials, test them, etc. I then elect to deal with them individually on their own merit without regard to their alma mater.

Now, suspicion entered through that one individual. I don't then blindly refuse any of the others admission to my program -- but, they have to deal with me on their own merit. They aren't guilty of slipping classes, or for neglecting their education, but I no longer choose to treat them collectively. The whole "collective group" from my alma mater are affected by that one individual -- they aren't punished but they are affected by association.

[featheredprop]

Quite a distinction between Augustine & Irenaeus here, no?

Good question Rick - that's what I was trying to figure out ... if Irenaeus pre-dated Augustine with the doctrine of Original Sin.

It's pretty easy to see where Augustine falls in on the issue, but it's not as easy with Irenaeus. The occasions of Augustine's writings allowed him to give us a better understanding of what he thought on the matter. Irenaeus does not seem to be grappling with the same matter, and therefore does not give sufficient detail to allow us a good view of what he would have taught on the matter. Still, in my opinion, I think there is some evidence in Irenaeus' writings that could allow one to believe he held some very similar views to Augustine on Original Sin.

peace,

dane