Inform Your 'Faith'

    Original sin is a biblically anthropological fact and reality. Paul wrote the Romans, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinner's," (Rom.5:12.19).  This Pauline phraseology, though succinct, is pregnant with theological, anthropological and sociological meaning.    

    How are we to understand the nature of this doctrine? How is original sin transmitted? How does it effect the warp and woof of humanity?  What is the difference between original sin and actual sin?  This "Achille's heel" of humanity has been elucidated by many erudite churchmen and many a heretic throughout history.  In the next three installments I will aim to give perspectival considerations from St.Augustine of Hippo, Pelagius, & St.Thomas Aquinas pertaining to this particular doctrine and then conclude.

Augustin...

     It is an undeniable truth that Augustin’s doctrine of original sin is paramount to his perspectives on biblical anthropology. Arguably, there have been variegated theological and doctrinal assertions provided throughout the post-Augustinian echelon relative to the precise nature of his fundamental schema including elements of Traducianism (or generation theory) and creationism along with aspects of Adam’s representative role in relation to humankind.

    Ostensibly, Augustin is somewhat amorphous to that end as he appears to vacillate between the former two to varying degrees. This he himself attests to in his Retractions as he comes to no unwavering conclusion. Despite his indecision pertaining to the origin of the soul he remains pertinaciously ardent in propounding the role of original sin and its privative characteristics throughout the successive history of the human saga. This emphasis is emphatically underscored with his constant references to Romans 5:12 for scriptural attestation which in his Latin translation reads, “Sin came into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, through one man, in whom all men sinned.”

    For Augustin sin is not substantive but privative. When Adam originally sinned it was a betrayal of the freedom of choice that was bestowed upon him. In Adam’s original state he was equipped and capable to live a life without sin (posse non peccare) as he was good and innocent thus possessing a proclivity or inclination to the good in contradistinction to the impossibility of sinning (non posse peccare). Adam, “lived in Paradise as he wanted to, and for as long as he wanted what God had commanded. He lived enjoying God, from whom, the Good, he was also good; and lived without lacking anything, having it in his power to live this way forever.”

    According to Augustin Adam was created with inherent potentiality that could have precipitated perfection. “Adam could go straight forward, develop himself harmoniously in untroubled unity with God, and thus gradually attain his final perfection; or he could fall away, engender evil ex nihilo by abuse of his free will.” Following Adam’s willful defiance vis a vis the external influence of the devils subtle connivance’s impinging upon him from without he fell from a state of unfettered grace and consequently incurred a wounded nature. Corruption intruded upon God’s good creation through the impetus of a recalcitrant act of malfeasance, that is willing to sin, “But that free will, whereby man corrupted his own self, was sufficient for his passing into sin.”

    In so doing Adam’s self-willed contumacy led to the degradation of the human condition vis a vis the soul’s deprecation, degeneration and incapacitation en toto. The latter effect is invariably under-emphasized when considering Augustin’s construct of original sin though it is a rudimentary facet underlying his thought. “Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man’s nature Why need he presume to much on the capacity of his nature? It is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed.” Though he staunchly maintained that humanity is in a state of depravity it was not absolute so much as it was permeated by an irrecoverable corruption or privation.

    This integral element is magnified through his usage of Physician/patient imagery. Augustin makes frequent allusions to the effect that mankind is malady stricken and overwhelmed by a contagion. Original sin is to be sure a virulent, rampant disease infecting all mankind and is of epidemic proportions. “Now from this sin, from this sickness, from this wrath of God (of which by nature they are children who have original sin, even if they have none of their own on account of their youth), none delivers them,” as Augustin proceeds to say, “except the Physician, who came not for the sake of the sound, but of the sick.” Elsewhere he makes reference to the wounded soul that needs healing and additionally speaks of sinners as being sick. In response to Pelagius’ position that man has the capacity to avoid sin without the grace of God Augustin retorts, “Faithful men say in their prayer, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” But if they already have the capacity, why do they pray?” Even after regeneration he maintains that mankind remains incapacitated to some extent thereby necessitating the need for aid. Thus, according to Augustin it is befitting that mankind is crippled in a state of sinfulness and corruption as a consequence of, “that free will, whereby man, corrupted his own self.”

    The foregoing (i.e. the radical corruption of human nature) is irrefragably true for the former Bishop of Hippo because mankind still retains a vestige of goodness amidst the corruption as he postulates, “That is still good which bewails lost good; for had not something good remained in our nature, there would be no grief over lost good for punishment.” The good nature wherewith mankind was originally bestowed has not undergone such a mutation as to be completely devoid of the original distinctive characteristics with which it was imbrued but instead is so embroiled in corruption that the nature of man is denigrated as Augustin posits,

“For man has such excellence [even after the fall] in comparison with the brute that what is a fault in man is nature in the brute. Still man’s nature is not changed into the nature of the brute. God, therefore, condemns man because of the fault by which his nature is disgraced, not because of his nature, which is not abolished through the fault.”

    Nature is debased and corrupted through sin yet it is not nature that is inherently evil, as the Manicheans advocated;instead it has been vitiated by sin. For Augustin nature is good and, conversely, it is nature’s corruption that is evil. Moreover, it is seemingly apparent that the corruption of the soul or man’s nature is more accidental in genre than causal. Originally, this deprivation was caused by temptation from without not from within albeit, he does acknowledge that, “man never yet proceeded to an evil work, unless incited to it by an evil will.” So, suitably after the fall Augustin could say, “although there was a fault present in nature, yet nature was not itself a fault.” Nevertheless, this fault continues to be a contagion present within the nature of our primeval parents posterity. For Augustin this dynamic of nature and its corruption is an inseparable reality that continues in perpetual succession throughout the propagation of human-kind. As  he posits,“No doubt the two are generated simultaneously – both nature and nature’s corruption; one of which is good, the other evil. The one comes to us from the bounty of the Creator, the other is contracted from the condemnation of our origin; the one has its cause in the good-will of the Supreme God, the other in the depraved will of the first man...”

    With the pathogenesis of original sin finding its inception with Adam (not Eve so much) Augustin maintains that all of humanity is infected and has become a massa perditionis, “the entire mass of our nature was ruined beyond doubt.” His copious references to Romans 5:12 evidently serve as the benchmark of scriptural attestations relevant to the transmission of original sin.

    Augustin seems rather ambivalent as to the precise nature of transmission teetering between traducianism and creationism. At times he seems to suggest that humanity was physically present in Adam when the first sin was committed and thus directly culpable as he asserts in one place, “because all men were in him when he sinned; and from him sin is derived from birth,” while in another place positing that it is transmitted through the simultaneous generation of the tangible element (body) and the intangible element (soul).

    Augustin does undoubtedly subtend that original sin is transmitted through natural generation. He writes that the nature of the human race is generated from the flesh of the one transgressor and that this “carnal generation” incontrovertibly holds every man. This condition continues its course of corruption in all persons ever conceived throughout the succession of mankind. Original sin, as it has corrupted the organic whole of humanity (massa perditionis), is an inescapable inevitability for Augustin as , “it [corrupt nature] has run on in this condition by natural descent through all, and is still running.” The capstone perhaps is that he refers to humanity as being in the loins of Adam (in lumbis Adami) to the extent that, “all men are understood to have sinned in that first man, because all men were in him when he sinned.”

    Inasmuch as this verbiage of “carnal generation” and “carnal begetting” is employed throughout his nomenclature I am not so much convinced as many are that his methodology inextricably propounds such a corporeal or materialistic transmission, especially when taking into account his phraseology when elucidating on the role of concupiscence in the context of sexual intercourse within the confines of matrimony.

    Augustin does not eschew the institution of marriage nor does he ascribe evil to it. Instead he maintains that, “The evil at which even marriage blushes for shame is not the fault of marriage, but of the lust of the flesh.” This lust expresses itself most in the connubial embrace as Augustin asserts, “that the connubial intercourse and lust are at the same time in action.” For Augustin marriage is “lawful” and the lust is “unseemly” as he pens, “it follows that infants, although incapable of sinning, are yet not born without the contagion of sin, –not, indeed, because of what is lawful, but on account of that which is unseemly: for from what is lawful (marriage) nature is born; from what is unseemly (concupiscence), sin.”

    The aforementioned notwithstanding, Augustin still proceeds to say that Adam’s progeny prior to birth are condemned to the core. He also invariably incorporates the role of penal or legal actions taken by God towards man: "Where God did nothing else than by a just sentence to condemn the man who wilfully sins, together with his stock; there also, as a matter of course, whatsoever was even not yet born is justly condemned in its sinful root. In this condemned stock carnal generation holds every man.”

    Hereupon Augustin arguably resigns the continuance of a “carnal generation” to a previously “condemned stock”. This is ostensibly reminiscent of Platonic and Neo-Platonic promulgations. Herein he evinces that man-kinds primordial progenitor stood as a federal type or representative. It stands to reason that it is possible for Augustin to be arguing that original sin pervades humankind and is transmitted through the more incorporeal reality that humanity is a continuation of Adam; perhaps copies, products or emanations of the original form of humanity.

    Regardless of how he resolves this quagmire he does unabashedly articulate the universality of sin. “There is no man” says Augustin, “without sin be it young or old.” He has such an extensive view of sin that, “the very stars are unclean in the sight of God.” This being so then, “how much more is a worm and corruption, such as are they who are held subject to the sin of the offending Adam?” Again Augustin seems to be purveying that the whole of the created order has been corrupted and he is conceivably viewing the warp and woof of the created order as a single unit or a whole that consists of many and thus the many are participants in the whole.

    Attention though is primarily infixed upon the effect of the first sin upon mankind as this “contagion” has permeated the entire strata of humanity not only in an immediate or actual sense but also in a potential sense. The latter point is true for Augustine because, “men are born with the fault of original sin.” and with this being so, “no one is pure from uncleaness, not even infants.” The ongoing program of progeny assumes to itself original sin so that those who have yet to be born are already conceptually fallen in nature albeit not actualized until conception.

    The perpetual continuum of creation remains good as it relates to God’s work yet it is also marred and debased in that sin has effected everything under the sun. Thus it is a disparaging truth that original sin confronts all of humanity as Augustine concludes, “It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin.” He further purveys that this doctrine is attested to by scripture, tradition and the Catholic church.

Quotes culled from: