Augustine’s mistake about original sin
August 11th, 2007 at 21:07Scot McKnight writes:
Behind the Reformation is Augustine; behind much of modern evangelicalism, especially in the Reformed circles today, is the Reformation. Therefore, at the bottom of the evangelical movement in the Reformed circles is Augustine and his anthropology.
And behind Augustine’s anthropology (understanding of humanity), which is outlined in Scot’s post, is a simple misunderstanding of one word in the Bible, a preposition consisting of just two letters. Scot is writing about the New Perspective on Paul, an interesting issue. But my point here is not about that, but about how a misleading Bible translation has led Christian theology seriously astray for 1600 years.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was a great thinker and church leader. As a young man he had left his Christian background and become a Manichaean, a follower of an anti-Christian dualistic religion; eventually he came back to the Christian faith. But he was not a great linguist. He could speak and understand well only his native Latin, not Greek. And so for his understanding of the Bible he had to rely on translations into Latin.
Doug Chaplin has recently explained how in Romans 5:12
Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.
(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:
the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”
More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.
So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.
Augustine was indeed right to oppose the teaching (or alleged teaching) of the British or Irish teacher Pelagius, that humans are intrinsically good and can make themselves acceptable to God by good works. But Augustine’s view of the matter takes things too far in the opposite direction, further than can be justified by the biblical text.
For the far more likely meaning of the Greek text of Romans 5:12 is that all are counted as sinners because each person individually has sinned. On this view there is perhaps some kind of tendency to sin passed down from Adam to others, but there is no actual guilt. This is consistent with the Old Testament teaching of Ezekiel in which
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.
Ezekiel 18:20 (TNIV)
Of course this verse also undermines the theory of penal substitutionary atonement. This post is not about that, but there is certainly a close link between the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and the various ideas of the atonement. A corrected anthropology without Augustine’s kind of original sin is likely to require a corrected understanding of the atonement.
But my real point here is the need to be very careful before basing any kind of doctrine on a translation of the Bible. It is almost impossible for a translation to be precise and unambiguous in its rendering of little words like prepositions. Augustine’s Latin translation was not really inaccurate, it was just excessively literal and introduced an ambiguity which wasn’t in the original, like many translations into English and other languages today. Sadly, too many exegetes and preachers today base their teaching on similar misunderstandings of inadequate translations, and don’t bother to learn the original languages. Not many of their mistakes will still be remembered 1600 years later, but there are serious consequences for leading just one person astray by wrong teaching.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Thanks for this extended reflection. You’re right to correct me on calling Augustine’s Bible the Vulgate rather than the Old Latin – I guess I was being careless rather in the way LXX covers a multitude of sins, or at least versions!
August 12th, 2007 at 12:02 am
A couple of comments…
Concerning Ezekiel 18.20: This refers to something akin to a ‘death penalty’ sentencing in the natural realm rather than a judicial judgment from God at the Final Judgment.
Concerning ‘original sin’: I understand where you are coming from on this. But I must ask a similar question posed by Sproul: If ‘original sin’ is not a reality, where is the ‘group of people’ that aren’t sinners? That is, ‘birds of a feather flock together’. If people are sinners by nature, why do they sin? And if they aren’t, wouldn’t there be a community, town, city, county, state, country, continent where such people reside? And what does this say about the Satisfaction of Jesus? What does this mean for the Passion? What does church history teach us about this subject?
Lastly, concerning doctrine based on translations: Don’t we do that all the time? That is, since we don’t have the original manuscripts we are just supposing that the copies we have are correct. Even if the majority states it one way, the original texts may have it differently. How do we know this?
Peace be with you.
+ OD
August 12th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Peter, you don’t actually say that every modern Protestant proponent of original sin takes the Augustinian intepretation on this passage, but I think someone could come away from this post thinking that Augustine made this big mistake, which infected all thought down to Protestant exegetes of this passage today, all of whom exegete the verse the way Augustine wrongly did. I want to make it clear that this is not the case. Most scholars today, including Protestant proponents of original sin, do not take the verse in question the way Augustine did but rather translate it “because of”, and most modern translations follow suit.
Douglas Moo’s Romans commentary has an excellent discussion of this issue. He explains where Augustine’s reasoning goes wrong but also argues based on tensions within the passage why the best way to take the passage as a whole is that Paul nonetheless has a working assumption of something like original sin. Because Paul seems to move from corporate death inherited from Adam to an individual explanation of the corporate death, what is actually being inherited from Adam? It’s not the death, since that comes from individual sin. But it’s not the sin in terms of our actually actions, because we commit our sins, not Adam. So there must be a sin nature that we inherit from him, which explains why we all do sin (and inevitably so) and thus explains why all will receive the death sentence without redemption (even if it’s individual sins that ground that death sentence in another sense).
Whether you accept that reasoning or not, I hope it’s clear that undermining one argument for original sin does not refute the view unless that one argument is the only support for original sin. Since it is not, simply disagreeing with Augustine’s exegesis doesn’t provide a sufficient argument for dismissing original sin as a doctrine.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Interesting post and certainly your remark about translation is important.
‘Do you believe in original sin?’ seemed to be a favourite question when candidating for the ministry. My answer always was ‘I believe that every person sins and I believe that we are all sinners. I also believe that every person has the capacity for doing good. I don’t believe in Augustine’s version of original sin.’ This was always accepted as an answer.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.”
Actually it doesn’t.
I’ve never heard this specific argument used at any time by any major Calvinistic theologian.
There are passages that are much clearer that speak of the inability of man to please God by themselves (and if we are not pleasing God, I mean that we are sinning).
Interesting note on translation issues though – it is interesting to see how translations have effected people’s theology.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Odysseus, I did not deny that people are sinners by nature in that they are born with an inherent tendency to sin. What I am more sceptical about, primarily from the absence of biblical evidence, is that they are actually guilty of having sinned before birth. But I am concerned about the implications of you basing your theology on experience when there is no clear biblical basis.
Jeremy, I accept that modern scholars do not understand this verse in the same way as Augustine did. But I submit that they more or less follow Augustine’s theology here because they follow Catholic and/or Reformation tradition, and read Augustine’s position back into other Scripture passages. I have no serious problem with Moo’s conclusions that we inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam (although one wonders how Jesus managed not to although he is fully human), but this is not Augustine’s position. My point is to reject Augustine’s teaching that we are born guilty, for I see no other biblical support for that position.
Pam, I agree with you, although I might want to discuss the details of “every person has the capacity for doing good”.
Nathan, I would be interested to know what passages you are talking about. But I see a flaw in your logic. You presumably agree with me that no human good works are acceptable enough to God to atone for that person’s sin. But does that mean that those works are not good but sin? No, it doesn’t. It is also highly offensive to claim that when an unbeliever does the works which God tells us to do, such as feeding the poor, they are sinning in doing that. Yes, their motives are impure and so sinful (aren’t everyone’s motives?) Yes, they are sinning by not believing. But their good works are not in themselves sin. Indeed they must be pleasing to God, although they do not atone for sin. Actually you might consider Acts 10:31, an angel telling the still unbelieving Cornelius that God is pleased with his gifts to the poor.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
no human good works are acceptable enough to God to atone for that person’s sin. But does that mean that those works are not good but sin? No, it doesn’t.
What I mean by ‘capacity to do good’ is related to what you say above.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
It is also highly offensive to claim that when an unbeliever does the works which God tells us to do, such as feeding the poor, they are sinning in doing that. Yes, their motives are impure and so sinful (aren’t everyone’s motives?) Yes, they are sinning by not believing.
Conservative Lutheranism calls good works done by an unbeliever ‘works of civic righteousness’ and holds that such works are acts of sinning in themeselves. No idea if this is a Calvinist concept or if the same terms is used if it is. I deny this doctrine.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
‘works of civic righteousness’ sounds like a good name for such thing, but the implication, and a correct one, is that the are righteousness, not sin.
Perhaps my point would be clearer is I put it in terms of merit. As Doug points out, mediaeval western theology was based on the idea that humans needed to accumulate enough merit through good works to outweigh their sins on the day of judgment, so they could be saved. Reformation theology denied that good works had any merit that could outweigh sin, but taught that the death of Christ had infinite merit which could outweigh any individual’s sin if applied by faith. Within this model of merit, I would agree. I am certainly not claiming any merit of this kind in good works done by unbelievers. But I am also saying that they are not in themselves sinful. That is, they are neither positive nor negative on the merit scale. And basically they are that because the whole concept of merit as a measurable quantity which can outweigh a measurable quantity of sin is seriously flawed. It is a model of salvation which is helpful in understanding historical theology, and some current popular theology, but not very much so in understanding the true biblical teaching.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Pam, I can agree with you that “every person has the capacity for doing good” as long as you don’t claim that that good has merit or helps towards their salvation. See my previous comment.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Peter, just as a matte rof interest the point of view you are expressing here seems very close to the most common Anabaptist view.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Peter, in addition to refusing to base doctrine on translations might it be a wise idea to avoid basing it on one preposition.
Seems to me there is an argument for a holistic approach to Scripture in this example.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:25 am
[...] Speaker of Truth tells us about AAugustine’s mistake about original sin. [...]
August 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Pam, I can agree with you that “every person has the capacity for doing good” as long as you don’t claim that that good has merit or helps towards their salvation. See my previous comment.
We’re saying exactly the same thing.
Similar to what you said, I think it’s the height of arrogance to say that an unbeliever’s morally good action is not morally good at all but is, in fact, a sinful action.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:30 am
might it be a wise idea to avoid basing [doctrine] on one preposition
Indeed, John. Or for that matter any one word or one verse taken out of the context of the whole of Scripture. Unfortunately far too many “exegetes” (and I’m sure I am sometimes guilty of this also) decide first what they think ought to be true and then mine the Bible for out of context nuggets which confirm their presuppositions. Augustine wasn’t the first to do this (Galatians 3:16 would be very dubious exegesis, but we can trust Paul as an inspired biblical author), and certainly not the last.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Peter, as I see it, saying that the doctrine of total depravity means “that the unsaved person can do nothing good”, is as common as it is erroneous. I’ve never heard the doctrine expounded in that way (at least not by anyone who claims to believe it).
In my experience, it is typically taken to mean that human “depravity” is “total” in the sense that it extends to every area of our being, with none left unaffected by sin (or the sinful nature), whether our morals, will, intellect, emotions, or whatever. (As against others who might agree that humans are morally “depraved”, but insist that their ability to reason, for example, is unaffected by sin.) Nor should it be taken to mean that all human beings are as “depraved” as they could be, or that all are to the same extent. It is not that human beings can’t do anything good, but rather that any good we do is typically (usually? always?) “tainted” in some way (for example by dubious or mixed motives, such as selfishness, pride, or the belief that doing good will earn God’s favour).
I also note that, just a little further on, Paul says of Adam, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man [=human being] the many were made sinners …” (Rom 5:19a, TNIV = NIV
It’s the old chicken and egg question: are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we’re sinners? I suspect the answer is “both”.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
John, thanks for the reminder that total depravity does not necessarily mean “that the unsaved person can do nothing good”. However, there certainly are those who teach that the unsaved person can do nothing good. This is the implication of what Nathan wrote above as well as of the Lutheran doctrine Pam noted. It is also implied by your suggestion that any good we do may always be tainted. I agree that there is more than this to the doctrine of total depravity.
As far as I am concerned it is meaningless, or else unjust, to say that someone is a sinner if they don’t sin. In Romans 5:19 “were made sinners” means that they started to sin. For here we have another possible misunderstanding of Greek: the Greek passive verb katestathesan (from kathistemi) does not necessarily have passive force “were made” rather than reflexive force “made themselves”, so the safest translation is simply “became”.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Can I just note for accuracy that I don’t think that any mainstream Lutheran denomination believes in the ‘works of civic righteousness’ concept and I’m not sure that it’s classic Lutheran. We’re talking very fringe here.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Well, Pam, it seems from a comment of yours that I found elsewhere that “your lot” believe in “works of civic righteousness” that are “as sinful as “bad work”". I note also that among The Beliefs and Teachings of The Lutheran Churches Of Calvary Grace (is this your “very fringe” lot?) are:
Well, I accept the last part in that unbelievers cannot be saved by such works, and in that sense we cannot please God by doing them apart from faith. But that is not the same thing as saying that these works are “not good in God’s sight”, which is not the teaching of Hebrews.
Anyway, for John’s benefit, this is certainly one group, however “fringe”, which does teach this doctrine.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Anyway, for John’s benefit, this is certainly one group, however “fringe”, which does teach this doctrine.
I agree. Perhaps I’m being too pedantic. I’ve studied catholic and Arminian theology as an adult. I’ve not studied Lutheran theology as an adult, this is stuff from school (I actually went to a Lutheran school). So I feel a lot more confident about my knowledge of catholic and Arminian theology. That’s all I’m saying.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Peter, perhaps we should distinguish between original sin and original guilt. What you seem opposed to is original guilt, not original sin. If you’re ok with Moo’s position, which he considers original sin, but you’re not ok with Augustine’s, which is that we’re born actually guilty, then that might be an easy way to characterize it.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Jeremy, you may be right that that would be a helpful distinction. Unfortunately it is not one which is generally made, for Augustine’s teaching is generally understood as one of the various positions on original sin. Anyway, I’m not at all sure that “original sin” is an appropriate label for Moo’s position; “original tendency to sin” or something of the sort.
To go back to the previous issue, I found the following from John Piper, who is hardly a fringe figure:
In other words, the well known figure John Piper teaches that the best works of unbelievers (I assume he includes women as “men”) are sin, although with some significant qualifications.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Peter, as regards v19, even if “became” is a better rendering, isn’t Paul still “blaming” Adam, in some sense, even if only for setting a bad example?
Anyway, for John’s benefit, this is certainly one group, however “fringe”, which does teach this doctrine
I assume this is directed my way (John’s such a common name, I’m afraid), but I’m not really surprised by what you quote. One problem with “named” doctrines is not everyone understands the doctrine in the same way, and people end up talking at cross-purposes. The explanation I gave is what I have always regarded as the “classic” formulation held by people who believe the doctrine. But I’m aware that other people (you quote an example) just seem to take the words “total depravity” and ask, “Now what might this term mean?” – as if the doctrine was fully contained in its “title”. Such an approach is not particularly helpful, to say the least.
As regards whether we (whether believer or unbeliever) can do anything entirely “good” (i.e. “untainted”), I’m not sure. But I am sure that passages such as Hebrews 11:6 (“without faith it is impossible to please God”) aren’t addressing this question at all. [The same applies to Rom 14:23 ("Whatever is not from faith is sin"), as the earlier part of the verse ("those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith", TNIV) clearly shows that Paul is talking about doing things we *believe* to be *wrong*, but other people say are OK.]
I’m also sure there’s a big difference between insisting that nothing a person can “do” will earn God’s favour, and suggesting that God regards everything people do as equally obnoxious. When it comes to right and wrong, good and bad, I suspect God *does* have a scale, and regards some things as more “right” or “wrong”, better or worse, than others.
While it’s important for us to question our motives, and be aware that they are frequently far from pure, we should never let this stop us doing something that is clearly right, especially if it is beneficial to others. If we waited until we were sure our motives were pure, we’d probably never do anything (and that certainly wouldn’t please God). In my view, “theology” that gets in the way of doing what is right is clearly wrong. (That came over clearly from my reading yesterday about “doing good” on the Sabbath, see Matt 12:11).
August 15th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
John Radcliffe, I have no problem with the idea of Adam setting a bad example for succeeding generations.
And yes, it was for your benefit that I wrote before, because you had written
I agree with you that Hebrews 11:6 and Romans 14:23 are not saying that unbelievers’ good works are sins, and indeed that this is not a correct teaching. My point is simply that an important contemporary teacher like John Piper teaches this offensive doctrine, and labels it “total depravity”.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Peter, I wasn’t trying to be deliberately obtuse. I had assumed you were referring to me, but noting another John had commented did leave some residual doubt.
This thread illustrates why there is now little point in saying that you hold a particular doctrinal position, as there is a good chance that the person you are talking to, or someone else listening to (or reading) the “conversation”, will understand you to be signing up to something entirely different. It also illustrates again the danger of people “developing” concepts on the basis of a misunderstanding of what the doctrine, and certainly the underlying scripture, is actually saying.
Perhaps the problem is “second-hand” or derivative theology, where people are content to rework or re-express existing theologies, rather than rely on “original research” (by which I mean, the writer’s own experience of what God is saying in Scripture). In my view it is far better to derive your theology directly from Scripture (and then test your understanding against other people’s “findings”), rather than take it second-hand (even if you then attempt to test it against Scripture).
While I have learnt much in the relatively short time I’ve been visiting “Biblical / Christian sites” (for want of a better term) on-line, some of what I’ve learned causes me concern, as I see the directions that some trends in “theology” (again, for want of a better term) are taking their exponents. Typically, it is all done in the name of a new pseudo-orthodoxy (although it is claimed to be historic Christian orthodoxy), as people continually come up with new shibboleths to test other people’s supposed “orthodoxy”.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
[...] and artistic representations of the narrative) are themselves implicated in its meaning(s). The Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s interpretation of Adam’s sin was and is for many the authoritative meaning of [...]
September 7th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Peter, I actually agree with that Piper quote, but I’m not sure how it’s even the same issue. You can accept what he says without accepting the Augustinian position that you’re resisting.
Piper is saying that everything we do is infected by sinful tendencies. That’s not the same thing as saying that we are guilty without actually doing anything sinful (Augustine’s position). It’s saying that everything we do is sinful to at least some degree. You may disagree with both views, but Piper’s view expressed in that quote isn’t the same view as the Augustinian one we were talking about.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Yes, Jeremy, there are two different issues here, as I stated in the original post when I stated that Augustine’s “underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good”. One thing can underlie another only if they have separate haecceity (to use your current favourite word, hopefully accurately).
September 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Peter,
Thanks for your post. It clears up some things for me on Paul’s view of Adam.
Where many people believe in Total Depravity and the inability of the sinner to please God, I believe in Moral Ability or at least Gracious Ability.
Everywhere throughout scriptures, sinners are commanded to repent. I believe that if God tells you to repent, then you certainly must have the ability.
Saying that we don’t possess the ability to please God and do what he commands is grand blashphemy and charges God with being unjust because he commands us to do something that we cannot possibly do. For instance, it would be unjust if God commanded us to fly like a bird, because we have a natural inability to fly.
But when God commands us to repent; be converted; give our heart to him, and love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, and mind and our neighbor as ourselves this is something that we can do. And when we don’t do it, it’s because we choose not to do it. Which is why sinners are wicked and rebellious, because they willfully choose to ignore the goodness and grace of the benevolent and holy God.
This is not to say that we can repent by ourselves or please God without the influence of the Holy Spirit, who leads us. However, we will never be able to blame God for our sin and rebelliousness. We can intuit that God will certainly be faithful and do his part in helping us please him. So sin is utterly sinful, because the sinner openly resists God’s grace.
I agree with you that there is some inherited tendency to sin that is passed on. I believe our sensibility is more susceptable to the pleasures of sin than it might have been had sin not entered mankind.
However, our will is completely intact, and that at any time we can choose to love God fully, or we can choose to serve ourselves.
Humbly,
John Wheeler
September 7th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
John, I more or less agree with you. If God commands us to do something, he expects us to be able to. But then I don’t think he does command unbelievers to love. He commands them to repent and believe, which they can do with his help. Then he commands them as Christians to love God and their neighbours, and by the help of the Holy Spirit now dwelling in them they can do so.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Sorry I’m late to the discussion, but maybe this would help. I agree JP Holding’s exposition on total depravity here:
http://www.tektonics.org/tulip/tulip.html
Dave
October 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Thank you, Dave. I can’t agree with Holding’s summary that unbelievers are incapable of doing anything for the glory of God.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Also see this:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romstudy.html
Scroll about half-way down to the relavent passgae.
Dave
October 30th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Also see this:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romstudy.html
scroll about halfway down to the relavant passage
Dave
November 15th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
[...] original sin, an understanding which is faulty because, as widely recognised and as I explained in a previous post here, Augustine misunderstood Paul’s meaning in Romans 5:12 based on a poor Latin [...]
November 21st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
[...] now I see the root of Piper’s wrong theology. He depends on Augustine’s misreading of a poor Latin translation of Romans 5:12, which is the basis of the thoroughly unbiblical teaching (totally contradicted by Ezekiel 18:20 [...]
December 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
[...] while I have problems with the theology of Augustine of Hippo, it seems I am close to him in ethical philosophy. Given how I answered, it is of course not [...]
December 29th, 2007 at 3:05 am
I agree that original sin is false along with Calvinism. Ezekiel 18 makes this abundantly clear. Also consider, 2 Peter 3:9 that God does not wish any to perish but that all should come to repentance. I always thought that predestination was a group of people “Christians” who heard and obeyed the Gospel that is for all (Romans 1:16, 10:17) and were saved. This group “Christians” is a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession (see 1 Peter 2:9). Also, many verses can be listed to show that God is not partial.
December 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Ken, thanks for your comment. I agree with you, I think.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I have found the discussions on original sin very useful in clarifying my thoughts somewhat. I have also found the writings of C L Parker very useful in understanding that what we inherit from Adam is a body – the flesh – and that sin is simply bodily instincts and tendencies, originally not bad, but God given, that have become sinful because we selfishly indulge in them beyond the boundaries God created them for. C L Parker’s writing on this can be found at:
http://www.clparker.com/OS/osbook/osbk10.html
February 11th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Thank you, Grahame. This simple description is helpful. I don’t have time to read more on it at present.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
[...] read Adrian’s blog any more back in fourth position among my posts with 840 hits, followed by Augustine’s mistake about original sin with 746 and Mark Driscoll: “I murdered God”, “God hates you” on [...]
March 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I’ve always had an issue with “original sin.” I’ve never quite understood how it could be “real,” if you will. Just didn’t seem right…didn’t seem “fair” in a way. I appreciate this post…sheds a whole lot of light on the issue. You said something else though that I was curious about…
“Of course this verse also undermines the theory of penal substitutionary atonement.”
How is this? Perhaps I just don’t understand enough about what “penal substitutionary atonement” means…
March 27th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
So I just figured it out….I didn’t realize that “penal substitutionary atonement” and “substitutionary atonement” were different things.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Thank you, Rhea. Substitutionary atonement does not have to be penal, there are various nuanced versions of the teaching. As far as I am concerned, what distinguishes correct and incorrect ones is not so much whether they are “penal” as whether they imply that an innocent person, Jesus, was punished by a third party for sins which he did not commit. In the correct version, Jesus voluntarily took on himself the punishment and death which was due to us. Well, that is a quick summary of a complex issue which I don’t want to get into in a comment thread.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I would interpret the verse as being that Adam’s fall into sin gave mankind the knowledge of sin (which I believe was very real) and thus we now have it imprinted into our nature. Our fallen nature is merely an inclination to sin, and our nature cannot change without God’s divine intervention.
That is why Christ’s work on the cross can be seen as a new creation, that he works in all of us to create a new nature in us, one that is holy, pure and justified before God. Christ’s death on the cross heralded the death of our old nature, his resurrection enabled our new nature to conquer death.
I guess I don’t really have a problem with penal substitution, I just find it a bit boring! I think that there’s a lot more to the gospel than that. And the thing i struggle with is the inconsistency of a God who wills to save everyone, yet does not. I can only presume that they must cling to their old nature, bringing themselves down with it.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Thanks, Chris. I agree with most of this. I’m not sure what you mean by the last part but it sounds a good general approach.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
[...] non-Christian Manichaean teaching. I am not sure if the Manichaeans taught original sin, but, as I wrote more than two years ago, Augustine did, and justified his teaching from a misunderstanding of one poorly translated Bible [...]