For the person who has a lot of questions about the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin, there is plenty here to chew on. Bon Appétit!
[ARTICLE II. ORIGINAL SIN]
1 The opponents approve Article II, “Original Sin,” but they criticize our definition of original sin.2 Here at the very outset His Imperial Majesty will see that the authors of the Confutation are lacking not only in judgment but also in honesty. While we wanted simply to describe what original sin includes, they viciously misinterpret and distort a statement that has nothing wrong in it. They say that being without the fear of God and faith is actual guilt, and therefore they deny that it is original guilt.
2 These quibbles have obviously come from the schools, and not from the emperor’s council. This sophistry is easy to refute. But to show all good men that our teaching on this point is not absurd, we ask them first to look at the German text of the Confession. This will exonerate us of the charge of innovation, for it says: “It is also taught 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 lusts and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God or true faith in God.”3
3 This passage testifies that in those who are born according to the flesh we deny the existence not only of actual fear and trust in God but also of the possibility and gift to produce it. We say that anyone born in this way has concupiscence and cannot produce true fear and trust in God. What is wrong with this? This explanation should be enough for any unprejudiced man. In this sense the Latin definition denies that human nature has the gift and capacity to produce the fear and trust of God, and it denies that adults actually produce it. When we use the term “concupiscence,” we do not mean only its acts or fruits, but the continual inclination of nature.
4 Later on we shall show at length that our definition agrees with the traditional one. First we must show why we used these words here. Our scholastic opponents admit that concupiscence is the so-called “material element” of original sin.4 Hence it belongs in the definition, especially now when so many philosophize about it irreligiously.
5 There are some5 who claim that original sin is not some vice or corruption in human nature, but only the subjection to mortality that Adam’s descendants bear because of his guilt, without any evil of their own. They go on to say that one is not condemned to eternal death because of original sin but, like a child born of a slave, is in this condition because of one’s mother and not by one’s own fault.
6 To show our disagreement with this evil doctrine, we made mention of concupiscence; with the best of intentions we named it and explained it as a disease since human nature is born full of corruption and faults.
7 We have mentioned not only concupiscence but also the absence of the fear of God and of faith. We have done this because the scholastics misunderstand the patristic definition of original sin and therefore minimize original sin. They argue that the inclination to evil is a quality of the body; in their awkward way they ask whether it came through contact with the apple or through the serpent’s breath, and whether medicine can cure it.6 By such questions they miss the main issue.
8 Thus when they talk about original sin, they do not mention the more serious faults of human nature, namely, ignoring God, despising him, lacking fear and trust in him, hating his judgment and fleeing it, being angry at him, despairing of his grace, trusting in temporal things, etc. These evils, which are most contrary to the law of God, the scholastics do not even mention. They even attribute to human nature unimpaired power to love God above all things and to obey his commandments “according to the substance of the act.”7 And they do not see the contradiction.
9 To be able to love God above all things by one’s own power and to obey his commandments, what else is this but to have original righteousness?
10 If human nature has such powers that by itself it can love God above all things, as the scholastics confidently assert, then what can original sin be? What need is there for the grace of Christ if we can become righteous by our own righteousness? What need is there for the Holy Spirit if human powers by themselves can love God above all things and obey his commandments?
11 Who cannot see the foolishness of our opponents’ position? They acknowledge the minor faults in human nature and ignore the major ones. But it is of these that the Scripture everywhere warns us and of these that the prophets constantly complain, namely, carnal security, contempt of God, hate of God, and similar faults that we are born with.
12 The scholastics mingled Christian doctrine with philosophical views about the perfection of nature and attributed more than was proper to free will and to “elicited acts.” They taught that men are justified before God by philosophical or civic righteousness, which we agree is subject to reason and somewhat in our power. But thereby they failed to see the inner uncleanness of human nature.
13 This cannot be adjudged except from the Word of God, which the scholastics do not often employ in their discussions.
14 This was why in our definition of original sin we also mentioned concupiscence and denied to man’s natural powers the fear and trust of God. We wanted to show that original sin also involves such faults as ignorance of God, contempt of God, lack of the fear of God and of trust in him, inability to love him. These are the chief flaws in human nature, transgressing as they do the first table of the Decalogue.
15 We have said nothing new. Properly understood, the old definition says exactly the same thing, “Original sin is the lack of original righteousness.”8 But what is righteousness? Here the scholastics quibble about philosophical questions and do not explain what original righteousness is.
16 In the Scriptures righteousness contains not merely the second table of the Decalogue, but also the first, commanding fear of God, faith and love toward him.
17 So original righteousness was intended to involve not only a balanced physical constitution, but these gifts as well: a surer knowledge of God, fear of God, trust in God, or at least the inclination and power to do these things.
18 This the Scripture shows when it says that man was created in the image of God and after his likeness (Gen. 1:27). What else is this than that a wisdom and righteousness was implanted in man that would grasp God and reflect him, that is, that man received gifts like the knowledge of God, fear of God, and trust in God? So Irenaeus interprets the likeness of God.9
19 And after saying a great deal about it, Ambrose says, “That soul is not in the image of God in which God is not always present.”1
20 In Eph. 5:9 and Col. 3:10 Paul shows that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.
21 Peter Lombard is not afraid to say that original righteousness is the very likeness of God which he put into man.2
22 We cite the opinions of the ancients, with which Augustine’s interpretation of the image agrees.3
23 Thus when the ancient definition says that sin is lack of righteousness, it not only denies the obedience of man’s lower powers, but also denies that he has knowledge of God, trust in God, fear and love of God, or surely the power to produce these things. Even the scholastic theologians teach that these things cannot be produced without certain gifts and help of grace. To make ourselves clear, we are naming these gifts knowledge of God, fear of God, and trust in God. From this it is evident that the ancient definition says just what we do when we deny to natural man not only fear and trust of God but also the gifts and power to produce them.
24 This is precisely the intention of Augustine’s definition that original sin is concupiscence.4 It means that when righteousness is lost, concupiscence follows. Since nature in its weakness cannot fear and love God or believe in him, it seeks and loves carnal things; either it despises the judgment of God in its security, or it hates him in its terror. Thus Augustine includes both the defect and the vicious disposition that follows.
25 Concupiscence is not merely a corruption of the physical constitution, but the evil inclination of man’s higher capacities to carnal things. They do not know what they are talking about when they simultaneously attribute to man a concupiscence that has not been quenched by the Holy Spirit and a love for God above all things.
26 In our definition of original sin, therefore, we have correctly expressed both elements: lack of ability to trust, fear, or love God; and concupiscence, which pursues carnal ends contrary to the Word of God (that is, not only the desires of the body but also carnal wisdom and righteousness in which it trusts while it despises God).
27 Not the ancient theologians alone, but even the more recent ones—at least the more sensible among them—teach that original sin is truly composed of the defects that I have listed, as well as of concupiscence. Thus Thomas says: “Original sin denotes the privation of original justice, and besides this, the inordinate disposition of the parts of the soul. Consequently it is not a pure privation, but also a corrupt habit.”5
28 Bonaventure writes: “When the question is asked what original sin is, it is correct to answer that it is immoderate lust. It is also correct to answer that it is the lack of proper righteousness. And each of these answers includes the other.”6
29 Hugo teaches the same thing when he says that original sin is ignorance in the mind and lust in the flesh.7 He means that at birth we bring along an ignorance of God, unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hate of God. He includes these things in the term “ignorance.”
30 These opinions agree with the Scriptures. For Paul sometimes mentions the deficiency, as in 1 Cor. 2:14, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God.” Elsewhere (Rom. 7:5) he mentions lust at work in our members and bringing forth evil fruit.
31 We could quote many passages on both parts of our definition, but on so clear an issue there is no need of evidence. The wise reader will easily be able to see that when the fear of God and faith are lacking, this is not merely actual guilt but an abiding deficiency in an unrenewed human nature.
32 So we teach nothing about original sin that is contrary to the Scripture or the church catholic, but we have cleansed and brought to light important teachings of the Scriptures and the Fathers that had been obscured by the sophistic arguments of modern theologians. Modern theologians have evidently not paid attention to what the Fathers meant to say about the deficiency.
33 Recognition of original sin is a necessity, nor can we know the magnitude of the grace of Christ unless we acknowledge our faults. All the righteousness of man is mere hypocrisy before God unless we acknowledge that of itself the heart is lacking in love, fear, and trust in God. Thus the prophet says,
34 “After I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh” (Jer. 31:19). And again (Ps. 116:11), “I said in my consternation, men are all liars,” that is, they do not have the right view of God.
35 Here our opponents lash out at Luther because he wrote that original sin remains after Baptism, and they add that this doctrine was properly condemned by Leo X.8 His Imperial Majesty will recognize an obvious slander here. Our opponents know what Luther meant by this statement that original sin remains after Baptism. He has always written that Baptism removes the guilt of original sin, even though concupiscence remains—or, as they call it, the “material element” of sin. Concerning this material element, he has also said that the Holy Spirit, given in Baptism, begins to mortify lust and to create new impulses in man.9
36 Augustine speaks the same way when he says, “Sin is forgiven in Baptism, not that it no longer is, but it is not imputed.” Here he openly attests that sin is—that is, remains—even though it is not imputed.1 This view pleased later generations so much that they included it in the decretals.2 Against Julian, Augustine says: “That law which is in the members is forgiven by spiritual regeneration, but it remains in the mortal flesh. It is forgiven because its guilt is absolved by the sacrament that regenerates the faithful. But it remains because there continue to work those desires against which the faithful struggle.”3
37 Our opponents know that this is what Luther believes and teaches; and since they cannot refute the principle, they twist his words in order by this device to crush an innocent man.
38 But they maintain that concupiscence is a penalty and not a sin, while Luther contends that it is a sin. We have said earlier that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence. Let them argue with Augustine if this position displeases them!
39 Besides, Paul says (Rom. 7:7), “I should not have known lust if the law had not said, ‘You shall not lust.’ ” And again, “I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members” (Rom. 7:23).
40 No quibbling can overthrow these proofs. For they clearly call lust sin, by nature worthy of death if it is not forgiven, though it is not imputed to those who are in Christ.
41 This is undoubtedly what the Fathers believe. In a lengthy discussion Augustine refutes the opinion that human lust is not a fault but is a neutral thing, like the color of the skin or ill health.4
42 If our opponents claim that the inclination to evil is a neutral thing, not only will many passages of the Scripture contradict them, but the whole church. Even though complete unanimity may be impossible, no one has dared to say that such attitudes as these are a neutral thing—doubt about God’s wrath, his grace, and his Word; anger at his judgments; indignation because he does not deliver us from trouble right away; fretting because bad people are more fortunate than good people; yielding to anger, desire, ambition, wealth, etc.
43 Pious men have confessed to these things, as the Psalms and the prophets show. Here the scholastics have taken over from philosophy the totally foreign idea that because of our emotions we are neither good nor bad, neither to be praised nor condemned.5 Or they say that nothing is sin unless it is voluntary.6 The philosophers said this about the civil courts, not about the judgment of God. It is no wiser to say that nature is not evil. In its place we do not object to this statement, but it is not right to twist it in order to minimize original sin. Yet these ideas appear in the scholastics, who improperly mingle philosophical and civil ethics with the Gospel.
44 As often happens, these ideas did not remain purely academic, but moved out among the people. These notions prevailed, feeding a trust in human powers and obscuring the knowledge of the grace of Christ.
45 So when Luther wanted to show the magnitude of original sin and of human weakness, he taught that the remnants of original sin in man are not in their nature neutral, but they need the grace of Christ to be forgiven and the Holy Spirit to be mortified.
46 Although the scholastics minimize both sin and its penalty when they teach that man can obey the commandments of God by his own powers, Genesis describes another penalty for original sin. There human nature is subjected not only to death and other physical ills, but also to the rule of the devil. For there this fearful sentence is pronounced, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15).
47 The deficiency and concupiscence are sin as well as penalty; death, other physical ills, and the tyranny of the devil are, in the precise sense, penalties. Human nature is enslaved and held prisoner by the devil, who deludes it with wicked opinions and errors and incites it to all kinds of sins.
48 Just as the devil cannot be conquered without Christ’s help, so we cannot buy our way out of the slavery by ourselves.
49 World history itself shows the great power of the devil’s rule. Blasphemy and wicked doctrines fill the world, and by these bonds the devil has enthralled those who are wise and righteous in the eyes of the world. In others, even grosser vices appear.
50 Christ was given to us to bear both sin and penalty and to destroy the rule of the devil, sin, and death; so we cannot know his blessings unless we recognize our evil. Therefore our preachers have stressed this in their teaching. They have not introduced any innovations, but have set forth the Holy Scripture and the teachings of the holy Fathers.
51 This, we believe, will satisfy His Imperial Majesty about the childish and trivial quibbling with which our opponents have slandered our article. We know that our doctrine is correct and in agreement with Christ’s church catholic. If our opponents reopen the controversy, we shall not lack men to reply in defense of the truth, for in this case our opponents frequently do not know what they are talking about. They often contradict themselves and fail to explain logically and correctly either the formal element of original sin or the so-called deficiency. For our part, we have been reluctant to enter upon their arguments at great length. We have thought it worthwhile rather to list, in the usual familiar phrases, the opinions of the holy Fathers, which we also follow.
Theodore G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press, 1959), 100–107.
I. ORIGINAL SIN
1 In the first place,3 there has been dissension among a number of theologians of the Augsburg Confession about what original sin, strictly understood, is. One side contended that “man’s nature and essence are wholly corrupt as a result of the fall of Adam,”4 so that ever since the Fall the nature, substance, and essence of fallen man, at least the foremost and noblest part of his essence (namely, his rational soul in its highest degree and foremost powers) is original sin itself, which has been called “nature-sin” or “person-sin” because it is not a thought, a word, or a deed but the very nature itself out of which, as the root and source, all other sins proceed. For this reason there is now after the Fall allegedly no difference whatsoever between man’s nature or essence and original sin.5
2 The other party,6 however, took a contrary view and taught that original sin, strictly speaking, is not man’s nature, substance, or essence (that is, man’s body or soul), which even after the Fall are and remain God’s handiwork and creation in us. They maintained that original sin is something in man’s nature, in his body, soul, and all his powers, and that it is an abominable, deep, and inexpressible corruption thereof, in the sense that man lacks the righteousness in which he was originally created, that in spiritual matters he is dead to that which is good and is turned to everything evil, and that, because of this corruption and this inborn sin which inheres in his nature, all actual sins flow out of his heart. Hence, they say, we must preserve the distinction between the nature and essence of fallen man (that is, between his body and soul, which are God’s handiwork and creatures in us even after the Fall) and original sin (which is a work of the devil by which man’s nature has become corrupted).
3 This controversy concerning original sin is not a useless contention about words. On the contrary, when it is presented clearly from and according to the Word of God and is purged of all Pelagian and Manichaean errors, then (as the Apology declares) we are led to understand better and to magnify more fully Christ’s benefits, his precious merits, and the Holy Spirit’s gracious activity. Furthermore, we are extolling God’s honor properly when we carefully distinguish his work and creation in man from the devil’s work, the corruption of human nature.
4 Hence, in order to explain this controversy in a Christian fashion and according to the Word of God and to preserve the true and correct doctrine concerning original sin, we shall use the aforementioned writings to set forth in short chapters the true doctrine and its opposite in theses and antitheses.
5 In the first place, it is an established truth that Christians must regard and recognize as sin not only the actual transgression of God’s commandments but also, and primarily, the abominable and dreadful inherited disease which has corrupted our entire nature. In fact, we must consider this as the chief sin, the root and fountain of all actual sin.7
6 Dr. Luther calls this sin “nature-sin” or “person-sin”8 in order to indicate that even though a man were to think no evil, speak no evil, or do no evil—which after the Fall of our first parents is of course impossible for human nature in this life—nevertheless man’s nature and person would still be sinful. This means that in the sight of God original sin, like a spiritual leprosy, has thoroughly and entirely poisoned and corrupted human nature. On account of this corruption and because of the fall of the first man, our nature or person is under the accusation and condemnation of the law of God, so that we are “by nature the children of wrath,”9 of death, and of damnation unless we are redeemed from this state through Christ’s merit.
7 In the second place, it is also a clearly established truth, as Article XIX of the Augsburg Confession teaches, that God is not the creator, author, or cause of sin. Through Satan’s scheme, “by one man sin (which is the work of the devil) entered into the world” (Rom. 5:12; 1 John 3:8). And even today, in this corruption, God does not create and make sin in us. Rather, along with the nature which God still creates and makes at the present time, original sin is transmitted through our carnal conception and birth out of sinful seed from our father and mother.1
8 Thirdly, reason does not know and understand the true nature of this inherited damage. As the Smalcald Articles point out,2 it is something that has to be learned and believed from the revelation of the Scriptures. The Apology3 summarizes the matter under these heads:
9 1. That this inherited damage is the reason why all of us, because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, are in God’s disfavor and are children of wrath by nature, as St. Paul says (Rom. 5:12).
10 2. Furthermore, that original sin is the complete lack or absence of the original concreated righteousness of paradise or of the image of God according to which man was originally created in truth, holiness, and righteousness, together with a disability and ineptitude as far as the things of God are concerned. As the Latin words put it, “The description of original sin denies to unrenewed human nature the gifts and the power, or the faculty and the concrete acts, to begin and to effect anything in spiritual matters.”4
11 3. That original sin in human nature is not only a total lack of good in spiritual, divine things, but that at the same time it replaces the lost image of God in man with a deep, wicked, abominable, bottomless, inscrutable, and inexpressible corruption of his entire nature in all its powers, especially of the highest and foremost powers of the soul in mind, heart, and will. As a result, since the Fall man inherits an inborn wicked stamp, an interior uncleanness of the heart and evil desires and inclinations. By nature every one of us inherits from Adam a heart, sensation, and mind-set which, in its highest powers and the light of reason, is by nature diametrically opposed to God and his highest commands and is actually enmity against God, especially in divine and spiritual matters.
12 True, in natural and external things which are subject to reason man still possesses a measure of reason, power, and ability, although greatly weakened since the inherited malady has so poisoned and tainted them that they amount to nothing in the sight of God.
13 4. The punishment and penalty of original sin which God imposes upon Adam’s children and upon original sin is death, eternal damnation,5 together with other bodily, spiritual, temporal, and eternal misery, the tyranny and dominion of the devil, so that human nature is subject to the devil’s dominion, abandoned to his power, and held captive in his servitude. He misleads many influential and wise men of the world with terrible errors and heresies, strikes them with other kinds of blindness, and drives them headlong into all sorts of vice.
14 5. This inherited damage is so great and terrible that in baptized believers it can be covered up and forgiven before God only for the Lord Christ’s sake. Likewise, only the Holy Spirit’s regeneration and renovation can heal man’s nature, which original sin has perverted and corrupted. Of course, this process is only begun in this life, not to be completed until the life yonder.
15 These points, which we have given in summary form, are explained in greater detail in the aforementioned Confessions of our Christian doctrine.
16 It is incumbent upon us to maintain and preserve this doctrine in such a way that we fall neither into Pelagian nor into Manichaean errors. For this reason we shall briefly enumerate the contrary doctrines which are rejected and condemned in our churches.
17 1. First, in opposition to both old and new Pelagians, we condemn and reject as false the opinion and doctrine that original sin is only an obligation resulting from someone else’s action without any corruption of our own nature.6
18 2. Again, that the sinful wicked desires are not sin but concreated and essential attributes of man’s nature.7
19 3. Or that the above-mentioned lack and damage allegedly are not really and truly such a sin in the sight of God that apart from Christ every person on that account is necessarily a child of wrath and of damnation and is in the kingdom and under the dominion of Satan.
20 4. We likewise reject and condemn the following and related Pelagian errors: That human nature even after the Fall is incorrupt and, especially, that in spiritual matters it is good, pure, and in its natural powers perfect.
21 5. Or that original sin is only a simple, insignificant, external spot or blemish, merely splashed on, or a corruption only of certain accidental elements in human nature, in spite of which and beneath which human nature has and retains its goodness and powers also in spiritual matters.8
22 6. Or that original sin is not a deprivation or absence of man’s spiritual good powers, but only an external impediment to them, just as garlic juice smeared on a magnet does not destroy the magnet’s natural power but only impedes it;9 or that the spots spoken of can easily be washed off, like a smudge of dirt from one’s face or paint from the wall.
23 7. Likewise, we also reject and condemn those who teach that, though man’s nature has been greatly weakened and corrupted through the Fall, it has nevertheless not entirely lost all the goodness that belongs to spiritual and divine matters, or that the situation is not the way the hymn which we sing in our churches describes it, “Through Adam’s fall man’s nature and being are wholly corrupted, “but that human nature has of and from man’s natural birth something that is good—even though in only a small, limited, and poor degree—such as the faculty, aptitude, skill, or ability to initiate and effect something in spiritual matters or to cooperate therein.1
24 We shall give our exposition concerning the external, temporal, and civil affairs which are subject to human reason in the next article.
25 We condemn and reject these and similar false doctrines because God’s Word teaches that man’s corrupted nature can of and by itself do no good thing in spiritual, divine matters, not even the least thing (such as, for example, producing a good thought). Worse than that, in the sight of God it can by and of itself do nothing but sin (Gen. 6:5; 8:21).
26 1. On the other hand, this doctrine must also be protected against any Manichaean aberrations. For that reason the following and similar errors are rejected: That now, since the Fall, human nature is initially created perfect and pure, and that afterward Satan infuses and blends original sin (as something essential) into man’s nature, as when poison is blended with water.2
27 Although in the case of Adam and Eve man’s nature was originally created pure, good, and holy, sin did not invade their nature in such a way that Satan created or made something essentially evil and blended this with their nature, as the Manichaeans imagined in their enthusiasm. The fact is, that Satan misled Adam and Eve through the Fall, and that by God’s judgment and verdict man lost the concreated righteousness as a punishment. This deprivation and lack, this corruption and wounding which Satan brought about, this loss has so perverted and corrupted human nature (as was indicated above) that all men, conceived and born in the natural way from a father and a mother, now inherit a nature with the same lack and corruption.
28 For since the Fall human nature is not at first created pure and holy and is corrupted only subsequently through original sin, but in the first moment of our conception the seed from which man is formed is sinful and corrupted.5 Hence original sin is not something which exists independently within or apart from man’s corrupted nature, just as it is not itself the proper essence, body, or soul of man or man himself.
29 Nor are original sin and the human nature that has been thereby corrupted to be distinguished from each other in such a way that man’s nature is allegedly pure, holy, righteous, and incorrupt in the sight of God, and only the original sin which dwells in it is evil.
30 2. We also condemn the error which Augustine attributes to the Manichaeans,6 that it is not the corrupted man himself who sins because of his inborn original sin but a strange and foreign something within man, so that God by his law does not accuse and condemn man’s nature, corrupted by sin, but only the original sin. As stated in a foregoing thesis when we discussed the correct doctrine of original sin, the whole nature of every human being born in the natural way from a father and a mother is corrupted and perverted by original sin in body and in soul, in all its powers from beginning to end, down to the ultimate part involving and affecting the goodness, truth, holiness, and righteousness imparted at creation to our nature in paradise. This does not mean that human nature has been totally destroyed, or has been transformed into some other substance essentially different from our nature and accordingly not coessential with us.
31 Because of this corruption the law accuses and condemns man’s entire corrupted nature unless the sin is forgiven for Christ’s sake.
32 The law, however, accuses and condemns our nature, not because we are human beings created by God but because we are sinful and evil; not because and in so far as our nature and essence are the work, the product, and the creature of God even after the Fall but because and in so far as our nature has been poisoned and corrupted by sin.
33 Although, in Luther’s words,7 original sin, like a spiritual poison and leprosy, has so poisoned and corrupted man’s whole nature that within the corrupted nature we are not able to point out and expose the nature by itself and original sin by itself as two manifestly separate things, nevertheless our corrupted nature or the essence of corrupted man, our body and soul or man himself created by God (within which original sin, by which the nature, essence, or total man is corrupted, dwells) are not identical with original sin (which dwells in man’s nature or essence and corrupts it). Just as in the case of external leprosy the body which is leprous and the leprosy on or in the body are not one and the same thing, so, if one wishes to speak strictly, one must maintain a distinction between (a) our nature as it is created and preserved by God and in which sin dwells and (b) original sin itself which dwells in the nature. According to the Holy Scriptures we must and can consider, discuss, and believe these two as distinct from each other.
34 The chief articles of our Christian faith constrain and compel us to maintain such a distinction. In the first place, in the article of creation Scripture testifies not only that God created human nature before the Fall, but also that after the Fall human nature is God’s creature and handiwork (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 45:11; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:25, 26; Rev. 4:11)
35 Job says: “Thy hands fashioned and made me together round about, and thou dost destroy me? Remember that thou hast made me of clay, and wilt thou turn me to dust again? Didst thou not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? Thou didst clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. Thou has granted me life and steadfast love; and thy care has preserved my spirit” (Job 10:8–12)
36 David says: “I will praise thee, for I am wonderfully made.5 Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Ps. 139:14–16).
37 And in Ecclesiastes we read, “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 2:7).
38 These passages indicate clearly that even after the Fall God is man’s creator who creates body and soul for him. Therefore the corrupted man cannot be identified unqualifiedly with sin itself, for in that case God would be the creator of sin. In the exposition of the First Article of the Creed in the Small Catechism we confess, “I believe that God has created me and all that exists, that he has given me and still sustains my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason and all my senses.” Similarly we confess in the Large Catechism, “I hold and believe that I am a creature of God; that is, that he has given and constantly sustains my body, soul, and life, my members great and small, all the faculties of my mind, my reason and understanding,” etc.7 It is of course true that this creature and handiwork of God has been miserably corrupted by sin, for the dough out of which God forms and makes man has been corrupted and perverted in Adam and is transmitted to us in this condition.
39 At this point all Christian hearts may well ponder God’s inexpressible kindness in that he does not immediately cast this corrupted, perverted, and sinful dough into hell-fire, but out of it he makes and fashions our present human nature, which is so miserably corrupted by sin, in order that through his beloved Son he might cleanse it from sin, sanctify it, and save it.
40 This article shows the difference irrefutably and clearly, because original sin does not come from God, nor is God the creator or author of sin. Neither is original sin the creature or handiwork of God; on the contrary, it is the devil’s work.
41 If there were no difference whatever between the nature and essence of our body and soul (which are corrupted by original sin) and original sin itself (by which our nature is corrupted), we should be compelled to conclude: Either that, since God is the creator of this our nature, he has created and made original sin, which thus would also become his handiwork and creature; or that, since the devil is the author of sin, Satan is the creator of our nature, our body and soul, which would also necessarily have to be Satan’s handiwork or creature if our corrupted nature were unqualifiedly identical with sin itself. Both conclusions are contrary to the first article8 of our Christian faith.
42 For that reason and in order to distinguish God’s creature and handiwork in man from the devil’s work, we declare that it is by God’s creation that man has a body and soul; likewise, that it is God’s work that man is able to think, to speak, to act, and to do anything, for “in him we live and move and are” (Acts 17:28). But the fact that our nature is corrupted, that our thoughts, words, and deeds are evil, is in its origin the handiwork of Satan, who through sin has in this fashion corrupted God’s handiwork in Adam. This corruption has come upon us by inheritance.
43 Secondly, in the article of our redemption we have the mighty testimony of Scripture that God’s Son assumed our nature, though without sin, so that in every respect he was made like us, his brethren, sin alone excepted (Heb. 2:17). Hence all the ancient orthodox teachers held that according to his assumed human nature Christ is of one and the same essence with us, his brethren, because the human nature which he assumed is in its essence and all its essential attributes—sin alone excepted—identical with ours; they also rejected the contrary doctrine as patent heresy.
44 Now, if there were no difference between the nature or essence of corrupted man and original sin, it would have to follow that Christ either did not assume our nature inasmuch as he did not assume sin, or that Christ assumed sin inasmuch as he assumed our nature. Both statements are contrary to the Scriptures. Since, however, God’s Son assumed our nature, but not original sin, it is evident that even after the Fall9 human nature and original sin are not identical with but must be distinguished from each other.
45 Thirdly, in the article of sanctification we have the testimony of Scripture that God cleanses man from sin, purifies him, and sanctifies him and that Christ has saved his people from their sins. Sin thus cannot be identified with man himself, since God receives man for Christ’s sake into his grace but remains the enemy of sin throughout eternity! Hence it is unchristian and abominable to say that original sin is baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, is sanctified and saved, and other similar expressions with which we do not want to scandalize the uninstructed people although they are found in the writings of the modern Manichaeans.1
46 Fourthly, concerning the doctrine of the resurrection Scripture testifies that precisely the substance of this our flesh, but without sin, shall arise, and that in eternal life we shall have and keep precisely this soul, although without sin.
47 If there were no difference whatever between our corrupted body and soul on the one hand and original sin on the other, then it would follow, contrary to this article of our Christian faith, either that our flesh would not rise on Judgment Day and that in eternal life, instead of this essence of our body and soul, we should have another substance or another soul since we there shall be without sin, or else that sin would be raised and would be and remain in the elect in eternal life.
48 From this it is evident that we must reject this doctrine with all its implications and conclusions, as when it is said that original sin is the very nature of corrupted man, its substance, its essence, its body or soul, so that there is allegedly no distinction whatever between our corrupted nature or substance or being and original sin. The chief articles of our Christian faith show powerfully and mightily why we must maintain a distinction between the nature or substance of man, which is corrupted by sin, and the sin by and through which man is corrupted.
49 Let this suffice as a simple exposition of the doctrine and the contrary doctrine, the thesis and antithesis, as far as the chief points in this controversy are concerned. We are not discussing it here at length but are treating only the chief points in summary fashion.
50 With specific reference to vocabulary and phraseology, however, the best and safest procedure is to use and keep the pattern of sound words, as the Holy Scriptures and the above-mentioned books use them in treating this article.
51 In order to avoid all contentions about words, it is necessary to explain carefully and distinctly all equivocal terms, that is, words and formulas that have two or more accepted meanings in common use. Thus in the statement, “God creates man’s nature,” the word “nature” means man’s essence, body and soul. But in the statement, “It is the serpent’s nature to bite and poison,” the term “nature” means—as it often does—a disposition or characteristic. It is in this latter sense that Luther writes that sin and sinning are man’s disposition and nature.2
52 Strictly speaking, therefore, original sin is the deep corruption of our nature as it is described in the Smalcald Articles. Sometimes, however, the term is applied in a wider sense to include the concrete person or subject (that is, man himself with the body and soul in which sin is and inheres) because through sin man is corrupted, poisoned, and sinful. Thus Luther can say, “Your birth, your nature, your entire essence is sin, that is sinful and unclean.”3
53 Luther himself explains that he uses the terms “nature-sin,” “person-sin,” “essential sin” to indicate that not only thoughts, words, and deeds are sin but that the entire nature, person, and essence of man is wholly corrupted though original sin to its very foundation.4
54 Concerning the use of the Latin terms substantia and accidens, we maintain that the assemblies of the uninstructed ought rightly be spared these terms in sermons, since they are not the common man’s vocabulary. But when scholars use the terms among themselves or in the company of persons to whom these words are not unfamiliar, as did Eusebius, Ambrose, and especially Augustine,5 as well as many other prominent doctors of the church, under the necessity of explaining this doctrine against heretics, they use them in the sense of a perfect dichotomy (that is, a division without a middle term), so that every existing thing must either be a substance (that is, a self-subsisting essence) or an accident (that is, an accidental thing that is not self-subsistent but that subsists in another self-subsistent essence and can be distinguished from it).6 This dichotomy was also used by Cyril and Basil.
55 It is one of the unquestioned and irrefutable axioms in theology that every substance or self-subsisting essence, in as far as it is a substance, is either God himself or a product and creature of God. Thus in many of his writings against the Manichaeans, Augustine, in accord with all dependable teachers, deliberately and seriously condemned and rejected the statement, “Original sin is the nature or essence of man.” On this basis all scholars and intelligent people have always held that whatever does not subsist by itself and is not a part of another self-subsisting essence, but is present in another thing mutably, is not a substance (that is, something self-subsistent) but an accident (that is, something accidental).
56 Augustine therefore constantly speaks in this fashion: Original sin is not man’s nature itself, but an accidental defect and damage in the nature. In the same way, prior to this controversy, the theologians in our schools and churches, following the rules of logic, used the same terminology freely and without incurring suspicion, and for that reason without ever being corrected either by Dr. Luther or by any other dependable teacher of our pure Evangelical churches.
57 Since it is irrefutably true, attested and demonstrated by the testimonies of the church’s teachers, and never questioned by any really intelligent person that every existing thing is either a substance or an accident (that is, either a self-subsisting essence or something accidental thereto), if anyone were to ask if original sin is a substance (that is, a thing that subsists by itself and not in another thing) or if it is an accident (that is, a thing that does not subsist by itself but is in another thing and cannot exist or subsist by itself), then necessity compels us to answer simply and roundly that original sin is not a substance but an accident.
58 For this reason the churches of God will never attain abiding peace in this controversy but, on the contrary, the discord will only be increased and deepened if the clergy are in doubt whether or not original sin is a substance or an accident in the right and strict sense of the word.
59 Really to settle this offensive and highly detrimental controversy for our churches and schools therefore requires that every one be rightly instructed in these issues.
60 It involves another question, however, when someone inquires further, What kind of accident is original sin? No philosopher, no papist, no sophist, indeed, no human reason, be it ever so keen, can give the right answer. Holy Scripture alone can lead to a right understanding and give a correct definition of original sin. It testifies that original sin is an inexpressible impairment and such a corruption of human nature that nothing pure nor good has remained in itself and all its internal and external powers, but that it is altogether corrupted, so that through original sin man is in God’s sight spiritually lifeless and with all his powers dead indeed to that which is good.
61 Thus the term “accident” does not in any way minimize original sin if the term is explained in harmony with the Word of God, just as Dr. Luther in his Latin exposition of Genesis 37 likewise writes earnestly against a minimizing of original sin. The term serves only to set forth the distinction between God’s handiwork, our nature in spite of its being corrupted, and the devil’s handiwork, the sin which inheres in and most profoundly and inexpressibly corrupts God’s handiwork.
62 In this fashion Luther used both the term “accident” and the term “quality” when treating this issue. But at the time he explained with special seriousness and great zeal and impressed on everyone how abominable and dreadful this quality and accident is, which did not simply sully human nature but corrupted it so deeply that nothing in it remained pure and uncorrupted. In his exposition of Ps. 90:12 he wrote, “Whether we call original sin a quality or a disease, ultimately the worst damage is that we shall not only endure God’s eternal wrath and death but that we do not even realize what we are suffering.”8 And again on Gen. 3, “The venom of original sin has poisoned us from the soles of our feet to the crown of our head, inasmuch as this befell a hitherto perfect nature.”9
Theodore G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press, 1959), 508–519.
Original Sin
Original sin is the lack of original righteousness which is required to be present in us. But this brief and unclear description requires a longer explanation. For we must inquire what “original righteousness” means. Therefore we must add this explanation: Original righteousness was the acceptance of the human race before God, and in the very nature of man [1] light in his mind by which he could firmly assent to the Word of God and [2] turning of his will to God and [3] obedience of his heart in harmony with the judgment of God’s law, which had been planted in his mind.
That original righteousness included all these things can be understood from this statement: man was created in the image and likeness of God, which Paul explains, and he teaches that the image of God is the mind which knows God, and a will which is free, righteous and in harmony with the law of God, as it says in Eph. 4[:24], “[The new man is] created in righteousness and true holiness.” He calls true holiness all virtues which are related by a true heart to this end, that obedience is rendered to God [and] that God is loved and worshiped. Therefore after we have established what original righteousness means, then we can accordingly explain the opposite lack.
Original sin is the lack of original righteousness, that is, there is in those who are born of the seed of man a loss of the light in the mind and a turning of the will away from God and a stubbornness of the heart, so that they cannot truly obey the law of God, following the fall of Adam, on account of which corruption men are born guilty and the children of wrath, that is, condemned by God unless there be forgiveness. If anyone wishes to add that those who are born are also guilty because of the fall of Adam, I will not argue. But in point of fact the unbroken teaching of the church is that of the prophets, apostles, and the ancient writers: Original sin is not only imputation, but also in the very nature of man a darkness and depravity, as I have said. And I will explain this in greater detail under the prooftexts. And the statements of Augustine, Hugo, and Bonaventura agree with this meaning, even though other more recent [and] more profane writers have departed to some degree from the true position and devised intricate sophistries. But Hugo clearly says: “Original sin is ignorance in the mind and disobedience in the will.”
Testimonies
Now that the definition is set forth, we shall add the testimonies which affirm that all people born of the seed of man carry sin with them, so that they might understand that this doctrine is not something created by the disputes of recent writers but has been truly handed down by the Holy Spirit through the prophets and apostles.
And the proper locus for this doctrine is found in Rom. 5[:12 ff.], “By the sin of one all died.” Therefore the others are guilty because of the fall of Adam. And lest it be understood that the others are guilty only without any propagation of corruption, he adds, “Death came upon all, for all have sinned.” The Hebrew expression is: They have sinned, that is, they are guilty and have sin, an evil and condemned thing. If only actual transgressions are sins, then each would be guilty only of his own deed. Now since it clearly says that we are guilty because of the transgression of Adam, it testifies that there is some other sin in nature besides actual transgressions. And lest this sin be understood as only an imputation of guilt, the import of the words ought to be noted. “All have sinned,” that is, the evil which is sin is passed on to all.
Again: “Sin reigned” [and] “death reigned,” that is, people are crushed by the wrath of God, they are without the divine light, and they rush into horrible ragings and eternal destruction, just as it says in Rom. 3[:23], “All lack the glory of God,” that is, that glory which God judges to be glory and by
which He makes alive.
But from Romans 7 and 8 we learn much more clearly that original sin is not only an imputation or a servitude by which we are obligated to die, but also evil propagated in the very nature of man. Rom. 7[:23], “I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind.” For he calls the “law of the members” something in us which contends with the law of God, namely defects and corrupt inclinations.
And Rom. 8[:7], “The mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be subjected.” This is a sad and horrible description of the human race. For the words clearly show that they are spoken not only of actual evil but also of the evil inherent in nature itself which is called “enmity against God.” What more terrible thing can be said than that the nature of man is enmity against God, that is, that it constantly carries around with itself darkness and doubts about God, a [feeling of] security which neglects God, a diffidence which flees God, and a complex stubbornness. Profane and self-confident men do not understand these arcane evils, but the church in repentance to some degree recognizes them.
Eph. 2[:3], “We were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest.” The Hebrew term is “children of wrath,” that is, guilty or condemned. Therefore [Paul] affirms that both the descendents of Abraham and the rest of mankind are condemned not only because of actual transgressions but also because of the evil nature which we bring with us by propagation itself. For this we need no example. And what kind this evil nature is, the statements from [Romans] 7 and 8 set forth.
John 3[:5], “Unless a person be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Since regeneration is necessary, it is clear that our old nature is guilty and unclean.
Also are added statements of the prophets. Ps. 51[:5], “Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.” For he does not deplore the sin of [his] mother, but his own. I was so conceived, that as soon as I was formed, sin was in my mass and in my very self, that is, I was not only guilty but there was born with me an aversion away from God and a corrupted tendency. Therefore he testifies that there is sin in human beings which they bring with them when they are born.
Gen. 8[:21], “The meditation of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” This passage shows that transgressions are not only brought on by habit but that in the very heart depravity is inherent in newborn children. For the words are clearer in the Hebrew reading: The work of the human heart, whether molded [plasma] or constructed, is evil, that is, the very mass of the heart is corrupt or certainly all passions or impulses or emotions [hormai] in the heart are evil things, that is, [they are] turned away from God.
Thus also Ps. [25:7] calls the sins of youth that whole heap which we bring with us as newborn children, darkness in the mind, a turning away from God in the will, and stubbornness of the heart.
Jer. 17[:9], “The human heart is perverse above all things and miserable and inscrutable,” that is, turned away from God, and full of sorrows which arise from the fact that human minds do not know God and flee from Him. No one sufficiently understands how great these evils are.
These statements show that the statements of the prophets and apostles are in agreement. But brevity seems to escape human ears, especially since we in this our darkness and [sense of] security do not see the greatness of our misery; people who are apathetic, drunk with pleasures, or puffed up with glory care little about the wrath of God; and deceiving themselves, they minimize these evils, have doubts about God, neglect God, trust in their own wisdom and power, pride, ambition, and other flames of desires. Therefore these brief discourses, though they contain the entire doctrine of sin and the causes of human calamities, move minds too little.
For the old custom of teaching was to include such brief statements, as maxims, the significant articles of doctrine which the church, through the ministry of the Gospel, needs to unfold and explain, so that in some way it might show the fullness of things which are contained in them, just as it is said briefly [in Gen. 3:15], “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent.” But the church, in explaining [this passage], to some extent sees what great things it contains. Thus also many brief maxims have been handed down concerning this article on sin and concerning the causes of human calamities, which [maxims] in a very learned way include the sum [of the matter] in which [maxims] the correct meaning and the thrust of the words should be carefully considered.
Consider, I pray, how closely the statements of Jeremiah [17:9] and Paul [Rom. 8:7] agree: “The mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be subjected.” The statement is simple and clear; it affirms that in man in this mortal life there is and there remains a certain neglect of or flight from God and an anger against Him, and because God in turn disapproves, this statement is also added: This weak nature, [Paul] says, cannot be made subject to the law of God; it never satisfies it but always languishes in doubt, [false] security, diffidence, and various flames of desires. What sadder thing can be said than that in man there is enmity against God? But the Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, has suppressed this in the believers, as will be set forth under its own locus. The full meaning of Paul’s statement cannot be set forth in words, but let our thoughts linger, let us look within ourselves, let us acknowledge and deplore our uncleanness and seek the Gospel regarding the Mediator.
Now compare the statement of Jeremiah, “The human heart is perverse above all things and miserable and inscrutable.” First, it is called perverse, that is, turned away from God. This completely agrees with Paul who says [Rom. 8:7], “The heart is inimical to God.” For it is turned away, is not governed by the light of God, is disturbed by doubts, does not acknowledge the wrath and mercy [of God], does not have fear, love, or trust in God, loves itself, takes pleasure in and trusts in our wisdom, dreams up notions about God and has capricious impulses which deviate from the law of God, ambition, desire for vengeance, and other passions. Then the punishments for the defects are described when [Jeremiah] says “miserable” or “full of sorrows.” The heart deprived of the light and consolation of God is oppressed by sorrows, hopelessness, and eternal sadness. Many frightful sins are involved in these penalties, and the evil is so great that its magnitude cannot be fully understood by us or other creatures.
This statement has the same meaning [Ps. 31:22], “I said in my dismay,” that is, in my alarm or dread, “ ‘Every man is a liar,’ ” that is, when I am terrified by the recognition of my sins and the wrath of God, I recognized that all men are liars, that is, they do not believe correctly about God, they have doubts about Him, they do not sufficiently fear [His] wrath nor sufficiently trust in [His] mercy.
I have cited testimonies and have touched on brief explanations to alert the reader that because of brevity he not miss these points but retain the simple and natural meaning over against the Pelagians and many other capricious spirits. The Pelagians deny the whole doctrine of original sin, even without the name. Recent ones, like Occam and many others, retain the name “original sin” but minimize the matter. They deny that these evils are things that conflict with the law of God, darkness in the mind, [and] the stubbornness in the will and heart which is called concupiscence. But they clearly are refuted by the testimony of Paul, Romans 7 and 8, as I shall again point out below. They call these evils only punishments for original sin, whereas they are at the same time punishments for the first fall and sins in individuals as they are born. Therefore in order that this matter may become clearer, I shall set forth the causes and effects.
The efficient causes of the first fall are the devil and the will of Adam and Eve, which assented to the devil and of its own freedom turned itself away from the command of God.
We speak of efficient causes as those which merit something. Thus Adam and Eve are the efficient causes who merited guilt for themselves and their posterity as well as these very defects or depravity which followed the fall, when the light of God was quenched. For after our first parents transgressed, they lost that firm knowledge of God which had been planted in [their] minds and the uprightness of will and the agreement of [their] heart with the law of God. And as they were after the fall, so was their posterity.
Where is original sin? In the soul and in the sentient powers and their organs, because in the mind is darkness, in the will is a turning away from God, a disordered and fickle love of ourselves, an inclination which is corrupt, and in the heart a stubbornness against the right judgment of the mind. Thus in the location of a disease, so to say, or with the subject pointed out, which they call “the matter in which” [materia in qua], the evil can be more properly examined.
With regard to the formal [principle] judgment is simple for the learned, though the uninstructed are troubled in various ways regarding this question. I do not want to cause wars of words in the church, but I shall set forth the correct position clearly and without sophistry and without confusion. Those who have been properly informed know that universally the formal [principle] of sin is guilt or condemnation of a person who is guilty. But this relationship to some evil took place by accident. Therefore we must seek the closest foundation of this relationship, or, as they call it, the nearest material [principle]. Now, the foundation of this guilt is the very defect in man with which we are born, which they call either defects or perverse inclinations or concupiscence. For all these terms refer to the same evil, or rather a great confusion of all evils. For we must understand concupiscence not of the appetites which were created in our nature but of the disorder [ataxia] of all [our] appetites. For in these vices a dialectician knows that its certain formal [principle] is proper to vice, namely the defect of uprightness which strays from the law of God, or a disorder [ataxia].
It is manifest that ignorance of God doubts, lack of fear, and love of God are defects. The defect of disorder [ataxia] is also in love for ourselves, in that, viz., when the [proper] order is upset, Saul loves himself more than God. The same judgment also applies to other wicked inclinations. Writers have called this disorder [ataxia] of all desires concupiscence.
We must also carefully distinguish ataxia from the appetites themselves which were created by God, as I shall set forth more fully later. Therefore since the question is raised as to the formal [principle] of original sin, the correct answer is guilt. But then we must also ask what the basis of this relationship is. Now it is, as I have said the very wickedness with which we are born, which is the evil which contends against the law of God. Because it is a great confusion of evils, just as if someone would say that there are many diseases at the same time, it can be easily understood that the formal [principle] of these confusions is a defect. Moreover, add also guilt when sin is not forgiven; but when it is forgiven, there nevertheless still remains in this life this confusion to a great extent, [and] therefore the defects remain which are the formal [principles] of this confusion.
These things are clear and involve nothing confusing. The monks in their unlearned way omitted guilt and said that the formal [principle] of sin is a defect, and that it is removed in the regenerate, and that there remains the material [principle], which they understood as the very appetites which were created by God, which are good things. But they did not understand what they were saying. For since the diseases remain, that is, the doubts, the negligence, [and] the stubbornness, it is easy to understand that the defects remain. For the names of the diseases which remain indicate defects.
The Holy Spirit begins to heal [our] nature, but the whole disease is not all at once suddenly removed. Just as the Samaritan in Luke 10 did not all at once cure the wounded man, but first poured wine into [his] wounds to wash out the blood and then poured in oil to cut down the suffering and then he began to close the wound so that it might heal; and after that, when the wound had been bound up, he had the invalid put on his beast and then cared for in the inn, so Christ puts us on His body, because He carried the punishment for our sins, and pours the Gospel into our wounds, He then binds them up, covers them and forgives our sins.
But He still wishes the diseases in the church to be cured by continual exercises of the cross and of prayer. This imagery shows that in the remission of original sin the guilt is taken away, but the wounds are not suddenly healed. But as the formal [principle] of a wound is the laceration of the parts which ought to be inviolate, so also in the depravity of the mind, the will, and the heart there are certain lacerations as it were, which are truly grievous and savage, whose formal [principles] a dialectician well understands to be defects or deprivations or losses [sterēseis] viz., disorders [ataxias] which deviate from the law of God.
When the final cause [causa finalis] is spoken of in this locus the punishments must be reviewed and the effects. The punishments for original sin are the death of the body and the other enormous calamities which arise out of human ignorance and the weakness of all [our] powers; likewise the wrath of God and eternal damnation, as Paul says, “We were by nature the children of wrath” [Eph. 2:3].
Likewise there is the tyranny of the devil, who in a frightful way impels weak ones so they rush from one evil to another, just as Oedipus in his ignorance killed his father, and later in his ignorance took his own mother as wife. The sons born of this union contended for the kingdom and wounded and slew each other. The father, when his eyes had been gouged out, was driven from the city and after that was swallowed up by the earth. Such loathsome things befall a person who is not defended against the attacks of the devil. Nor is there anyone who does not feel the sharp and terrible bite of the devil, from which one must learn this truth: “The serpent will lie in wait for His heel” [Gen. 3:15]. But let us again learn the promise: The head of the serpent is crushed by our Lord Jesus Christ.
The punishments for the first fall are manifold human ignorance and this stubbornness of the passions which is called concupiscence. But at the same time this is both the punishment for the first fall and sin itself in the newborn, that is, something culpable and condemned by God. Nor have the monks correctly said that this depraved inclination, which they call tinder, is only punishment. This list of the causes and effects will help the studious to understand the doctrine of the church concerning original sin without perplexity.
Now we must warn the reader about certain statements [such as], “Nothing is sin unless it is voluntary.” This statement is traditional regarding civil crimes. For only voluntary wrongs are punished by a public court of law, so that an accidental killing is not punished by the law offices. But we must not transfer this statement to the doctrine of the Gospel regarding sin and to the judgment of God.
Augustine aptly says that original sin is voluntary because we delight in it. However, this sagacious interpretation departs far from the praetorian statement. It is more proper not to mix intemperately statements pertaining to civil matters with the Gospel. It is therefore sufficient to respond by saying that the former statement speaks of a forensic judgment.
This statement is also highly touted: “Nature is good.” This is true insofar as the rest of God’s work. But the nature of man has been horribly injured and contaminated, just as the picture of the wounded man in Luke 10 depicts. We have been despoiled of the gifts of a perfect nature, that is, a firm knowledge of God, wisdom, righteousness, and, besides this, the rest of [our] nature has been wounded, namely by corrupt concupiscence, death, and the various evils of soul and body.
Moreover, we must distinguish those things which are works of God remaining in man from those things which are wicked per se, for example, the knowledge of mathematics is a good thing because it has been planted in man by God. We must understand this about all true knowledge, each matter in its own order. Therefore the knowledge of the law of nature is also a good thing. For though after the fall of Adam it began to be darker and assent was disturbed by doubts, yet as much of that light as remains is a good thing and a work of God. Therefore arts and beneficial laws constructed on the basis of this knowledge are good things. But in the meantime many doubts arise as to whether God cares for us, whether He punishes, whether He hears [us], whether He wants to help us, receive us, give us eternal glory, etc. These doubts are in themselves wicked because they are evils which conflict with the law of God.
Thus our emotions are twofold. Some of our desires are commanded by the law of God, such as love for [our] children, spouse, [and] parents. Others are prohibited by the law of God, such as despising God, raging against God, hatred, adultery.
Furthermore, although in this corruption of nature the affections commanded by the law of God are corrupted and by accident become wicked because they are not ruled by love for God, as when people often sin against God because of [their] children; yet tender love toward children itself is commanded by God and remains in the regenerate and should become purer. Abraham dearly loved his sons Ishmael and Isaac, but he still put the command of God first.
Therefore we must not imagine that all affections must be removed from man or that all have been condemned in the same way, as the fanatical Anabaptists profess a Stoic freedom from emotion. In fact there is no life without feeling, without desire, without some affections, and the law of God enjoins regarding affections: “You shall love the Lord your God with all [your] heart, etc. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And in Rom. 1[:31] among the horrible crimes is “without natural affection” [astorgos].
Therefore there were affections in uncorrupted nature, but well ordered and pure: love for God, parents, children, spouse, brothers and other people, happiness in the knowledge of God and His order in the use of creatures, hatred against the devil. And in the life eternal there will be great happiness in God’s presence and love for God and all the heavenly hosts. Thus there were in Christ true affections, but well ordered and pure: love for God, love for [His] mother, disciples, [and] friends, happiness, sorrow, [and] anger, as is said in Mark 3[:5]: “He looked around in anger.” And with regard to [His] mercy it is said significantly that Christ was moved with compassion. And in regard to great sorrow it is said in Matt. 26[:38], “My soul is sorrowful, even unto death.”
Therefore we must admit that affections have been placed in the nature of human beings, and God wanted also that they themselves should be images and signs of His will. God truly loves us, just as man by nature loves [his] children; God is truly moved with compassion toward us when He sees that we have fallen into eternal misery, which He Himself understands. Just as we by nature are moved with compassion when misfortune befalls a child, so does Christ say, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for us” [John 3:16]. And John says, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], that is, He is filled with true love toward us, not willing [our destruction]. And Paul says to Titus, 3[:4], “The kindness and love of our Saviour toward mankind appeared.” Thus God wanted [His] love, [storgē] impressed on us, to be a reminder of His will.
Hence [affections] must be carefully considered and properly controlled. For now after the Fall they range rashly and are perverted; his is the more to be lamented because they were given to remind us of the will of God. Nevertheless love is to be distinguished from prohibited affections, from the despising of God, from raging against God, from hatred, from rejoicing in iniquity, as when Herodias, Fulvia, etc., rejoiced in revenge, and from other follies which are beyond number. And we must know that affections prohibited by the law of God are in themselves wicked and must be suppressed.
Regarding the common saying, “Nature is good,” I replied that we distinguish between things that were created and depravity, which was not created. In the wrath of Achilles there is a heroic good thing, because it is truly a work of God; but it is corrupted because it is not ruled by the knowledge of God and trust in Him is tangled and worship and trust in God do not shine forth. These defects are not minor sins; hence also a good thing that is corrupted is rejected and becomes culpable.
On the other hand, similar anger in David is purer because there are added knowledge of God, fear and worship of Him, and trust in Him. Thus we should understand that in the regenerate there remains love but that it is more properly controlled and brought back into order and within its bounds and made purer. It remains for [something] to be said about the common question: After baptism is it correct to say that there is sin in infants or is concupiscence a sin? Again, is it correct to say that in regenerate adults there is sin? I reply concerning regenerate adults that all must concede that sin remains. Hence John says, “If we say that we do not have sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” [1 John 1:8]. Therefore we confess that there are many flames of lusts in the regenerate which they say are sins, because they all together suddenly captivate an assent of the will, which is often hard to shake off. But although [the adversaries] confess these things, yet they minimize these very evils and profess that they are speaking only about actual sins, which they deny are in their nature mortal. And the root of these actions, namely, the budding disease which remains in the regenerate, that is the depraved inclination, they say is absolutely not sin, is it an evil which is in conflict with the law of God.
Moreover consider how great an effrontery it is to neglect these evils, namely doubts concerning God, a [false] security that disregards the wrath of God, a diffidence which flees from God, and the many other plagues which even if they are not always observed, yet are present and often break out, so that in times of calamity Cato sinks completely into darkness and denies that providence exists and Saul is angry with God for punishing him so harshly. These things must be recognized as sins, not concealed, so that we may learn how to contend against them and seek aid against them.
Therefore we answer in this way: In Baptism sin is taken away inasfar as it applies to guilt or imputation, but the disease itself remains, which is an evil in conflict with the law of God, worthy of eternal death unless there is forgiveness, as it is said, “Blessed are they whose sins are covered” [Ps. 32:1]. Nor are we arguing about the term sin; the disagreement is about things. The adversaries contend that this disease which remains in the regenerate is not an evil which is in conflict with the law of God. This error must be censured. And the testimonies of Paul are clear. In Romans 7 and 8 Paul clearly says, “The law in our members is in conflict with the law of [our] mind and with the law of God.” No amount of juggling can escape these testimonies.
But the adversaries set forth many false hypotheses. First they say nothing in regard to the darkness of the mind and the wickedness in the will. Then they understand concupiscence only with reference to the senses and consider it to be a natural desire, although they ought to consider it a disorder [ataxia] of the desires and include both the darkness of the mind and of an evil will together. Third, they also add this false hypothesis that the law of God damns only actual sins. This idea transforms the law of God into a philosophy which speaks only of our discipline. After that these fancies obscure the doctrine of grace. For they imagine that one is righteous because of his fulfillment of the Law and they lose the light of the doctrine of faith.
But the entire teaching of the prophets and apostles cries out that people do not satisfy the law of God and that sin clings in all; and it points out the Mediator [and] says that for His sake we are received and pronounced righteous by faith in Him. Accordingly we must recognize our misery in order that the benefits of Christ may be understood.
But this disagreement cannot be settled by the judgments of hypocrites. Hypocrites have always dissented and [still] dissent from the true church concerning this question, because human reason without divine light does not perceive how great evils these inner sins are, even though from the great confusion of life and the greatness of the calamities it ought to be able to estimate them in one way or another.
Philip Melanchthon and Jacob A. O. Preus, Loci Communes, 1543, electronic ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992), 48–53.
XVI. ORIGINAL SIN
1. The sin of our first parents was of disastrous consequence not only to them personally, but also to all their offspring, inasmuch as the guilt of their first transgression is imputed, and the corruption of their nature is transmitted, to all their children. The first is called hereditary guilt, the other, hereditary depravity.
2. Hereditary guilt.—The sin which Adam committed was, indeed, first charged to Adam himself, and he died of that sin. But it was imputed also to all his children, and to this day men die of the sin of Adam. Paul tells us that by the obedience of One, that is Christ, many were made righteous—constituted righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed or credited to them—and “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”—were constituted sinners, because the disobedience of Adam was imputed or charged to them (Rom. 5:19). “By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (Rom. 5:18).
This he proves by the fact that from Adam to Moses men died, even though they had not sinned “after the similitude of Adam,” transgressing as Adam had done an express command of God, to which the penalty of death was affixed (Gen. 2:17). But they died “through the offense of one” (Rom. 5:14. 15); (1 Cor. 15:22). Hence, the offense of Adam must have been charged to them, p 68 and because of this offense they died. ‘Tis true, also the sins men commit personally are worthy of death (Rom. 6:23). Paul emphasizes how sin and its guilt came into the world, into the human race. Adam’s sin killed our entire race, made death reign supreme. By their very entrance into this world, sin and death reached all men. “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
That the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged to us appears also from the fact that the punishment meted out to him and Eve for their specific transgression (Gen. 3:16–19), is suffered by all men and women to this day. Illustration: A man, who gambled away his freedom and became a slave, by this act brought slavery also upon his children, who had not gambled as their father did. In a similar manner the guilt of Adam, and whatever goes with it, is visited upon all his children.
In this connection we must, however, remember that the same God who imputes to us the sin of Adam and condemns us on its account, has likewise imputed to us the righteousness of Christ and declared us just for HIS sake (Rom. 5:18. 19).
3. Hereditary depravity.—In another direction did the fall of Adam bring woe upon him and his kin. By their sin our first parents lost the image of God and became altogether sinful and corrupt in their nature. As children inherit from their parents certain features and traits, sometimes even bodily weaknesses and diseases, so have all men inherited that deep-seated spiritual corruption, which we call original depravity. This is not a sin which men do or commit in their lives, but a sinful condition of their nature, which they have by birth. Having himself lost the image of God, Adam begat a son “in his own likeness” (Gen. 5:3). Like himself, his children were destitute of righteousness, holiness, and innocence; they were selfish, seeking only their own advantage and pleasure and honor; they were inclined to, and capable of, any sin and crime. Cain was a murderer. Men do evil, because by nature they are evil (Gen. 4:8; 6:3. 5; 8:21).
“Since the fall of Adam, all men begotten in a natural way are born with sin, that is, without fear of God, without trust in God, with concupiscence; and this disease, or vice of origin, p 69 is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal wrath upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost” (A.C., Art. II, Triglot, p. 43).
Bible proof.—Man is “flesh born of flesh” (John 3:6), that is, he is the sinful child of sinful parents. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). In his flesh dwelleth no good thing (Rom. 7:18). By nature there is in him no true fear of God, no love of God, no trust in God, no willingness to serve God and to do good to his neighbor. On the contrary, his old Adam “is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22). All manner of lusts arise in him, but they are deceitful, do not lead him in the right way, because his heart, alienated from God, is inclined toward evil (Gen. 8:21). Man covets, because by nature he is covetous; he sins, because by nature he is sinful, and given to “inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness” (Col. 3:5). Thus, by nature man loves himself more than he loves God or his neighbor; he envies others, is selfish and self-centered.
Whatever he plans, purposes, and does, must in some way serve his own personal interests, or flatter his vanity. He has become his own god. In spiritual things his understanding is darkened (Eph. 4:18); he cannot discern or appreciate them, for they are foolishness to him (1 Cor. 2:14). Being carnally minded, his will is not free or neutral, but set on the things of the flesh (Rom. 8:5), and against the things of the Spirit (Gal. 5:17); hence he is by nature an enemy of God (Rom. 8:7; Col. 1:21). Being dead m sin (Eph. 2:1), man has no strength to work out his spiritual restoration.
This description of the spiritual condition of natural man is by no means flattering to his vanity, but such it is according to the Word of Him who “knew what was in man” (John 2:25). This inherited corruption, which vitiated and depraved primarily the faculties of the soul, enslaves in the service of sin also the members of the body (Rom. 6:12, 13a; 7:23, 24).
Original sin does not constitute an essential part of the soul, which God created, nor is it a self-existing essence; but it is the corrupt quality and condition of the soul, brought on by the fall of man, and passed on by birth to his children. p 70 It is not the sinful act which Adam committed, but the depravity and corruption of the entire nature contracted by, and resulting from, that act. It is the sinfulness of our whole nature, which is ours by birth, and because of which we are constantly at variance with the demand of God: “Ye shall be holy” (Lev. 19:2). Because we are not as God made us at the beginning, and as He wants us to be, we are by nature under His wrath (Eph. 2:3).
“Original sin is not properly the nature, substance, or essence of man, that is, man’s body and soul, which even now, since the Fall, are and remain the creation and creatures of God in us, but it is something in the nature, body, and soul of man, and in all his powers, namely, a horrible, deep, inexpressible corruption of the same, so that man is destitute of the righteousness wherein he was originally created, and in spiritual things is dead to good and perverted to all evil …. Now, since the Fall, man inherits an inborn, wicked disposition and inward impurity of heart, evil lust and propensity” (F.C., Th. D., I, 2. 11, Triglot, p. 859. 863).
Other names for this original depravity are “old Adam,” because we inherited it from Adam. It is also called “flesh” (Rom. 8:13); “old man” (Eph. 4:22); “sin that dwelleth in us” (Rom. 7:17).
“Original sin is universal, inherited by ‘all men begotten in the natural way’ (A.C., Art. II). The universal scope of Job 14:4; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12 leaves no room for excepting the Virgin Mary. She did not except herself, but placed her sole hope of salvation in her ‘Saviour’ (Luke 1:47). The only human being, untainted by original sin is the Virgin’s Son, Jesus Christ, who was immaculately conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35; Hebr. 7:26; 2 Cor. 5:21).” (Popular Symbolics, §48).
Original sin clings to us through life.—It is not eradicated in Baptism, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. (Popular Symbolics, §227). By faith in Christ we are freed from its guilt and punishment; but the corruption itself, concupiscence, remains, as Paul experienced (Rom. 7:14–25), and as every Christian still experiences. (Apol., Art. II, 35–37, Triglot, p. 113). By faith Christians will with the aid of the Holy Ghost constantly strive to suppress this old Adam ( p 71 Eph. 4:22; Gal. 5:24); in this life they will never succeed in totally destroying him. (Cf., F.C., Th. D., Art. I).
Edward Wilhelm August Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine: A Popular Presentation of the Teachings of the Bible, electronic ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 67–71.
That Lutheran Guy - GRACE ALONE, FAITH ALONE, WORD ALONE, CHRIST ALONE, Confessional, Conservative & Evangelical
No comments:
Post a Comment