_1_Definition of Original Sin

Original sin, which is the sin which is not committed but which is inborn in man since Adam’s Fall, embraces two things: a) hereditary guilt (culpa hereditaria), the guilt of the one sin of Adam which God imputes to all men; and b) hereditary corruption (corruptio humanae naturae hereditaria), which by imputation of Adam’s guilt is transmitted to all his descendants through the natural descent from the first fallen pair. The Scripture proof for the original guilt is Rom. 5:18: “By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” and v. 19: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” The Scripture proof for the hereditary corruption, which is transmitted by natural birth, is Ps. 51:5: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” and John 3:6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” The word “flesh” () here denotes, as the context shows, not merely the body, but the entire sinful man, particularly also the soul, with all its powers and activities. It describes the man who is outside the Kingdom of God and can enter into the Kingdom only by means of regeneration (vv. 3, 5). A parallel passage using the term “flesh” in this sense is Rom. 8:7: “The carnal mind is enmity against God.”

It is particularly the doctrine of the original guilt which has aroused the antagonism of man. Pelagians, Socinians, Arminians, Quakers, and even some modern Lutherans insist that only that can be charged against man as a transgression which he has himself committed.23 The antagonism runs the whole gamut, from simple denial to outright blasphemy.24 Now, we frankly admit that human sentiment, because of the blindness of our heart (Eph. 4:18), rises in rebellion against the fact of the imputation of hereditary guilt. But that does not in the least change the fact which is set before us in God’s Word, in Rom. 5:18-19, namely, that by the offense of one man judgment came upon all men to condemnation () and that by one man’s disobedience the whole multitude of mankind () was placed before God in the category of sinners (). And there is the further fact that all men since Adam’s fall are born with hereditary corruption (corruptio hereditaria) for the sole reason that they are guilty of Adam’s sin.25 As to the justice of this action of God, we must bear in mind the further fact that Scripture parallels the imputation of the sin of Adam and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to all men. Rom. 5:18-19: “Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.” Those who reject the imputation of Adam’s sin as an injustice are compelled, if they would be consistent, to declare the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to be an injustice and to reject it; thus they take their stand outside the pale of Christianity.

In adducing proofs for the justice of the imputation of hereditary guilt, we must observe due caution. We may indeed point to the fact that since Adam was the moral and physical head of all mankind, that one sinful act of his is therefore justly charged to his descendants.26 But this argument is met by the counterargument: Is it right that the son should bear the iniquity of the father? Israel thus argued with its God (Ezekiel 18). Again, we may argue: “Adami voluntas erat ‘interpres’ voluntatis omnium hominum” (Adam’s will was the interpreter of the will of all men), that is to say: God foresaw that we, in similar circumstances, would have acted the same as Adam. But here the objection has been raised today as well as formerly that it would seem fairer to let each person “interpret himself.” Hence in the end we must take our stand on the one reason that silences all opposition. It is the reason to which Quenstedt, after having brought forward several other reasons, points in the words: “God as Judge, in accord with His supreme judicial authority, punishes the crime of lese majesty also in the descendants” (I, 994). God’s imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity is one of the “stubborn facts” against which all arguing is vain, foolish, godless. God is always just, also where His justice is beyond our comprehension. We may not and dare not measure the justice of God with a human yardstick.27 And, in studying the imputation of Adam’s sin, may we never forget the other fact which is published also in Scripture, the fact that the same God who condemned all men because of Adam’s sin has also justified all men for the sake of Christ’s righteousness. This is the truth set forth at length by the Apostle in the section Rom. 5:12-21. To ward off every misunderstanding of this passage, the Apostle himself summarizes his extended presentation with (so then) in v. 18: “Therefore [so then] as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Christians are well aware of these facts, and therefore they sing: “As by one man all mankind fell And, born in sin, was doomed to hell, So by one Man, who took our place, We all received the gift of grace” (Hymnal 369, 5). “Adam and Eve by their fall brought me death’s ruination. Jesus, Thy life and Thy suffering gave me salvation. God of all grace. All grief and woes of my race Ended with Thy incarnation.” (Gesangbuch 27, 2.)

There is not so much doubt about hereditary corruption (corxruptio hereditaria). Human reason perceives something of it. Even pagan writers note a natural inclination of man toward evil. Horace writes: “For without faults no one is born; the happiest one is he who is oppressed by the least.” (Satir. I, 3, 68 sq.) Again: “Even if you drive nature away with a pitchfork, still it continually returns” (Epist. I, 10, 24). Cicero: “As soon as we are born into the light, we are taken up immediately with all depravity and cast about in the utmost perversities of opinion; we seem to have imbibed error almost with our mother’s milk” (Tuscul. Disp. III, 1). But the full understanding of the depth of the innate corruption and its origin in the fall of our first parents is gained only from the revelation of Holy Scripture. The Smalcald Articles point out this fact in the words: “This hereditary sin is so deep and horrible a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be learned and believed from the revelation of Scripture” (Trigl. 477, I, 3). How little, e. g., Cicero knew of the depravity of human nature, in spite of his remark “we seem to have imbibed error almost with our mother’s milk,” is evident from the fact that both in the preceding and the following words he declares human nature to be basically good and traces the prevailing vices back to the wicked influence of nurses, teachers, and listening to and reading the poets. Hence the Formula of Concord declares that “no philosopher, no Papist, no sophist, yea, no human reason, however acute it may be, can give the right explanation [of the depth of the hereditary corruption], but all understanding and every explanation of it must be derived solely from the Holy Scriptures” (Tngl. 879, 60). Rolle says on the point that the hereditary corruption originated in the fall of our first parents: “Without the divine revelation no one can know that the propensity to evil arises from the fall of the first parents, is truly sin, and that on its account man is subjected to eternal damnation” (quoted in Baier-Walther, II, 281).

With regard to hereditary depravity erroneous views are held a) by all those who deny it altogether when they assert that children do not inherit the corruption from their parents through their birth (generatione), but learn it by following the evil example (exemplo), which is contrary to John 3:6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh”;28 b) by all who admit a measure of corruption, but deny that it is sin, asserting that peccatum is always voluntarium, must be done deliberately, willfully, etc., which is contrary to Eph. 2:3: “And were by nature children of wrath”;29 and c) by all those who minimize the hereditary corruption, which is done by the Semi-Pelagians and synergists of all ages. They do not regard fallen man as dead () in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5), but ascribe to him, in varying degrees and under various designations, sufficient strength in spiritual matters to co-operate in his conversion; his obtaining God’s favor and salvation does not depend solely on the grace of God for Christ’s sake, but depends also on his self-determination, or self-decision, on his proper conduct, on his lesser guilt in comparison with others, etc.30

Every minimizing of the hereditary corruption, whether in the crass Papist-Arminian form or in a finer or the finest form, in which it has crept into the Lutheran Church, involves a denial of the sola gratia and accordingly of the whole Christian religion. This fact calls for a separate chapter on the effect of original sin on the mind and will of man.