_3_The Negative and the Positive Side of Original Corruption

Holy Scripture describes the original corruption not only as a defect, that is, a lack of the concreated righteousness, but also as evil lust (concupiscentia), that is, the habitual inner inclination to evil. Gal. 5:17: “The flesh lusteth against the spirit”; Rom. 7:23: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.” Both the positive and the negative side are mentioned in Art. II of the Augsburg Confession: “All men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence” (Trigl., p. 43).32 In so far as original corruption is concupiscence, we may call it something positive.

This is not to say that original sin is something positive in the sense of being a substance if by substance we mean substantia materialis, quae proprie subsistit, i. e., a thing existing by itself, having a separate existence. If we distinguish between substance and accident in this manner that by substance we mean a thing having a separate existence, and by accident something inherent in a thing as a separable attribute, then certainly original corruption is an accident; for human nature, also after the Fall, still remains Cod’s creation and as such is good in itself and remains good. This distinction must be maintained against every form of Manichaeism, which assumes two substances, one good, the other evil. The Formula of Concord declares in Art. I, “Of Original Sin”: “We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction … between the nature [itself], which even after the Fall is and remains a creature of God, and original sin… . For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the Fall, but also our bodies and our souls after the Fall, notwithstanding that they are corrupt, which God also still acknowledges as His work, as it is written, Job 10:8: ‘Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about.’ ” To assume that the human nature as such, or according to its substance, is sin, would conflict with the articles of the Christian faith concerning creation, redemption, sanctification, and resurrection. For the Son of God assumed the human nature, without sin, indeed, but according to its substance, its essence, into the unity of His person. He has also “redeemed it as His work, sanctified it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the blessed resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.” (Trigl. 779 f.)

On the other hand, we maintain against Pelagianism and synergism that original sin is an “accident” which has infected the entire substance of the human nature. It has so totally corrupted human nature that man is become incapable of any spiritual good and inclined to all evil. Rom. 7:18: “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.” And we maintain, furthermore, that this inherited corruption clings so firmly to our nature that no human power or endeavor, but only God’s grace and almighty power, exercised for Christ’s sake, can free us from it. Rom. 8:3: “The Law could not do” it. The Formula of Concord summarizes it thus: “We believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight [levis] but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man’s body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings: ‘Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human.’ This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God’s Word. And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature.” (Trigl. 781, 8–10.)

While the First Article of the Formula of Concord was prompted by Flacius’ wrong and tenaciously defended expression that original sin is the substance of fallen man, this article is at the same time directed against Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and the synergism of Strigel and all Philippists, as the antitheses (Trigl. 781, 1–6) clearly demonstrate.33