Original Sin II

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Three Goals

About Original Sin.  As you already know, my baptismal name is Augustine.  In part, I’m trying to defend my patron against contemporary slanders.

You also know that my driving force is, “We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  To this, I cling with fierce tenacity, and it informs my every thought, argument, sentence.  To this aim, I see in Scripture not merely an idyllic world, but an absolute mandate from Christ.  Not merely a Spiritual Unity, though that is all we presently have; but a bodily unity: for in the same breath we declare, “We look for the resurrection of the dead [necessarily bodily].”  To these ends, we receive one and only one baptism, which is always rendered bodily in the flesh.

In addition, I have some hope to arm you with facts to help you follow Christ’s course in life.  Humanly speaking, this always feels to us as if we make important choices; but we know that without God’s reigning hand in our lives, these choices are all futile figments.  Oh, that Christ would come to us once again, walking on the rough waters, commanding the raging sea, “peace, be still,” and bringing us at last to safe harbor.  Yes, it does appear to me that modern Christianity in general has cut itself away from its anchor (Hebrews) and lies in grave danger today.

With these three ends in mind, I have no certainty that I am right, or that others are wrong.  I have only the lights of Scripture and our Tradition instructed by Scripture, that Regal History which we have received from our Holy Fathers and Mothers in Christ.  However, I’m humbled by the fact that the famous ship pilot of Lake Erie storm, lined-up the wrong lights, falsely thinking that he had found safe haven, and drove his boat to certain death on the Erie shore.  These are God’s lights, not mine; all interpretation belongs to Him.

A Problem to Avoid

To be blunt, it seems to me that some Church teaching is to be avoided because of its contemporary stand on Original Sin, or the rejection of that idea.  I do not see how the idea — that we are not all guilty in Adam; and therefore death is not a punishment, but merely a result of the fall — can possibly be true.

Rocks for Good Foundation

However, I agree with many thus far.  Where real sin does not exist, no guilt exists either.  God is not unjust to condemn as legally guilty, those who have not sinned.  This, I take to be an absolute anchor point,

God cannot be unjust, it’s simply impossible.

We are caught between two immovable rocks:

God cannot be unjust and all mere men sin.

Two Inadequate Theories

Many others fasten on an idea of corporate or seminal headship [don’t know if you use these terms].  Sin is passed on from Adam and Eve, either because Adam and Eve represent the human race as presiders over it; or because it is built into the Adam and Eve genetic code.  It seems to me that both of these views are flawed, as some claim, and force God to assign guilt to the innocent: for in both views, none of the progeny actually sinned.

The seminal idea is just plain foolishness, for we end up with the idea that sin is transmitted through Adam’s genetic code, not through Eve’s genetic code.  This is the logical necessity for Christ to be born sinless.  How can it possibly be true that sin is transmitted through Adam’s genetic code and not equally through Eve’s genetic code?  Are not Adam and Eve both equally human?  Obviously, logic in and of itself is not a safe guide.

The corporate idea is no better, for I am made a sinner simply by Adam’s decision.  This, the prophets emphatically deny, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge ... The soul that sins; it shall die.”  We may have escaped the seminal rocks of destruction, but we are no better off than we were before.  It is impossible to escape the idea that we have accused God of being unjust.  Me genoito!

A Sincere Proposal

It seems to me that the exact opposite idea of the seminal idea solves the problem.  That, we did not genetically receive sin from Adam; but rather that, we mysteriously participated in Adam.  Somehow, in a manner beyond all human understanding, we were there, in the Garden of Eden, physically, bodily participating in Adam’s sin.  Mystically, Adam’s sin is our sin, we did it; Adam’s guilt is our guilt, we justly deserve it; Adam’s death is our death, we certainly receive it.

The Third Rock, Death is Certainly a Punishment

Another issue is resolved by the passage, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge ... The soul that sins; it shall die.”  Clearly, death is a punishment; yet we must return to this subject at a later date and give it more attention.  Therefore, we are left with three immovable rocks, and seemingly one more reason to reject opposing contemporary views: for God cannot be unjust; all mere men sin; nearly all die.  The 100% statistic of death knows only three exceptions thus far in history (Enoch, Moses, Elijah).

Christ

Moreover, I cannot see Christ as being merely my corporate head.  Christ is not just my president.  He is that, to be sure, but He is much, much more.  The descriptive metaphors of Scripture: head and body, bride and groom, foundation and building, speak of an intimacy of relationship that reaches far beyond any corporate idea.  The idea of corporate headship is simply inadequate for the riches of Scripture.  “That they may be one (John 17).”  “Speak the same things.”  “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God.”  “One bread that we break, One cup that we drink.”  These all speak of an organic, bodily unity of great depth, a “body life” if you will.

Dissension

Some Christians reject others, sometimes even bitterly, over these things.  Many deny that there is any juridical aspect to God at all.  Some are even saying that love defines God.  On the other hand, particularly conservative Christians, often overcook the juridical aspect of God.  To be sure, Jesus is as Melchizedek, The King of Righteousness, but He is even more.  The death of Christ on the cross does declare me righteous; but it is also making me righteous; and it is healing the damage done to my body and to creation as well.  Yet, the continual harping on the juridical aspect of God is offensive, and has produced a bitter, knee-jerk reaction.

Why Bother?

In any case, I hope you see that I’m trying to thread the needle that will resolve theological conflict, avoid the rocks of God’s immutable and perfect justice; man’s inevitable sin; man’s nearly inescapable death, and yet warn you about dangers ahead.

I make no claim about being right.  I only hope for the complete reconciliation of the Church, that I’ve not misrepresented Augustine, and that I’ve not misled you or your colleagues or anyone in the Church in any way.  I cannot resolve the problem, I just don’t know how.  Perhaps we should learn from the Gordian Knot, or Occam’s Razor.

Pax vobiscum.  Your brother in Christ, “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”
Herb aka Augie

Original Sin I

We falsely and slanderously are reported to believe that God assigns guilt for sin where no sin exists.  This is not what we believe no matter how frequently and persistently others say that this is so.  We firmly believe that God only assigns guilt where real sin exists.

We must bring this disagreement to naught because it has become a major obstacle to re-uniting the Church.  We must achieve resolution.  To this end, we examine Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; and Hebrews 7:4-10.

What is Original Sin?

It is sinful to believe that God assigns guilt where there is no sin.  We reject the idea that any sincere Christian makes any such claim.  We do believe that we, Adam’s children did sin in him and thus we are guilty.[1]

Romans 5:12-14

On this account, as through one man, sin broke into the world, and death through sin; and so death broke through to all men, in that all sinned: for until the law sin was still in the world: but sin was not accounted where law [does] not exist; but death reigned from Adam to Moses, even on those not sinning in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the One about[2] to come.[3]

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.[4]

Hebrews 7:4-10

Now you [must] consider how great this man[5] [was], to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils.  And those of the sons of Levi, who receiving the priesthood, have a commandment to accept a tenth from the people according to the law (that is, from their brothers, though [also] having come from the loins of Abraham); but he having no birth record from them had received a tenth from Abraham, and had blessed him possessing the promises.

Now beyond any contradiction the lesser is blessed by the greater.  Here mortal men receive a tenth; but there [he receives a tenth while] self-attesting that he lives.[6]  And, so to speak, through Abraham, Levi also, [although] receiving a tenth, payed a tenth.  For he is still in the loins of the [his] father, when Melchisedec met him.[7]

Two Main Viewpoints

The opposing viewpoint goes like this: Adam and Eve sinned; but their children did not participate in Adam’s sin, are innocent of it, bear no guilt concerning it; yet they, with the whole human race, experience death because of it.^[8]

We, on the other hand, claim that: Adam and Eve indeed sinned, their children also participated in Adam’s sin, are not innocent of this original sin, bear the full weight of guilt concerning original sin together with Adam, and die.^[9]

So, the first issue that must be met is exactly who sinned when Adam and Eve sinned, and what are the results of that sin?

The Facts of Scripture

Let’s look at Hebrews 7:4-10, especially verses 9 and 10.  These verses literally say that Levi, the third son of Jacob, not being yet conceived, paid a tenth through Abraham to Melchisedec, because Levi was literally in Abraham, his great-grandfather.  The logic of the passage also insists that, Levi’s children received and paid such a tenth some four hundred years later as well, when they received the office of the priesthood.[10]  Literally, because of his “in Abraham” relationship, Levi and all his descendents were present with, and participated in Abraham’s one-tenth giving act.

Now, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15:22.  The relationship “in Abraham,” parallels the “in Adam” and “in Christ” relationship.[11]  How is it that we die and even decay (present tense) in Adam, and we shall be made alive or resurrected[12] (future tense) in Christ.  No one questions the “in Christ” relationship; nor can we explain it, but all of us accept it as a literal reality.  Yet in this delightful sentence, “in Christ” is powerfully compared to “in Adam” by a simile employing “as ... even so.”  The comparison driven by “even so ... so also” is nearly exact.[13]  We are “in Adam” the same way we are “in Christ,” and very much like Levi, in Abraham.  We participate in the death and decay of Adam the same way that we presently participate in the life of Christ in Baptism, and shall someday participate in the life of Christ in heaven.

Finally, we examine Romans 5:12-14.  Verse 12 proclaims, “That all sinned.”  There can be no debate about this; the only discussion is over when and how.

An Analysis of the Facts

Because of these Scripture passages, we believe that we participate in Adam’s sin, and therefore are guilty.  So, if we participate in Adam’s death, we also participate in Adam’s sin, because we are present in his loins.[14]  We deny that sin is ancestral or inherited in any way.

This mystery is inexplicable, but not unacceptable.  We do not expect to understand this phenomenon.  We will accept it at face value for what it is, a mystery.  There is no scientific explanation[15] of it; there is no rational way to understand it; yet, Scripture proclaims it and therefore it is absolutely and indisputably true.

Others disagree.  They have a right to their opinion.  They look to expressions like, “so to speak,” “death through sin,” and, “those not sinning in the likeness of Adam's transgression,” or even the word, “type,” to interpret these three “in” relationships as figures of speech.[16]  But if one of these is a figure of speech, and not literally true; then, how is it true that we are “in” Christ?  Treating these “in” relationships as figures of speech leads to a two-pronged argument; let’s deal with the first prong now.

Honest translators must admit that expressions like, “so to speak,” could indicate the existence of a figure of speech.  Levi and sons are not necessarily in the loins of Abraham.  Thus, we must agree, that if this is indeed our factual condition, it is extremely blasphemous to accuse God of assigning guilt where no actual sin exists.  Adam and Eve are guilty, but we would necessarily be innocent.  We, on the other hand, insist that this is not a figure of speech and the passage should be treated literally.  We did sin in Adam, and are necessarily guilty.  But we in no way approve of the idea that God would ever assign guilt where no actual sin exists.

The second prong of the argument suggests that, “death through sin,” makes no mention of guilt, so guilt is not present, and it is wrong to insert it.  But this is a mere subterfuge.  Guilt is merely a legal classification assigned where sin exists.  Are we to assume that Adam’s children sinned, and are somehow not guilty?  No, the whole issue is, when and where did they sin, and when and where they are guilty, for God cannot assign guilt where no actual sin exists.  So if we sinned in Adam, we are guilty in Adam.  But if we sinned outside of Adam, we are guilty outside of Adam.

The debate will probably remain unresolved.  We are not trying to persuade our opponents to change their minds.  We concede, it could be a figure of speech: although we firmly believe that, it is not.  We are trying to obliterate the idea that we, somehow or other, believe that God assigns guilt where no actual sin exists.  This is false.

Our Objections

We object to being accused of assigning guilt without a basis in sin.  We are saying, with supporting evidence, that we do not believe that God assigns guilt where no sin exists.  We are asking our opponents to stop accusing us of this sin, which we most emphatically did not commit.  We hope that all would see that no issue remains here, for our communion tables to be separated.

We object to the assertion that our idea is not Orthodox, when the idea is found among the Holy Fathers, even though they may have been divided over the issue.  If the Holy Fathers can divide; without accusing God of assigning guilt to the innocent; and still embrace one communion table; then so may we.

We protest the frequent tarring of Augustine’s name over this.  The idea of original sin may have originated with Irenaeus (d 202).[17]  Augustine (d 430)[18] may have coined the term as well, but his thought concerning original sin appears to be the same as, and to support our idea, “participation in Adam.”

We protest the claim of some who seek to tear down Augustine to support their point; namely, that Augustine knew no Greek and therefore strayed widely from Orthodox theology.[19]  Such a statement can only be made from a foundation of ignorance, for Augustine shows in his letters that, called to office by his Greek mentor, he was chosen for his linguistic and theological skill.  Working closely with his Greek mentor, the two ensured that Greek theology would be accurately expressed in Latin.  This would be impossible if his mentor knew no Latin, or if Augustine knew no Greek.  Augustine was also a supporter of the LXX, and wrote several letters to Jerome defending its primacy.  We conclude that Augustine knew a great deal of Greek language and theology, though he was modest about his gifts, and readily tipped his hat to the greater linguistic genius of Jerome.

We protest the idea that ancestral or inherited sin accurately expresses the Orthodox view of sin.  Either we sinned in Adam, or we did not.  Even if we did not, the cosmology changes, not the children.  It is now easy to sin, and difficult to do good.  We agree that man can no longer grow in his likeness of God.  The image of God in man is marred, but not destroyed.  But in either case, each man must sin for himself.  To model sin after some disease, and make it inevitable through ancestry or inheritance, seems to posit a cruel God who forces his creation to sin.  We continue in sin because we all sinned once, either in Adam or out of Adam.

Additional Problems

If we first sinned outside of Adam, there remains the possibility, no matter how improbable, that someone could live his or her entire life sinlessly, without any help from God.  Sin, under this view is a strong probability, but not a necessity.  The facts seem to be that no such person ever has existed.  This idea also seems to fly in the face of numerous Scriptures that appear to assert otherwise; namely that it is impossible for any mere human to live without sin.[20]  So the flaw looks as if it is insurmountable.  However, we do not desire to misrepresent our detractors.  So we are eager to hear an explanation.  Our only motive is to find the path of reconciliation by earnest interaction.

If we first sinned outside of Adam, so that there is no Adamic guilt, it is difficult to conceive of Adamic death, which is indisputably and obviously present.  But, we must leave this discussion for another essay and another week.

Conclusions

We conclude that:

·         God cannot assign guilt or punishment without the existence of real sin, for this would contradict His revealed nature: namely, that it is impossible for God to be unjust.

·         All men sin in Adam, but we concede that many Christians disagree with this view.  So we seek reconciliation without coercing the consciences of those that differ.  We believe that the restoration of communion is possible without resolving this difference.

·         We do not change prior to our first act of sin.  We all sinned in Adam, and thus caused both the change in our nature and cosmology.  It is now easy to sin, and difficult to do good.  We in our altered nature cannot grow in the likeness of God; the image of God in man is marred, but not destroyed.

·         The possibility of any mere man being sinless in the flesh is a grievous and seemingly insurmountable flaw, and we look for any reasonable explanation.

·         We must bring this disagreement to naught because it has become a major obstacle to re-uniting the Church.  We must achieve resolution.^[21]

It is sinful to believe that God assigns guilt where there is no sin.  We reject the idea that any sincere Christian makes any such claim.  We do believe that we, Adam’s children did sin in him and thus we are guilty.

Yours in Christ,

Herb Swanson
aka Augie, short for Augustine

---

[1] For further discussion, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm, http://www. catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8782, http://www.religionandtheology.org/OriginalSin. html, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/original.html, http://carm.org/questions/ about-doctrine/are-we-punished-adams-sin, http://bama.ua.edu/~msa/adam.html, http:// www.godandscience.org/apologetics/original-sin.html.  A full list of sources is encyclopedic.

[2] This is most likely a reference to the First Coming of Christ, “the One Who was about to come.”  But the possibility that Paul refers to the Second Coming of Christ, “the One Who is about to come.” cannot be ruled out completely.  Or even that, in Mystery, he refers to both.

[3] Our translation: For a smoother result, consult the New King James Version.

[4] King James Version

[5] Melchisedec

[6] Abraham, Levi, and all their descendents died; but there is no evidence that Melchisedec ever died.  Certainly, with reference to the type (Romans 5:14) of the Resurrected Christ, He cannot die.

[7] Our translation: For a smoother result, consult the New King James Version.

[8] Some authorities call this the correct view of Original Sin, while others deny that any view of Original Sin exists in Scripture.  This theory is sometimes labeled tabula rasa or blank slate, as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Rasa).  Tabula rasa is the theory that people are born without any mental content, hence no memory of sin, no guilt, each person starts over with a clean slate.  While this theory or any other theory of innocence at birth may seem logical and reasonable, the question remains: namely, will any of these theories stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture?  Whatever tag is placed on this perspective both of these authorities are naming the same opposing viewpoint expressed here.

[9] Our view is sometimes termed “original guilt” by our opponents, because they insist that we impose guilt without the existence of sin.

[10] Acts 7:7 (four hundred years evil bondage); Galatians 3:17 (four hundred thirty years from the giving of the covenant to Abraham to the giving of the Law to Moses).

[11] Hebrews 7:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:22

[12] The whole of 1 Corinthians 15 is focused on the topic of resurrection.

[13] The Greek contrast can be translated as either “as ... even so” or as “even so ... so also”

[14] Hebrews 7:10.

[15] An abundance of theories exist that attempt to explain this fact rationally.  We reject all of these.  Either Levi participated in Abraham’s act or he did not.  If we take Scripture literally, as we should, we are forced to accept the fact that Levi did participate in Abraham’s act.  If we are willing to make this into a figure of speech, we will be compelled to reject the reality.

[16] Hebrews 7:9; Romans 5:12, 14, 14

[17] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus.  Irenaeus was a hearer of Polycarp, and it is very doubtful that he made a serious error in his received Greek theology.

[18] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

[19] V. Rev. A. James Bernstein, Surprised by Christ (Conciliar Press Ministries, Ben Lomond, California, 2009) p. 223

[20] Psalm 130:3; Romans 3:23; 5:19

[21] This task of seeking the reunification of the Church on earth is the primary motive driving all of our essays.