THE ORIGINAL SIN: A CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION

Dr. R. S. Tiwary

“Original Sin” is often alluded to in English literary writings. The concept, however, is not, to my mind, quite clear to Indian students of English letters. In the first place, Indians, at any rate, Hindus do not believe in any Original Sin. Being “Amrita-Putrahs” the idea of Sin being committed by man in the initial stages of earthly existence is alien to us. But, amongst the Christians, the Doctrine of Original Sin has loomed large in the speculations of the Church Fathers or Theologians ever since St. Augustine of the fifth century A.D. enunciated it clearly.

Before proceeding further, it will be profitable to see how Original Sin has been defined in The Oxford Dictionary of World’s Religions, 1997, published by Oxford University Press:

“Original Sin - In Christian theology the state of sin into which everyone is born as a result of the ‘Fall of Adam’. The basis of this in the Bible is Paul’s teaching that through one man (Adam), sin entered the world, so that by the trespass of the one the many died. (Romans, 5.12). It was developed by the early Greek fathers, but became most precise in Latin writers of the 2nd-5th cent., culminating in Augustine’s formulation. According to him, Adam’s sin has been transmitted from parent to child ever since, through concupiscence, in this case through the sinful sexual excitement which accompanies procreation. The human race has thus become a ‘lump of sin’ as shown, e.g., by the practice of baptising even newborn babies with exorcisms. In the Pelagian controversy, Augustine’s view prevailed, although his extreme views were not adopted in the East. In the Middle Ages, the doctrine was newly treated by St. Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished Adam’s ordinary nature from the supernatural gifts he possessed before the fall...Original sin is the loss of these gifts, leaving Adam’s successors to the natural operation of their wills and passions. The instrument of transmission is procreation, but independently of concupiscence. This was a more optimistic view of human nature than Augustine’s and was re-stated at the Council of Trent in opposition to the pessimistic views of Luther and Calvin. According to present Catholic teaching, original sin is the loss of sanctifying grace; concupiscence is its result, not its essence. Since the 18th century, the influence of Old Testament criticism, combined with natural science, has either attenuated the dogma, especially in Protestantism although it is strongly affirmed in conservative and neo-orthodox circles, or changed the emphasis to one of describing human inability to rescue itself from its condition out of its own strength or resources; genetic endowments, combined with social, cultural and historical circumstances precede the birth of all individuals and are not chosen by them; yet they form both character and action in ways that are inevitably disordered.” ”

Now from a perusal of the above excerpt, two things become clear: First that the Sin was the result of the fall of Adam. What was this “fall”? Manifestly, this “fall” suggests the violation ay Adam of the Lord God’s command not to eat of the fruit of what was the Tree of Knowledge, albeit God had not named the tree to Adam and Eve, according to Genesis, Old Testament, and that violation was a Sin, the First Sin committed by the earliest human parent: Second that this Sin has been transmitted to the human kind, generation after generation, through the process of Procreation. A third ensuant, connected with procreation, is the concupiscence, the sinful sexual excitement. The natural corollary, therefore, has been that the human race has become “a lump of sin”. This view found full elaborate expression in the formulation of Augustine, one of the major Roman Fathers, and tended to become a frankly Pessimistic View, respecting the essential nature of man.

The element of Sexual Excitement became associated with the human parents’ violation of the divine command because of their eyes of knowledge having been opened by the eating of the forbidden fruit which made them conscious of their being NAKED which fact made them to make aprons by sewing together the fig leaves (The Holy Bible Catholic Edition, Landon Catholic Truth Society, with a foreword by Cardinal Heeman, Archbishop of Westminister, December, 1965). In this wise, disobedience to the dictates of the Lord God, evidently a Sin, becomes associated with the concept of impropriety of sexual union between man and woman. Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden – Adam being punished with the curse that “In the sweat of your face, you shall eat bread till you return to the ground for out of it you were taken; you are dust and to dust you shall return.”; and Eve with the curse that “I will greatly multiply your pain in child-bearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Ibid., Genesis). According to the excerpt quoted from the Oxford Dictionary of World’s Religions, the present Catholic teaching regards Original Sin as “the loss of sanctifying grace” by Adam and Adamites. To us, however, a Sin is a Commission, not a Loss or Forfeiture. That is, an act committed in violation of accepted moral standards or against a religious sanction is called a Sin, not the Consequence of that violation. Anyway, the fact emerges out that Violation of the divine command, resulting into sex-consciousness by Adam and Eve and the ensuing sexual attraction between man and woman turns out to be labelled as the Original Sin which denied the first human couple “sanctifying grace”.

(B)

As suggested above, resorting to St. Paul’s teaching that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, the Doctrine of Original Sin was elaborated by Augustine in the fifth century A.D., becoming a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. The formulations of the advocates of this theory are as follows – “The whole human race sinned in Adam when he sinned. Adam’s will was the will of the race, so that all men sinned in Adam and rebelled with him when he sinned. When Adam sinned, human nature was corrupted, so that now all men are born with a sinful nature. This sinful nature is the “fountain and direct cause of all of man’s sins. Man sins by nature and cannot help but sin”. Because of Adam’s transgression, all men are guilty, under the just “wrath and curse of God”, and are liable to the “pains of hell for-ever.” Even new-born babies open their eyes in this world under the “wrath and curse” of God. They are guilty and condemned from the moment of their birth.” (Chapter 3, Part One, of ‘Are Men Born Sinners?’ : The Myth Of Original Sin’ – written by A. T. Overstreet)

Overstreet frankly labels it a False Doctrine. For the benefit of the average reader some of the direct quotes from advocates of this doctrine are produced below:-

Our nature sinned in Adam. Our nature, then transformed for the worse, not only became a sinner, but also begets sinners. From this condemnation no one is exempt, not even new-born children.”(Augustine)

“Children are infected by parents’ sins as well, as Adam’s and the actual sins of the parents impose guilt upon the children” (Augustine Harnack)

“The nature and essence of man is, from his birth, an evil tree, a child of wrath.” (Martin Luther)

“Original Sin is the hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature...” (Calvin R. Seeburg)

“The sin of Adam is the immediate cause and ground of inborn depravity, guilt and condemnation to the whole human race.” (A. H. Strong)

“In the sigh of God, Adam’s sin was the sin of all his descendants, so that they are born as sinners. Every man is guilty in Adam and is consequently born with a depraved and corrupt nature... And this inner corruption is the unholy fountain of all actual sins”, (L. Berhkof)

(C)

To us Hindus, the whole concept of Original Sin, as suggested above, is unacceptable. But what is satisfyingly noteworthy, this Doctrine has been refused even by rational Christians as well. Three important Theories of Original Sin have been highlighted by Overstreet, to wit, (1) The Augustinian Theory or the Realistic Theory or The Theory of Adam’s Natural Headship; (2) The Federal Theory, or The Theory of Condemnation by Covenant and The Immediate Imputation Theory; and (3) The Theory of Mediate Imputation or The Theory of Condemnation for Depravity, enunciated between fifth century A.D. and seventeenth century A.D. with subtle differences, all of them hold fast to the concept that since Adam sinned, all his progeny sinned after him in different ways. Overstreet comments that “It is probably shocking for the Christian who has been taught these theories as “Bible truths” to be told that not one word of any of then can be found in the Bible.” Christians believe these theories to be Bible doctrines, quoted directly from the Bible, because “Theologians, preachers and Sunday school teachers” teach them as if they are taken directly from the Holy Bible, sometimes confounding the faithfuls by quoting texts out of context which give them a “semblance of credence”. Overstreet pertinently asks: “Where can you find written in the Bible that “The whole human race existed in Adam at the time of his transgression”? Or that “Adam’s will was the will of the species?” Or that “All men existed as one moral person in Adam, so that in Adam’s sin, we sinned, we corrupted ourselves and brought guilt and merited condemnation upon ourselves”? et cetera, et cetera. His categorical reply is “Nowhere!” Overstreet goes on: “You can search the Bible through from cover to cover and you will never find a word of these theories on its pages.” He even quotes Deut., 4-2, Rev., 22:8-18 to show that God has twice warned men not to tamper with his Holy Word, neither adding to it nor taking from it. Overstreet revealingly comments that the different proponents of the above-said Trio of important theories take ample pains to disprove the opponents’ theory or theories as being anti-Bible. Just one objection by A. H. Strong, rejecting the Federal Theory, may be cited here for the benefit of the average run of readers. Strong argues: “It impugns the justice of God by implying (a) that God holds men responsible for the violation of a covenant, which they had no part in establishing. We not only never authorised Adam to take such a covenant, but there is no evidence that he ever made one at all. It is not even certain that Adam knew that he should have posterity; (b) that upon the basis of this covenant God accounts men as sinners who are not sinners. (c) that after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, God makes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a corrupt nature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to assume a false view of the origin of the soul, but also to make God directly the author of sin.” How cogent and interesting the argument is! Overstreet is valid in commenting that “The dogma of the Original Sin is proven false by its very advocates.”

(D)

None the less, the question remains as to how this theory of the Original Sin came to find a place in the belief’s of the Christian faithfuls. According to Finney, it is “a relic of heathen philosophy” and was foisted in among, the doctrines by Augustine. “This statement is confirmed,” states Overstreet, by a simple reading of Church History, which denotes that from the second and third centuries on, both the practices and doctrines of Christianity were corrupted in an ever-increasing way by heathen philosophies with their abundant pagan superstitions and morality. This influence was profound. There was gross licentiousness on the one hand and extreme asceticism on the other: veneration and worship of saints, relics, images, and pictures, the development of a priest hood with priestly rituals and ceremonies; magical and spiritual powers ascribed to water, sacred words and signs, water baptism for the remission of sins and the baptism of infants. Heathen mythology was introduced and given a Christian form……“Further, many of the theologians were converts from heathenism., who wedded their pagan philosophical concepts to Christianity. These were literary men, educated in the philosophies, who gave the concept of their heathen beliefs to Christianity there by corrupting its purity. “To read the theological writings of some of these early church fathers is like reading a fantastic story! And it was these early church fathers, from the second and third centuries on, who made the first allusions to a doctrine of original sin.”

Origen, for example, taught a doctrine of original sin, being a student of all the current philosophies. His theology bears un-mistakable marks of both Gnosticism and Neo-platonism. He taught the pre-existence of souls and that all men sinned and fell in a former existence. He believed that men, before their existence in this world, were “spirits without bodies”, and that the material world was created by God for the disciplining and purifying of these fallen spirits. Fallen men had been banished into material bodies to be disciplined and purified. He taught that this estrangement of fallen spirits would some day come to an end and all men would be saved. Even the devil and demons would be restored to God....In the end, all spirits in this heaven and in earth including the demons, would be brought back to God, after having ascended from stage to stage through seven heavens. Origen believed that sin is a necessary consequence of man’s material nature. He later assumed the existence of a sort of hereditary sin originating with Adam and added this idea to his belief in a pre-existing fall. And like Augustine, after him, supposed that there was an inherent pollution and sinfulness in sexual union. Augustine himself was deeply imbued with the heathen philosophies of his day. He next fell under the influence of Neo-Platonism, and his theological views were strongly influenced by this philosophy as well. According to A.H.Newman, Augustine, being connected for many years with the Manichaeans, got his modes of thought greatly affected by this experience. “Augustine’s doctrine of sin, with his belief in the inherent sinfulness of the physical constitution, is wholly Manichaean. His idea that sin is propagated through the marriage union, that sexual desire is sin and that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin is also Manichaean. Augustine, built his doctrine of original sin upon the premise that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin.

Before closing the article, we deem it desirable to draw attention to the new treatment of the question of Original Sin by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in as much as he commands, along with Augustine, wide respect amongst the Christians. Let it be clearly understood that Aquinas does not refute the doctrine, but gives it a new interpretation. An interesting question seems to have been broached in the course of the controversy: Whether the original sin was contracted by man because of the fact of Adam having committed the sin of transgressing God’s command and it would not have been contracted by man if Eve had committed the trespass. To us, the question is really of immense interest since it seeks to formulate a distinction between man and woman. One school of opinion apparently holds woman to be the prime source from which men will inherit the sin and seeks to exonerate man from the blame. They take recourse to the logic that it is the woman who provides the matter for the bearing of children and therefore she, or for that matter, Eve should be held responsible for the commission and transmission of the original sin. St. Aquinas evidently holds Adam or man responsible in this regard in as much as Adam, “the first parent”, is “the mover in the begetting of his children: “the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore, original sin is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father, so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not have contracted original sin, whereas if Adam, not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it.” (‘Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas: First Part of the Second Part – Question 81 –Article

A pertinent question has been also broached respecting Mary, the Blessed Virgin. Damascene points out evidently a Biblical text. “The Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin (of whom Christ was to be born without original sin) purifying her”, and argues that “But this purification would not have been necessary, if the infection of original sin were not contracted from the mother. Therefore, the infection of original sin is contracted from the mother, so that if Eve had sinned, her children would have contracted original sin, even if Adam had not sinned.” To this reasoning, Aquinas replies by arguing: “This prevenient (antecedent or preventive) purification was not needed to hinder the transmission of original sin, but because it behoved the Mother of God “to shine with the greatest purity.”

Let us close with the comment that the controversy, surrounding the Original Sin, refuses to be wished away with one sweep of the broom since even among the Hindus, it is generally believed that the consequences of the parent’s commissions have to be borne by his offspring although we have no conception of Original Sin. As to Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit, the Bible clearly states that both of them ate it – first Eve and then Adam under her persuasion – she having been beguiled by the cunning Serpent. Accordingly, if accountability has to be located, both Adam and Eve should be held responsible together as some of the Christian theologians also entertain this view.

Back