Musings on Original Sin

I believe it is fair to say that there are two views on what one means by claiming an "Augustinian" perspective of Original Sin. One view is this:

V1: That Adam was our representative, and furthermore given that he was chosen by God we can assume he was the best possible representative. When he sinned he lost the moral ability to choose not to sin. Put differently, he lost the ability to please God. This moral inability was then inherited by all his descendants. In other words, we suffer devastating consequences (and in fact, spiritual death) as a result of Adam’s sin.

The other view is:

V2: Everything in V1, plus we are literally charged with Adam’s first sin, as if we committed it.

Now practically speaking the difference between V1 and V2 is completely irrelevant. In both views we cannot save ourselves and we need a savior. However, theologically speaking they say very different things about God. More about that anon. For now, let's discuss the limited question of what did Augustine teach.

More crudely, was Adam's first sin in our debit column? Did the generally credited father of the doctrine, Augustine, teach that? Well, on another site, someone was (politely and cogently) defending the view that Augustine teaches V2, providing as proof quotes from Augustine's works:

In City of God, [Augustine] writes, 

“we all existed in that one man, since, taken together, we were the one man who fell into sin.” Even though “the specific form by which each of us was to live was not yet created and assigned, our nature was already present in the seed from which we were to spring” (13.14). 

Similarly, in On Marriage and Concupiscence [Augustine] states, 

“By the evil will of that one man all sinned in him, since all were that one man, from whom, therefore, they individually derived original sin” (2.15). 

And in A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants (MFS) he makes the connection repeatedly. 

“Adam is the only one in whom all have sinned” (1.19);
“none whatever […] die except in Adam, in whom all sinned” (1.55). 

In A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, he writes that there are two viable options on how to read the last clause of Romans 5:12, but both reveal the same truth: 

“Let them, then, choose which they will,—for either in that ‘man’ all have sinned, and it is so said because when he sinned all were in him; or in that ‘sin’ all have sinned, because that was the doing of all in general which all those who were born would have to derive” (4.7). 

He says much the same thing two more times in the rest of the chapter, and also explains these two readings in MFS 1.11. Adam’s sin, according to Augustine, was the doing of all (and incidentally, he did lean heavily on Romans 5:12 to make his case, even if the surrounding verses and a few other passages were sometimes also mentioned). And how, exactly, did Augustine picture us existing in that one man? The closest he gets to explaining his reasoning comes from his last work, the Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian (I’m quoting the 1999 Teske translation, though second-hand): 

Some sort of invisible and intangible power is located in the secrets of nature where the natural laws of propagation are concealed, and on account of this power as many as were going to be able to be begotten from that one man by the succession of generations are certainly not untruthfully said to have been in the loins of the father. They were there […] though unknowingly and unwillingly, because they did not yet exist as persons who could have known and willed this (6.22) 

We were all present in Adam in seed form, we participated in the sin with Adam, and the sin corrupted our seed form so that, together with Augustine’s view of concupiscence in sexual union (which I won’t get into now), we are conceived in sin. It isn’t just the sexual act that makes us conceived in sin, but this act confirms the sin we already participated in and bear the stain of.

I (and others) would argue that everything above quoted from Augustine (or about Augustine), such as being "in Adam in seed form" and the like, is perfectly consistent with V1 as well as V2. It does not require that we are charged with Adam’s actual first sin. In V1 and V2 we are saying that we inherit something awful from Adam (in V2, epsilon more), and Augustine, in the language of his day, is explaining what that is so. Had Augustine written in the modern era, it is not outrageous to speculate that he would have a much easier time expressing the concealed "secrets of nature where the natural laws of propagation" using the metaphor of genetics.

The great reformed confessions, written by men who certainly considered themselves Augustinian, are explicit only about V1. If they meant V2, they left it for our inference. The 1530 Augsburg Confession, for example, writes:

It is taught among us that since the fall of Adam, all human beings who are born in the natural way are conceived and born in sin. This means that from birth they are full of evil lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God and true faith in God” (II:2). 

The Heidelberg catechism states:

III.7. Whence then comes this depraved nature of man? From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise, whereby our nature became so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. 

The closest that arguably comes to affirming V2 is the Westminster:

VI.3 They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation Even there one could legitimately hold that that while the divines are arguing for imputation, they are explicitly stating the consequences or effect of the imputation (V1) without claiming that the actual sin is in our debit column.

Snide Aside: A sign of being "too reformed" (if that's possible) is using the confessions to prove a theological argument  (see Begging the Question) rather than (as they should be used) to explain a theological position--to give a starting point. ¹

Now, I have heard many of my fellow reformed argue that the word "imputed" in the WCF implies that the divines taught V2. But that would be a very different form of imputation than used elsewhere, where either the consequences of the imitation are inarguably beneficial (Christ's righteousness imputed to us) or are voluntarily accepted (our sin imputed to Christ, what a deal!).

Even in the WCF one could legitimately hold that that while the divines are arguing for imputation (of a sort), they are explicitly stating the consequences or effect of the imputation (V1) without claiming that the actual sin is in our debit column.

The bottom line is this: neither Augustine's writings (or Paul's, upon which it is based), nor the confessions demand V2. If someone tells you that they do, it is because they are demanding an interpretation that fits their conclusion.

The speculative consequences of V2

So, what is the big deal if God actually charges us with Adam's sin, as if we committed it? Here are some purely speculative thoughts:

• Why only Adam's first sin? If Augustine's view really means we were metaphysically bound to Adam such that his sin is our sin as if we committed it (as opposed to V1, where we "only" suffer the consequences of his first sin) why aren't all Adam's sins in our debit column? Where does it teach that Adam's first sin broke that metaphysical connection?


• Does this not impugn God's character? The obvious thought experiment is this: suppose someone accomplished the impossible and lived a sinless life (it's just a thought experiment!) Would they still face the prospect of eternal damnation for a sin they didn't commit?


• In the Incarnation, where is it taught that Christ (fully man) was born not only without a sinful moral DNA inherited from Adam, but also had his debit of Adam's first sin erased?


• Does this not make God unnecessarily cruel, further impugning his character? If we are charged with Adam's sin as if we committed it, why phase two of the fall, in which all of our moral ability is removed? If we have Adam's first sin on our charge, we already stand condemned and in need of a savior.

These are just musings and not intended as well established principles. But I find them worth pondering.

---

¹ And sadly I have seen, over and over, that the more reformed you are the more certain you are correct (about everything theological) and the more likely you are to call your views cardinal, and differing views heresy or, if you are slightly more circumspect, to claim that the differing views, while not outright heresy, will, if not corrected, inevitably lead via the ever-handy slippery slope to heresy. If such a point of view were limited to the Gospel, it would be palatable.