Recovering the orthodox doctrine of original sin (1)

The doctrine of original sin is a hotly disputed topic which typically is seen as originating in St. Augustine. Of course, that narrative is simplistic and false. I plan to make this a three part series where I work backwards from its understandings in Protestantism to the Medieval Catholicism, finally to the ancestral sin doctrine of the Eastern fathers. But I think it is important to start with the doctrine as presented by St. Augustine of Hippo. The obvious problem with St. Augustine of Hippo is that he wasn't always orthodox in his presentation on the nature of grace, free will, and original sin. St. Augustine had come from a Manichaean past and much of his work deals with the refutation of the Pelagian heresy. It is important to not take Augustinian lines of reasoning to the most literal conclusions. Neither has the Catholic nor Orthodox Churches done such with St. Augustine's teachings. You cannot take St. Augustine, chop him up, throw him in a blender, and then come out with the Christian doctrine on everything. That is bad theology! As a matter of fact, even St. Augustine revised most of his teachings on various subjects as taken on in Retractiones.

Now, that said, St. Augustine's influence in the West is commanding and how he factored in to debates concerning original sin and free will would even further dominate. The City of God gives a detailed account of world history from the creation of the world through to St. Augustine's own present day. Since this was one of his later works, it is important to start with his doctrines there. These are his most developed positions on the subjects that concern us most. In The City of  God, we observe what is the Western traditional view, "so great a sin was committed [by the first two], that by it the human nature was altered for the worse, and was transmitted also to their posterity, liable to sin and subject to death." (Bk.XIVch1) And there you have it, we now are guilty of the first couple's sin...or...are we? Because shortly after saying this, St. Augustine then goes on to reveal "if anyone says that the flesh is the cause of all vices and ill conduct, inasmuch as the soul lives wickedly because it is moved by the flesh, it is certain he has not carefully studied the nature of man....the corruption of the body, which weighs down the soul, is not the cause but the punishment of the first sin" (ch3). Here, St. Agustine maintains that the flesh is corrupted by the first sin but it is not the cause of the first sin and hence, is not evil. It is a bondage to the corrupted flesh that man is subjected to but the flesh is not evil, it is in need of restoration.

That the will of man and the flesh of man are corrupted and held captive by sinful thoughts and temptations is very plain to see. What is seen though in Protestantism is a straying from that line of thought toward something that rejects that man is still the image of God. From Luther, we notice the fixation on St. Augustine's first statement about the nature of the effects of sin is clung to dearly. This is much to the detriment of the human will in total.

The apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, discourses on these same things, not “in a corner,” but in public and before the whole world, and that with a freely open mouth, nay in the harshest terms, saying, “whom He will He hardeneth.” (Rom. ix. 18.) And again, “God, willing to shew forth His wrath,” &c. (Rom ix. 22.) What is more severe, that is to the flesh, than that word of Christ “Many are called but few chosen?” (Matt. xxii. 14.) And again, “I know whom I have chosen?” (John xiii. 18.) According to your judgment then, all these things are such, that nothing can be more uselessly spoken; because that by these things, impious men may fall into desperation, hatred, and blasphemy. (Bondage of the Will, Sect. XXIII)

BUT I will easily prove to you the contrary of all this: — that such holy men as you boast of, whenever they approach God, either to pray or to do, approach Him, utterly forgetful of their own “Free-will” and despairing of themselves, crying unto Him for pure grace only, feeling at the same time that they deserve everything that is the contrary. In this state was Augustine often; and in the same state was Bernard, when, at the point of death, he said, “I have lost my time, because I have lived wrong.” (Sect. XXX)

It would indeed be more properly termed “Vertiblewill,” or “Mutable-will.” For in this way Augustine, and after him the Sophists, diminished the glory and force of the term, free; adding thereby this detriment, that they assign vertibility to “Free-will.” And it becomes us thus to speak, lest, by inflated and lofty terms of empty sound, we should deceive the hearts of men. (Sect. XLI)

For when it is granted and established, that “Free-will,” having once lost its liberty, is compulsively bound to the service of sin, and cannot will any thing good: I, from these words, can understand nothing else than that “Free-will” is a mere empty term, whose reality is lost. (Sect. L)

And finally, from the constant diatribe against free will, we arrive at Luther's understanding that "if that which is most excellent in man be not ungodly, nor utterly depraved, nor damnable, but that which is flesh only, that is the grosser and viler affections, what sort of a Redeemer shall we make Christ?" (Sect. CXXI) Thence, the origination of total depravity from a corruption of St. Augustine. Note that in St. Augustine's work, he does not say the flesh is so depraved that it has become evil but rather it is corrupted to the extent that it becomes difficult to move of its volition. There is the major distinction. Even John Calvin noted the stark distinction between his own understanding and St. Augustine's understanding.

Augustine hesitates not to call the will a slave. 15 In another passages he is offended with those who deny free will; but his chief reason for this is explained when he says, “Only lest any one should presume so to deny freedom of will, from a desire to excuse sin.” It is certain, he elsewhere admits, that without the Spirit the will of man is not free, inasmuch as it is subject to lusts which chain and master it. And again, that nature began to want liberty the moment the will was vanquished by the revolt into which it fell. Again, that man, by making a bad use of free will, lost both himself and his will. Again, that free will having been made a captive, can do nothing in the way of righteousness. Again, that no will is free which has not been made so by divine grace. Again, that the righteousness of God is not fulfilled when the law orders, and man acts, as it were, by his own strength, but when the Spirit assists, and the will (not the free will of man, but the will freed by God) obeys. (Institutes, Bk2ch2.8)

I maintain, that as well in the words of the Psalmist which I have quoted, as in other passages of Scripture, two things are clearly taught—viz. that the Lord both corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also substitutes a good will from himself. In as much as it is prevented by grace, I have no objection to your calling it a handmaid; but in as much as when formed again, it is the work of the Lord, it is erroneous to say, that it accompanies preventing grace as a voluntary attendant. Therefore, Chrysostom is inaccurate in saying, that grace cannot 257 do any thing without will, nor will any thing without grace (Serm. de Invent. Sanct. Crucis); as if grace did not, in terms of the passage lately quoted from Paul, produce the very will itself. The intention of Augustine, in calling the human will the handmaid of grace, was not to assign it a kind of second place to grace in the performance of good works. His object merely was to refute the pestilential dogma of Pelagius, who made human merit the first cause of salvation. (Bk2ch3.7)

Thus, in Calvin, we see St. Augustine fully perverted into something of a pre-Calvinist apologist who was constrained by the language of his time. It was good of John Calvin to show up. But more sparks of total depravity arise throughout his theology. And as total depravity became to be well-adapted in Protestant thought, even the proponents of free will had to find a way to defend it.

1. I proceed to draw a few inferences from what has been said. And, First, from hence we may learn one grand fundamental difference between Christianity, considered as a system of doctrines, and the most refined Heathenism. Many of the ancient Heathens have largely described the vices of particular men. They have spoken much against their covetousness, or cruelty; their luxury, or prodigality. Some have dared to say that “no man is born without vices of one kind or another.” But still as none of them were apprized of the fall of man, so none of them knew of his total corruption. They knew not that all men were empty of all good, and filled with all manner of evil. They were wholly ignorant of the entire depravation of the whole human nature, of every man born into the world, in every faculty of his soul, not so much by those particular vices which reign in particular persons, as by the general flood of Atheism and idolatry, of pride, self-will, and love of the world. This, therefore, is the first grand distinguishing point between Heathenism and Christianity. The one acknowledges that many men are infected with many vices, and even born with a proneness to them; but supposes withal, that in some the natural good much over-balances the evil: The other declares that all men are conceived in sin,” and “shapen in wickedness;” — that hence there is in every man a “carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which is not, cannot be, subject to” his “law;” and which so infects the whole soul, that “there dwelleth in” him, “in his flesh,” in his natural state, “no good thing;” but “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil,” only evil, and that “continually.” (John Wesley, Sermon 44)

The concept of total depravity would end becoming so prevalent in Protestant thought that Albert Barnes, a Protestant theologian and Biblical interpreter, sought to seek the roots of the problem with the concept of original sin. Of course, he was wrong in saying that there was no original sin. But he may have been right in everything else he said about the topic.

It is but justice to state, that the commentator maintains that a resemblance between Adam and Christ lies not at all in the mode in which sin and righteousness, life and death have been respectively introduced by them; but is found in the simple fact that "the effect of their doings did not terminate on themselves, but extended to numberless other persons." pp. 117, 118, 128. (Barnes' Notes on the Bible)

Barnes' theological input on this concept of original sin certainly would shine light on the false doctrine of total depravity even if it was only a start. For some reason, his commentary seems to be buried in Protestant theology. Even as self-avowed Arminian theologians would seek to dispute it despite what John Wesley himself has stated about the subject of total depravity. But as we progress backwards, it becomes evident that Barnes begins to come far closer to the doctrine of ancestral sin as taught in the East. (end part I, to be continued...)