Introduction
Three distinct theological viewpoints describe the fall of Adam and Eve—and, by extension, all humankind: 1) ancestral sin, 2) original sin, 3) and original blessing. The most common one in Western churches is original sin, meaning "that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of humankind's first parents to God's revealed will" (Theopedia). However, ancestral sin was the most common perspective in the early church leading up to the formulation of original sin by the Carthaginian theologian Augustine of Hippo (354–430). The Eastern Orthodox rector Antony Hughes observes, "It is suggested that the doctrine of ancestral sin naturally leads to a focus on human death and divine compassion as the inheritance from Adam, while the doctrine of original sin shifts the center of attention to human guilt and divine wrath." The main reason Augustine defined original sin was to defend the practice of infant baptism, which was not the method of the first-century church (see "Baptism: Immersed in Christ").
In other words, if infants inherit God's condemnation of original sin from their parents, Augustine believed they must be baptized to stop it from further corrupting children throughout their lifetimes. Therefore, we lost the image of God (Latin: imago Dei) that all human beings had before the fall of Adam and Eve (see Gen. 1:26-27). This idea was expanded by the French reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) to say we are all totally depraved and incapable of seeking God on our own (see "God's Will & Our Free Choices").
In contrast, original blessing means we still have God's image and our libertarian free will to know God without being limited by sin. Theologians generally ascribe this view to the British monastic Pelagius (c. 354–c. 418), a rival of Augustine. However, true biblical theology implies an equilibrium between original sin and original blessing, known as ancestral sin, which was the early church's position for over 300 years before Augustine and Pelagius. The main difference between ancestral sin versus original sin is that humankind inherited its sinful nature through environmental factors, not biological ones. Thus, ancestral sin takes a therapeutic approach to the sin-nature rather than the judicial approach of original sin.
Jesus: The Solution to Ancestral Sin
If humankind were totally depraved according to original sin, Jesus would have been unable to live among us. Instead, John son of Zebedee made it clear: "The Word became flesh and made his home among us. We have seen his glory, glory like that of a father's only son, full of grace and truth" (1:14). In contrast, Augustine believed that humankind lost God's image after the fall, with original sin being transferred to everyone through conception and birth. He based much of his view on Plato's theory of forms, which stated that all matter is a corrupted "shadow" of a higher universal ideal. Yet, many Protestants today distinguish between the spiritual inclination to sin from a physical one—the doctrine of original sin cannot exist without the latter. Many church leaders refer to Psalm 51, when King David repented, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (v. 5). Nevertheless, David was using hyperbole, exaggerating the level of guilt about committing adultery with Bathsheba. He was not making a doctrinal statement about God's image formed in all humankind. That said, our will lies in bondage to sin.
For this reason, the concept of libertarian free will is categorically impossible. Paul of Tarsus wrote, "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:7-8). We cannot be righteous without God, which is why Jesus atoned for our sins and saved us from them. Paul also said, "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:21-23).
Paul warned: "People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people" (2 Tim. 3:2-5). Paul alluded to our inclination to sin (Hebrew: yetzer ha-ra; H3336; H7451). He also contrasted Adam and Jesus when he said, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" (Rom. 5:17).
Furthermore, it is clear that whenever we think or attempt to do God's will, we fall short and sin because we put our self-interests ahead of him. That said, Paul's warning about the end times suggests that humankind has both the inclination to sin but also one to seek God. So, our depravity cannot be total in the Augustinian or Calvinist senses. Instead, our propensity to sin is merely radical because it prevents us from obeying God willfully. The human tendency toward law, fairness, justice, and peacemaking never disappears (Hebrew: yetzer ha-tov; H3336; H2896), as if our depravity was total. However, we pollute those ideals with our means and goals. Jesus perfectly and impeccably (i.e., without sin) always followed God's will and never added his ideas to it (see John 10:30-38). Jesus alone follows God's will to a T; however, he also gives us the Holy Spirit's power to remove our sin-natures during sanctification (see "Salvation: The Romans Road").
So, where does evil come from if our depravity is not total but merely radical? Augustine believed that humans pass on sin to consecutive generations through conception and birth. However, God made sexual intercourse a good and wholesome experience between a husband and a wife. Just like the incarnation of Jesus, we must avoid calling something God created as good "evil." The ancestral tension between blessing and sin results from the fall, but God does not abandon us. Through sanctification, the Holy Spirit gradually restores the whole nature of good the Father intended us to have. Evil is the result of human free will (see Rom. 1:30), which is bound to the power of sin. However, when Jesus saves, we are then freed from that bondage. The scriptures also tell us, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). While it is essential to teach the depraved nature of humankind, we also need to emphasize how God leads us toward righteousness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of ancestral sin offers a compelling framework for understanding the human condition in light of biblical teachings and theological reflection. Rooted in early Christian thought and embraced by Eastern Orthodox tradition, ancestral sin emphasizes the inherited consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience, highlighting the ongoing struggle between humanity's fallen nature and God's redemptive grace. Through the lens of ancestral sin, we recognize the pervasive impact of sin on human existence, acknowledging our inherent inclination towards disobedience and separation from God. This perspective underscores the need for humility, repentance, and reliance on God's mercy for reconciliation and restoration. As we journey in faith, may we continue to wrestle with the implications of ancestral sin, seeking a deeper understanding of our fallen nature and the boundless mercy of our loving Creator. Through repentance, faith, and reliance on God's grace, may we find healing, redemption, and the fulfillment of God's intended purposes for humanity.
Prayer
Blessed are you, LORD our God, King of the universe; our condition after the fall of Adam and Eve is such that we cannot turn and prepare ourselves, by our natural strength and good works, to faith and to calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without his grace by Christ preventing us from sin, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that goodwill. Amen.
Bibliography
Attridge, Harold W., ed. The NRSV HarperCollins Study Bible, Revised and Updated with Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical Books. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2006.
The Book of Common Prayer. Huntington Beach, CA: Anglican Liturgy Press, 2019. p. 776. http://bcp2019.anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BCP2019.pdf.
Danker, Ryan N., ed. The Faith Once Delivered: A Wesleyan Witness to Christian Orthodoxy. Alexandria, VA: John Wesley Institute, 2022. 19–25. https://nextmethodism.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Faith-Once-Delivered-FINAL-1.pdf.
Holder, R. Ward. "John Calvin (1509–1564)." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Univ. of Tennessee at Martin. https://www.iep.utm.edu/calvin.
Hughes, Antony. "Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy." Cambridge, MA: Saint Mary Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church. https://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin.
Juster, Daniel. Jewish Roots: Understanding Your Jewish Faith. Second ed. Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image: 2013. p. 120.
Keathley, Kenneth D. "Molinism." Theology for the Church (blog). November 24, 2015. http://www.theologyforthechurch.com/2015/11/24/so-what-is-molinism.
⸻. "ROSES vs. TULIP." Theology for the Church (blog). April 1, 2010. http://www.theologyforthechurch.com/2010/04/01/roses-vs-tulip.
Luther, Martin. De servo arbitrio ("On the Bondage of the Will"). Monergism. Trans. Henry Atherton. Ed. Lance George Marshall. West Linn, OR: Christian Publication Resource Foundation. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/pdf/luther_arbitrio.pdf.
Nally, Joseph R., Jr. "Theological Flowerbeds—DAISY vs. TULIP." Casselberry, FL: Thirdmill. https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45598.
Perszyk, Ken, ed. Molinism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011.
Shafovaloff, Aaron. "Original Sin." Theopedia: An Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity. South Jordan, UT: Christian Web Foundation, 2010. https://www.theopedia.com/original-sin.
Smith, Nicholas D. "Plato (427–347 BCE)." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Univ. of Tennessee at Martin. https://iep.utm.edu/plato.
Strickland, Michael. "Q: Original Sin or Ancestral Sin?" Franklin, TN: Renew.org. https://renew.org/original-sin-or-ancestral-sin.
West, Steven D. "The Freedom and Bondage of the Will." Columbia, MO: The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-freedom-and-bondage-of-the-will.
Comments