Introduction

The Development of  “the Doctrine of Original Sin” is a great topic in modern theology. Original sin is the doctrine that relates human nature’s moral and ethical degradation to the disobedience of God by the first humans. The Bible states is very clear that first transgression of God’s by man happened in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and as a result,  theology explains this as the ‘’Fall of humanity’. The doctrine of original sin still holds firm that every human conceived into the world is a victim of the fall such that all of humanity is ethically debilitated, and people are powerless to rehabilitate themselves unless rescued by God.

There are diverse opinions among several Christian groups as to the literal understanding of the concept. While some agree to the doctrine, other Christians have completely dismissed it., Judaism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam acknowledges that the introduction of sin into the human race has had influence to subsequent generations, but fails to acknowledge any inherited guilt or necessary corruption of man’s nature. However, G. K. Chesterton once noted that “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology that can be proved,” (Orthodoxy, chap. 2).He saw ‘’original sin’’ as the one the Christian doctrine that is empirically verifiable and validated by 3500 years of human history. It was to a great extent through Augustine’s arguments against the Pelagians that the doctrine of “original sin” was formalized into Christian orthodoxy (Hampton, 2007). In this paper, we will have a depth analysis of the development of sin and different perceptions that relate to this topic.

Augustine’s perception

Augustine was instrumental in contribution to the development of the concept of original sin. The work of Augustine was based on a challenging stand from philosophers to Christianity. Philosophers have for a long time questioned the logic of how Christians would live in a sinful world if God was good (Wheeler, 2003). It was difficult for the philosophers to connect the idea of how descendants of a holy creature would end up with a sinful nature. Based on this argument, Augustine borrowed a lot from these philosophers to give his opinion on the origin of sin among the Christians. Augustine used the philosophers’ ideas to reinterpret the Bible and give his stand on the origin of sin. According to Augustine, the case of Adam and Eve is a good description of the fall of humanity from grace. Adam was trapped to sin by Eve and, as a result, they were punished by God (Dailey, 1966). Consequently, the human race was born in a sinful world and the sinful nature has continued since then. The work of Augustine has been claimed to be responsible for the idea of innate sin and guilt (Wheeler, 2003).

It is, however, prudent noting that Augustine did not devise a new concept of the origin sin. But instead, he used the scriptures from the New Testament to ascertain his claim of a new doctrine. His work was a continuation of different church fathers that existed from the second century onwards. Some of the fathers who contributed to this doctrine included; Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Nevertheless, it is wise noting that Irenaeus never used any scripture in his definition while Origen used the interpretation from the book of Genesis to give his definition and concluded that human sin at will. Tertullian’s version is believed to be based on the Stoic philosophy.

Augustine is also believed to have used patchy parts of the New Testament to emphasize on his version of the origin of sin. Most of the letters that St. Paul wrote to different churches were his main chapters in the Bible that supported his view on the origin of sin. The letter of Paul to the Romans, for instance, is said to be one of the references that Augustine use to explain the origin of sin and guilt. It is, however, believed that his lack of knowledge in The Greek language made it difficult for him to get the righty translations of the Bible (Hampton, 2007). This is accused of being the reason he misunderstood some of the teachings that Paul taught the Roman church.

Augustine described that sin to human nature was brought to the world through Adam. According to Augustine’s understanding of the book of Roman, “Therefore . . . Sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”(Romans5:12). Augustine explains that sin was spread to other generations biologically from Adam to his descendants. He asserts that that sin is passed biologically through sex, and he hastily concludes that sexual act itself is a sin. This is however not the case since Paul in the later verses from the same book has a different opinion. “Just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous”(Roman5:19). From this scripture, Augustine’s interpretation is nullified since sexual relations were honorable and good to the Jewish society. It was therefore not correct for Augustine to conclude sexual act was a sin. Criminalizing of sexual acts by Augustine was a result of philosophical works from the different philosophers of the time (Dailey, 1966). Most philosophers were of the idea that sexual relations were physical, and anything not spiritual is, therefore, evil.

To support his argument, Augustine argues that Jesus was not born through normal biological concept. He is of the opinion that Jesus was immaculately conceived and thus he was free from sin. Augustine argued that Jesus was the son of God but through Mary, who had a human father, was also subject to the sinful nature. He argues that theologians had to find a way of separating Jesus from the sinful nature by proclaiming Mary as sinless.  Augustine stand was criticized by several theologians especially based on the innocent children who died at tender ages (Wheeler, 2003). It is wrong to deny such children the chance to eternal life as a result of their father’s sins.

The Augustine’s doctrine was contradictory to the Paul’s teachings to the many churches that he wrote his epistles. For instance, the stand on sex is very different from Paul and Augustine. According to Paul, sexual relations, especially among the married people, is not evil at all. The Bible in the book of Genesis describes sex as a part of physical pro- creation that God ordered the first man to continue (Gen: 1:31). The sexual acts are also defined holy in the book of Hebrew and other several epistles. Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, urges the married couples not to defraud their partners conjugal rights (Hampton, 2007). It is, therefore, wise noting that Augustine’s point of view on the matter is not supported by either the new or the Old Testaments.  It will, therefore, be worth concluding that the doctrine of the origin of sin as stipulated by Augustine is a total contradiction of the scripture. Augustine’s misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible were overshadowed by dualism and prism that made him conclude that all physical aspects were evil and only what is spiritual qualifies to be sinless.

Origin of Sin and the Scripture

The book of Genesis chapter three is the main chapter that explains the genesis of a fall of humanity. In this chapter, the Bible explains a story of Adam and Eve as it happened in the Garden of Eden. It explains how Eve was convinced to eat fruit from the ‘’tree of knowledge of good and evil’’ (Wheeler, 2003). Eve later convinced Adam to eat fruit from the same tree, and this marked the beginning of sin in the world. The sinful nature was spread to subsequent generations and Adam and Eve are said to be the couple that brought about the sinful nature of the world.

The myth of Adam and Eve is a story that is well known to all Christians. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we understand exactly what transpired to conclude that Adam sinned. From this story, it is clear that there are necessary conditions that one must go against for one to be classified a sinner. Adam and Eve were against the command of God whose authority and right to command is supreme. The couples decided to eat fruit from a tree that God had commanded them not to eat. It is, therefore, worth concluding that a sinner is a person who goes against the command of God consciously (Dailey, 1966). So Adam sinned by agreeing to eat the forbidden fruit with clarity that it was against the will of God. Consequently, any Christian who goes against the will of God is considered a sinner.

Christians should not take literally the sin committed by Adam when he ate from the forbidden tree. Instead, most theologians have argued that this is a symbolic way to express the God’s command (Hampton, 2007). It is, however, worth thinking why God would test the obedience of his people. Adam was splendidly endowed and favored by God, and there it was essential that he make some sacrifices to show his love to God and creator. After the transgression, the relationship and intimacy that existed before came to abrupt end.

It is, however, imperative noting that the Catholics understanding of these scriptures is different from the Protestants understanding. Though they acknowledge that the readings in Genesis chapter three are not a historical account, they also believe that it is based on a historical event (Wheeler, 2003). On the other hand, the liberal Christian interpretation is of the belief that the story in Genesis three is a myth. Although it is a myth, liberal Christians are also aware that the myth had some spiritual significance. Some of these Christians believe that the events are fictitious and they never actually happened.

The different interpretation of these scriptures has resulted in the different understandings and conclusions. For instance, some argue that the story tells of the rise and not the fall of humanity. Proponents of this argument portray God as having created Adam and Eve as proto-humans. They argue that the first couple was not fully humans since they lacked the moral sense. By ordering man not to eat the forbidden fruit, God deceived man and made the difference between man and other animals. The man had to understand the concept of right or wrong while other animals had the liberty to walk all over the garden at will (Hampton, 2007).  It is a rise in humanity because they explored and developed the moral sense that was initially a concept only known to the gods. At the end of the story, Adam, and Eve advance from animal-like status with no moral sense into full humanity. In essence, the snake helped the first parents in developing their humanity.

In contrast, there is another set of Christians who believe that the story of Eve and Adam was the fall of humanity. It is argued that Adam, as translated to Hebrew, explains the collective concept of mankind. They refer to this story as a myth with some truths in it.  Before Adam and Eve were deceived to sin, they had access to food, happiness, and immunity to death. Although he was naked, his nakedness did not cause him any shame (Dailey, 1966). Proponents of the proposition that Adam and Eve indicate the beginning of fall in humanity also compare the snake to Satan. It is, therefore, the obligation of Christians to avoid the devil at all cost to ensure that they have an intact relationship with the creator. After eating the fruit, the mankind was from there onwards subject to death, hunger and other tribulations. As a result of sin, harmony between God and mankind is broken.

Also, the story of Adam and Eve is a symbolic narrative that explains the existence of the evil one in the life of a human. Proponents of this story as the origin of sin blame the man for his sinful nature. It is man’s actions that separated God from his people and forced Him to change the good plans he had for the mankind. It is believed this origin sin is spread to subsequent generations in the fallen human state. In essence, original sin is said to be contracted rather than being committed It is, therefore, essential concluding that original sin is not an act, but rather it is a state (Hampton, 2007). All the generations that are descendants of Adam and Eve, therefore, find themselves in a sinful state. Christians are therefore said to inherit sin and guilt from the first parents.

It is also worth noting that there are also other parts of the scripture that did not agree with the story as the origin of fall in humanity.   Authors of wisdom books were against the Yahwist philosophy that mankind sufferings and death was a result of the sinful nature of the forefathers. For instance, death was not a consequence of sin but instead it was a fact of man’s existence the prophets were convinced of a new era that would be free from cries, sufferings  distress and impulse, and the human race would not be subjects of premature deaths. From the Book of Isaiah, the Bible talks about a new earth and a new heaven where all the past things would not be remembered. The prophet prophesies of moments when there will be no cries and distress and moments when children would die only after reaching maturity age (Isaiah 65:17-20).

It is also worth noting that there were those who believed that there was no life after death. According to them, death was the final journey that separated man from sin and one would only die at an early age as a punishment for his sins or those of the ancestors. Consequently long life and prosperity were rewarded for good virtues. There is recognition of a relationship that exists between wickedness, prosperity, and death. The book of Psalms explains how the righteous will possess land and delight in the abundance of prosperity (Psalms 37:10).It is, however, prudent noting that the books of wisdom differed on the connotation from the book of Genesis that all human race are descendants, and Adam and consequently are sinners. Instead, they talk of the deceitful heart is the one that leads one to sin (Wheeler, 2003). Additionally, the books of wisdom did not view death as a consequence of sin but rather it was the work of the evil one.

Origin of Sin and Church Traditions

As aforementioned, the origin of sin is a topic that is well documented in both new and old testaments of the scripture. It is, however, prudent noting that the concept is as old as before the fourth century. Augustine’s doctrine on the origin of sin was fixed in the fifth century and was based on the work of church fathers that existed in the previous centuries (Hampton, 2007). Also, it is imperative to note that original sin was not introduced in the church tradition prior the Church Council of Carthage and Orange that happened during 418 A.D and 529A.D respectively.

The development of ‘’the doctrine of original sin’’ was to great extent the work of Clement of Alexandria. In his work, he proposed that sin and guilt were inherited from Adam. Nevertheless, he was of the opinion that this inheritance was a bad example but the sin was not. On the other hand, Irenaeus’s interpretation of Adam’s sin as narrated in the book of Genesis chapter three as simply disobedience and not as the beginning of a fall in humanity (Dailey, 1966).  He was of the opinion that sin was inevitable in a material world, and the only remedy to this problem was to liberate human from the material world. Though he used the story of Adam in his theology of redemption, Irenaeus did not agree that Adam had anything to do with the sinful human nature.

Other fathers who made a significant contribution to this doctrine are Justin Martyr, who is a good example of Christian apologists. In his works, he suggested that infant baptism was essential for Christians. According to Justin, infants are born with wayward inclinations and from sinful parents. He, however, asserts that Adam’s sin was just a description of a personal sin and believed that sin originated from free will. Justin argues that Adam was only weak to resist the evil one, but he still had the freedom to make choices (Wheeler, 2003). The only remedy to stop sinful nature to mankind is only through divine intervention.  Justin explained the origin of evil, which seduce humankind to sin, through a demonology.

Tertullian, however, contradicted with Justin and was very much against infant baptism. Although he acknowledged that Adam sinned, he saw no point of infant baptism since Adam’s sins were not in any way comparable to the infants (Hampton, 2007). Sin due to Adam did not guarantee forgiveness through baptism. Nevertheless, Origen was of the opinion that baptism was paramount to remove the stain of original sin. He emphasizes the importance of removing the original sin that should be washed off with water and spirit. His work was supported by the scripture from the book of Genesis and also the Psalms. ‘’Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me’’ (Psalms 51:5). From this scripture, Origen was convinced that original sin was real, and it was essential to cleanse it through infant baptism (Dailey, 1966).

The issue baptism among the infants was introduced as early as during the 3rd century in the early church. This concept was cemented on the fact that infants were born with original sin; this original sin required forgiveness, and that the Adam’s sin was physically transmitted through sexual intercourse as supported by the book of Psalms chapter 5. The early church was in agreement that we are all a sinful generation from Adam and out of this sin mankind was bound to die (Wheeler, 2003).

The Current Church and Original Sin

The current church also acknowledges the concept of original sin and how it is related to Adam and Eve as outlined in Genesis chapter three. Nevertheless, the current church argues that Jesus Christ redeemed his people from the original sin as it is stipulated in the New Testament. ‘’ where sin abounded, grace did more abound’ (Romans 5:20). Nevertheless, the modern church is also involved infant baptism to ensure that they are separated from the sinful nature of their parents. The issue of the holy trinity is also evident in the current church and is also related to the issue of original sin. The communion brings us closer to God thus giving an opportunity to reconcile and then our sins can be forgiven. In essence, baptism and Holy Trinity can be understood to restore the grace that is deprived of us by the original sin.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that the issue of original sin has been a thorny issue amongst scholars and other religious people. It is, however, imperative noting that this concept is based on the sanctifying grace comes from supernatural powers. The absence of supernatural being and the sanctifying grace makes the whole myth absurd and irrelevant. It is also prudent noting that different Christians have to contradict believes regarding the original sin (Dailey, 1966). For instance, the Catholics and Protestants have varied opinions regarding the concept as illustrated from the book of Genesis chapter three.

Nevertheless, it is wise concluding that the whole issue of the doctrine of the original sin is a valuable element of the Christian life. Humankind is deprived of grace and is subject to death simply because of the original sin. It is the wish of every person to live happily free of death and cries of distress (Hampton, 2007). To return to those days, humankind must reform and improve his relationship with God. Both the traditional church and the modern church have been categorical as far as the issue of original sins is concerned. It is imperative noting that Adam and Eve form the basis upon which both the traditional and the modern church base their argument on this sensitive matter.  It is in light of this doctrine that the modern church and Christians get the full meaning of what it means by sanctifying grace that is essential to Christian life.

References

Dailey, R. (1966). Book Review: Man and Sin: A Theological View. Theological Studies, 27(3), 464-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004056396602700316

Hampton, S. (2007). Simon Episcopius’ doctrine of original sin. By Mark A. Ellis. (American University Studies. Theology and Religion. Ser. vii, 240.) Pp. xi+215. New York: Peter Lang, 2006. £36.80. 0 8204 8109 2; 0740 0446. The Journal Of Ecclesiastical History, 58(04). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022046907001807

Wheeler, R. (2003). “Friends to Your Souls”: Jonathan Edwards’ Indian Pastorate and the Doctrine of Original Sin. Church History, 72(04), 736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0009640700097365

 
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?