Sule - Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin As Based On Romans 5.12-21

National Library Bibliotheque nationale
of Canada du Canada
Acquisitions and Direction des acquisitions et
Bibliographic Services Branch des services bibliographiques
3 9 5 W ellington Street 3 9 5 . rue W ellington
O ttaw a, Ontario O tta w a (O ntario)
K 1A 0N 4 K 1A 0 N 4
Your hie Volte t&firooce
O ur tile N otre t& e re n c e
NOTICE AVIS
The quality of this microform is La qualite de cette microforme

heavily dependent upon the depend grandement de la qualite
quality of the original thesis de la these soumise au
submitted for microfilming. microfilmage. Nous avons tout
Every effort has been made to fait pour assurer une qualite
ensure the highest quality of superieure de reproduction.
reproduction possible.
If pages are missing, contact the Sil manque des pages, veuillez
university which granted the communiquer avec Puniversite
degree. qui a confere le grade.
Some pages may have indistinct La qualite dimpression de

print especially if the original certaines pages peut laisser a
pages were typed with a poor desirer, surtout si les pages
typewriter ribbon or if the originates ont ete
university sent us an inferior dactylographies a Iaide dun
photocopy. ruban use ou si Puniversite nous
a fait parvenir une photocopie de
qualite inferieure.
Reproduction in full or in part of La reproduction, meme partielle,

this microform is governed by de cette microforme est soumise
the Canadian Copyright Act, a la Loi canadienne sur le droit
R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30, and dauteur, SRC 1970, c. C-30, et
subsequent amendments. ses amendements subsequents.
Canada
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AUGUSTINE'S DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL
SIN AS BASED ON
ROMANS 5:12-21
by
Emmanuel Sule
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
PROVIDENCE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
in Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS IN THEOLOGY
1994
8*1 National Library
of Canada
Bibliothdque nationaie
du Canada
Acquisitions and Direction des acquisitions et
Bibliographic Services Branch des services bibiiographiques
3 9 5 W ellington Street 3 9 5 , rue W ellington
O ttaw a. O ntario O tta w a (Ontario)
K 1A 0N 4 K 1A 0N 4
Ydur Me VotrG /tWtVcnOtt
O ur tit# N o ire tM & c o c e
The author has granted an Lauteur a accorde une licence

irrevocable non-exclusive licence irrevocable et non exclusive
allowing the National Library of permettant a la Bibliotheque
Canada to reproduce, loan, nationaie du Canada de
distribute or sell copies of reproduire, preter, distribuer ou
his/her thesis by any means and vendre des copies de sa these
in any form or format, making de quelque maniere et sous
this thesis available to interested quelque forme que ce soit pour
persons. mettre des exemplaires de cette
these a la disposition des
personnes interessees.
The author retains ownership of Lauteur conserve la propriete du

the copyright in his/her thesis. droit dauteur qui protege sa
Neither the thesis nor substantial these. Ni la these ni des extraits
extracts from it may be printed or substantiels de celle-ci ne
otherwise reproduced without doivent etre imprimes ou
his/her permission. autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
ISBN 0-315-89171-8
Canada
Faculty Advisor:,//,
David Smith
Second Reader:
Terrence Tiessen
Seminary Dean: f\ Yeta? cr/ > 6 _________

David Smith
Dedication
This work is dedicated to Joyce and Ivah

who sacrificed so much in order for me
to undertake this research.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment ........................................... i
Introduction ......................... '............... 1
Chapter O n e .......................................... 5
The Patristic Era and Its View of Original Sin . . 5
Chapter T w o .......................................... 21
Original Sin in Augustine ......... 21
A Biographical Sketch of Augustine ............... 21
The Meaning and Nature of Original S i n ........ 27
The Transmission of Original S i n ............. 33
The Effects of Original S i n .................. 43
Chapter Three .......................................... 45
Original Sin in S t . P a u l ...................... 45
Development of the Idea of Sin in Judaism . . . . 45
Purpose of Romans 5 .......................... 52
An Exegetical Consideration of Romans 5:12-21 . . 54
A. Sin in Humanity vv. 1 2 - 1 4 .................. 54
B. Dissimilarity Between Christ and Adam vv.15-17 63
C. Christ and Adam in Comparison vv.18-19 . . . . 67
D. The Purpose of the Law vv.2 0 - 2 1 ........... 70
Chapter F o u r ............................................ 72
An Evaluation of Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin
based on Romans 5 : 1 2 - 2 1 ....................... 72
A Comparison of Paul and Augustine................. 72
Result of Exegesis and Discussion ................ 74
A. The Meaning of eph h o i 75
B. The Meaning of pantes h e m a r t o n ............ . 79
C. The Meaning of the Phrase "Sin is not taken into
account when there is no law. " 85
D. The Meaning of "Death" in vv. 1 3 - 1 4 ............ 88
E. The Referent in the Phrase "Who did not sin by
breaking the command" ........................ 91
Chapter F i v e .......................................... 98
Summary and C o n c l u s i o n ................ 98
C o n c l u s i o n .......................................... i08
B i b l i o g r a p h y ...........................
Acknowledgment
God's plan in creating mankind was to have a
relationship with them that will last forever, but not long
after the plan was introduced, our first parents sinned and
brought condemnation upon all humanity. The Bible is the
story of how god is seeking to bring mankind back into a
relationship with Him.
In order to appreciate God's redemptive plan, it is
necessary that we come to grips with the problem of sin.
Beginning with the Patristic era, and the centuries that
followed, we see frantic attempts at understanding the
problem of sin in humanity. Today, it seems, very little
interest is expressed in the theology of sin. it is this
deficiency that inspired the researcher to undertake such a
study and to hope that it will draw attention to the
significance of this doctrine on sin.
The researcher wishes to acknowledge the tremendous
help and support he received in the course of writing this
thesis. First I thank professor David L. Smith, under whom
this topic was chosen and carefully researched. Not only
did he arouse in me a passion for truth but showed me how to
do theology. Second, I thank professor Terry Tiessen for
his helpful advice and godly influence. Third, I must thank
the elders and members of Grace Bible Church for their
prayers and financial support throughout my years of study
at Providence Seminary. Fourth, I thank all those at
ii
Providence College and Seminary for the encouragement they
have been. Other individuals whose help and prayer I should
acknowledge include Mr. and Mrs. D. I. Hindmarsh, Mr. and
Mrs. Elmer Warkentin, Mr. and Mrs. David Hoeline, Rev. and
Mrs. Sule Onesimus, Mrs. A. Gaiya and Michael Kowalson.
Above all I thank God who delivered me from the power of sin
and gave me wisdom and strength to undertake this study.
Introduction.
One task of theology is to ensure that God's revelation
to humankind as contained in the scriptures is clearly
understood, rightly interpreted, and faithfully obeyed by
all who are called to faith in Jesus Christ. Doing this
will require that we submit our conceptual understanding of
God's revelation to a constant biblical analysis and
evaluation so that what is true is affirmed and perpetuated.
It was this conviction that aroused in the researcher the
need to conduct a research into the doctrine of original
sin, as represented in the teachings of St. Augustine.
It was not until the time of Augustine that the concept
of original sinand its consequences on humanity received
its greatest attention. Karl Rahner, a Roman Catholic
theologian makes a similar observation when he says, "The
teaching of scripture about original sin was not developed
until Augustine."1 The absence of a systematic approach to
sin may be partly attributed to the prevailing circumstance
in which the patristic church found itself. David L. Smith
observes this problem when he says:
That such a systematic formulation did not occur

at once should come as no surprise for, in the
formative years of the church, there was a
tendency to theologize largely in response to
questions, problems or heresies.2
Karl Rahner, ed., Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise

Sacramentum Mundi (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), 1149.
2David L. Smith, With Willful Intent: A Theology of Sin

(Wheaton: Victor Books, 1994), 17.
This tendency of the patristic Fathers to theologize in
response to specific questions, problems or heresies is a
clear indication that patristic theology is regional in its
orientation but may have some universal implications.
Therefore, any attempt to understand this traditional
Christian view of sin will have to go back to Augustine.
This doctrine as formulated by Augustine was endorsed by the
patristic church and held by the church during the medieval,
and, with some modifications at different points,
reformation eras. To a large degree, the contemporary
church is Augustinian in its understanding of original sin.
The question the researcher is seeking to address is
whether we have sufficient Biblical warrant to hold to an
Augustinian interpretation of original sin. The need to
rethink this doctrine has been challenged by some recent
developments. For example, the insight provided by
anthropological study is challenging our traditional view of
man and the presence of sin in the world. In a similar
observation, Niebuhr says:
The Christian doctrine of sin in its classical

form offends both rationalists and moralists by
maintaining the seemingly absurd position that man
sins inevitably and by fateful necessity but that
he is nevertheless to be held responsible for
actions which are prompted by an ineluctable
fate.3
3Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man (New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941), 1:241.
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Niebuhr is right in suggesting that theology should address
the contemporary mind, but we need to balance this view with
the need to be faithful to the truth espoused in the
Scriptures. Rahner observed also that this fundamental
Christian doctrine, though it plays a small part in the
contemporary presentation of Christianity, reveals some
misconceptions or inadequacies. For example, he says:
1 Original sin is usually regarded as purely

identical with the nature of man, as a reality
impossible to abolish, constitutive of man's
nature.
2 Original sin is sometimes regarded as the same
as personal sin, in its cause and nature. The
problem thus created a collective guilt produced
by someone else. This causes original sin to be
either accepted as "mystery" or rejected as an
intrinsic contradiction.4
These misconceptions associated with our understanding of
original sin make this an important area of study. Bloesch
traced the importance of this area of study to the eras of
Enlightenment and Romanticism, during which theologians
under the spell of new world consciousness began to
reinterpret sin.5 It is also the assumption of the
researcher that the doctrine of original sin is fundamental
to our understanding of Christian doctrines, especially the
doctrine of salvation. This research should be able to
indicate the relationship between sin and salvation.
Rahner, 1148.
5Donald G. Bloesch, "Sin," in The Evangelical Dictionary of

Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell {Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1985), 1012-1015.
Therefore, the importance of this doctrine cannot be
overestimated.
This research is divided into four main chapters.
Chapter one deals with introductory materials, in which the
concept of original sin prior to Augustine is examined. In
chapter two an attempt is made to present Augustine's
teaching on original sin. Chapter three is an exegetical
study of this doctrine based on the classic passage in
Romans 5:12-21. In Chapter four the researcher will attempt
to examine the idea of original sin in Paul and Augustine.
Chapter five will be devoted to a summary of major findings
and conclusion.
Chapter One
The Patristic Era and Its View of Original Sin
To understand the development of Augustine's thought
and writings, it will be important to gain some insight into
the period in which he lived and worked. The factors that
shaped Augustine's views point to events in the fourth and
fifth centuries, and before. This being the case, the
researcher will attempt to describe the patristic era,
covering the period from the first to the fourth centuries
of church history. Because of the many important events
that characterize this period of history, only matters
directly relevant to this study will be discussed. Also,
important to this review is the view of the church fathers
regarding original sin.
I have placed the search for a theological
understanding of original sin outside of the New Testament
period since it appears to be a specialized area of study
and the atmosphere is different. The Apostles were not as
concerned about reflection on the faith as they were about
spreading the faith. Conversely, the patristic period was
involved in critical reflection on matters pertaining to the
faith and doctrine. Wright6 was correct when he observed
that major contributions of the early church fathers were to
the elucidation of the Trinity, Christology, the doctrine of
6D. F. Wright, "Patristic Theology," in New Dictionary of

Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson et a l ., {Chicago, Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 1988)
6
the Church and sacraments, sin, and grace. Not only was the
patristic age marked by theological reflections and literary
activities, but it was a period that saw the formulation of
Christian doctrines. Because these were formative years,
there was also a lack of doctrinal homogeneity and, as Kelly
pointed out, extremes of immaturity and sophistication,7
It is these kinds of extremities that makes you critical of
tije theology of the early church fathers. But, in spite of
their extremities, we should appreciate their contribution
to our Christian heritage. These formative years in church
doctrine made it possible to hold a wide variety of opinions
on issues. It was therefore not uncommon to condemn a
church father as a heretic on an issue, while regarding him
orthodox in another. Explaining this seeming contradiction
Kelly said:
The explanation is not that the early church was

indifferent to the distinction between orthodoxy
and heresy. Rather it is that, while from the
beginning the broad outline of revealed truth was
respected as a sacrosanct inheritance from the
apostles, its theological explication was to a
large extent left unfettered. Only gradually, and
even then in regard to comparative few doctrines
that became subjects of debate, did the tendency
to insist upon precise definition and rigid
uniformity assert itself.8
Petry also made similar observation when he said:
Quite early, the word heresy tended to connote

divergence from positions commonly held.
?J,N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper

and Row, 1978), 3.
8Ibid., 4.
7
Actually, heresy was not indictable on the grounds

of individual differences of opinion. What was
reprehensible in it was the selfish preoccupation
with personal views and actions. These were often
nurtured in cherished immunity from the discerning
judgement and possible rejection of the entire
community. One who. dissented from majority
conclusions might not be a heretic at all.9
The church fathers were merely unfolding what the Apostles
taught in brief, and this became necessary in view of the
non-Ch.ris.tian environment in which the church was found.
The theological difference emerging during this time
culminated in the separation between the West and East,
although it should be mentioned that the West and East had
some similarities as well. Some of these differences and
similarities are reflected in their creeds, liturgies, and
doctrinal attitudes.
Another significant change during this period is the
reconciliation between the church and the state. This was
effected by Constantine I (306-337), of which the Council of
Nicaea (325) was the symbol. Prior to this time, the church
was not only being persecuted but also seeking to adapt

v
itself to its environment and fight its enemies, such as
Gnosticism. The accession of Constantine changed the life
of the church radically. This coming together of the church
and state saw the emergence of a new era in Christian

:i
theology. It was a period characterized by acute
'

Ray C. Petry, ed., A History of Christianity: Readings in the
History of the Church. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990),
1:80.
8
ecclesiastical controversies and council meetings became the
norm for resolving controversies. This is implied in
Petry's observation when describing Christianity during the
reign of Constantine he said:
The early Christian fathers attending the councils-.-

called at the imperial initiative did not
apparently resent Constantine's concern over
Christian disunity. Church historians indicate
that they grateful, if anything. The church's
stakes involved at Arles, Nicaea, and subsequent
councils were certainly no less than the
emperor's. The source texts from these councils
and from Athanasins serve several purposes, at
least. They document the growth in complexity of
Christian dogma.10
The cultural environment in which the church grew is
another important feature of the patristic age. This
cultural factor provided some of the categories needed to
express the Christian truth. It was an environment that was
rife with religious, cultural, and philosophical notions.
In evaluating the religious notion, it has been
observed that the impact of Hellenized Judaism upon the
period under review should be appreciated. One of those who
made this observation was Kelly. He said:
In spite of the early rupture between Christians

and Jews, it would be a grave error to dismiss it
as a negligible force in our period [patristic].
Until the middle of the second century, when
Hellenistic ideas began to come to the fore,
Christian theology was taking shape in
predominantly Judaistic modes, and the categories
of thought used by almost all Christian writers
before the apologists were largely Jewish.11
lf)Ibid. , 38.
nKelly, 6.
One influence of later Judaism was its attitude to
divine hypostases and interest in angels which helped to
create an atmosphere of thought propitious to the
development of the Christian conception of God as three-
personal.12 This brand of Judaism flourished at
Alexandria, an intellectual centre in which diverse
philosophical and religious ideas came together. A high
concentration of Jews were located in this city. It was
through them that Hellenistic culture was introduced into
the early church. Other religious trends of this period
included the old classical religions of the gods of Greece
and Rome that were later discarded for emperor worship
which, it was hoped, would keep the empire united. It was
under this circumstance that the Christians were persecuted,
while the non-threatening cults were spared; some of them
grew into a strong force, for example, Manichaeism which
grew and attracted both the educated and uneducated in the
patristic period (e.g. Augustine).
Manichaeism is usually associated with its founder
Mani, a prophet born in Babylon in c.216 who suffered

ff'
martyrdom in c.277. This religion is often classified as a
Christian heresy, and although it was an independent
religion it reflected some ideas and elements of
Christianity and Buddhism. Mani claimed to have received
fullness of revelation which the prophets before him
12Ibid. , 7.
10
received only in part and this revelation which he received
was to usher in a universal religion. A prominent feature
of Manichaeism is its view of what constitutes reality. As
a form of dualism, it taught that reality consists of two
forces that are eternally opposed to each other, namely,
good and evil. Evil is associated with the material world
in which man is tragically involved and redemption can be
secured only by means of special illumination. The all-
important thing was to withdraw oneself from whatsoever will
contaminate the flesh. Thus, the adherents began to regard
the material world inherently evil. Such was the dualistic
doctrine of Manichaeism and its strictly ascetic lifestyle
that swept over Europe, Africa, and Asia from the third
century, winning converts from the church hierarchy.
In juxtaposition to the religious trends was the Greco-
Roman Philosophy, viewed as the religion of most intelligent
people. Its concepts provided both the Christian and non-
Christian with an intellectual framework for expressing
their ideas. Some of these classical systems are Platonism,
Stoicism, Neo-platonism, and Gnosticism. Those which
flourished especially during the period under review are
Neo-platonism and Gnosticism.
The impact of Neo-Platonism was felt from the middle of
the third century and best exemplified by Plotinus (205-
270). Plotinus had a monist tendency and is revealed in his
view of reality. He conceived reality as a vast
11
hierarchical structure with grades descending from what he
identified as One, or God. All beings have their source in
this One who does not diminish. Below the mind is the soul;
it is divided into higher and lower compartments. The
higher soul is akin to the mind, while the lower soul is
connected to the material world. This system, as
exemplified by Plotinus, stresses that although the material
world is evil, it is created and ordered by the higher soul
and held together by nature.
The influence of Neo-platonism on Augustine was
apparent, especially at the time he became dissatisfied with
Manichaeism with its corporeal understanding of God and its
dualism. Neo-platonism offered Augustine a means of
understanding the incorporeal nature as well as a way of
interpreting the existence of evil without having recourse
to dualism. Gonzalez observed this:
By reading the words of those whom he called

'platonist', probably Plotinus, Porphyry, and
other Neo-Platonists, Augustine was not only
brought out of his scepticism, but was carried
over the two main hurdles that stood in the way of
his intellectual acceptance of the Christian faith
- the incorporeal nature of God, and the existence
of evil.13
A final force operating in the church environment
during this Lime under review was Gnosticism. The history
of Gnosticism has been a subject of controversy, partly due
to its complexity. But central to its belief is its
nJusto L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought,

(Nashville, Tennesee: Abingdon Press, 1971), 2:19.
12
teaching on salvation; salvation can be attained by-
spiritual knowledge. Gnosticism claimed that there was a
secret way of seeing the world and the place of human being
in it. Gnosticism was the first movement to threaten
Christianity from within when in the second and third
centuries Christianity was already being threatened by the
Roman Emperors without. It was at this time that the
Apostles Creed arose to refute Gnosticism. Consequently,
this polemical attitude of the church fathers influenced the
anthropology of the church in the West and the East,
especially with respect to human freedom.14
So far, I have attempted to provide a sketch of some
striking features that characterized the patristic period.
The study shows that the atmosphere in which the church grew
was fraught with religious and philosophical notions.
Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that patristic
theology took place in a vacuum. To complete this chapter,
we shall briefly examine the idea of original sin in the
church fathers before Augustine. Like the other important
Christian doctrines, the doctrine of original sin was not
questioned. This was why the early church had no clearly
defined doctrine of original sin. However, there, soon
appeared, here and there, different expressions of original
sin that proved helpful in formulating a set doctrine.
14Smith, 18.
13
One special characteristic of the Greek tradition is
its interest in death in the broad sense. All humanity-
inherited death from Adam. It is more the notion of a
hereditary death than of hereditary sin. But in spite of
this, there are expressions of original sin which later
developed into a theological issue between the West and the
East. The ideas of original sin found in the writings of
the early church fathers, up to about the middle of the
second century, are not linked to the first man. For
example, Clement of Rome, while he was addressing the
problem of the disordered Corinthian church, spoke of man's
evil heart by which death itself entered the world. He
wrote:
For this reason righteousness and peace are now

far departed from you, in as much as every one
abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in
his faith, neither walks in the ordinances of his
appointment, nor acts the part of becoming a
Christian, but was after his own wicked lust,
resuming the practice of unrighteous and ungodly
envy, by which death itself enters the world.15
In this text, Clement did not link the origin of death with
Adam, but rather blamed each man for his own evil ways.
This way of thinking is typical of the apostolic fathers.
Other writings such as the Didache, a composite second-
century practical, the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas, and
Hermas, explained the evil tendency in man, but none of them
linked this evil tendency with Adam. This omission should
15Alexander Roberts, ed. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1885), 1:182.
14
not be a surprise because, for the fathers of the early
centuries, original sin was not in the foreground. On the
contrary, they were occupied with the issue of salvation.
By the second half of the second century, we see a
growing interest in the sin of Adam and its effect on
humanity. This is true among the Greek and Latin fathers
who generally held to the vitium oriqinis (sinfulness in
human beings), but laid stress upon the cooperation of the
human will, enlightened by the teaching of grace. The
example of the Greek fathers can be seen in the Apologists
who seem to have reflected on Paul's idea of Adam's sin and
its concomitant effect on humanity. They saw the sin of
Adam and Eve as a necessary stage in the spread of evil
throughout the world, but this does not negate the
responsibility of the individual. This way of thinking,
which combines the inevitability and individual
responsibility for sin is exemplified in Justin, who was
martyred about 165. He wrote:
Now we know that he [Jesus] did not go up to the

river because he stood in need of baptism, or of
the descent of the spirit like a dove; even as he
submitted to be born and be crucified, not because
he needed such things, but because of the human
race, which from Adam had fallen under the power
of death and the guile of the serpent, and each
one of which had committed personal
transgression.16
Furthermore, in his First Apology, Justin spoke of the
necessity for baptism in which he mentioned that we are born
16Ibid., 243.
15
with wayward inclinations, but he did not say anything about
the source of this evil, and did not even mention Adam and
Eve. Only the devil is mentioned in connection with the
universality of sin.
Since at our birth we were born without our own
knowledge or choice, by our parent coming
together, and were brought up in bad habits and
wicked training; in order that we may not remain
the children of necessity and of ignorance, but
may become the children of choice and knowledge,
and may obtain in the water the remission of sins
formerly committed, then is pronounced over him
who chooses to be born again, and has repented of
his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of
the universe.17
But when Justin thought of the responsibility of Adam and
Eve for our sin, he seemed to suggest that subsequent
generations only exemplify the sinful choice of their first
parents .18
But lest some suppose, from what has been said by
' us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by
a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known
beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned
from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that
punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards,
are rendered according to the merit of each man's
actions . . . And again, unless the human race
have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good
by free choice, they are not accountable for their
actions, of whatever kind they b e .19
Another apologist that deserves mention was Tatian. Tatian
was a follower of St. Justin and was sometimes considered an
17Ibid. , 183.
18Henri Rondet, Original Sin: The Patristic and Theological

Background {Shannon, Ireland: Ecclesia Press, 1967), 28.
19Ibid., 177.
unfaithful disciple of Justin. However, like Justin, he
describes human misery as the consequence of free choice.
He says:
We were not created to die, but we die by our own

fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who
were free have become slaves; we have been sold
through sin. Nothing evil has been created by
God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but
we, who have manifested it, are able again to
reject it.20
Like Justin, Tatian blamed the sin of humanity on free-will
and not Adam and Eve or what he sometimes considered to be
fate. The apologist's position is restated with greater
clarity by Irenaeus, one of the Greek fathers. For
Irenaeus, Adam and Eve were like children, with sexual
innocence of the young. Adam and Eve were not naturally
immortal although both were made in the image of God. Thei
conformity to the image of God depends on their level of
maturity. Thus the history of man is not that of a
laborious ascent after a fall, but a providential progress
towards a future. Almost what appears to be like a
departure from the Apologists' position was Irenaeus's
teaching, that we all sinned in Adam but gained in Christ
what we lost in Adam. He writes:
But when He (Christ) became incarnate, and was

made man, He commenced afresh the long line of
human beings, and furnished us, in a brief
comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what
we lost in Adam - namely, to be according to the
20Ibid., 69-70.
17
image and likeness of God - that we might recover

in Christ Jesus.21
Elsewhere, Irenaeus seems to advocate that concept that all
have sinned in Adam. He says:
In the first Adam we offended God, since we did

not keep his commandment ... And we were indebted
to no-one other than to him whose commandments we
have already transgressed in the beginning.22
Irenaeus's view of man's predicament seems to suggest that
man's paradise is in the future and not in the past, and
that this promise of the future can only be appropriated by
every individual. The conclusion can be drawn from
observing the Greek fathers represented in the works of the
Apologists, that although we all share in Adam's sin, each
person is responsible for his/her sins. There is this
emphasis on the individual. Yarnold pointed this out when
he says:
This insistence on the power of the individual

either to make himself a partner in Adam's sin or
to reject it and so escape the spiritual
consequences is typical of the Greek
Apologists .23
In the Western church and particularly among the Latin
fathers, we see the development of doctrines, some of which
are opposed to the views held in the East. An example is
the doctrine of original sin. In the first half of the
21Roberts, 446.
22G. M. Lukken, Original Sin Lin the Roman Liturgy (Leiden,

Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1973), 269.
23Edward Yarnold S. J., The Theology of Original Sin (Notre

Dame: Fides Publishers, 1971), 54.
18
third century, one finds in Cyprian the explicit affirmation
that alien sins (alienna peccata) are present in the child.
In this connection, and in contrast to Origen in the East,
Cyprian refers explicitly to Adam when he says:
If, when they subsequently come to believe,

forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst
transgressors and those who have sinned much
against God, and if no one is denied access to
baptism and to grace; how much less right do we
have to deny it to an infant, who, having been
born recently, has not sinned, except in that
being born physically according to Adam, he has
contracted the contagion of the ancient death by
his first heath. [The infant] approves that much
more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of
sins because the sins remitted to him are not his
own, but those of another.24
It is clear from the above statement that Cyprian does
not have personal sin in mind, rather he seems to imply
original sin that the infant inherits. Unlike the Greek
fathers, Cyprian is willing to refer to Adam in connection
with original sin in children.
Independently of Cyprian, we find in Tertullian's
writings the idea that all sinned in Adam. He writes, We
have indeed borne the image of the earthy by our sharing in
his transgressions, by our participation in his death, by
our banishment from paradise.1,25 In his exhortation to
chastity, Tertullian called Adam "the originator of our race
24Jaroslav Pelikan, Development of Christian Doctrine: Some

Historical Prolegomena (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969),
80 .
25Roberts, 583.
19
and our sin."2r Tertullian's conviction is based on his
theory of Traducianism, the idea that the soul-and the body
are both derived from the parent. Kelly suggests that this
theory is a short step to the doctrine of original sin.27
As we approach the fourth century, we find Tertullian's
idea of sinning in Adam in Ambrose, Hilary, and
Ambrosiaster28; They all based their teaching on an
interpretation of Rom. 5:12-21.
In conclusion, our survey of the patristic period has
clearly demonstrated that it was a period marked by
theological reflections and literary activities, most of
which were done in an environment that was filled with
religious, cultural, and philosophical notions. With
respect to original sin, the study has shown that until the
time of Augustine, tradition spoke of the sin of Adam and
the primeval fall but did not emphasize the implications of
Adam's sin on his posterity. But at the close of the second
century and beginning of the third century the problem of
sin was properly addressed. Smith observed this when he
said:
In the latter second century and early third

century a more formal shape began to take place
in the theology of sin and a gap began to appear
between the Greek and Latin fathers. In the East,
a number of schools were founded, each with its
2<Ibid., 51.
27Kelly, 175.
2tlLukken, 271.
20
own special theological emphasis. Collectively,

however, they held that Adam introduced mortality
into humanity along with example of rebellion.
But sin remains a matter of individual human
choice. Many of these fathers believed that it is
entirely possible for some people to rise above
sinful tendencies and live righteous lives through
the exercise of the will. The Western fathers
relied more on church practice rather than a
philosophy to formulate their theology of sin.
Tertullian set the direction with his theory of
soul-generation coupled to a literal
interpretation of Genesis 3. Adam's transgression
allowed sin and death to enter the world,
polluting all humanity. Baptism, though, will
return one to a pre-Fail condition. Ambrose built
on Tertullian by adding original guilt by
inheritance to permeate the race, albeit he did
not believe that such guilt held one culpable in
the day of God's judgment.29
The view of the West was what became fully developed in
Augustine's writings, and entered the dogmatic language of
Christiandom. Therefore, the study suggests that Augustine
did not invent the doctrine of original sin, but as
Rondet30 suggests, he only rendered explicit a tradition
which, through various formulae, was slowly coming to the
surface.
29Smith, 44.
30Rondet, 122.
Chapter Two
Original Sin in Augustine
In chapter one an attempt was made to understand the
undercurrents of the patristic era and how they may have
influenced the development of patristic theology. The study
demonstrates, among other things, that patristic theology
was not formulated in a vacuum. Some of the philosophical
systems already examined provided categories for the church
fathers to express their theological reflections. But, more
significantly is that the study shows the latent existence
of the doctrine of original sin among the church fathers,
which later received its explicit and dogmatic expression in
Augustine. It may be assumed here that Augustine is
indebted to the patristic fathers for the ideas he expressed
on original sin.
In this chapter, we shall seek to examine Augustine's
theological reflections on original sin. His formulation of
this doctrine is significant to this study. Since
Augustine's theology did not develop in abstract meditation
but within the context of personal experience, it may be
helpful to gain some insight into the man himself.
A Biographical Sketch of Augustine
Our knowledge of Augustine comes from his numerous
works, some of which have been translated from Latin to
English. Particularly informative are his Confessions which
he wrote in the forty-fourth year of his life. In this
21
22
literary work Augustine confesses to God the sins of his
youth, and it also serves as a hymn to God for His grace
that saved him and brought him into the service of the Lord.
Aurelius Augustine was born on the thirteenth of
November, 354 at Tagaste in North Africa to a heathen father
and a Christian mother. His deep yearning for God is
revealed in the following statement: "For Thou hast formed
us for Thyself and our hearts are restless till they find
rest in Thee.131 This yearning seems to be the motivating
force in Augustine's life and ministry. Schaff summarized
this when he said:
This yearning, and his reverence for the sweet and

holy name of Jesus, though crowded into the
background, attended him in his studies at the
schools of Madaura and Carthage, on his journeys
to Rome and Milan, and on his traditional
wanderings through the labyrinth of carnal
pleasures, Manichaean mock-wisdom, academic
scepticism, and platonic idealism, till at last
the prayers of his mother, the sermons of Ambrose,
the biography of St. Anthony, and above all the
Epistles of Paul, as so many instruments in the
hands of the Holy Spirit, wrought in the man of
three and thirty years that wonderful change which
made him an incalculable blessing to the whole
Christian world, and brought even the sins and
errors of his youth into the service of the
truth.32
The above statement suggests that Augustine's conversion was
a long process that finally culminated in 386, during the
turbulent years of his life. Schaff described this as "the
31Saint Augustine, Prolegomena, Life and Work, Confessions.

Letters, trans. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
1956), 45.
32Ibid., 3-4.
23
birth throes of the new life."33 Following his conversion,
Augustine's way of life became radically different. He
abandoned his pursuit for fame and power, and devoted his
life to the defence of Christianity. This is why Augustine
is acclaimed the champion of orthodox doctrine. He died in
43 0 when the Barbarian vandals besieged Hippo, also known as
the intellectual centre of Western civilization.
In many Christian minds, Augustine is the great
architect of the doctrine of original sin, hence our
interest is in examining his teaching on this concept. One
important question that has been raised by Augustinian
theologians is the biblical text that serves as the basis
for this teaching. Some suggestions include Genesis chapter
three, the Gospel of Matthew and Augustine's personal
experience as narrated in his confessions, but there seems
to be a strong support for the book of Romans as the source
of Augustine's doctrine of original sin. N.P. Williams,
author of a much disputed but noteworthy book on the history
of the doctrine of original sin, seems to imply that this
doctrine is based on the book of Romans. He says, "The
dogma of original sin is based in a very special way on a
celebrated passage of St. Paul."34 Williams' suggestion is
helpful but he has failed to identify the passage in Romans
33Ibid., 4.
34N.P. Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin

(London: Longman Green and Co. Ltd., 1927), 13.
24
that may have served as the basis for Augustine's doctrine
on original sin. Picking up from where Williams left off,
some Augustinian scholars have identified Romans 5:12-21 as
the locus classicus for Augustine's view on original sin.
For example, Peter Gorday, in his study of patristic
exegesis, commented on the significance of Romans 5:12-21 in
Augustine's understanding of original sin. Concerning this
text he says: "This passage, for Augustine, was the decisive
pointer to the universality of sin and thus of the universal
need for Christ."35
Augustine's growing facility with the epistle of Romans
is demonstrated in his two commentaries on Romans, both of
which were not completed because of distraction arising in
the course of his exegesis, but he did pursue this in his
sermons.36 The two uncompleted commentaries are the
Prepositions from the epistle of the Romans, a reworked
transcript of answers given in discussion with pastors who

w
had difficulty understandinq Paul. The second commentary is
an exegetical study of Romans, in which he never got beyond
Paul's greetings. As Landes observed, these are the fruit
of Augustine's campaign against the Manichees in which he
35Peter Gorday, Principles of Patristic Exegesis {Toronto:

Edwin Mellen Press, 1983), 160.
36Aurelius Augustine, Augustine on Romans, trans. Paul

Fredriksen Landes (California: Scholars Press, 1982), 9.
25
has to construct a synthetic and a polemic reading of
Romans.37
The observation made by Landes seems to suggest that
Augustine's understanding of the book of Romans was not the
result of an exegetical work but was based largely on his
reading of Romans in the Vulgate translation. To support
this argument, most of Augustine's works that have been
reviewed in the course of this research lack evidence of
serious exegetical consideration. It is this lack of
exegetical consideration in Augustine's theology of original
sin that warrants an inquiry into the study of Romans 5:12-
21 with the view to understand the effect of Adam's sin on
his posterity. However, this lack of an exegetical approach
did not hinder Augustine from interpreting the text against
the Manichees, and later against the Pelagians. It is
probably in his refutation of Manicheism and Pelagianism
that we have evidence of the organization and completion of
this doctrine. In order to support his view of original
sin, Augustine also took the liberty to cite other relevant
passages which will not be examined in this research but may
be referred to.
This researcher does not agree with Rigby in his
assertion that Augustine's doctrine of original sin is
exclusively foundational and not derivative of his
,7Ibid., 9.
26
theological reflections.38 Rigby based his argument on his
study of Augustine's Confessions, a personal document in
which Augustine seeks to understand experientially and
autobiographically the adult experience of anterior bondage
and his infant sin, which, in Latin, is called Peccata
Originalia. Although this document, which comes at a much
earlier date in Augustine's works, contains some ideas of
inherent sin, it did not indicate the development of this
doctrine which becomes evident in Augustine's later works,
especially in his works against Manicheism and Pelagianism.
At this time Augustine was able to reflect on what must have
been responsible for his adult experience of anterior
bondage and to document his findings, which also serves as a
refutation against heresy. To trace the development of this
doctrine to Augustine's Confessions, as suggested by Rigby,
may be premature since a full reflection of his doctrine
belongs to later years. What is crucial to this research is
not the question of whether this doctrine is foundational or
derivative of Augustine's theological reflections, but
Augustine's view of original sin as derived from Romans
5 :1 2 - 2 1 .
In order to be able to evaluate this doctrine, the
researcher will attempt to present, in a systematic order,
salient expressions of original sin as they occur in
38Paul Rigby, Original sin in Augustine's Confessions

(Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1987), 1.
27
Augustine's works and provide a context for this
presentation. The following questions will be addressed:
the meaning and nature of original sin, the relationship
between Adam's sin and humanity, how original sin was
transmitted, and the consequences of original sin.
The Meaning and Nature of Original Sin
The meaning and nature of original sin in Augustine's
writings can only be implied. One cannot find a precise
definition for the terms involved, and therefore, in this
section, we would examine Augustine's discussion on this
doctrine with the intention of defining the meaning and
nature of original sin. Our search begins with Augustine's
address to Marcellinus, in which he refuted certain false
teachings. In his first refutation, Augustine explained the
meaning of death mentioned in Romans 5:12, "By one man sin
entered into the world, and death by one man." There were
those, probably the Donatists, who argued that the death
mentioned in this text is the death of the soul and not of
the body. The implication of this theory is that if the
death caused by Adam affects only the soul it would not
affect others since the soul is not inherited like the body.
Augustine understood this implication quite well when he
said:
But so far as I have discovered from others, they

think that the death which is here mentioned is
not the death of the body, which they will not
28
allow Adam to have deserved by his sin, but that

of the soul, which takes place in actual sin.-11
For Augustine the death caused by the sin of Adam is the
death of the body and not of the soul.This view is largely
based on the resurrection of the dead, which Augustine sees
as the contrast to the death of the body.
When to the like purport he says: "By man came

death, by man also the resurrection of the dead,"
in what other sense can the passage be understood
than of the death of the body; for having in view
the mention of this, he proceeded to speak of the
resurrection of the body, and affirmed it in a
most earnest and solemn discourse? In these
words, addressed to the Corinthians: "By man came
death, and by man came also the resurrection of
the dead; for as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive," - What other
meaning is indeed conveyed than in the verse in
which he says to the Romans, "By one mail sin
entered into the world, and death by sin?" . . .
the point of the discourse is not about
righteousness, which is the antithesis of sin, but
about the resurrection of the body, which is
contrasted with the death of the body.'10
With this understanding Augustine was able to develop and
defend his view on the transmission of sin, which will be
examined later on. It may be also necessary, in the light
of our exegetical interest, to examine the exegetical
balance in the contrast Augustine introduced to the death of
the body theory.
In advancing the theory of death, Augustine argued on
the basis of Romans 5:14 that death cannot reign in the
39Augustine, 18.
40Ibid., 18.
29
absence of the guilt of sin.41 The implication is that
since we all died in Adam we must have shared in his guilt.
Because we share in his guilt, we are equally condemned with
him. He says:
Because in him was constituted the form of

condemnation to his future progeny who should
spring from by him natural descent; so that from
one, all men were born to a condemnation, from
which there is no deliverance but in the Saviour's
grace.42
The argument is based on the fact that we all have sinned in
the similitude of Adam, and by similitude Augustine has in
mind all those who had not yet sinned by their own
individual will, as Adam did, but had drawn from him
original sin.43 To say it differently, one does not have
to commit sin to become a guilty sinner, for one is already
a guilty sinner from birth.44 The view that we all share
in Adam's guilt has been a subject of controversy and will
be examined in chapter four.
Furthermore, Augustine had original sin in mind when he
distinguished between actual sin and the sin of all. He
says:
It is surely clear enough, that the sins which are

peculiar to every man, which they themselves
commit and which belong simply to them, mean one
thing; and that the one sin, in and by which all
41Ibid., 18.
42Ibid. , 18.
,nIbid. , 18.
44Rahner, 1148.
30
have sinned, means another thing; since we all

were that one man.45
In distinguishing between actual and personal sin and the
sin that is common to all humankind, suggests that there is
no ambiguity in Augustine's mind and in his discussion on
original sin. So in this context it can be implied that
original sin for Augustine is the sin "in and by which all
have sinned . . . since all were that one man." Smith also
observed that; the nature of sin was the basis for
Augustine's doctrine of original sin, "For he held sin to
be a condition rather than just an act. Adam's sin plunged
humanity into a new and tragic state."45
Augustine also described original sin as the corruption
of the human nature from its origins.47 According to this
view, we were not created with a sinless nature: at birth we
each received a nature that has been made corrupt as a
result of the sin of the first man. This however does not
apply to Adam at the time he was created, because no sin
preceded him. Concerning Adam Augustine says:
Adam was not created in such a state, because, as

no sin from a parent preceded him, he was not
created in sinful flesh. We, however are in such
a condition, because by reason of his preceding
sin we are born in sinful flesh.48
45Augustine, 18.
46Smith, 36.
47Augustine, 42.
48Ibid. , 42.
31
The view of original sin that we find in this statement is
basically the condition into which we are all born. Unlike
the perfect condition in which Adam was created, we were
born into a state of sin, a helpless situation from which we
cannot redeem ourselves without divine assistance.
Augustine failed to see how humankind can be redeemed by the
free determination of the human will. Speaking against the
Pelagians, he says:
For there are some persons who presume so much

upon the free determination of the human will, as
to suppose that it need not sin, and we require no
divine assistance, attributing to our nature, once
for all, this determination of free will.49
This is suggesting that Adam's sin left his descendants with
an absolute fallen nature since this fallen nature does not
possess within its capacity any virtue that can redirect it
back to God. Even the will of man is corrupt and requires
the help of God. Augustine says, "Now for the commission of
sin we get no help from God; but we are not able to do
justly, and to fulfil the law of righteousness in every part
therefore, except we are helped by God"50 The theme of
absolute corruption of the human nature will form part of
the discussion in chapter four. The meaning and nature of
sin can be summarized in the words of Ambrose, which
Augustine quoted:
49Ibid., 44.
50Ibid., 45.
32
I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled form

paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall
me unless he has found me in Adam - So that I am
obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject
to death, I may be also justified in Christ.1,1
Ambrose, who was Augustine's mentor, clearly identified
himself with the sin of Adam, it was as if he existed
physically in Adam when he fell, for all that happened to
Adam happened to him as well. This is the theme that
Augustine sought to expound.
In view of the discussion so far, we may summarize our
findings by suggesting that, for Augustine, original sin is
not simply a substantive or positive attribute, or a
weakness in the human nature, but the total corruption of
the nature we inherited from Adam. This includes Adam's
guilt and condemnation. It expresses the condition of
humanity after Adam as a direct solidarity of all with
Adam's sin, it is the sinning of the entire human race in
Adam. This teaching is anchored in Romans 5:12, especially
the last phrase - "in whom all have sinned." Augustine
probably understood "in whom" as referring to Adam which
resulted in the doctrine that in Adam all humankind had
sinned. We will have to decide, through exegetical
consideration, whether the phrase refers to personal sin
committed by all or to a state of sin that spread to all
through the sin of Adam. Since we have determined the
51Augustine, On Original Sin, 254.
33
meaning and nature of original sin, we shall proceed to
discover how it is transmitted.
The Transmission of Original Sin
Basic to Augustine's teaching on the transmission of
original sin is the concept of generation, that the
solidarity of all with Adam's sin is immediately connected
with our generative link with him. This link with Adam's
sin is not simply based on the fact that we are all
descended from Adam but it is founded ultimately on
procreation which is governed by the sinful impulse of
concupiscence. Augustine alluded to the transmission of
original sin by means of natural descent rather than
imitation when he says:
But so far as I have discovered from others, they

think that the death which is here mentioned
{Romans 5:12) is not the death of the body, which
they will not allow Adam to have, deserved by his
sin but that of the soul, which takes place in
actual sin; and that this actual sin has not been
transmitted from the first man to the other
persons by natural descent but by imitation.52
The idea of natural descent as opposed to imitation is
based, once again, on the concept of death mentioned in
Romans 5:12, and Augustine understood this to mean the death
of the body. The implication of this in the transmission of
original sin is that since Adam's sin corrupted his whole
nature and since the human race took its beginning from
Adam, it would naturally follow that all those born into
52Augustine, On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, 18.
34
this world will automatically receive at birth a corrupt
sinful nature. No one is born innocent, except Christ.
Smith says:
Augustine believed that by positing libido as the

proof and penalty of original sin he encompassed
all human beings excepting, of course, Christ. Of
all Adam's progeny, only He was born apart from
libido, for Mary was impregnated by the action of
the Holy Spirit, and so Christ was not affected by
male semen which is the medium for the
transmission of original sin.53
This is why Augustine taught infant baptism for the
remission of inherited sin. The practice of infant baptism
was seen by Augustine as a primitive Christian rite,
Augustine said:
For it is not true, then, as he (Pelagius) puts

it, "He is completely a Manichean who maintains
original sin" but rather, he is completely
Pelagian who does not believe in original sin.
For it is not simply from the time when the
pestilent opinions of Manicheans began to grow
that in the church of God infants about to be
baptized were for first time exorcised with
exsufflation, - which ceremonial was intended to
show that they were not removed into the kingdom
of Christ without first being delivered from the
power of darkness .. . .;54
53Smith, 38.
54Augustine, 303. .
35
Augustine did not only find scriptural basis for the
practice of infant baptism55, he also drew support from
church tradition, which he quoted extensively. For example
in quoting Cyprian he said:
But in respect of Cyprian, with him all-glorious

Crown will anyone say of him, that he either was,
or ever could by any possibility have been, a
Manichean, when he suffered before the Pestilent
heresy had made its appearance in the Romans
world? And yet, in his book on the baptism of
infants, he also vigorously maintains original sin
as to declare, that even before the eighth day, if
necessary, the infant ought to be baptized, lest
his soul should be lost.56
Therefore, we find that before Augustine's debate against
the Pelagians the practice of infant baptism was already an
institutionalized sacrament of the church. Augustine's
argument on the basis of infant baptism is to prove the
existence of original sin. The logic is that if original
sin does not exist then there would be no basis for infant
baptism. The reason Augustine emphasized infant baptism
throughout his debate against the Pelagians is because of
the efficacious power of baptism in putting away all sins.
Augustine says:
Baptism, therefore, indeed washes away all sins -

absolutely all sins, whether deeds or words or
thoughts, whether original or added, whether such
as are committed in ignorance or allowed in
knowledge;57
55Ibid.
5l'Ibid., 305.
57Ibid., 405.
36
We pointed out in chapter two that, according to Augustine,
only the church preserved the right to administer this
Sacrament. It implies that a person cannot be saved outside
the church and those who died without being baptized shall
be lost forever. Can such views be supported on the basis
of the Scriptures? Refuting the idea of sinning by
imitation, Augustine opined that if the apostle Paul wished
to assert that sin entered the world not by natural descent,
but by imitation, he mentioned as the first offender the
devil, of whom it is written that he sinned from the
beginning. Therefore, for Augustine, Romans 5:12,
especially the phrase "it passed upon all men" is an
indication of propagation and not imitation.
To support his theory of propagation, Augustine
referred to Romans 5:14 in which Paul says that "through the
offense of one, many are dead." Augustine's argument is
that if Paul had imitation in mind when he wrote, the
passage should read "on account of their sins" rather than
"on account of the sin of one. 1,58 But since the passage
reads "on account of the sin of one," propagation is what is
implied. Augustine also observed that verses fifteen and
sixteen do not suggest imitation - that by one sin we were
all condemned but grace was from many offenses into
justification. If we sinned by imitation, then conversely,
we should be justified by imitation, and the devil who
37
preceded Adam should be considered the author from whom sin
and death had passed unto all, and Adam would have used some
force to persuade his follower to commit transgression, just
as he gave way to the devil who persuaded him to sin.
In Romans 5:18, Augustine found another evidence for
natural propagation. He quoted this as saying; "Therefore,
as by the offense of one upon all men to condemnation, even
so by the justification of one upon all men unto
justification of life."59 When Paul says of Christ "by the
justification of one," he is implying the principle of
natural propagation, for Christ is not presented as the
object of imitation whom we have to imitate, but He is the
only one capable of effecting justification, the only
justifier.60 Augustine argued that if we should insist on
the theme of imitation then the "one" and the "one" in the
verse must not be regarded as Adam and Christ but Adam and
Abel. He says:
For although many sinners have preceded us in the

time of this present life, and have been imitated
in their sin by those who have sinned at a later
date, yet they will have it, that only Adam is
mentioned as he in whom all have sinned by
imitation, since he was the first of men who
sinned. And on the same principle, Abel ought
certainly to have been mentioned, as he "in which
one" all likewise are justified by imitation,
inasmuch as he was himself the first man who lived
justly.61
59Ibid., 21.
60Ibid., 21.
Ibid., 22.
38
Augustine's contention is that justification is available
only in Christ and this does not happen by imitating Christ,
but by his grace. Conversely, Adam is the only one in whom
all have sinned, not by following his evil example but by
means of the penalty generated through the flesh.
The principle of natural propagation by which means we
all contracted original sin is best exemplified in
Augustine's teaching on infant baptism, marriage, and
concupiscence. In his teaching on baptism, Augustine
clearly demonstrated the need to administer baptism to
infants as a means of washing away the sin they have
inherited from their parents. Augustine affirmed that all
infants that quit the body without being baptised will be
involved in the condemnation of all, but their condemnation
will be mild since they are not guilty of personal sins,
which are often committed in addition to the original
sin.62 His support for infant baptism is based on Paul's
statement in Romans 5:16-18 in which Paul stressed that
judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation to all.
This condemnation was the penalty of Adam's sin. When Adarn
sinned by not obeying God, his body - which before the
disobedience was natural and mortal - lost the grace with
which it was endowed. It became infected with affections
that are common to brutes and ultimately became subject to
62Ibid. , 22.
39
death. For already Adam and Eve were told that in the day
they eat thereof they will die.
The grace which man lost could be the image of God in
man. We shall explore this further in chapter four. But it
is sufficient to say that anyone who descends from Adam
becomes infected with original sin and is in need of
baptism. Augustine says:
As a consequence, then of this disobedience of the

flesh, and this law of sin and death, whoever is
born of the flesh has need of spiritual
regeneration - not only that he may reach the
kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from
the condemnation of sin. Hence men are on the one
hand born in the flesh, liable to sin and death
from the first Adam, and on the other hand are
born again in baptism associated with the
righteousness and eternal life of the second
Adam.63
One implication of the above statement is that nobody can
attain heaven without baptism. Since this has some bearing
in the doctrine of original sin it may be necessary to
pursue it further in chapter four. Very important to the
discussion in chapter four is the question of whether we
have any biblical support to prove, as Augustine is
suggesting, that infant baptism is an indication of the
corrupt nature we inherited from Adam. For Augustine, no
infant can attain the eternal salvation without
regeneration. Infants have also been hurt by the malady of
original sin, otherwise they would not be carried to the
physician, Christ, for the express purpose of receiving the
L'3Ibid., 23.
40
sacrament of eternal salvation. Augustine saw infants as
bound by the bond of sin in their original nature, and it is
the guilt of original sin that is healed in them by the
grace of him who saves them by the laver of regeneration.'"'
While it may be thought that the infant should first have a
sense of repentance to be called penitent, Augustine thinks
if the child does not need to believe he does not need to
repent.65 This is because of the whole of the baptism is
done in hope, in the strength of the sacrament and of the
divine grace, which the lord has bestowed upon the church.
Thus, the child stands to benefit in this life and when
he/she departs from this present life. In other words, the
baptism rite is efficacious and should not be undermined.
Augustine even called baptism salvation. He says:
The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name

for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is
nothing else than "salvation" and the sacrament of
the body of Christ nothing else than "life".
Whence, however, was this derived, but from that
primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition,
by which the church of Christ maintains it to be
an inherent principle, that without baptism and
partaking of the supper of the Lord it is
impossible for any man to attain either to the
kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting
life?66
The above statement underscores that, for Augustine, baptism
is synonymous with salvation. These two facts are
M Ibid., 24.
65Ibid., 24.
66Ibid., 28.
41
inseparably linked together and, by implication, it means a
person is not saved until he/she is baptized. And since the
church alone has the right to administer this sacrament, it
suggests that a person cannot be saved outside of the
church. It will be important to discuss when we get to
chapter four the meaning of baptism that we find here, in
light of the New Testament, with the aim to determine the
relationship between baptism and salvation, and original
sin.
Why do the baptized commit sin in later years?
Augustine responded to this question with his doctrine of
concupiscence, by which means we also contract original sin.
Augustine viewed concupiscence as the law of sin which the
first man experienced when he transgressed the law of
God.c7 This law of sin became repugnant to the law of his
mind so that he felt the evil of his own disobedience. He
felt the evil among members of his body, which are
considered servants of the man. But, because of the
presence of the law of sin, the body will not obey the
direction of the will, but lust has to be waited to set
these members in motion, as if it had legal right over them,
and often acts against the will. It is in the disobedience
of these parts of the body that Augustine finds the
demonstration of the just depravation of human nature. This
law of concupiscence, according to Augustine, is not done
b7Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 266.
42
away with but still remains, except for its guilt, and does
not continue, since in baptism there takes place a full
forgiveness of sin.bS
In another place Augustine identified the disease of
concupiscence, or the indecent motion, as what the apostle
Paul refers to when he spoke to the married believers in
I Thessalonians 4:3-5. This disease of concupiscence does
not nullify or prohibit conjugal rights, but should be
expressed only in the procreation of children rather than
for self-gratification. Augustine says:
And this counsel is not to be understood as if the

apostle prohibited conjugal - that is to say,
lawful and honourable cohabitation; but so as that
cohabitation should not be a matter of the will,
but of necessity, without which, nevertheless, it
would be impossible to attain the function of the
will itself in the procreation of children.I,,)
The children who are born are not just born for the fun of
it, but so that they will be born again in Christ, and
remain in him forever. Augustine says those who possess
their vessels (i.e. wives) with this intention of
procreation do not possess her in the "disease of desire"'11
but in sanctification and honour. This is turning the evil
of concupiscence into something useful, and the child, when
baptized, becomes free from the guilt of concupiscence. But
59Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 267.
70Ibid., 267.
43
as the child matures he/she will experience a constant,
vicious disposition to evil. Augustine says:
Whenever God's grace converts a sapling into a

good olive, so that the fault of the first birth
(original sin which had been derived and
contracted from the concupiscence of the flesh) is
remitted, covered, not imputed, there is still
inherent in it the nature from which is born a
wild olive, unless it, too, by the same grace, is
by the second birth changed into a good olive.71
Concupiscence for Augustine, therefore denotes primarily
sexual lust, for there are other ways in which this animal
aspect of the soul can escape rational control and tempt
humankind. These lusts are the just punishment for original
sin, which made man subservient to his own body instead of
becoming equal with God.
The Effects of Original Sin
There are basically two effects of original sin which
can be identified in Augustine's teaching. One of these is
the teaching of concupiscence that we have already examined.
The other effect is ignorance, which Augustine defended
against Pelagius. Concerning the sin of ignorance Augustine
says:
Is there no evil of ignorance - nothing which need

to be purged away? What means that prayer:
"Remember not the sins of my ignorance." For
although those sins are more to be condemned
which are knowingly committed, yet if there were
no sins of ignorance, we should not have read in
Scripture what I have quoted.72
71Ibid., 278.
44
When God fashioned the human nature it excluded the evils of
concupiscence and ignorance, but was changed by the first
man's evil will. Instead of enjoying knowledge that Adam
need not acquire, we now have ignorance from which we labour
to emerge, and instead of subjecting the flesh to the
control of the soul, we experience the body's revolt to the
Spirit. These disorders are sins, just like the act from
which they emanate, they belong to the original sin itself,
which is propagated by means of the effect it has caused,
thus making the human nature vitiated and vicious. And the
cure for this fallen nature is found only in God's
supernatural grace.
In this chapter, the researcher attempted to present
Augustine's teaching on original sin by identifying the
meaning and nature, transmission, effect, and cure for
original sin. Some of the findings in this chapter will be
discussed at length in chapter four.
'Chapter Three
Original Sin in St. Paul
This chapter is devoted to an examination of original
sin in St. Paul. To Augustine and to the Christian mind
Paul is viewed as the great architect of the doctrine of
original sin. It is for this reason that we shall attempt
to examine Paul's teaching on this important doctrine.
The study will focus mainly on the argument of Paul in
Romans 5:12-21, the locus classicus of the doctrine of
original sin. But, in order to appreciate Paul's personal
contribution better, it will be necessary to see it in the
framework of contemporary Judaism.
Development of the Idea of Sin in Judaism
The idea of sin as a transgression or disregard of
God's will may be taken to express the permanent conception
of sin in Judaism. The variations in this conception are
based on the changes that took place in the idea of God and
of His will. The earliest ideas of the will of God were
linked to the tribal mores and taboos.73 Breaking these
mores and taboos was understood to be an offense against
God. This idea of transgression of God's will underlies
numerous Hebrew words for sin. The most common word for sin
in the Bible and in post-Biblical literature, hata.
73S . S. Cohen, Judaism, A Way of Life: An Introduction to

the Basic Ideas of Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), 273.
45
46
expresses the idea of "missing the mark"7'1 as when a bowman
misses his target (Judges 20:16), the same sense is found in
the Greek word hamartano. The word is also linked with
terms denoting erring from the path of duty and right or
rendering crooked that which was straight. It seems the
word was borrowed from ordinary human relations, where it
was applied to any act that put a man in the wrong with
those who had the power to make him rue it.75 Its
religion's significance was emphasized by the belief that
God as the supreme judge and king in Israel was offended by
each act that goes contrary to His will. Other words
associated with hata include 'bar meaning to overstep or
transgress the word, command, law, or covenant of Yahweh
(Numbers 14:41), shagah and shagag which means to err '
through ignorance.
But the most important theological term indicating sin
as defiance against God is pasa' and means to revolt,
rebel, or transgress; with its cognate noun, rebellion,
transgression. It consists of willful disobedience and not
a mere failure or mistake. Both the verb and the noun are
used of revolt against nations or transgression against men
(e.g. 1 Kings 12:19; Amos l:3ff), but generally they
indicate transgression against God and defiance of his rule.
7*E.P. Sanders, "Sin,11 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed.

David Noel Freedman, vol.6 (Toronto: Doubleday, 19 92)
75Ibid., 35.
47
Sometimes they may indicate the guilt accompanying such sin
(job 33:9), since generally the Hebrews did not distinguish
between the sin and its resultant guilt. Only as Israel's
faith outgrew ideas of taboo, did its concept of guilt
become more ethical and spiritual, and in most cases
personalized (Ezra 9:6).
Sin, which incurs the wrath of the deity, is filled
with danger for the sinner. This also includes moral and
ceremonial offenses. The method of punishing sin in the
Mosaic Code was not only on the basis of the consciousness
of wrong-doing but sometimes on the basis of sin committed
unconsciously and in error (Leviticus 4:2). Punishment
followed just the same, unless proper means of expiation of
the guilt were taken. Thus, the objective act forms the
ground of judgement and not necessarily the subjective
intention. Only in later Judaism do we begin to see a
distinction between willful and inadvertent sins.
Common to the ancient conceptions of sin is its power
to defile an individual, to the extent of contaminating both
the land and the people. Such pollution can only be removed
by proper acts of purification, sacrifices, and personal or
corporate confessions.70
It is possible that the sin committed by an individual
can affect an entire community. An example is the story of
Achan whose sin brought disaster upon the entire people
7CT b i d ., 35.
48
(Joshua 7). More than once the Israelites who bore the
punishment for their "Fathers' sins" were inclined to
question such a principle (Jeremiah 31:29; Ezekiel 18:2} and
lamented its application.77 This idea of the community-
affected by the sins of the individual became evident in
Judaism.
With the emphasis of the role of the prophet in
Israelite religion, the conception of sin added a moral
nuance and deepened its meaning. God made himself known to
the prophets, as a God who desires justice, mercy and truth.
The prophets were also concerned about right human
relations, for that is what God desires for those he has
called and consecrated unto himself. Consequent.ly -ui-n.
appears in the~t"eacnihgsk;cf,:_the^prop'hets as the moral
negation of what is right and good, as well as desecrating
oneself. They are conscious of a distinction between sin as
an act or a transgression of God's moral requirement, and
sin due to ignorance of God's holy character (1 Kings 12:19;
20:10; Amos 1:3).
The ubiquitous nature of sin emerges with some clarity
from the Pentateuch which in essence is the revealed will of
God. Thus, sin is now properly defined as the transgression
or rebellion against God's will. This formal conception of
sin did not cancel all that went before nor obscure the
difference between sins against God and sins against people.
77Ibid., 36.
49
The implication is that Israel has become more aware of sin
than ever before. The perplexing question about the subject
of sin is not its definition, but where sin comes from. It
is evident from the Jewish writings (and considering the
various responses to the question of the origin of sin) that
the Jewish religious teachers wrestled with this problem.
The first theory appearing in the post-Biblical
literature traces the origin of sin to Adam; thus, in 2
Esdras 7:118 the seer says; "Oh thou Adam, what hast thou
done? For though it was thou who sinned, the Fall was not
thine alone, but ours also who are thy descendants!"
Similarly, in 2 Baruch 23:4 it is said that "Adam sinned and
death was decreed against those who should be born"; and the
same book (56:6) says "For owing to his transgression
untimely death came into being, and grief was named, and
anguish was prepared, and pain was created, and trouble
perfected . . . "
\
The.origin of sin, but not its results, is also implied

\
in 1 Enocn\32:16: Then Raphael, the holy angel who was with
\ . .**
\
me answered and said, This is the tree of wisdom, of which
thy Father, old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were
before thee, ate, anaCthey learned wisdom, and their eyes
were opened, and they werejnaked, and they were driven out
of the garden." These passages-iimist be balanced by what is

X S N ''s. '
said in 2 Baruch 54:15,19: "For though'iAdam^first sinned,
and brought untimely death upon all, yet of those'-whccwere.
50
born from him each one of them hath prepared for his own
soul torment to come; and again, each one of them hath
chosen for himself glories to come. Adam is, therefore, not
the cause, save only of his own soul. But each one of us
has been the Adam of his own soul." With the exception of
the first passages quoted', above, it is taught that, while

U
Adam was the first to sin|,! this did not involve hereditary
sin in the human race, though it was the cause of universal

!!
death. jj
1!
The second theory truces the origin of sin to Eve. In
the Life of Adam and Eve lit is said concerning Eve; "Wilt
/
thou slay me? That I may die, and perchance God the Lord
/
I!
will bring thee into paradise, for on my account has thou
//
been driven thence." Tip. the same book, 44:2-5 Adam puts the
jj
whole blame on Eve;"And Adam said to Eve, what hast thou
/I
done? A great plague hast thou brought upon us,
y /
transgression and/sin for all our generations; and this

// /
which thou has done tell thy children after my death, for
those who arise from us shall toil and fail, and they shall
be wanting/and curse us, and say all evils have our parents
brought,,up on us, who were at the beginning. When Eve heard
thesexwords she began to weep and m o a n ."
:>'" Another theory attributes the origin of sin to fallen
angels. 1 Enoch 16:3 says, "Ye have been in heaven, but all
the mysteries had not yet been revealed to you, and ye knew
worthless things, and these in the hardness of your hearts
51
ye have made known to women, and through these mysteries
women and men work much evil on earth."
In contrast to all these ideas we have the definite
assertion that man, and man alone is the cause of sin.
Cohen also agreed with this conclusion when he said:
Normative Judaism rejects the doctrine of original

sin, i.e. of evil cleaving to man from his very
birth as a sort of hereditary disease. The
paradise story of Genesis 3 was not intended to
convey the idea that the infraction of a taboo by
the first parents of the race altered the moral
character of any one beside themselves. Neither
does it suggest the imputation of their guilt to
their descendants as an inherited taint of the
soul. Like the etiological myths of other
peoples, it merely seeks to account for the sad
facts of physical hardship, pain and mortality,
which the First Couple brought upon themselves and
upon their posterity.78
The foregoing shows that the concept of original sin is
foreign in Judaistic thinking. It would also seem that
during the biblical times no definite conclusions were drawn
from the story of Adam's disobedience and expulsion from
Eden. One exemption may be Psalm 51:5 in which David
alludes to an hereditary taint. Only in the early church
history do the ideas of a Fall and original sin begin to
shape themselves. Paul's reference to the story of the
First Adam was not to contest it but to illustrate
fundamental truths of the faith. Concerning the use of this
story in Romans, Cohen says:
Paul drew upon them for his conception of the

moral depravity and corruption of the human race
78Cohen, 282.
52
as the ground for his doctrine of salvation

through the death and resurrection of Jesus
modelled after the mythology of the mystery
religions.79
For Paul the story contained in Genesis 3 is not just a
myth, but a historical fact that has great bearing on God's
plan for humankind. Before we examine this passage in
Romans an overview will be necessary.
Purpose of Romans 5
The fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans does not
only introduce a new section, but is in many ways the key to
the understanding of the rest of the letter. In the
previous chapters the Apostle Paul dealt with the great
statement of the doctrine of justification and some of its
implications. From this point, Paul's concern is to
demonstrate the absolute character, the fullness and the
finality of the salvation which comes to us in the way he
has already described, that is, as a result of justification
by faith.00
Having explained the nature of this new way of
salvation, and its effect, Paul proceeds in chapter five to
demonstrate how individual humankind is developed upon it by
means of the vicarious office of Christ, an act of self-
sacrifice. In order to prove this, Paul brings Christ who
is the Second Adam into parallel with the First Adam. In
79Ibid.
0OD. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans (London: Banner of Truth

Trust, 1971), 172 .
53
using this kind of language Paul is no doubt seeking the
best way to express himself. The parallelism introduced
comes after a recognition of the extraordinary love that God
has shown us. The death of Christ on our behalf is not
because of our goodness, for as the Bible affirms, He died
for us while we were still in our sins (Romans 5:8). It is
important to keep this in mind to understand the
implications that follow as suggested by the connecting word
in verse 12. To extol this way of salvation, it was
necessary for Paul to provide some insight into what may be
considered the origin of sin, and the need of salvation for
all humankind.
In view of God's love, humankind can experience
justification and eternal life. To prove how the single act
of one man paid for the need of all humanity, Paul turns
attention to the story of the Fall in which humankind was
identified with the sin of the First Man. The story of the
Fall is a clear demonstration of the plight of all humanity
since the epoch of Adam and Eve. It may be drawn from
inference that if the sin of one man can affect the entire
human race, the one act of Christ should do more by way of
redemption.
In tracing the story of the Fall to Genesis, which
marks the beginning of human history, Paul must have thought
of salvation as the need of all humanity. By so doing, he
goes beyond the problem of moral corruption that is
54
prevalent among the pagans and the Jews (Chapters 1 and 2).
Significantly, the whole concept of sin provides the basis
for discussing some of the benefits of salvation. To
understand the concept of sin discussed in Romans 5:12-21 we
would have to deal with some important textual matters
arising from the passage. This is the concern of the next
section.
An Exeqetical Consideration of Romans 5:12-21
We shall attempt to deal with the problem of this
passage in four main sections, namely: 12-14; 15-17; 18-19;
and 20-21. Major findings in these sections will be
reserved for discussion in chapter four.
A. Sin in Humanity vv.12-14
Many exegetes01 admit the difficulty of these verses,
and so they have been the subject of much discussion.
Therefore, we shall proceed with caution and attempt to get
as close as we can to the intended meaning of the verses.
Verse 12 begins a new section in support of the
proposition of the chapter, justification by faith. This is
supported by the use of the Greek phrase dia touto,
translated "therefore". The word refers backwards, since
there is no clause immediately following which is capable of
picking it up. There is a general consensus that it refers
01Ibid., 146.
55
backwards to 5:1-11 as a whole.82 In Romans 5:1-11 Paul
affirms that those already made righteous are those whom
God's love had transformed from being God's enemies to being
reconciled to Him. The significance of "therefore" is that
Paul will now indicate in w . 12-21 the conclusion to be
drawn from the discussion in w .1-11. The reconciliation
that has been effected suggests that Christ has accomplished
something that is far-reaching in its scope and
effectiveness as was the sin of the First Man. It was a
vision that goes beyond the church to the whole of humanity.
Significantly, the first person plural in w . 1 - 1 1 is
replaced by the third person plural. By using the word:
"therefore", Paul is inferring the significance of Christ
for all humanity on the basis of what Christ has
accomplished. Thus, we can argue for a definite connection
between vv.12-21 and vv.1-11.
Paul begins to draw his parallel between Christ and
Adam in Verse 12, but breaks off the protasis at the end of
the first half of v.12 without stating its apodosis. This
construction is often viewed as irregular, but for Cranfield
it is not a lack of grammatical sequence, but that Paul
intends it to be read that way:
Realizing the danger of his comparisons being very

seriously misunderstood, he prefers to indicate,
as emphatically as possible, the vast
92C.E.B. Cranfield, A critical and Exeaetical Commentary on

the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1975),
1:271.
56
dissimilarity between Christ and Adam before

formally completing it.83
It was not until after a lengthy parenthesis that Paul
completed the sentence with a proper apodosis in v.l8b.
Kasemann also observed that:
"The complex sentence of this section up to v.'17 ..

forms a giant anacoluthon. As elsewhere this is
not due to any clumsiness on the apostle's part.
It is due to the wealth of ideas and associations
which crowd in upon him, and here especially to
the balancing of given motifs with his own
purpose.1184
This structure of the passage that we find here is also a
reflection of the theological difficulty that Paul must have
encountered in the course of writing this Epistle, and it
provides a helpful clue to our understanding of vv.12-21 as
a whole. This difference in syntactic construction is
important but does not make a great difference from the
point of view of doctrine.
Ano'v>e,r important phrase that has given rise to an
enormous volume of discussion is the expression eph hoi
pantes hemarton. The classic debate on the meaning of eph
hoi has more or less been settled in favour of a conjunction
meaning 'because' or 'for this reason'85 Murray also lent
his support to this conclusion when he said that the clause
83Ibid. , 269-270.
84Ernst Kasemann Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W.

Bromily (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1980),
146.
a5Leon Morris The Epistles to the Romans (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 230.
57
should not be rendered "in whom all sinned", but that the
terms used have the force of a conjunction, and clearly
specify the reason death passed into all men.86 The view of
eph hoi as a conjunction is based on the understanding of
hemarton to refer not to man's sinning in their own persons
but to their participation in Adam's transgression, in the
sense that they sin in a real solidarity with him, as a
result of the entail of his transgression.87 The idea that
is contained here is not some concept of "corporate
personality" or the theology of Adam as Everyman.88 In
spite of the fact that Paul's attempt is to stress the
universality of the effects of Adam's sin (vv.13-14, 18-19),
the fact is that he begins with a distinction between "one11
and "all" or "the many" which he maintains consistently in
this passage. The one man and his sin and the one Saviour
and his salvation are critical to the discussion. Sin
entered the world (which implies sin existed before A dam).
With the personification we see sin as a mighty force of
evil which used Adam as its instrument. The "world" is, of
course, the world of people, the human race, not the
physical earth. Death is also personified, and seen as
using sin as point of entry. It is sin that brought death.
86John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 1:18.
M7Cranfield, 278.
88Dunn, 273.
58
However, the link between the "one" and the "all" is not
explained, but there is no doubt that the distinction is
clear - and it underlies the whole discussion.89 The
picture we see here can be found in Judaism with respect to
Adam's fall. It is what Dunn rightly described as tension
between the inescapableness of human sin operating as a
compelling power from within or without and the recognition
of human responsibility in sinning.90 The distinction
between the "one" and the "all" is matched by the
distinction between hamartia and hemarton, and hemarton
often carries the idea of human responsibility in sinful
acts, and is supported by vv.13 and 14 at a time when there
was no law.
Adam's sin was the cause of the death of all humankind.
Death seized the opportunity that sin allowed it and so came
upon all humanity. Death became inevitable for all
humanity. While dealing with this verse, we must not lose
sight of the fact that Paul's intention is centred on
Christ; Adam is mentioned only in order to bring about the
nature of the work that Christ had accomplished.
Furthermore, Dubarle observed that since Paul is
contrasting the effect of Adam and that of Christ on
humanity, it is also possible that the passage may suggest
the idea of a sinful conduct of all people. The use of the
8SMorris, 22 9.
90Ibid. , 273-274.
59
aorist points to one act, the act of Adam. We would expect
the present or the imperfect if the apostle were thinking of
the continuing sins of all people. Paul says all sinned in
Adam, not in imitating him. The context seems to insist on
the sin of "one" man. Consider these repetitions: "Many
died by the trespasses of the one" (v.15), the judgement
followed one sin" (v.16), "by the trespass of the one man,
death reigned" (v.17), "the result of the one trespass was
condemnation for all men" (v.18), "through the disobedience
of the one man the many were made sinners" (v.19). These
truths show that we did not simply follow Adam's example,
what we see here is the race somehow caught up in Adam's
sin. But throughout this passage what Adam did and what
Christ did are steadily kept apart. Paul's concern in v.12
is with what Adam did and its results, and that Adam's sin
involved us all in a situation of sin and death from which
there is no escape except in Christ. This is similar to the
statement "one died for all, and therefore all died" (2 Cor.
5:14), and may serve as the opposite of what Paul is saying
in Romans 5:12.
Some of the ideas in v.12 find further explanation in
vv.13 and 14. But the way Paul is reasoning has puzzled
many commentators. Verse 13, for example, poses some
difficulty in the relationship between the law and sin: how
can sin bring death if it is not taken into account? Our
understanding of v.13 depends on how the first or second
60
sentence of the verse is stressed. Cranfield suggests that
if we place the stress on the latter section "But sin is not
taken into account when there is no law," and regard the
former "For before the law was given, sin was in the world,"
as a concessive clause, it would seem that it refers to
humankind's sinning in their own persons but in
participation in Adam's transgression.' If, on the other
hand, the first sentence is stressed, and the second
sentence is treated as a concessive clause then what we have
is sin already present and active in humankind before the
law was given. Kasemann112 opined that the issue in v.I2 is
not primarily or even exclusively the transition from a
cosmic outlook to that of an individual person, and that the
undeniable individualizing in v.l2d gives depth to what is
said about the extent of the disaster. Olshausen agreed
with Kasemann when he said: "
The apostle in the use of 'sin' would not be
understood to mean sinful independent actions, but
the state of inward disharmony, from which outward
disharmony, whose head is death, takes rise.'
Here an explanation is provided for the last
clause in v.12? "For before the law was given, sin
9ICranfield, 282.
92Kasemann, 149.
93Hermann Olshausen, Studies in the Epistles to the Romans

(Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock and Klock, 1983), 199.
61
was in the world may be understood as intended to
explain the fact that "all sinned" in spite of the
fact that for a time there was no law. Paul is
seeking to stress the universal sway of sin and
the fact that all humankind actually sinned.
The phrase "But sin is not taken into account when
there is no law" is added in acknowledgement of the fact
that in the absence of the law sin is not something that is
clearly defined. Sin requires the law to give it proper
definition. Paul does not mean any absolute absence of law,
but as Romans 2:14,15 shows, where, however, there is no
formal law, it is only by very indistinct warnings that the
inward law gives indication of itself.94 Two facv.3 seem to
emerge from this discussion and should be distinguished.
One is the power of sin in human experience from which no
one in the epoch {Adam and Moses) can escape, and, secondly,
sin as something for which the individual can be charged.
As Dunn observed,
The two-sidedness of the human condition within

the epoch of Adam comes to expression - sin as a
given of human character and social environment,
and sin as an accountable action of individual
responsibility.95
These two main elements are present to some degree in all
acts of sin. The second distinction that we see emerging is
the view of death as an inescapable part of the human
l>4Ibid.
,>r'Dunn., 275.
62
condition for which the individual cannot be held
responsible, and death as the consequence of the
individual's responsible transgression.10 One problem with
the text is that it did not say to what extent sin existed
before the law.
We shall focus here on verse 14. The Greek word alia
at the beginning of the verse shows a connection by an
adversative conjunction with v.!3b, which is not treated as
subordinated to v.l3a as a concessive clause, but in
coordination with it. The phrase that follows substantiates
this. "Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of
Moses" expresses that as a result of the presence of sin,
death reigned over humankind throughout the period from Adam
to when the Law was given (death is here personified). The
phrase "even over those who did not sin by breaking a
command as did Adam" is added in order to bring out that
those over whom sin reigned in this period were actually rnen
and women. While they had indeed sinned and were punished
for their sin, they did not sin after the likeness of Adam's
transgression, disobeying a clear and definite divine
commandment such as Adam had.'17 His sin had effects on the
totality of humankind, and does not rule out the fact that
they still sinned in their own way. The relative clause
"who was a pattern of the one to come" introduces a
96Ibid.
97Morris, 234.
63
comparison which Paul completed in v.18. An important word
here is tupos which denotes a mark made by striking, an
impression made by something or somebody, hence a form,
figure, or pattern. An example is a thing or a person
prefiguring a thing or a person. Adam is the prototype of
Christ in that each begins an epoch and the character of
each epoch is established by their action. What we have
here is Adam serving as a pattern of life that leads to
death while Christ is a pattern leading from death to life.
The point of emphasis is the view of sin and Death as quasi-
cosmic powers and human responsibility in sinning.98
B- Dissimilarity Between Christ and Adam vv.15-17
The purpose of w . 15-17 is to drive home the vast
dissimilarity between Christ and Adam before the formal
comparison between them is made in vv.18 and 19. This
comparison began in vv.12-14 but is here interrupted in
order to stress the dissimilarity between them. To stress
this dissimilarity Paul introduced two contrasting formulas.
The first contrast is in v.ISa, But the gift is not like
the trespass", and the second contrast is found in v.l6a,
Again the gift of God is not like the result of the one
man's sin11: each of these contrasts is followed by a
supporting argument. The Greek word alia at the beginning
of v.15 is due to the presence of the last'clause of v.14,
and gives a strong hint of the comparison to be introduced.
8Dunn, 27 6.
64
Paraptdma now replaces parabasis; why Paul did this is not
clear. Paraptoma has the idea of "false step" or "blunder",
whereas parabasis can be translated to mean "transgression".
The distinction does not amount to much; both have reference
to Adam's disobedience although it could be a reinforcement
on the whole idea of a broader concept of sinning.
Another important concept is charisma which is often
translated "grace". It has the idea of a concrete enactment
of grace, and this is demonstrated in the act of Christ,
which is an embodiment of grace. One implication of this is
that the grace stamps the character of the whole epoch.
The statement of the dissimilarity between Adam's sin
and God's gracious gift is supported by an appeal to the
surpassing gift of God. The construction in v.5 shows that
a contrast is desired, and is introduced by gar just as in
v.l7a. The phrase "by the trespass of the one man the many
dies" in v.15 refers to and rephrases v.12. Conversely, the
grace of God and the gift of grace which is of the one Jesus
Christ, has overflowed to the many. The double expression
of grace does not refer simply to God's gracious
disposition, but speaks of His gracious action, and the high
quality of the act, in terms of its power and freeness.
One implication of this act of God's grace is that it
clearly demonstrates that God's response to the sin of the
First Man is not merely to make up for the ground that has
"Morris, 23 5.
65
been lost. It also brought to completion the destiny which
Adam would have fulfilled had he not fallen into sin.
The language in verse 16 seems rather compressed but
the thoughts are clear: "the gift of God is not like the
result of the one man's sin". The "not as" of v.15 is here
repeated, but is used to contrast the gift and that which
came through Adam rather than Adam's trespass as mentioned
in v.15.
The phrase "the judgement followed one sin and brought
condemnation" does not add any material to v.15 except that
together with v.15 it once again highlights the two-
sidedness of humankind's plight. "But the gift followed
many trespasses and brought justification." Perhaps
conscious of the danger of lapsing into mere repetition Paul
varies the use of polloi, "many", thus altering the contrast
from the one and the many to the one trespass and the many
trespasses. As it is, Christ does not stand with the sin of
the one man but the damnation and transgression of the many.
This gift that follows many sins is a great miracle, unlike
the one sin of Adam that followed many.
T- Verse 12a may be viewed as further support for v.l6a,
and is reminiscent of v.l5b especially in its structure and
substance, except that it has much force in v.17. The
phrase "through the one man, Jesus Christ" acts as the
apodosis to add extra emphasis that one man's action can
determine the fate of the many. For Paul, it is the one
real likeness between Christ and Adam. It would be seen
that the substance of the apodosis of v.15 is re-expressed
in the latter half of v.17 which itself is an inversion of
the structure of the protasis: instead of making "the many"
the subject of it (as of the protasis), Paul made "the
grace" the subject. Paul's intention could be that he wants
to emphasize the initiative of the divine grace.100 Thus,
in v.17 we have an inversion of the structure between the
protasis and apodosis (e.g. instead of saying "life
reigned" in correspondence to death reigned of the protasis
he says "Those who receive God's abundant provision of
grace"). Paul's point was to contrast the act of Christ's
efficacy to the act of the Fall. Commenting further- on thi
Kasemann says:
As from Adam on the curse that has invaded all

time and space is already present to us, no less
is the blessing which is established universally
throughout time and space by Christ and which
spreads abroad in his kingdom. We do not
constitute either the one or the other and to that
extent we receive "destiny" therefrom for
ourselves and our world.101
We have a picture of God's immeasurable grace to man. The
phrase "reign in life through the one man" is in the future
tense and it underlines the eschatological tension that is
evident in this passage. The grace is not only for the
present age but reaches to the yet beyond. In this section
10QCranfield, 287.
101Kasemann, 156.
67
(vv.15-17) Paul has succeeded in clarifying the
dissimilarity between Christ and Adam, which should enable
us to understand their similarity. Apart from the
similarity which is in relation of Christ to all humankind
and in the relation of Adam to all humankind, Christ and
Adam stand in great dissimilarity.
C. Christ and Adam in Comparison vv.18-19
Verse 18 opens with the Greek words ara on hos
translated "so then", and it serves to resume the main line
of argument (v.12) interrupted by the parenthesis (vv.l2d-
17). The phrase hotos kai translated "so also" introduces
the long-delayed apodosis. The whole verse is condensed in
style as in v.16 and has no verbs expressed. Also, the
phrase "as the result of one trespass was condemnation for
all men" respects the substance of the protasis in v.12, and
some ideas found in the preceding verses. The "one"
mentioned here is masculine since it refers to Adam, the
parallel phrases that are echoed point to Adam, and the
contrast is with "all men".
"The result of the one act of righteousness was
justification that brings life". The "one" again is
masculine and refers to Christ. All this points to one
single action which inaugurated a whole epoch. Again the
focus is on the act of Christ and not the outcome as in
v.15. An important word here is dikaiomata, and is
variously understood as the act of justifying or condition
68
of possessing a status of righteousness or righteous acts.
The word provides a contrast to the word 11transgression" and
it agrees with the word obedience in v.19, an important word
in understanding the atoning work of Christ. The phrase
"Justification that brings life for all men" does not imply
a universalist view of salvation; rather, it has the idea of
a process as well as its result.102
Commenting more on this salvation Cranfield says:
It is truly offered to all, and all are to be

summoned urgently to accept the proffered gift,
but at the same time to allow that this clause
does not foreclose the question whether in the end
all will actually come to share i t .101
Verse 19 opens with the word gar translated "for" which
provides an explanation for v.18 and not just a repetition.
It illustrates the connecting links between Adam's misdeed
and the condemnation of the many, and between Christ's
perfect fulfilment of God's righteous requirements and the
possession by many of that righteous status which is eternal
life. The verb "were made" presents problems. Cranfield
suggests that it has the idea that all men were constituted
sinners through the misdeeds of Adam, that sin having once
obtained entry into human, all humankind in their turn lived
sinful lives. Morris on the other hand suggests that it
does not mean that sinless people were compelled to become
102Dunn, 282.
1Q3Cranfield, 289.
69
sinners, but rather that Adam's sin constituted them as
sinners.
However, the words sinners" and "righteous" suggest
relationship rather than character: they express the two-
sidedness in human sinfulness. It is highly doubtful if
they provide any sufficient ground for any theological
thesis.10,1
10,1Morris, 23 6.
70
D. The Purpose of the Law vv.20-21
In v.2 0 Paul seems to narrow his universal sweep that
has been in the centre of his discussion in the previous
verses, by introducing a factor that reflects Jewish
particularity. This is made possible by the use of the Law
which is a reference to the Jewish Law or the Torah.
Logically, Paul has already concluded his contrast between
the epochs of Christ and Adam, but finds it necessary to
stress what may be considered a third epoch, that of the
Law. This has some religious significance for the Jews
through whom God has promised to accomplish his plans and
purposes for humanity. Hina in v.20 shows clearly that the
Law has been introduced to serve the purpose of God. Here
it would seem that the Law has a negative role. For the
multiplying of the one trespass into many trespasses is due
to the Law that has been instituted. The purpose of the Law
is not to distinguish between the Jews who are righteous and
the Gentiles who are sinners, but it is intended to make the
Jews more conscious of their solidarity in sin with the rest
of Adam's offspring.105 It was also necessary for sin
which at this time is already in the world, to become
visible and defined, so that it can be dealt with
decisively. This is why the Jews have been made custodians
of the Law (Romans 2:17ff) . The triumph of grace Paul
mentioned in v.20b does not constitute the end of the
105Dunn, 286.
71
matter. Its goal was the dispossessing of the usurper sin
and the replacement of its reign by the reign of grace. To
explain this, Paul for the last time made use of comparison.
He compared the reign of divine grace which has no end, with
the reign of death that has an end.
In conclusion, our passage does not only demonstrate
the dissimilarity that exists between Christ and Adam, but
it also shows the likeness that exists between them. This
consists in the corresponding structure between Christ in
relation to all humankind, and Adam in relation to all
humankind. It is for this reason that Adam was viewed as
the pattern of Christ, and gave rise to the argument that
moves from one relational structure to another.
One result of our study in this chapter is that the
concern of the apostle Paul in Romans 5:12-21 is not to
discuss the origin of sin but to show the scope of the act
of God's grace to humankind. How Augustine was able to read
original sin in this passage will be the topic of discussion
in chapter four.
72
Chapter Four
An Evaluation of Augustine's Doctrine of

Original Sin based on Romans 5:12-21
In the last two chapters, the researcher attempted to
present the ideas of original sin in Paul and Augustine.
The findings in these two chapters are what will be
presented here for evaluation and discussion, with the view
to understand the relationship between Adam's sin and that
of his posterity.
A Comparison of Paul and Augustine.
A common characteristic between Paul and Augustine is
that both men are remarkable figures in the history of the
church and in the development of the Christian faith. This
Christian faith is founded upon the belief of the community
that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures . . . (1 Cor. 15:3-4) . And
since the first generation of believers, this keryqma has
been the basic doctrine or teaching of the Christian faith.
Consequently, those who received Jesus Christ reflect
on the meaning of the words and deeds of Jesus. And this
has continued to be one of the focus of refection, and
teaching. It is what we find in the writings of Paul and
Augustine. These writings of Paul and Augustine, in other
words the NT and church tradition, have constituted our
sources of doctrine.
73
Apart from their intense intellectual curiosity and
commitment to the service of the church, both Paul and
Augustine share similar experiences of the power of sin in
individual lives. For example, consider these two classical
confessions. Paul says:
We know the law is spiritual but I am unspiritual,

sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what
I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what
I hate I do, I agree that the law is good. As it
is, it is no longer myself who do it, but it is
sin living in m e . I know that nothing god lives
in me, that is, in my sinful nature, for I desire
to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
For what I do is not the good I want to do - This
I keep doing. Now if I do what I do not want to
do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin
living in me that does it. (Rom. 7:14-20}
In what appears to be a similar confession, Augustine says:
But what was it that I delighted in save to love

and be loved? But I held to it not in moderation,
mind to mind, the bright path of friendship, but
of the dark concupiscence of the flesh and the
effervescence of youth exhalations came forth
which obscured and overcast my heart, so that I
was unable to discern pure affection from unholy
desire. Both boiled confusedly within me, and
drag away my unstable youth into rough places of
unchaste desires, and plunged me into a gulf or
infamy . . . Oh for one to have regulated my
disorder, and turned to my profit the fleeting
beauties of the things around me, and fixed a
bound to their sweetness.106
There is no doubt that Paul and Augustine did not only
derive their knowledge from reflection only, but their
experience of what they reflected upon added conviction to
what they believed and taught.
10oAugustine, 55.
74
Our concern is not to try to place both men on the same
par. For as we have already pointed out in chapter two,
Augustine is highly indebted to Paul for the ideas he tried
to express on original sin. Our concern is simply to
acknowledge the contribution that Paul and Augustine made to
our understanding of the Christian faith. However, a
special consideration is given to the teaching of Augustine
on original sin in view of the way it has shaped the church
understanding of the effect of the First Sin on humankind.
This classic passage of Rom. 5:12-21 is not only a
difficult passage but also a subject of much controversy.
Thus the need to reexamine the passage carefully and in the
light of Scriptural revelation.
Result of Exegesis and Discussion
The results of our study in chapters two and three will
be carefully examined and discussed here. We shall attempt
Jto focus only on those findings that will assist us in our
understanding of the relationship between the sin of the
First Nan and his posterity.
Our results will be evaluated and discussed in respect
to the following issues:
A. What is the meaning of eph hoi?
B. Does the phrase pantes hemarton refer to personal
sins or to a state of sin that spreads to all humankind
through the one sin of Adam?
75
C. Does the phrase "Sin is not taken into account when
there is no lav;" refer to the judgement of God or man's
conscience?
D. Can we prove the reality of original sin by the
universal fact of death, or is death to be understood
by the personal sins of each man and woman?
E. Does the phrase "those who did not sin by breaking a
command, as did Adam" refer to infants who are
incapable of responsible acts or people v/ho, unlike
Adam, have not sinned by transgressing any law that has
been instituted?
In the section that follows we shall attempt to discuss
these questions and to draw logical conclusions where
possible.
A. The Meaning of eph hoi
As already indicated in chapter three this little
phrase has given rise to an enormous volume of discussion,
this is because it is viewed as a key phrase in our
understanding of the doctrine of original sin. The
possibilities are these:
1. To take the hoi as masculine in gender and refer it to
an implied nomos as its antecedent.
2. To take the hoi as masculine and refer it to ho
thanatos.
3. To take the hoi as masculine and refer to enos
anthrSpou, understanding the noun anthropou as a
76
reference to Adam and taking the epi in the sense of
en.
4. To take the h5i as masculine and refer it to henos
anthropou, understanding the noun anthropou as a
reference to Adam and taking the eph h5i in the sense
of "because".
5. To take the hoi as neuter and the phrase eph hoi as
having the sense of "because".
It is important that we resolve the problem of eph hoi
grammatically before we turn to the theological meaning of
the clause. The first, second, and fourth suggestions do
not seem to carry any conviction on exegetical ground.I(,/
The fourth interpretation that takes h5i as masculine
with henos anthropou as its antecedent, and epi as
equivalent to en is specially associated with Augustine,
though it did not originate with him.IOfi
The Latin tradition, which Augustine followed,
interpreted the phrase eph h5i by in quo omnes peccaverunt
and does not necessarily have the meaning of sinning in
Adam, but the Latin tradition later interpreted it in the
sense of sinning in Adam.109 The idea of sinning in Adam an
107S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., "Romans 5:12 - An Exercise in

Exegesis and Theology," in New Dimensions in New Testament Study,
e d s . Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney {Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974)
10SAugustine, 419.
109Lukken, 271.
77
the explicit interpretation of the in quo omnes peccaverunt
of Rom. 5:12, seems to emerge for the first time in Latin
tradition in Ambrosiaster,110 sometime identified with
Hilary. The author of Ambrosiaster is of the opinion that
Paul uses the masculine pronoun deliberately to refer to the
whole humanity.111 All have sinned in Adam as in a
totality. Since Adam himself has been corrupted by sin, all
those who have descended from him are therefore born under
sin. Thus we are all sinners because we descended from
Adam.
This interpretation seems to pave the way for
Augustine's teaching in whom patristic thinking on original
sin was fully developed. In his debate against Pelagians,
Augustine emphasized this clause as referring to Adam. He
says:
Again in the clause which follows "in whom all

have sinned", how cautiously, how rightly, and
ambiguously is the statement expressed! For if
you understand that sin to be meant which by one
man entered into the world, "In which [sin] all
have sinned", it is surely clear enough, that the
sins which are peculiar to every man, which they
themselves commit and which belong simply to them,
mean one thing; and that the one sin, in which and
by which all have sinned, means another thing;
since all were that one man. If, however, it be
not the sin, but that one man that is understood,
"In which [one man] all have sinned", what again
can be plainer than even this clear statement?112
11DIbid.
m Ibid.
U2Augustine, 19.
78
Furthermore he says:
Moreover, if Christ alone is He in whom all men

are justified, on the ground that it is riot simply
the imitation of His example which makes man--just,
but His grace which regenerates men by the Spirit,
then also Adam is the only one in whom all have
sinned, on the ground that it is not the mere
following of his evil example that makes men
sinners, but the penalty which generates through
the flesh.113
Augustine's exegesis of Romans 5:12 indicates that he sees
nothing in this verse but the one sin in which we have all
sinned. This one sin has been transmitted to all of Adam's
posterity by means of procreation and not imitation. And
this procreation as he pointed out is governed by the sinful
impulse of concupiscence. As Lukken observed, Augustine's
interpretation of Romans 5:12 can be regarded as the summing
up of his entire teaching on original sin.11,1 The study
seems to indicate, that the role of the phrase eph hoi has
already been determined by the Latin translation in quo
omnes peccaverunt, "in whom all have sinned".
The classic debate on the meaning of eph hoi has
engaged the minds of Christian scholars for long, but as
Dunn observed, it has more or less been settled in favour of
the meaning "because" or "for this reason."11-' However,
the meaning of this conjunction is understood differently by
some. According to Cranfield, the use of the word hernarton
113 Ibid.
114Lukken, 273.
115Dunn, 273.
79
refers to a collective sin: death has come to all men in
their turn because they all sinned collectively in the

ij
primal transgression of Adam.116 This interpretation seems

<i
to employ the theological substance found in Augustine and
combines it with the explanation of eph hoi as meaning
"because". Therefore, the phrase should be translated;
"through one man sin entered the world and through sin,
death, and thus death has passed to all men because all men
have sinned."117
Johnson objects to the suggestion of Cranfield.118
According to Johnson we may take the h5i as a neuter and the
phrase eph h5i as having the sense of "because". That it is
not enough to say that we participated in Adam's sin either
collectively or individually. The important question is in
what sense have we participated in a realistic or a
represejjative sense.
B. The Meaning of pantes hernarton
Now that the problem of construction has been settled,
we must now look at the whole of v.12 in order to understand
the meaning of pantes hernarton, "in that all sinned". The
question we are seeking to address is to try to find out if
there is any justification in understanding "sin" in the
phrase "because all have sinned" to mean "in Adam" all men
tu,Cranf ield, 277.
117Ibid.
liaLongenecker, 304.
80
have sinned or should it be understood as in the first
phrase of v.12 "sin entered the world: the state of sin that
spread to all through the sin of Adam. To quote Augustine
concerning this:
Again, in the clause which follows, "In which all

have sinned", how cautiously, rightly, and
unambiguously is the statement expressed! . . .
that the sins which are peculiar to everyone,
which they themselves commit and which belong
simply to them, mean one thing; and that the one
sin, in and by which all have sinned, means
another thing; since all were that one man.11"
For Augustine the phrase "in that all sinned" would mean
that in Adam all humankind sinned. Since for him all were
that one man, the implication is that we do not only share
equally with Adam in the first sin, but we have become
equally guilty. This linking of all with Adam is based on
the fact that for Augustine, Adam was the progenitor ofthe
human race.120 In other words, we all share one nature
with Adam, made possible by the power of the concupiscence,
therefore we all sinned in him.
Having decided that hoi is neuter and eph hoi means
"because", Cranfield outlines three interpretations of
pantes hernarton. First, that hernarton may refer not to
peoples' sinning in their own persons but to their
participation in Adam's transgression.121 Second, that
U9Augustine, 19.
120Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter , 89.
121Cranf ield, 278.
81
hernarton may refer to peoples' sinning in their own persons
independently of Adam, though after his example.122 Third,
that hernarton may refer to peoples' sinning in their own
persons but as a result of the corrupt nature inherited from
Adam.123 Cranfield tends to lean heavily on the third
option, in which he thinks hernarton has the same force as in
3:23
In dealing with the phrase pantes hernarton Johnson
suggests that we would have to come to grips with the
problems of realism and representation, and the manner of
imputation.124 This is because Paul failed to discuss the
question as to how the sin of individual human beings is
related to and hence ought properly to be understood vis-a-
vis the sin of Adam and Eve. Thus from the fifth century
A .D . onward theologians proposed different theories about
this relationship. There are alternative theories that have
been suggested in resolving these problems. First, those
who deny any casual relation between Adam's sin and the sin
of the human race. According to those who have held this
view, there is no relations, either logical or neutral,
judicial or physical, between Adam's act and his posterity's
sin. The second is the Pelagian theory which refer to the
words to the actual personal sins of humankind. The third
122Ibid., 282.
I23Ibid.
124Johnson, 306.
82
is the theory of Augustine in which he taught a seminal
identity between Adam and his posterity.
In his own argument Johnson objects to the theory of
realism in favour of the theory of representation. The
theory of realism views the solidarity between Adam and all
humans as natural or seminal. Johnson's objection to
realism is that, even if we should grant that generic
humanity sinned in Adam, we would have no relief from the
problem of an alien guilt. That if punishment is to be
vindicated, the act of sin must be one of conscious self-
determination. Yet according to realism, when Adam sinned,
his posterity as individuals and as "persons" did not exist.
This does not seem to alleviate the problem of justice. The
difficulty in realism is that all have without exception
sinned as Adam did, since they sinned racially in him.
Against this background, Johnson suggests the theory of
representative union and the immediate imputation o f :
sin.125 He says:
The connection between Adam's sin and universal

human sinfulness and death is most lucidly
explicated by the doctrine of immediate
imputation. Adam, our federal representative,
failed his probation and plunged his posterity
into sin, wrath, and judgement, imputed to them
directly, as a result of this fall, all men enter
life "constituted sinners" before God - their only
hope being the imputation of righteousness
provided by God through the saving work of the
125Ibid., 310.
83
last Adam, the federal head of the company of the

elect.12,J
To avoid the problem we have encountered, and to make some
sense out of the rest of the passage it is important to see
the verb hernarton as a simple aorist. This tense usually
refers to a single past action. Had Paul intended to refer
to a continued process of sin, the present and imperfect
tenses were available to him. But he chose the aorist, and
this should be taken at face value. Therefore, if, the sin
of humankind and the sin of Adam are regarded as the same,
it will reduce the problem. There will be no conflict
between verse 12 and verses 15 and 17. Even the potential
problem of verse 14 will be resolved.
The last clause in verse 12 suggests that we were all
involved in some way in Adam's sin; it was in some sense
also our sin. This may be understood in terms of federal
headship as Johnson suggested, but it can also be understood
in terms of natural headship.127 The whole of human nature
has been received from our parent by way of descent from the
first pair of humans. Thus the universality of sin and
depravity are implied.
This raises the question of justice; how can we be held
responsible for the sin we have not committed? The
parallelism that Paul draws in Romans 5 between Adam and
,2fIbid. 313.
127Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985), 637.
Christ in their relationship to us is suggestive. Paul
demonstrated that what each of them did has its effect on
us. Adam's sin brought death, but Christ's act of
righteousness, leads to life. A logical way people have
reasoned is that if sin and guilt of Adam are imputed to us
without a conscious choice on our part, the same would be
true of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. It does
not work that way. We did not choose to be born guilty
sinners but became guilty sinners by virtue of our being
born into this world that has been invaded by sin. It
should be remembered that the Hebrews generally did not

distinguish between sin and guilt until later Judaism, all
the leading words for sin also express guilt.12 This does
not mean that we are all worthless and irresponsible. For
as God is concerned we are worth much to Him, and that is
why He sent His son to die on the cross. By virtue of
Christ's death and resurrection salvation is made accessibl
to anyone that will respond to God's invitation. Vries
concludes with the following observations:
An important consideration is the distinction

between corporate and individual responsibility
for sin. In its early development Israel was very
much influenced by a dynamistic .concept of
corporate guilt, as strikingly appears in the
account of Achan's sin (Joshua 7). Not only was
the guilty man put to death, but all his gods, his
flocks, and his family also perished with him. . .
. It has been mentioned that guilt for sin came to
be felt more personally as Israel's theological
understanding of the real nature of sin developed.
128Emery S. Bucke, ed. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the

Bible. (Nashville, Tennesee: Abingdon Press, 1962), 4:362.
85
To contribute to our understanding of the referent in
our second question, we may have to investigate further the
implications of the law.
C. The Meaning of the Phrase 11Sin is not taken
into account when there is no law."
Augustine understood this phrase to mean God's
Judgement. He asked:
Now what means the phrase, "is not imputed", but
"is ignored", or is not reckoned as sin? Although
the Lord does not Himself regard it as if it had
never been, since it is written: "As many as have
sinned without the Law shall perish without the
Law. ,'12'1
Augustine's reference to that classic verse sheds more light
on his thinking here, that imputation of sin does not
suggest individual guilt or responsibility but the one sin
we all sinned in Adam, and for which we all have been
condemned.130
The Latin word Augustine use is imoutatio, which refers
to the divine attribution of sinfulness to humankind because
of the corruptio haereditaria or the hereditary corruption
of all people.131 The imputation is immediate since it
^Augustine, On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, 19.
noIbid., 23.
m Richard A. Muller Dictionary of Latin and Greek Terms

(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985), 149.
86
refers to our participation in the sin of Adam. This is in
contrast to mediate imputatioxi which is contingent upon the
natural corruption of individual human beings, (ie we are
guilty sinners only, because we ourselves are individually
corrupt) .
y
Some scholars have interpreted the phrase, "sin is not
taken into account when there is no law", to mean that sin
is not taken seriously except under the Mosaic Law.1'-1
This does not deny -the reality and consequences of sin. For
Paul pointed out in Romans 1:32 that even pagans do possess
the knowledge of good and evil and they too are subject to
death.
A key word in this consideration is ellogen and is
rather a commercial term, which means "to charge to
someone's account." This implied the intervention of God to
whom we must give account of our sins. To admit that the
phrase under consideration refers to divine Judgement poses
some difficulty (divine partiality), for earlier in Romans
1:26ff, Paul mentioned God's Judgement in which God
condemned the pagans who do not have the Law. It would seem
rather appropriate for God to punish only those sins that
transgress the Law. Whereas the book of Genesis to which
Paul referred, not only does God punish sin without any lav/
being promulgated beforehand, but he also handed dov/n a Law
containing a warning of death as in the case of Cain, and
132Dunn, 274.
87
consequently the descendants of Noah. One exception is the
case of Abimelech in which the divine revelation is not
intended to make him aware of a law which he may not know,
but to tell him of the danger of breaking it without
knowing.133 Appeal to Abimelech's conscience is in view
here, and does not need the promulgation of the law to
determine what is good or bad. We find a similar idea in
the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans.
To resolve the difficulty between Romans 5:13b and
Genesis, we may suggest that when Paul based his argument on
the fact that a Law must be in existence before sin can be
counted, he has in mind the Torah and the situation of the
Israelites.13,1 From this a general principle can be drawn
which applies to all humankind.
Considering the Jewish though, it was necessary for the
Law to be promulgated for the Israelites to be subjected to
penalties.135. Therefore Paul issued the statement that sin
is not counted when there is no law, and this should be
limited to the Israelites. This does not make the pagans
innocent, for since they know God and the moral Law without
the help of the Mosaic Law, they too are culpable. The
responsibility of each depends on the knowledge that each
has of good " All who sin apart from the law
,33Dubarle, 159.
13''lbid.
13-Ibid., 159-160.
88
apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be
judged by the law." (Romans 2:12) By contrasting the sin of
Adam, which is committed with full knowledge, and the sins
committed before the Law was promulgated suggest that the
absence of the Law does not mean universal ignorance.
There are two distinctions that seem to emerge. First
is the view of sin as a power in human experience from which
no one can be freed, and sin as something for which the
individual can be charged. Here again the two-sidedness of
the human condition within the epoch of Adam comes to
expression: Sin as a given of corruption and guilt and as an
action in which the individual is responsible. The second
distinction is between death as part of human condition from
which the individual cannot escape, and death as a
consequence of the individual's responsible
transgression.130 What we have said so far does not
necessarily answer the fourth question, which we shall now
attempt to do.
D. The Meaning of "Death" in vv. 13-14
,,, ISome see in these verses the idea that personal sins
caused death of all humankind from Adam to Moses.m These
personal sins may not be denied since the absence of the lav/
could mean that people did not recognize them or simply
ignored them. But in spite of this, the reality of death
m Dunn, 275.
137Cranf ield, 277.
89
points to the existence of these sins, which differed from
the sin of Adam, for they did not violate a law. But far
from proving the existence of a state of sin in humanity,
the passage supports the existence of personal sins that can
provide explanation for the mortal condition of
humankind.138
Adam is usually portrayed, based on this passage, as
the cause of sin and death, but it is important to note that
v.17 reproduces the formula found in v.14 "death reigned"
but added "through that one man." And this comes after the
reference to the many sins from which we are justified by
grace. The point that is at stake here is that in v.17 Paul
identified the many sins in order to explain death in v.14.
And rather than focusing on the many sins he attributed the
cause of death to one sin alone. We must therefore
understand v.14 in the light of v.17. Thus death reigned
from Adam to Moses through the one sin. These two verses
clearly demonstrate the inheritanceof sin and death from
the First Man, and this death is the wages of sin, and the
reign of death from Adam to Moses is not due only to
personal culpability; something else must be at work.
The response may be to attribute death either to the
sin of Adam alone, or to the state of sin that we have
inherited from him. It is also possible to view the state
138Dubarle, 163.
90
of sin and the acts, which are the consequences, as one and
the same.
The term "all sinned" demonstrates the influence of the
first sin, which goes to show that sin existed in the world
before Moses, not only as an influence, but as a reality.
And sins of the many are not always seen as the
transgression of Adam because they did not sin like those
who had received the law, they are understood as evil deeds
that are actually committed. Sanday commenting on this
says :
When I say "they sinned" I must insert a word of

qualification. In the strict sense of full
responsibility they could not sin: for that
attaches only to sin against the law, and they had
as yet no law to sin against. Yet they suffered
the full penalty of sin. All through the long
period which intervened between Adam and Mosaic
legislation, the tyrant Death held sway; even
though those who die had not sinned, as Adam had,
in violation of an express command. This proved
that something deeper was at work: and that could
only be the transmitted effect of Adam's sin. It
is this transmitted effect of a single act which
made Adam a type of the coming Messiah.139
In summary we must recognize that v.12 does not suggest a
double cause of death; caused by Adam's sin and individual
sins, rather what we find is a single cause of sin, that of
Adam, which led to evil conduct in all of humankind and
consequently death.1"10
139William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and

Exeqetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T .
and T. Clark, 1980), 131.
140Morris, 233.
91
E. The Referent in the Phrase "Who did not sin by

breaking the command"
Augustine sees in this phrase infants and this implied
in his statement:
Therefore, "death reigned from Adam unto Moses . .

even in those who had not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression", that is, who
had not yet sinned of their own individual will,
as Adam did, but had drawn from him original
sin.141
When Augustine mentioned individual will it is normally with
reference to adults who are able to choose between what is
good and evil. Elsewhere he says:
Unless, therefore, we obtain not simply

determination of will, which is freely turned in
this direction and that, and has its place amongst
natural good: which a bad man may use badly.142
We can infer from this that Augustine saw in the phrase who
did not sin by breaking a command" a reference to infants.
And it was on this basis he taught infant baptism for the
remission of original sin.143
The use of hamartano in v.14 seems to suggest that
there is a sinning which is not a transgression in the sense
of breaking or violating an expressed command, but
nevertheless a responsible act whose result is death.
If this understanding is correct, Paul may be meaning to
attribute to humans before Moses some vague and general
141Augustine, 20.
142Ibid., 5b.
143Ibid., 41.
92
knowledge of God's will. But such a supposition will be in
violation of the clear implications of Romans l:18ff.
Rather, it would seem likely that Paul has for the moment
forgotten the natural law and is therefore trying to deal
with a logical, difficulty which, granted the existence of
law, would not exist at all. Paul does not always think of
sin simply as transgression, sometimes he views sin as a
demonic power which has the power to reduce humans to a kind
of slaver, and of death as having two aspects: both the
wages or inevitable end of the slavery and also the
judgement of God upon the transgression. It is clear,
therefore, that Paul would have been able to understand the
mere fact of the prevalence of death from Adam to Moses
without reference to transgression at all, but his statement
in v.12 that "death spread to all men because all men
sinned" indicates that he is here thinking of death as the
punishment of transgression.14'
1
In discussing the matter of the law and the effect it is
having on humankind, Paul does not have infants in mind.
There is no thought of children who die in infancy.145 To
be sure there is no direct command to baptize infants even
though they begin life with both the corrupted nature and
the guilt that are consequences of sin. But there is also
144Nolan B. Harmon, ed., The Interpreter's Bible. (Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 1954), 9:464.
145Dunn, 27 6.
93
no prohibition. Therefore, the propriety of infant baptism
must be determined upon strictly theological considerations.
Infant baptism has been practiced by the church in an
unbroken tradition from the third century until the
Reformation, when the Reformation sects led by the
Anabaptists renounced the practice and proclaimed the
necessity of "believers' baptism". They opined that what
was not explicitly enjoined in Scripture should not be
practiced.146
Thus they insisted that there was no scriptural ground for
the baptism of infants and also that the profession of
personal faith was demanded in Scripture from those who were
to be baptized. This principle of personal faith in Christ
and of conversion experience became a matter of greater
theological importance.
On the other hand, advocates of infant baptism insist
that the subjective response of the parents and the church
justifies the practice.147 Augustine alluded to this when
he said the faith of Christian parents could save the life
of a baptized infant.148
Of the two views presented above, the believers'
baptism has received wider support. One of the reasons for
146Donald G. Bloesch, "Sin, " in The Evangelical Dictionary of

Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1985), 172.
147Ibid.
148Augustine, On Original Sin, 29
94
accepting believers baptism stems from the command that
Jesus gave the apostles and this command underlies the
institution of baptism. In Matt. 28:19 when Jesus commanded
the apostles to go baptize, he told them first to make
disciples and said nothing about infants, which suggests
that preaching must always precede baptism, for it is as a
result of the word preached that disciples are made and not
by sacrament. Baptism can be administered only when the
individual has responded to the word in penitence and in
faith, and is usually followed by detailed instruction in
discipleship.
The apostles understood this teaching, for on the day
of Pentecost, Peter told the conscience-stricken people to
repent and be baptized, but did not mention any special
conditions for infants who cannot repent (Acts 2:38).
Again, when the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, it was on the
confession of faith (Acts 8:36). In the baptism of the
whole household, it was evident they either believed or
received an endowment of the Spirit (Acts 10:45; 16:32-33).
There is no mention of any other type of baptism. The
meaning of baptism which Paul developed in Romans 6 supports
this argument. Our identification with Christ's death,
burial and resurrection is solidly on the basis of
repentance and faith. To an infant who cannot hear the word
to make the appropriate decision, this truth becomes
meaningless. It is only the confessing believer that can
understand the meaning of this and its implications on
personal life. The individual will also have a deeper
appreciation for what Christ has done for all humanity. To
introduce the idea of another type of baptism will distort
the meaning of baptism.
As already mentioned, there is no direct prohibition of
infant baptism in the New Testament. If infant baptism is
to be observed, it must be carried out as obviously
commanded and practiced, rather than to rely on exegetical
or theological inference for a different administration.140
For example, those who advocate infant baptism argue
that Christ's blessing of the children shows that the gospel
is also for little ones and that it is our responsibility to
introduce them to Christ. Augustine also shares this
opinion.150 But nothing is said about administering
baptism to infants. Again, the argument that the children
of Christians enjoy certain privileges called "holy" by God
(1 Cor. 7:14) says nothing in connection with infant baptism
or their personal identification with Jesus Christ
especially in his death and resurrection.
The reference to the household baptism of Acts does not
provide any basis either. Even though some of the
households may have included infants, it is possible that
149Donald G. Bloesch, "Sin," in The Evangelical Dictionary of

Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1985), 172.
150Augustine, 29.
96
they were present when the word was preached, but there is
no indication that any infant was actually baptizes. To
think otherwise would only be making wring inference.
To equate circumcision in the old covenant with infant
baptism will not be in harmony with the Scriptures. Though
we may find some similarities between the two the difference
between them is great. For example, the fact that
circumcision was given only to infant boys on a particular
day does not mean infant baptism should be given to all
children sometime in infancy. They belong to different
dispensation. In instituting the Old Testament practice of
circumcision through Israel, God is simply preparing the
grounds for when He will form a people for himself out of
all the nations of the world. This will be based on
spiritual regeneration and not natural birth.
The reasons that have been advanced against the
institutionalization of infant baptism show not only the
weakness and inadequacy of infant baptism as a basis for the
constructing of the doctrine of original sin, but also the
danger of misleading the church. Again, Augustine was not
consistent in his view on infant baptism. For example, he
taught that the unbaptized infants of a pious mother are
damned while the infant of an enemy of Christ
indiscriminately baptized will be saved.151 There is no
uoubt that the practice of infant baptism in the early
151Ibid., 25.
97
church led Augustine to see the connection between infant
baptism and original sin. This shows that his exegesis was
influenced by certain established categories. Therefore
what we see in this verse is humankind who have not, like
Adam, transgressed any law that has been instituted but are
guilty sinners. It is not necessary to be an exact imitator
of Adam to be a sinner in Adam's likeness. His sin had
effect on the totality of humankind thereby corrupting the
nature we receive from birth which tends toward evil.
Chapter Five
Summary and Conclusion
The purpose of this thesis was to examine the teaching
of Augustine on original sin based on the teaching of Paul
in Romans 5:12-21 with the aim to discover if this teaching
as understood and taught by Augustine should be the model
for the church today.
In order to understand the development of Augustine's
doctrine on original sin we examined the historical
background that helped shape Augustine's ideas on original
sin. As the study demonstrated in chapter one, the
patristic period in which Augustine lived and worked was
marked by theological reflections and literary activities.
The environment forced the church to reflect critically on
the faith. This attitude later gave rise to different
interpretation on matters concerning the faith, and was
compounded by the fact that theology was just at its
formative stage of development. This lack of doctrinal
homogeneity and other changes finally saw the separation
between the church in the West and in the East, and the
reconciliation between Church and Empire.
The study shows that Christian theology did not take
place in a vacuum or in abstract reflection. Thus, we can
understand the development of Augustine's doctrine of
original sin from this perspective. Our study in chapter
one shows that until the time of Augustine, tradition spoke
98
99
of the sin of Adam and Eve and the primeval fall but did
not emphasize the consequences or implications of Adam's sin
on his posterity. But at the close of the second century
and at the beginning of the third century the problem of sin
was beginning to receive proper address.
The doctrine of original sin received its classical
formulation from Augustine. He sets out to counter the
Pelagian belief that freewill, supported by ascetic
practices, was sufficient for the living of a full Christian
life and the securing of eternal life.152 This
circumstance is the hermeneutical key to our understanding
of the doctrine of original sin.
Pelagianism, which in theology was designated a
heretical position, goes back to the British monk Pelagius.
The doctrine that Pelagius taught is repeatedly cited by
Augustine:
It would be too long if I were to seek to maintain

everything which the holy Ambrose said and wrote
against this heresy of the Pelagians, which was to
arise so long afterwards; not indeed with a view
to answer them, but with a view to declare the
Catholic faith and to build up men in it.153
Augustine's statement quoted above shows that it was his
intention that the doctrine of original sin, which he
defended, be understood as that belief held by the whole
church (though East and West were divided on this). It was
152Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians. 433.
l53I bid.
also meant to build up humankind in the faith. However,
Augustine's rebuttal of the Pelagians was not concerned
about the emphasis that he laid on freewill, but rather
that, emphasizing freewill, he denied the ruin of the race
and the necessity of grace. When he spoke against the
Pelagians Augustine said:
It is, however, to be feared lest all these and

similar testimonies of Holy Scripture (and
undoubtedly there are many of them) in the
maintenance of the freewill, be understood in such
a way as to leave no room for God's assistance and
grace in leading a godly life and a good
conversation, to which the eternal reward is
d u e .154
It was upon this assumption, that humankind has no need of
supernatural assistance in its striving to obey
righteousness, that the greatest stress was laid in the
controversy. Augustine was most of all disturbed that the
grace of God was denied and opposed. There is no denying
the fact that the Pelagians also spoke of "grace" but they
understand grace to mean the natural endowment of humankind
with freewill. But to aid humankind in the proper use of
the freewill humankind was given the law and the teaching of
the gospel and above all the forgiveness of past sins in
Christ and Christ's holy example. Referring to this heresy,
Augustine says:
But they allege that such attainments are not made

without God's help on this account, namely,
because God created man with the free choice of
his will, and, by giving him commandments, teaches
154Augustine, On Grace and Freewill, 446.
101
him, Himself, how man ought to live; and indeed

assists him, in that He takes away his ignorance
by instructing him in the knowledge of what he
ought to avoid and to desire in his actions.155
For the Pelagians these external helps - namely the Law, the
Gospel, Christ's forgiveness and His example - only render
it easier for humankind to do what otherwise they had
plenary ability for doing. This contention is based on the
freedom of man from any taint, corruption, or weakness due
to sin. The extreme view that the Pelagians held was that
humankind does not need help and that Adam's sin had no
effect on his posterity except for his bad example.
Pelagius says:
"Everything good, and everything evil on account

of which we are either laudable or blameworthy, is
not born with us but done by us: For we are born
not fully developed, but with a capacity for
either conduct; and we are procreated as without
virtue, so also without vice; and previous to the
action of our own proper will, that alone is in
men which God has formed."156
The statement above shows that what constitutes the
essential characteristic of Pelagianism is the view that sin
is not to be regarded if it does not proceed from a will,
which in their estimation is essentially free. When this
principle is applied to the classic doctrine of original
sin, it would indicate that original sin is not to be
regarded as sin. This is since it did not proceed from the
will, but is founded on the inertia of nature. It was this
155Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, 84.
156Augustine, On Original Sin, 241.
102
new teaching on humankind's condition, powers, and self-
dependence for salvation that forced Augustine to reconsider
the whole teaching as to humankind and their salvation.
Our study indicated that Augustine's argument on
original sin was based largely on the practice of child
baptism with its exorcism and in the clause in quo omnes
peccaverunt of Rom. 5:12. The arguments that we have
advanced against the institutionalization of infant baptism
show not only the weakness and inadequacy of infant baptism
as a basis for the constructing of the doctrine of original
sin, but also the danger of misleading the church. Again
Augustine was not consistent in his view of infant baptism.
The practice of infant baptism in the early church must have
led Augustine to see the connection between infant baptism
and original sin. Smith agreed with this conclusion when he
said:
The catalysts to the development of this doctrine

in the West do not lie in pure speculative
thought, but rather in the direction of the
church's life and practice. That is, convention
determined creed. The primary concerns of the
Latin fathers were the practical matters of the
church. One may therefore use the practice of the
church, particularly infant baptism and penance,
to provide some direction in an investigation of
the development of the doctrine of sin.157
Augustine's second argument in support of original sin
is based on the clause in quo omnes -peccaverunt, "in whom
all sinned". In his struggles against the Pelagians,
1S7Smith, 29.
103
Augustine attached exceptional importance to this clause as
a proof of original sin.158 The history of the exegesis of
Rom. 5:12 is traced to Ambrosiaster of Hilary to whom
Augustine turns for his exegesis. He credited Ambrosiaster
when he said:
For thus also the sainted Hilary understood what

is written "wherein all have sinned"; for he says
"wherein" that is, in Adam, all have sinned. Then
he adds, it is manifest that all have sinned in
Adam, as it were, in the mass. For he himself was
corrupted by sin, and all whom he begat were born
under sin. When he wrote this, Hilary, without
any ambiguity, indicated how we should understand
the words "wherein all have sinned."159
For Hilary and Augustine, the phrase "in whom all have
sinned" should be understood to refer to Adam. This
resulted in the doctrine that "in Adam" all humankind
sinned. It is the sinning of the entire human race in Adam
in which by implication we share both in the sin and guilt
of Adam. The one sin of Adam became the sin of all
humanity.
The solidarity of the entire human race with Adam's sin
is thus connected with the link between the whole of
humanity and Adam. This linking of all humanity with Adam
is based on Augustine's conception of Adam as the progenitor
of the human race. Thus our solidarity with Adam's sin is
immediately connected with our natural descent from Adam,
158Augustine, 419.
159Ibid., 420.
104
and is founded not on mere natural birth but on procreation
that is governed by the sinful impulse of concupiscence.
The decisive role that Romans 5:12 has played in the
traditional teaching on original sin was determined by the
Latin translation in quo omnes peccaverunt, but some studies
have shown that this reading was based on a faulty Greek
edition, and the Latins being less familiar with Greek were
not able to detect the problem.1110 This was why we had to
investigate the clause more closely. In exegeting the
classic passage of Romans 5:12-21, we had to put it in its
proper context. As was indicated in chapter three, Paul's
concern in this passage is not to trace the origin of sin,
but to show the absolute character, the fullness and the
finality of the salvation that has come to us by means of
God's supernatural grace, and how by faith each person can
appropriate this gift.
To show the universal effect of the grace of God, Paul
recalled the hopeless condition of humankind mired in sin,
in which this saving act of God changed our circumstance
completely. This is the whole argument of the apostle in
Romans 5:12-21, the Locus classicus of the doctrine of
original sin.
Romans 5:12-21, especially the last clause in verse 12
tells us that we were involved in some way in Adam's sin; in
a sense it could also mean our sin. We should admit a
1G0Rondet, 129.
105
difficulty here that Paul did not provide us with enough
data to make a decision on the exact nature of that union.
The nature of this union between Adam and his posterity has
been a subject of debate, but Hodge summarized the debate
very well when he said:
It is a matter of minor importance how he

understood the nature of the union between Adam
and his posterity; whether he held the
representative, or the realistic theory; or
whether he ultimately sided for Traducianism as
against Creationism, or for the latter as against
the former. On these points his language is
confused and undecided. It is enough that he held
that such was the union between Adam and his race,
that the whole human family stood their probation
in him and fell with him in his first-
transgression . . . On this point he is perfectly
explicit.161
As Buswell observed, there are points in which Augustine
seems to suggest a realistic doctrine that all humans were
in Adam, and that his sin was their sin, being the act of
generic humanity.162 But as Hodge pointed out, Augustine
was not consistent in his view of the imputation of Adam's
sin. He pointed out five different interpretations put
forward by Augustine at different times, and in conclusion
he said "if one be valid, the others are invalid. "lb3
Buswell also noted that:
161Charles Hodge. Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 2:162.
162James Oliver Buswell. A Systematic Theology of the

Christian Religion. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1962), 1:304.
163Hodge, 304-305.
106
One view clearly and repeatedly brought out by

Augustine is that "As we are justified by the
righteousness of Christ, it is not incongruous
that we should be condemned by the sin of Adam."
Augustine never remotely suggest that we were
substantively in Christ when he died for our
sins. "164
Hodge finally concludes:
From this it is plain, {1.) That Augustine had no clear

and settled conviction as to the nature of the union
between Adam and his race which is the ground of the
imputation of his sin to his posterity, anymore than he
had about the origin of the soul; and (2.) That no
particular theory on that point, whether the
representative or realistic, can properly be made an
element of Augustinianism, as a historical and church
form of doctrine.165
However, one fact common to both realists and federalists
needs to be stressed? both seem to agree that all humans are
guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve in addition to being
guilty for sins that individuals may have consciously and
voluntarily committed. There is no doubt that to affirm the
universality of sin and depravity is not difficult, but to
settle on the relationship of the sin of Adam and Eve to our
sins is indeed difficult, as the man theories would seem to
suggest.166
The question is this: How do all human beings sin?
Some of the possible answers are; we sin by being united
with Adam as our progenitor, we sin through Adam as our
164Buswell, 305.
lb5Hodge, 164.
166James Leo Garrett. Systematic Theology: Biblical,

Historical and Evangelical {Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1990), 1:493.
107
covenantal representative, we sin by willful sins growing
out of a fallen nature inherited from Adam, and we sin by
following the bad example of Adam in sinning. To conclude
that one of these possible answers is undoubtedly Paul's
intention in v.12 may not be sufficient on the basis of
exegesis of Romans 5:12-24 alone. As already pointed out,
Paul did not provide us with enough data to make a decision
on the exact nature of that union.
Even though Romans 5:12-21 may be lacking in some
details, Paul does not seem to suggest that all human beings
will actually and effectually be save through Christ, or
indicate in the passage itself how the individual humans
will appropriate the salvation that God has made available
in Christ. In the same manner, Paul did not settle for his
day and for all time to come the question as to how the sin
of individual human beings is related to the sin of Adam and
Eve.
Concerning sin, Paul simply says that it entered the
world through one man and came to all men. Its power of
expansion reached all humankind, and through it death came
to all men. The idea of universal death suggests spiritual
death, as a sign of loss of life of Communion with God. But
there is also the idea of physical death, from which Christ,
by reason of his death and resurrection, delivered us
(Hebrews 2:15).
108
We indicated in chapter three that the last phrase in
Romans 5:12, which has the sense of "because" or
"considering that" is generally accepted. Through the sin
of Adam death and sin began to rule in the world, and by
their power they brought humankind under their rule.
Because people were sinners, all became liable to death.
Therefore, the idea of a passive participation of all Adam's
descendants in the sin of Adam may not be far from Paul's
mind. The verb hamartano also suggests active
participation. The whole idea that has emerged is this:
That all humankind, after Adam, sinned and are subject to
death because all have sinned in Adam, and also committed
sinful deeds because of the corrupt nature that has been
inherited. Humankind's sinful nature and deeds stand
opposed to Christ's work of righteousness, and He has now
replaced the reign of death in the lives of those who have
acknowledged Him.
Conclusion
The research presented from chapter one to chapter five
has the following implications.
1. Augustine's teaching that we all "sinned in Adam" was
based on a misinterpretation of Romans 5:12. He
changed the statement "because all sinned" to "in whom
all sinned". But the idea that Augustine wants to
convey can be expressed more "federally" in terms of
the biblical idea of covenant-relationship with God.
109
The sin of Adam both in respect of sinful corruption
and of guilt was represented as imputed to his
descendants, not on the ground, as in Augustine's
representation, that humankind were in Adam, but on the
ground that he was our head and representative before
God.
2. The inheritance of Adam's sin means that while
humankind are born in sin and are guilty before God
from birth, it is also true that all humankind reaching
the age of responsibility sin overtly themselves. Even
if humankind had not had guilt imputed to them through
Adam, they would still become guilty as the result of
overt sin and would fall under the condemnation of God.
We must allow for the conscious and voluntary decision
on the part of each person. This happens when we
accept or approve of our corrupt nature, and is usually
the result of the Gospel which makes us aware of our
corrupt nature and tendency towards sin. At that point
we may choose to abhor the sinful nature and obtain
God's forgiveness or simply ignore it and live in the
guilt of that sin. Unless man is in some real sense
free, the concept of sin becomes mechanical and
meaningless.
3. We can rightly infer on the basis of our exegesis in
Romans 5:12-21 that each human that is born into the
world becomes tainted with the sinful nature with its
concomitant guilt. The only person that was absolutely
free of this corrupt nature was Jesus Christ, since he
was born of the Holy Spirit.
4. No human that is born under the new covenant can
automatically share in the gift of eternal life without
a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This
relationship with Jesus Christ is based on the
principle of justification by faith.
5. Thus it will be misleading and unbiblical to teach that
baptism (of any type) can remove original sin and its
guilt. The status of infants and those who never reach
moral competence is a difficult question. It seems
although they have inherited a sinful nature (Psalm
51:5), the Lord does not condemn them to hell (Matt.
18:3; 19:14; 2 Sam. 12:23). Therefore it would be
difficult to think of them as sinful, condemned and
lost.
5. Even though we have been saved from the power of sin
through the cross, we are yet to be delivered from the
presence of sin. This is why we would continue to
experience the sorrow of living in a sinful world.
Christ, knowing that all humankind are sinners, made
his grace available to us to keep us until our
salvation has been perfected (Hebrews 9:28)
7. The question stated at the beginning of this research is
hereby confirmed, that Augustine's model of original
I ll
sin based on his exegesis in Romans 5:12-21 may not be
a good model for us today. One weakness of Augustine's
model that the research has demonstrated, is its
failure to accommodate the individual action in the
whole problem of sin thereby overstating the condition
of humankind's sinfulness. Any biblical doctrine of
sin must not only acknowledge the inevitability of sin,
but also the individual responsibility in sin. The two
theories have to be kept in a balance to avoid the
extreme of augustine on one hand, and the extreme of
Pelagius on the other hand. We cannot disregard either
one and hope to remain biblical. Garrett concludes
this beautifully when he says:
Whatever conclusion be adopted, it should make a

place for a sinful nature as well as sinful deeds,
should see sin both individually and socially, and
should present the consequences of progitorial sin
in such a way that we humans today can be aware of
all that for which we are responsible.167
167Garrett, 493.
Bibliography
Augustine, Saint. Four Anti-Pelagian Writings. Translated by-
John A. Mourent. Washington: Catholic University of
America Press, 1992.
___________. On Romans. Translated by Paul Fredrikson Landes.
California: Scholar Press, 1982.
Baker, J.F. An Introduction to the Early History of
Christian Doctrine. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd, 1962.
Baker, Kenneth, ed. The Wycliff Exegetical Commentary.
Chicago: Moody Press, 19 91.
Berardino, Angelo D i . ed. Encyclopedia of the Early Church.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953.
___________. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1937.
Berkouwer, G.C. Studies in Dogmatics: S i n . Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1980.
Bettenson, Henry, ed. The Latter Christian Fathers. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press, 197 0.
Bloesch, Donald G. Essentials of Evangelical Theology: God,
Authority and Salvation. Vol. 1. New York: Harper and
Row Publishers, 1978.
Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1971.
112
113
Brunner Emil. The Christian Doctrine of Creation and
Redemption. Vol 2. Translated by Olive W y o n . London:
Lutterworth Press, 1952.
Bube, Richard H. To Every Man an Answer: A Systematic Study
of the Scriptural Basis of Christian Doctrine.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.
Bucke, Emery Stevens, ed. The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible. Vol. 4 Nashville, Tennesee: Abingdon
Press, 19 62.
Buswell, James Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the
Christian Religion. Vol. 1 Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1962.
Cairns, David. A System of Christian Doctrine. Edinburgh:
The Saint Andrew Press, 1979.
Cauthen, Kenneth. Systematic Theology: A Modern Protestant
Approach. Toronto: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1986.
Charles, R.H. ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepiqripha of the OT
in English. Vol.1-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Chadwick, Henry. Augustine. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1986.
Cohen, S.S. Judaism: A Wav of L i f e . New York: Schocken
Books, 1965.
Cohse, Bernhard. A Short History of Christian Doctrine: From
the First Century to the Present. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1980.
114
Darlap, Adolf, ed. Sacrament 11111 M u n d i : An Encyclopedia of
Theology. Vol.2 Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1988.
Davis, W.D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. London: S.P.C.K.,
1965.
Dubarle, A.M. The Biblical Doctrine of Original S i n .
Translated by E.M. Stewart. New York: Harder and
Harder, 19 64.
Dunn, James D.G. Romans 1 -8. Dallas, Texas: Word Books,
1988 .
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: baker Book House, 19 84.
Eliede, Mircea. ed. The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.
Emerton, J.A. and C.E.B. Cranfield, eds. The International
Critical Commentary. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. and T.
Clark, 1975.
Emery, Bancroft, ed. Christian Theology Systematic and
Biblical. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academic Books, 1976.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985.
Ferguson, Everett, ed. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.
New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1990.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. ed. Augustinianism. Downer's Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1988.
Former, Paul. ed. The Best in Theology. Chicago: Carol
Stream, 1988.
115
Frederik, Grant C. Ancient Judaism and the New Testament.
London: Oliver and Boyd, 1960.
Garrett, James Leo. A Systematic Theology: Biblical,
Historical and Evangelical. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
Garry, Patricia Mary. Saint Augustine Against the
Academicians. Milwaukee: Marguette University Press,
1973 .
Geisler, Norman L. ed. What Augustine Says. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982.
Gonzalez, Justo L. Christian Thought Revisited. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1970.
___________ . A History of Christian Thought: Form Augustine
to the Eve of the Reformation. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1971.
Gorday, Peter. Principles o Patristic Exegesis.Toronto:
The Edwin Mellen Press, 1988.
Greenslade, S.L. ed. Early Latin Theology. Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1975.
Haag, Herbert. Is Original Sin in Scripture?.New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1969.
Harmm, Nolan B. ed. The Interpreters Bible. Vol. 9.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954.
Harrison, R.K. ed. Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian
Ethics. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987.
116
Henry, Carl F.H. ed. Basic Christian Doctrines. Grar'
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.
Henry, Carl F.H. ed. Fundamentals of the Faith. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theolocrv. Vol. 2 Grand Rapids:
Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
Hodgson, Peter C. and Robert H. King, e d s . Christian
Theology: An Introduction to its Traditions and Tasks.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Hopkins, Charles. Systematic Theolocrv. Vol. 2 Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
Jacobs, Henry Eyster. A Summary of the Christian Faith.
Philadelphia: The United Lutheran Publication House,
1905.
Jewett, Robert. Paul's Anthropological Terms. Netherlands:
Leiden E. J. Brill, 1971.
Johnson, Alan F. and Robert E. Webber. What Christians
Believe: A Biblical and Historical Summary. Grand
Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited
by Geoffrey W. Bromily. Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1980.
Kaufman, Gordon D. Systematic Theology: A Historical
Perspective. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1968.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper
and Row Publishers, 197 8.
Knudson, Albert C. The Doctrine of Redemption. New York:
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1933.
Komonchek, Joseph, ed. The New Dictionary of Theology.
Wilmington: Michael Glezier, Inc., 1987.
Leitch, Addison. Interpreting Basic Theology. New York:
Channel Press, Inc., 1961.
Lindsell, Harold and Charles J. Woodbridge. A Handbook of
Christian Truth. New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1975.
Lightfoot. J.B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Grand
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Exposition of Chapter 5 Assurance
Romans. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1971.
Longenecker, Richard N., and Merrill C. Tenney, e d s . New
Dimensions in New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.
Lukken, G.M. Original Sin in the Roman Liturgy. Netherlands
Lenden E.J. Brill, 1973.
MacDonald, William J. ed. New Catholic Encyclopedia.
Toronto: McGraw Hill Books, 1987.
Machen, Gresham J. The Christian View of M a n . London: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1969.
Macquarrie, John. Principles of Christian Theology. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1943-1966.
118
Markus, R.A. Secularism: History and Society in the Theology
of St. Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1970.
Mays, James L. ed. Harper Bible Commentary. Toronto:
Harper and Row, 1988.
McNeill, John T. ed. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian
Religion. Vols. 1-2. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1977.
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An
Introduction to Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.
Moody, Dale. The Word of Truth. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1990.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1988.
Moss, Claude Beaufort. The Christian Faith: An
Introduction to Dogmatic Theology. London: S.P.C.K.,
1957 .
Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of
Doctrinal Theology for Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen.
St. Louis, MO.: Concordia Publishing House, 1934.
Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological
Terms. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 19 64.
119
__________ . The Imputation of Adam's Si n . Grand Rapids:
Wm B. Eerdmans, 1959.
Neibuhr, Reinhold. The Nature and Destiny of M a n . Vol. 1
New York: Scribner's Sons, 1964.
Neve, J.L. A History of Christian Thought. Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1946.
Oates, Whitney J. ed. Basic Writings of Saint Augustine.
New York: Random House Publishers, 1948.
Oesterley, W.O.E. The Jews and Judaism During the Greek
Period. New York: Nennikat Press, 197 0.
Olshausen, Hermann. Studies in the Epistles to the Romans.
Minneapolis: Klock and Klock Christian Publishers,
1983 .
Orr, James. God's Image in M a n . Grand Rapids: Wm B.
Eerdmans, 1948.
Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve and the Serpent. New York: Random
House, 1988.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. Development of Christian Doctrine: Some
Historical Prolecromena. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1969.
Petry, Ray C. ed. A History of Christianity: Readings in
the History of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1990.
Rahner, Karl. ed. Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise
Sacramentum Mundi . New York: The Seabury Press, 1978.
120
Ramsdell, Edward T. The Christian Perspective. New York:
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1972.
Richardson, Alan. Ed. A Dictionary of Christian Theology.
London: SCM Press Ltd., 1972.
Richardson, Alan and John Bowden, e d s . The Westminster
Dictionary of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1983.
Rigby, Paul. Original Sin in Augustine's Confessions.
Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1987.
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-
Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writing of the
Fathers Down to A.D. 3 25. Vols. 1-3. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1885.
Robertson, D.W. On Christian Doctrine: Saint Augustine. New
York: The Bobbs Merill Company, 1958.
Robinson, H.W. Christian Doctrine of M a n . Edinburgh: T.
and T. Clark, 1926.
Rondet, Henri. Original Sin: The Patristical and Theological
Background. Shannon, Ireland: Ecclesia Press, 1967.
Ryrie, Charles C. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1972.
Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. eds. A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,
1980.
121
Schaff, Philip, ed. The Writings of Augustine in The Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vols. 1-8. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956
Shaw, John Mackintosh. Christian Doctrine: A One Volume
Outline. London: Lutterworth Press, 1957.
Sheldon, Henry C. System o Christian Doctrine. New York:
The Methodist Book Concern, 1903.
Smart, Ninian and Steven Konstantine. Christian Systematic
Theology: In a World Context. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991.
Smith, David L. With willful Intent: A Theology of S i n .
Wheaton: Victor Books, 1994.
Starnes, Colin. Augustine's Conversion. Toronto: Wilfred
Laurier Press, 1990.
Stevens, William Wilson. Doctrines of the Christian
Religion. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967
Tenant, F .R . The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and of
Original S i n . New York: Schocken Books, 1903.
Thomas, Griffith W. H. The Principles of Theology.
Toronto: Longman-Green and Co., 1930.
Williams, N.P. The Ideas of the Fall and of Original S i n .
London: Longman-Green and Co. Ltd., 1927.
Yarnold, Edward. The Theology of Original S i n .^Dame: Fides
Publisher, 1971.

Sule - Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin As Based On Romans 5.12-21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sule - Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin As Based On Romans 5.12-21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Library Bibliotheque nationale

O ur tile N otre t& e re n c e

The quality of this microform is La qualite de cette microforme

Some pages may have indistinct La qualite dimpression de

Reproduction in full or in part of La reproduction, meme partielle,

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of

PROVIDENCE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

in Partial Fulfilment of the

MASTER OF ARTS IN THEOLOGY

O ur tit# N o ire tM & c o c e

The author has granted an Lauteur a accorde une licence

The author retains ownership of Lauteur conserve la propriete du

Seminary Dean: f\ Yeta? cr/ > 6 _________

This work is dedicated to Joyce and Ivah

Introduction ......................... '............... 1

The Patristic Era and Its View of Original Sin . . 5

Original Sin in Augustine ......... 21

A Biographical Sketch of Augustine ............... 21

The Meaning and Nature of Original S i n ........ 27

The Transmission of Original S i n ............. 33

The Effects of Original S i n .................. 43

Chapter Three .......................................... 45

Original Sin in S t . P a u l ...................... 45

Development of the Idea of Sin in Judaism . . . . 45

Purpose of Romans 5 .......................... 52

An Exegetical Consideration of Romans 5:12-21 . . 54

A. Sin in Humanity vv. 1 2 - 1 4 .................. 54

B. Dissimilarity Between Christ and Adam vv.15-17 63

C. Christ and Adam in Comparison vv.18-19 . . . . 67

D. The Purpose of the Law vv.2 0 - 2 1 ........... 70

An Evaluation of Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin

based on Romans 5 : 1 2 - 2 1 ....................... 72

A Comparison of Paul and Augustine................. 72

Result of Exegesis and Discussion ................ 74

A. The Meaning of eph h o i 75

B. The Meaning of pantes h e m a r t o n ............ . 79

C. The Meaning of the Phrase "Sin is not taken into

account when there is no law. " 85

D. The Meaning of "Death" in vv. 1 3 - 1 4 ............ 88

E. The Referent in the Phrase "Who did not sin by

breaking the command" ........................ 91

Summary and C o n c l u s i o n ................ 98

God's plan in creating mankind was to have a

brought condemnation upon all humanity. The Bible is the

story of how god is seeking to bring mankind back into a

relationship with Him.

In order to appreciate God's redemptive plan, it is

necessary that we come to grips with the problem of sin.

Beginning with the Patristic era, and the centuries that

followed, we see frantic attempts at understanding the

problem of sin in humanity. Today, it seems, very little

interest is expressed in the theology of sin. it is this

deficiency that inspired the researcher to undertake such a

study and to hope that it will draw attention to the

significance of this doctrine on sin.

The researcher wishes to acknowledge the tremendous

help and support he received in the course of writing this

thesis. First I thank professor David L. Smith, under whom

this topic was chosen and carefully researched. Not only

did he arouse in me a passion for truth but showed me how to

do theology. Second, I thank professor Terry Tiessen for

his helpful advice and godly influence. Third, I must thank

the elders and members of Grace Bible Church for their