Is Augustine’s teaching on Original sin wrong?
Intro: To assess whether Augustine’s teaching on original sin is wrong we must
clarify original sin as the corruption of human nature that makes humans want to
sin. St Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin has been profoundly influential in
shaping Christian theology, particularly in Western Christianity. Yet, there are
compelling reasons to argue Augustine’s teaching of Original sin is deeply flawed
and untenable in the 21st century. This essay argues that Augustine’s teaching
on Original sin is wrong, both theologically and morally, leading it to become
irrelevant in contemporary understandings of human nature, justice and divine
goodness.
P1 – Teaching of Original Sin
Before the Fall, the Garden of Eden was a place of perfect harmony, where
Adam and Eve had a harmonious relationship
Augustine argues our rationality had perfect control over our bodies
before it became corrupted by Original Sin after the Fall.
By eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and
Eve disobeyed God, leading them to be banished from the Garden of Eden
into this fallen world.
After their sin, Eve would have pain in childbirth and Adam would have to
toil the land to make food.
In “Confessions” Augustine argues human beings inherited not only the
consequence but the guilt of Adam’s sin
All of humanity was “seminally present” in the loins of Adam and so his
act of disobedience is inherited by all people.
When we became “vitiated through sin” it became impossible for anyone
to be born without original sin. Humanity is massa damnata (mass of the
damned)
Even babies, in Augustine view are born sinful and deserving of damnation
unless redeemed through baptism.
In Confessions, Augustine quotes Job “Who can bring a clean thing out of
an unclean? Not one” using this to argue the inherited nature of sin makes
even infants spiritually impure from birth.
Even babies show signs of jealousy and selfishness, implying that sinful
tendencies are present from birth. This led him to argue unbaptised babies
are not innocent, and are liable to divine punishment.
Cupiditas = love of earthly, impermanent things, selfishness. Usually leads
to ignorance and unhappiness.
Caritas = Love of others due to virtue as an expression of God’s will
Concupiscence = defining feature of original sin. It is when bodily desire
overpowers reason – sexual desire.
Before the Fall these two were in perfect harmony, but after the fall
humans lost caritas and became controlled by concupiscence.
The body and the soul became divided
Criticism: Unpalatable in a modern context. Contemporary society tends to
idealise childhood as a time of purity and innocence. The notion that babies
could be damned because of a sin committed by a distant ancestor runs counter
to both common sense and contemporary moral sensibility. Additionally,
developments in reproductive medicine including abortion and IVF raise
, questions about what happens to embryos and infants who die before baptism.
“Evil and The God of Love” – Hick argues the Fall narrative is mythological,
not historical. He argues the idea that all of humanity inherited Original Sin is
morally and scientifically indefensible. It’s hard to reconcile a loving and just God
with a theology that suggests eternal damnation for these lives.
P2 – Ethical concerns
Augustine’s attempt to reconcile human suffering with God’s omnipotence
and omnibenevolence by denying the existence of innocent suffering is
morally problematic
The idea that every case of suffering, even a child with terminal cancer, is
deserved because of inherited guilt is not only offensive but undermines
the very notion of a just God.
Kant – Second Formulation; human beings should never be treated as a
means to an end. Can we hold God to a lower moral standard than this?
If God allows the suffering of infants simply to uphold a theological
framework based on Augustine’s reasoning, then such a conception of God
becomes difficult to defend.
Defence: Some argue without the doctrine of OS, Christian theology loses
coherence. Augustine’s position was developed largely as a response to Pelagius,
who argued humans could attain salvation through their own efforts. Without
Original Sin, Augustine feared Christ’s atoning sacrifice becomes redundant.
John Rist argues Augustine should be understood as attempting to preserve the
integrity of Christian soteriology – the idea that salvation is solely the work of
God’s grace. From this perspective inherited sin doesn’t imply an unjust God, but
emphasises humanity’s dependence on divine mercy.
Counter: Defence fails. This objection does not hold in light of a more nuanced
understanding of salvation. Even without inherited guilt, human beings clearly
fall short of moral perfection and are in need of spiritual transformation. The idea
that Christ offers a path to transformation and communion with God does not
require belief in total depravity from birth. John Rist may contextualise
Augustine’s thinking but does not ultimately resolve the deeper moral and
theological contradictions within his doctrine. Emphasising dependent grace is
one thing but claiming all are born deserving of damnation is another. A more
ethically and theologically viable approach would affirm the reality of human
brokenness without resorting to inherited guilt.
P3 – Catholic Church on Augustine’s teaching
In recent years the Catholic Church has attempted to soften Augustine’s
cruellest conclusions
2007 document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die
without being Baptised”
Reflects a growing discomfort with the implications of original sin.
Whilst the document does not undermine Christian tradition, it suggests a
shift towards a theology that leaves the fate of the unbaptised infants to
God’s mercy rather than assuming their damnation.
Theologically this represents a shift in tone and substance – if infants can
be saved without baptism it raises serious questions about the necessity
Intro: To assess whether Augustine’s teaching on original sin is wrong we must
clarify original sin as the corruption of human nature that makes humans want to
sin. St Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin has been profoundly influential in
shaping Christian theology, particularly in Western Christianity. Yet, there are
compelling reasons to argue Augustine’s teaching of Original sin is deeply flawed
and untenable in the 21st century. This essay argues that Augustine’s teaching
on Original sin is wrong, both theologically and morally, leading it to become
irrelevant in contemporary understandings of human nature, justice and divine
goodness.
P1 – Teaching of Original Sin
Before the Fall, the Garden of Eden was a place of perfect harmony, where
Adam and Eve had a harmonious relationship
Augustine argues our rationality had perfect control over our bodies
before it became corrupted by Original Sin after the Fall.
By eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and
Eve disobeyed God, leading them to be banished from the Garden of Eden
into this fallen world.
After their sin, Eve would have pain in childbirth and Adam would have to
toil the land to make food.
In “Confessions” Augustine argues human beings inherited not only the
consequence but the guilt of Adam’s sin
All of humanity was “seminally present” in the loins of Adam and so his
act of disobedience is inherited by all people.
When we became “vitiated through sin” it became impossible for anyone
to be born without original sin. Humanity is massa damnata (mass of the
damned)
Even babies, in Augustine view are born sinful and deserving of damnation
unless redeemed through baptism.
In Confessions, Augustine quotes Job “Who can bring a clean thing out of
an unclean? Not one” using this to argue the inherited nature of sin makes
even infants spiritually impure from birth.
Even babies show signs of jealousy and selfishness, implying that sinful
tendencies are present from birth. This led him to argue unbaptised babies
are not innocent, and are liable to divine punishment.
Cupiditas = love of earthly, impermanent things, selfishness. Usually leads
to ignorance and unhappiness.
Caritas = Love of others due to virtue as an expression of God’s will
Concupiscence = defining feature of original sin. It is when bodily desire
overpowers reason – sexual desire.
Before the Fall these two were in perfect harmony, but after the fall
humans lost caritas and became controlled by concupiscence.
The body and the soul became divided
Criticism: Unpalatable in a modern context. Contemporary society tends to
idealise childhood as a time of purity and innocence. The notion that babies
could be damned because of a sin committed by a distant ancestor runs counter
to both common sense and contemporary moral sensibility. Additionally,
developments in reproductive medicine including abortion and IVF raise
, questions about what happens to embryos and infants who die before baptism.
“Evil and The God of Love” – Hick argues the Fall narrative is mythological,
not historical. He argues the idea that all of humanity inherited Original Sin is
morally and scientifically indefensible. It’s hard to reconcile a loving and just God
with a theology that suggests eternal damnation for these lives.
P2 – Ethical concerns
Augustine’s attempt to reconcile human suffering with God’s omnipotence
and omnibenevolence by denying the existence of innocent suffering is
morally problematic
The idea that every case of suffering, even a child with terminal cancer, is
deserved because of inherited guilt is not only offensive but undermines
the very notion of a just God.
Kant – Second Formulation; human beings should never be treated as a
means to an end. Can we hold God to a lower moral standard than this?
If God allows the suffering of infants simply to uphold a theological
framework based on Augustine’s reasoning, then such a conception of God
becomes difficult to defend.
Defence: Some argue without the doctrine of OS, Christian theology loses
coherence. Augustine’s position was developed largely as a response to Pelagius,
who argued humans could attain salvation through their own efforts. Without
Original Sin, Augustine feared Christ’s atoning sacrifice becomes redundant.
John Rist argues Augustine should be understood as attempting to preserve the
integrity of Christian soteriology – the idea that salvation is solely the work of
God’s grace. From this perspective inherited sin doesn’t imply an unjust God, but
emphasises humanity’s dependence on divine mercy.
Counter: Defence fails. This objection does not hold in light of a more nuanced
understanding of salvation. Even without inherited guilt, human beings clearly
fall short of moral perfection and are in need of spiritual transformation. The idea
that Christ offers a path to transformation and communion with God does not
require belief in total depravity from birth. John Rist may contextualise
Augustine’s thinking but does not ultimately resolve the deeper moral and
theological contradictions within his doctrine. Emphasising dependent grace is
one thing but claiming all are born deserving of damnation is another. A more
ethically and theologically viable approach would affirm the reality of human
brokenness without resorting to inherited guilt.
P3 – Catholic Church on Augustine’s teaching
In recent years the Catholic Church has attempted to soften Augustine’s
cruellest conclusions
2007 document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die
without being Baptised”
Reflects a growing discomfort with the implications of original sin.
Whilst the document does not undermine Christian tradition, it suggests a
shift towards a theology that leaves the fate of the unbaptised infants to
God’s mercy rather than assuming their damnation.
Theologically this represents a shift in tone and substance – if infants can
be saved without baptism it raises serious questions about the necessity
