1. Statements that directly entail guiltlessness of infants. This is contrary to the original sin perspective which says we are guilty from conception.
2. Seemingly universal statements about a positive fate for deceased infants. This conveys they aren't viewed as guilty in God's eyes. This is contrary to the original sin perspective from a historical perspective as it was connected to the idea that the default fate of deceased infants is damnation or some other negative fate.
3. Statements that indicate inherited/imputed guilt isn't one of the consequences of the fall. This is obviously contrary to the original sin perspective which says inherited or imputed guilt is one of the consequences of the fall.
4. Statements that indicate humans are condemned, under wrath, guilty etc. for what they themselves have or haven't done rather than for the sins of other humans. This is contrary to the original sin perspective which says we are under condemnation, wrath, guilt, etc. because of Adam's sin prior to any sin of our own.
ANTICIPATING OBJECTIONS
While it's not our goal in this article to address every possible counter-argument and objection for every text we cite, we want to preemptively comment on the primary objections we anticipate from our interlocutors.
Objection 1. Your quotes contradict my prooftexts
We have another article you can read here that works through various counter-texts for some of the early Christian sources cited in this article. However, that article is a work in progress, and more content will likely be added in the future. Our goal in this article is not to address every possible prooftext for original sin from early Christian sources.
Objection 2. They're just talking about innocence from personal sins
This is the response we anticipate in light of the many texts here that indicate that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin. This objection argues that when a writer uses this language about infants, they're not talking about the child's overall or general status as a person. Instead, they're talking about a distinct category of sin (personal) they're innocent of while also affirming the guilt of another category of sin (Adam's). Our response to this objection is that we would need to see this categorial distinction in the writer's corpus. We cannot assume they affirmed the category of inherited Adamic guilt. If no articulation of that exists, we could easily just say that personal sin guilt is the only category of guilt the author is aware of. This would be congruent with how many of them understood punishment and justice. If this is the case, the author could not have affirmed the distinctive points of original sin.
Objection 3. My view of original sin affirms infant salvation
There are quite a few quotes here that will show a seemingly universal positive fate for deceased infants. Some advocates of original sin might respond that this is consistent with their view and that they also affirm infant salvation. Therefore, this wouldn't indicate ancestral sin. Our response to this is that we need to keep the historical context in mind. Among the early sources that explicitly affirm inherited Adamic guilt, they almost universally affirm that the default fate of deceased infants is damnation as well. This conclusion of infant damnation was very closely tied to the premise of inherited guilt from Adam. To see more on this in history, see our article here. Therefore, if a writer seemed to deny the conclusion of infant damnation in this historical context, it seems likely that they also denied the premise which leads to it.
Objection 4. This quote doesn't say we aren't guilty of Adam's sin
Many theologians and scholars who have analyzed the historical data acknowledge that original sin seems to largely be a post-Nicaea development in the late 4th and early 5th century. To read our article on this see here. As a result, it's not shocking to not have explicit statements in exactly those words early on. We do see this language toward the end of the 4th and early 5th century when original sin begins to gain prominence. We argue that we don't need explicit statements like this to demonstrate the historicity of ancestral sin. The four categories we listed above are sufficient to demonstrate it.
Objection 5. You're misrepresenting what the earliest Christians believed
While it is certainly unfortunate that history is sometimes misrepresented or intentionally misinterpreted to push certain narratives, what we are presenting here is not controversial and is aligned with the observations of various theologians from different traditions about what early Christians thought about the fall and its consequences. To read some of these observations, read our article here.
Disclaimer: (When it comes to early Christian documents, we have tens of thousands of pages from primary sources that have survived to today. Many documents to this day have yet to be translated into English and/or are difficult to access. Very few if any individuals have read and processed each page of the available documents that have come down to us. We by no means have a perfectly clear picture of history and what each and every writer believed. Our goal is to be fair to each writer and avoid overstating our case or being overly dogmatic regarding what certain individuals did or did not believe. This assessment is based on the documents that we have read ourselves. It's important to acknowledge that we are capable of being in error concerning how we've interpreted and understood some sources. We are by no means claiming that early Christians were in universal agreement with us on this issue. We are simply pointing out statements and themes from various early Christians that are in alignment with ancestral sin and/or disconfirm the distinctions of original sin. This article will almost certainly have further updates and additions in the future as we continue reading primary sources.)
ANCESTRAL SIN IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY
"Forasmuch then as He renewed us in the remission of sins, He made us to be a new type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if He were recreating us...Behold then we have been created anew, as He saith again in another prophet; Behold, saith the Lord, I will take out from these, that is to say, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and will put into them hearts of flesh; for He Himself was to be manifested in the flesh and to dwell in us." - Epistle of Barnabas, 6:11, 14
In this document, the author likens Christians being renewed in the remission of sins and being given a new heart to having the soul of children. The author seems to be using children as a standard of innocence. An innocence that guilty sinners return to through the remission of sins. If the author believed children to be guilty from conception, this likening wouldn't make much sense because he'd be likening the state of humans after renewal and the remission of sins to that which is guilty.
"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life...The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us." - Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 5
Pay careful attention to Ignatius' reasoning. He says that people become "of the devil" by their own choice. In his mind, nobody is naturally of the devil. Prior to this, he connects being a false coin, unlawful, spurious, and counterfeit to being "wrought by the devil." Therefore, since nobody is of the devil by nature it stands to reason that nobody is any of these things from conception. Rather, people become these things by their own choices. From this, we believe it can be reasonably deduced that in Ignatius' mind guilt is acquired by our own choice rather than guiltiness being the state of all humans from conception. Additionally, Ignatius seems to clearly say that those who have a bad end have such an end because of their own decisions.
We will also note that with Ignatius there’s a lot of debate over textual authenticity among the many documents ascribed to him. His writings have come down to us in three primary traditions of transmission comprising of a long recension, middle recension, and short recension. The scholarly opinions vary and the topic of Ignatian textual transmission is quite complex. Some argue that the citation given above is inauthentic and belongs to spurious 4th-century works. In the best-case scenario, the above quote is authentic. Worst case scenario, it’s inauthentic and belongs to later work in early Christianity. We won't get into the weeds of that issue here. Regardless, we have many statements conveying the same points in the same time period that aren’t contested as far as authenticity is concerned. We, therefore, conclude that the issue of authenticity with this quote isn’t impactful or relevant to the big picture of the case we’re making here.
“And they who believed from the twelfth mountain, which was white, are the following: they are as infant children, in whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what wickedness is, but always remained as children. Such accordingly, without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God, because they defiled in nothing the commandments of God; but they remained like children all the days of their life in the same mind. All of you, then, who shall remain stedfast, and be as children, without doing evil, will be more honoured than all who have been previously mentioned; for all infants are honourable before God, and are the first persons with Him. Blessed, then, are ye who put away wickedness from yourselves, and put on innocence. As the first of all will you live unto God.” - Book III, Similitude IX, Chapter XXIX
"Of this race, therefore, no one will perish; for although any of them be tempted by the most wicked devil, and commit sin, he will quickly return to his Lord. I deem you happy, I, who am the messenger of repentance, whoever of you are innocent as children, because your part is good, and honourable before God." - Book III, Similitude IX, Chapter XXXI
"He said to me, Be simple and guileless, and you will be as the children who know not the wickedness that ruins the life of men." - Mandate II.1
This author makes several noteworthy statements. The first quote is the most explicit on the matter. Infant children are used as models for those who have no evil in their hearts and dwell in the kingdom of God. There is a very explicit mention of all infants being with God. This author clearly does not believe we are guilty from conception. We see multiple mentions of infants being models of innocence and not knowing wickedness.
"And if any righteous man among them passes from the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to God; and they escort his body as if he were setting out from one place to another near. And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins." - Apology, Chapter XV
If Aristides believed that all humans from their beginning are guilty of Adam's sin, it wouldn't make much sense for him to say that young children who die pass through the world without sins. Why would he say such a thing if he believed in inherited/imputed Adamic guilt? The most simple and likely explanation as to why he would say this is because he didn't believe young children were guilty of sins yet.
"But in the version of the Seventy it is written, 'Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes, in order to manifest the disobedience of men,--I mean of Adam and Eve,--and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods," and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God." - Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXIV
"But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up (i.e., for the wicked), see that ye neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls, and those who are called among the magi, Dream-senders and Assistant-spirits (Familiars), and all that is done by those who are skilled in such matters —let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation;" - First Apology, Chapter XVIII
In the first citation, Justin places the blame and cause of our death and condemnation on ourselves rather than because we descend from Adam and have inherited his guilt. He says that people work out death for themselves and that it's by ourselves that we're condemned like Adam and Eve. In the second citation, Justin refers to children being "immaculate" in the context of pagan child sacrifice. We know the word immaculate has meanings that include being free from sin. The age of the children he refers to isn't clearly known. However, it seems reasonable to conclude that he doesn't view humans as guilty from conception. Justin also had a high view of free will and humans being condemned for their own sins.
"But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both [virtue and vice]." - Second Apology, Chapter VII
"For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with free-will, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit." - Second Apology, Chapter LXXXVIII
"For many, in discussing the subject of the resurrection, have rested the whole cause on the third argument alone, deeming that the cause of the resurrection is the judgment. But the fallacy of this is very clearly shown, from the fact that, although all human beings who die rise again, yet not all who rise again are to be judged: for if only a just judgment were the cause of the resurrection, it would of course follow that those who had done neither evil nor good—namely, very young children —would not rise again; but seeing that all are to rise again, those who have died in infancy as well as others, they too justify our conclusion that the resurrection takes place not for the sake of the judgment as the primary reason, but in consequence of the purpose of God in forming men, and the nature of the beings so formed." - On the Resurrection, Chapter XIV
"Each one of us who sins, with his own free will chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame." - A Plea for the Christians, 8
Based on what Athenagoras says here, it seems highly unlikely that he believes infants are damned and/or guilty of sin. He believes they will be raised bodily but he denies they will be judged on account that they haven't done good or evil. He seems to believe they're innocent and without guilt. But if he thought all humans were guilty of Adam's sin from conception, it would seem to follow that he would then believe the young children would be judged seeing as they had evil on account of Adam's guilt. Additionally, Athenagoras ties punishment and blame with the one who uses their free will to choose sin.
"For instance, Peter in the Apocalypse says that the children who are born out of due time shall be of the better part: and that these are delivered over to a care-taking angel that they may attain a share of knowledge and gain the better abode." - Clement of Alexandria, Eclog. 48
"Whence also we have received in divinely-inspired scriptures that untimely births are delivered to care-taking angels, even if they are the offspring of adultery." - Methodius of Olympus, Conviv. ii. 6
The Apocalypse of Peter is a New Testament apocryphal text that is cited by several early Christian writers. The document comments on a positive afterlife for all deceased young children. They are said to have the better part and better abode in the end.
"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." - Address to the Greeks, Chapter XI
"And each of these two orders of creatures was made free to act as it pleased, not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone, but is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault, but the just man be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God. Such is the constitution of things in reference to angels and men." - Address to the Greeks, Chapter VII
Tatian places guilt and blame on human punishment and death on each individual for what they have or haven't done. It's rooted in our own choices, not the choices of other sinners. Additionally, he speaks of humans becoming depraved rather than being depraved from conception. Tatian's comments don't seem compatible with the view of inherited/imputed Adamic guilt.
"And Adam and Eve----for that is the name of the woman----were naked, and were not ashamed; for there was in them an innocent and childlike mind, and it was not possible for them to conceive and understand anything of that which by wickedness through lusts and shameful desires is born in the soul. For they were at that time entire, preserving their own nature; since they had the breath of life which was breathed on their creation: and, while this breath remains in its place and power, it has no comprehension and understanding of things that are base. And therefore they were not ashamed, kissing and embracing each other in purity after the manner of children." - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, 14
"And who are they that did even then give themselves over to death? Those men, doubtless, who do not believe, nor submit themselves to God. And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb [the son] of Jephunneh and Joshua [the son] of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." - Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXVIII
"For [Adam] showed his repentance by his conduct, through means of the girdle [which he used], covering himself with fig-leaves, while there were many other leaves, which would have irritated his body in a less degree. He, however, adopted a dress conformable to his disobedience, being awed by the fear of God; and resisting the erring, the lustful propensity of his flesh (since he had lost his natural disposition and child-like mind, and had come to the knowledge of evil things), he girded a bridle of continence upon himself and his wife, fearing God, and waiting for His coming, and indicating, as it were, some such thing [as follows]: Inasmuch as, he says, I have by disobedience lost that robe of sanctity which I had from the Spirit, I do now also acknowledge that I am deserving of a covering of this nature, which affords no gratification, but which gnaws and frets the body." - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
Irenaeus likens Adam and Eve to young children in several places that convey that young children are innocent and without guilt. Adam and Eve were "childlike" in the sense that they hadn't conceived or understood wickedness. In another place, he says Adam lost his "child-like" mind after the fall. If Irenaeus viewed humans as guilty, wicked, unrighteous, etc. from conception, these comparisons wouldn't make sense and would imply that Adam was guilty himself before he even sinned. Outside of the context of the garden, Irenaeus also says that innocent children have no sense of evil.
"But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets." - Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXVII
"But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do." - Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXVII
Regarding human nature and how God treats his creatures, Irenaeus says that all humans originally have the same nature and that if we were originally bad or good we would not be deserving of praise or condemnation. This is because Irenaeus links God's judgment and condemnation to our actions and not our natures. Those who receive just condemnation and blame are the ones who reject what is fair and good when they had it in their power to do otherwise. In Irenaeus' mind, each person's condemnation and judgment from God isn't tied to the iniquity of other people. Rather, it's tied to each person's personal sin. This is in alignment with ancestral sin and explains how Irenaeus views infants as those who are without guilt and condemnation.
“For He called all men that mourn; and granting forgiveness to those who had been led into captivity by their sins, He loosed them from their chains, of whom Solomon says, “Every one shall be holden with the cords of his own sins.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter IX
Irenaeus also seems to ground our captivity in chains and alienation from God in our own sins and transgressions. It is "by their sins" that humans enter into and are led into captivity. This seems contrary to the notion that humans are already alienated from God and in captivity from conception due to the inheritance of impersonal guilt from Adam.“Truly of Him who said that John had something even “more than a prophet,”and that “among those born of women none is greater than John the Baptist;” who did also make the people ready for the Lord’s advent, warning his fellow-servants, and preaching to them repentance, that they might receive remission from the Lord when He should be present, having been converted to Him, from whom they had been alienated because of sins and transgressions.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter X
“It was for this reason, too, that immediately after Adam had transgressed, as the Scripture relates, He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: “God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man.”….But the curse in all its fulness fell upon the serpent, which had beguiled them. “And God,” it is declared, “said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above all the beasts of the earth.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
Irenaeus then makes a profound statement that God didn't curse Adam personally after his transgression. Irenaeus sees "the curse in all its fullness" falling upon the serpent.
"[These act] as Cain [did, who], when he was counselled by God to keep quiet, because he had not made an equitable division of that share to which his brother was entitled, but with envy and malice thought that he could domineer over him, not only did not acquiesce, but even added sin to sin, indicating his state of mind by his action. For what he had planned, that did he also put in practice: he tyrannized over and slew him; God subjecting the just to the unjust, that the former might be proved as the just one by the things which he suffered, and the latter detected as the unjust by those which he perpetrated. And he was not softened even by this, nor did he stop short with that evil deed; but being asked where his brother was, he said, “I know not; am I my brother’s keeper?” extending and aggravating [his] wickedness by his answer. For if it is wicked to slay a brother, much worse is it thus insolently and irreverently to reply to the omniscient God as if he could battle Him. And for this he did himself bear a curse about with him, because he gratuitously brought an offering of sin, having had no reverence for God, nor being put to confusion by the act of fratricide." - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
Irenaeus goes on to talk about the sin of Cain and the personal curse he received after he murdered his brother. Immediately following this, Irenaeus makes this comment:
“The case of Adam, however, had no analogy with this, but was altogether different. For, having been beguiled by another under the pretext of immortality, he is immediately seized with terror, and hides himself; not as if he were able to escape from God; but, in a state of confusion at having transgressed His command, he feels unworthy to appear before and to hold converse with God.” - Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter XXIII
This is where things get interesting. If Irenaeus did affirm that mankind inherits the guilt of Adam's original sin and is spiritually condemned and under God's wrath from conception, it's curious that he 1. Doesn't place a personal curse on Adam and 2. Sees Cain's sin as essentially worse than Adam's because Adam was beguiled but Cain acted with envy, and malice, and was adding sin to sin. One would think if Irenaeus believed Adam's personal guilt is perpetually transmitted to all future humans, he would have a more serious and higher view of Adam's sin in comparison to Cain. But no, Irenaeus sees Adam's sin as "altogether different" with "no analogy" to Cain's sin.
“Adam’s first sin was one of thoughtlessness rather than of malice. The primary blame for Adam’s misstep rests with the devil who acquired power over him unfairly, by a trick. It is not surprising that Irenaeus did not attach a high degree of guilt or culpability to Adam’s sin. God pitied, rather than condemned, his frail, imperfect, inexperienced creature for succumbing to the wiles of a cunning and powerful foe. The sin of Adam was far less serious than Cain’s. Adam’s transgression, though not an infection transmitted to subsequent generations, did lead to death, which Irenaeus also interpreted as a divine mercy.” - Toews, Original Sin, p. 52
Toews points this out when he says that Irenaeus doesn't attach a "high degree of guilt" to Adam's sin.
"Such are the arguments of Julius Cassian, the originator of deceits...Let them tell us how the newly born child could commit fornication, or how that which has done nothing has fallen under the curse of Adam. The only consistent answer for them, it seems, is to say that birth is an evil, not only for the body, but also for the soul for the sake of which the body itself exists. And when David says: “In sin I was born and in unrighteousness my mother conceived me," he says in prophetic manner that Eve is his mother. For Eve became the mother of the living." But if he was conceived in sin, yet he was not himself in sin, nor is he himself sin...If birth is something evil, let the blasphemers say that the Lord who shared in birth was born in evil, and that the virgin gave birth to him in evil. Woe to these wicked fellows! They blaspheme against the will of God and the mystery of creation in speaking evil of birth. This is the ground upon which Docetism is held by Cassian and by Marcion also, and on which even Valentine indeed teaches that Christ's body was "psychic." - The Stromata, Book III, Chapters XIII, XVI, & XVII
"And when He says, “Let my lambs stand on my right,” He alludes to the simple children, as if they were sheep and lambs in nature, not men; and the lambs He counts worthy of preference, from the superior regard He has to that tenderness and simplicity of disposition in men which constitutes innocence." - The Paedagogus, Book I, Chapter V
"If you have respect for old age, be wise, now that you have reached life’s sunset; and albeit at the close of life, acquire the knowledge of God, that the end of life may to you prove the beginning of salvation. You have become old in superstition; as young, enter on the practice of piety. God regards you as innocent children." - Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter X
"The righteous Job says: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there;" not naked of possessions, for that were a trivial and common thing; but, as a just man, he departs naked of evil and sin, and of the unsightly shape which follows those who have led bad lives." - The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter XXV
"Now sinners are called enemies of God—enemies, that is, of the commands which they do not obey, as those who obey become friends, the one named so from their fellowship, the others from their estrangement, which is the result of free choice; for there is neither enmity nor sin without theenemy and the sinner." - The Stromata, Book IV, Chapter XIII
"Each one of us, who sins, with his own free-will chooses punishment, and the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame." - The Paedagogus, Book I, Chapter VIII
"Let them not then say, that he who does wrong and sins transgresses through the agency of demons; for then he would be guiltless. But by choosing the same things as demons, by sinning; being unstable, and light, and fickle in his desires, like a demon, he becomes a demoniac man. Now he who is bad, having become, through evil, sinful by nature, becomes depraved, having what he has chosen; and being sinful, sins also in his actions." - The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter XII
There's quite a lot to unpack with Clement of Alexandria. To summarize, the first four quotes indicate that he viewed infant children as innocent, not in sin, sheep and lambs in nature, naked and without evil or sin. The following three quotes indicate that Clement viewed condemnation, guilt, depravity, and being sinful by nature as something that results from personal free choices to sin. He doesn't view people as possessing any of these things from their conception. He indicates that someone would actually be without guilt if they transgressed through the agency of another. We are instead guilty because we have transgressed against God through our own agency and sinful choices.
"We therefore maintain that every soul, whatever be its age on quitting the body, remains unchanged in the same, until the time shall come when the promised perfection shall be realized in a state duly tempered to the measure of the peerless angels. Hence those souls must be accounted as passing an exile in Hades, which people are apt to regard as carried off by violence, especially by cruel tortures, such as those of the cross, and the axe, and the sword, and the lion; but we do not account those to be violent deaths which justice awards, that avenger of violence. So then, you will say, it is all the wicked souls that are banished in Hades. (Not quite so fast, is my answer.) I must compel you to determine (what you mean by Hades), which of its two regions, the region of the good or of the bad. If you mean the bad, (all I can say is, that) even now the souls of the wicked deserve to be consigned to those abodes; if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent?" - Treatise on the Soul, Chapter LVI
"But, behold, Christ takes infants, and teaches how all ought to be like them, if they ever wish to be greater. The Creator, on the contrary, let loose bears against children, in order to avenge His prophet Elisha, who had been mocked by them. This antithesis is impudent enough, since it throws together things so different as infants and children, —an age still innocent, and one already capable of discretion—able to mock, if not to blaspheme." - Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter XXIII
"The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins”?" - On Baptism, Chapter XVIII
Tertullian speaks of the positive fate that infant souls have. They're pure and innocent. When debating against Marcion who proposed the God of the OT and the God of the NT were different on the basis of how they treated children, Tertullian responded by pointing out the error that the passages cited are dealing with children of different ages. The infants are innocent. But the children who were attacked by bears were older and had developed in their faculties. They were able to sin. Lastly, when speaking of infants in the context of baptism, Tertullian says that infants are in "the innocent period of life." All of these comments from Tertullian indicate that he didn't view infants as guilty sinners yet and that their fate after death was good and positive.
"Any one, moreover, who reads in the second book of Kings of the “wrath” of God, inducing David to number the people, and finds from the first book of Chronicles that it was the devil who suggested this measure, will, on comparing together the two statements, easily see for what purpose the “wrath” is mentioned, of which “wrath,” as the Apostle Paul declares, all men are children: “We were by nature children of wrath, even as others.” Moreover, that “wrath” is no passion on the part of God, but that each one brings it upon himself by his sins, will be clear from the further statement of Paul: “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” - Against Celsus, Book IV, Chapter LXXII
"From which it appears to me that the divine mysteries were concealed from the wise and prudent, according to the statement of Scripture, that “no flesh should glory before God,” and revealed to children—to those, namely, who, after they have become infants and little children, i.e., have returned to the humility and simplicity of children, then make progress; and on arriving at perfection, remember that they have obtained their state of happiness, not by their own merits, but by the grace and compassion of God." - De Principiis, Book III, Chapter XII
"Such is our doctrine of punishment; and the inculcation of this doctrine turns many from their sins. But let us see, on the other hand, what is the response given on this subject by the priest of Jupiter or Apollo of whom Celsus speaks. It is this: “The mills of the gods grind slowly.” Another describes punishment as reaching “to children’s children, and to those who came after them.” How much better are those words of Scripture: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” And again, “Every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” And, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” If any shall say that the response, “To children’s children, and to those who come after them,” corresponds with that passage, “Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me,” let him learn from Ezekiel that this language is not to be taken literally; for he reproves those who say, “Our fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” and then he adds, “As I live, saith the Lord, every one shall die for his own sin.” As to the proper meaning of the figurative language about sins being visited unto the third and fourth generation, we cannot at present stay to explain." - Against Celsus, Book VI, Chapter XL
"Then again one might inquire at what time those who are called their angels assume guardianship of the little ones pointed out by Christ; whether they received this commission to discharge concerning them, from what time “by the laver of regeneration,” through which they were born “as new-born babes, they long for the reasonable milk which is without guile,” and no longer are in subjection to any wicked power;" - Commentary on Matthew, Book XIII, Chapter XXVII
"This natural law then speaks to all who are under the law. From its precepts it appears to me that little children alone are exempt, for whom the judgment of right and wrong does not yet exist. Now whether those who, for whatever reason, are mentally incompetent ought to be joined to these as well is a question which needs to be investigated. Apart from these exceptions, however, no human being, it seems to me, escapes this law." - Commentary on Romans, Book III, Chapter VI.3
"Having now briefly arranged these points in order as we best could, it follows that, agreeably to our intention from the first, we refute those who think that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a different God from Him who gave the answers of the law to Moses, or commissioned the prophets, who is the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...Now, since this consideration has weight with some, that the leaders of that heresy (of which we have been speaking) think they have established a kind of division, according to which they have declared that justice is one thing and goodness another, and have applied this division even to divine things, maintaining that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a good God, but not a just one, whereas the God of the law and the prophets is just, but not good;...Now I think they must, in the first place, be required to show, if they can, agreeably to their own definition, that the Creator is just in punishing according to their deserts, either those who perished at the time of the deluge, or the inhabitants of Sodom, or those who had quitted Egypt, seeing we sometimes behold committed crimes more wicked and detestable than those for which the above-mentioned persons were destroyed, while we do not yet see every sinner paying the penalty of his misdeeds. Will they say that He who at one time was just has been made good? Or will they rather be of opinion that He is even now just, but is patiently enduring human offences, while that then He was not even just, inasmuch as He exterminated innocent and sucking children along with cruel and ungodly giants? Now, such are their opinions, because they know not how to understand anything beyond the letter; otherwise they would show how it is literal justice for sins to be visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation, and on children’s children after them. By us, however, such things are not understood literally; but, as Ezekiel taught when relating the parable, we inquire what is the inner meaning contained in the parable itself. Moreover, they ought to explain this also, how He is just, and rewards every one according to his merits, who punishes earthly-minded persons and the devil, seeing they have done nothing worthy of punishment. For they could not do any good if, according to them, they were of a wicked and ruined nature. For as they style Him a judge, He appears to be a judge not so much of actions as of natures; and if a bad nature cannot do good, neither can a good nature do evil." - De Principiis, Book II, Chapter IV.1-V.2
"Therefore sin did indeed begin to exercise dominion in this world from the one Adam. And it reigned in those who pursued the imitation of Adam’s transgression; and for that reason, “judgment came from the one leading to condemnation.” But on the other hand through our one Lord Jesus Christ grace began to reign through righteousness. It will reign in all who obey him and keep his words, and by this means they come from many transgressions to the justification of life." - Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter II.15
"Well then, what he says, “By the transgression of the one, death exercised dominion through the one,” shows that dominion is granted to death through transgression; it cannot exercise dominion in anyone unless it receives the right to rule from transgression. What seems to be made known in this is that since a soul created by God is itself free, it leads itself into slavery by means of transgression and hands over to death, so to speak, the IOU of its own immortality which it had received from its own Creator. “For the soul that sins will die.” That soul, after all, cries out through the prophet, saying, “You have led me down to the dust of death.” This assuredly could not have come to pass to the person except as a result of transgression. Therefore it seems plain that the soul had composed its own IOU with death by means of transgression, so that, having lost the freedom of immortality, it took up the yoke of sin and the dominion of death." - Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter III.3
"So then Adam offered sinners a model through his disobedience; but Christ, in contrast, gave the righteous a model by his obedience. As it is written in another passage, “But you have become obedient from the heart to the same model of teaching to which you were entrusted.” It is also on this account that he “became obedient unto death,” in order that those who follow the example of his obedience might be made righteous by righteousness itself, just as those others were made sinners by following the model of [Adam’s] disobedience." - Commentary on Romans, Book V, Chapter V.9
When commenting on Romans 5, Origen says that Adam's disobedience is a model for all humans in that humans become slaves to sin and are judged to condemnation when they pursue the imitation of Adam's transgression. Each person is led into slavery when they themselves transgress. In Origen's mind, humans are made sinners by following Adam's model rather than being made sinners through perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt.
“He treated the Genesis 3 narrative as an allegorical story of the collective fall of humanity in the transcendent world, a worldview he received from the Greek philosopher Plato. Adam did not represent an individual historical figure, according to Origen, but an allegory of humanity and the fall of humanity before history. The evils and injustices experienced in this life were due to transgressions committed in a previous, other worldly life; that is, Origen believed in the theory of a pre-natal or extra-temporal “fall” of individual souls." - Toews, The Story of Original Sin, p. 56
"We have already seen that Origen postulated a pre-cosmic fall of the spirits to explain the hierarchy of beings and the different lots human beings receive at birth and that the human souls are united to bodies as a punishment for their sins…Origen regards the story of the garden and Adam's expulsion from it as an allegory of the pre-cosmic fall, pointing out that where Moses seems to be speaking of an individual he really has human nature as a whole in mind. As a result, Origen seems to deny any doctrine of corporate sinfulness, for his allegorical interpretation of Genesis suggests that if human beings are sinful from birth, their wickedness is the legacy of their own misguided choices in the transcendental world, and has nothing to do with the disobedience of anyone first man." - Phan, Grace and the Human Condition, p. 90-91
It's also worth pointing out that Origen did not believe Adam was an individual historical figure. Multiple scholars have written on this topic, but the words of Phan and Toews will suffice. In light of this, it is hard to imagine that Origen held to a perpetually inherited Adamic guilt. As Phan points out, any mention from Origen of humans being sinful from birth is attributed to their own personal sins before the world began in "the transcendental world" rather than a corporate Adamic sin.
"For, for the sake of business and of visiting me, Octavius had hastened to Rome, having left his home, his wife, his children, and that which is most attractive in children, while yet their innocent years are attempting only half-uttered words,—a language all the sweeter for the very imperfection of the faltering tongue." - Octavius, Chapter II
There's not much relevance in Marcus' available writings to articulate a full understanding of the fall and its consequences. However, it seems that in regard to infants, they're in "their innocent years." If Marcus believed that from birth infants are guilty and in danger of damnation, it wouldn't make much sense for him to convey that there's a period of time when infants are innocent. It seems to us that he isn't referring to being "innocent" of a particular wrong but rather that he's referring to the wholistic moral state of infants. If this is the case, it would seem to follow that Marcus believed that humans become guilty in God's sight when they themselves sin rather than being guilty from birth. We however caution that not much weight and stock should be put into Marcus' words. They're simply corroborative of our view and align with explicit statements made by others.
"Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with a free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God." - Concerning Free Will, ANF06.610
"He [Methodius] says that it is in our power to do, or to avoid doing, evil; since otherwise we should not be punished for doing evil, nor be rewarded for doing well;" - From Discourses on the Resurrection, Part 3.X
"Sin is an act of personal freedom, without which there is neither sin nor virtue, neither reward nor punishment," - C. Ar. III.66 (Cited in Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, p. 164)
"Again I will say it, nor will I cease exhorting you to good, Come, beloved, let us bless Him who is blessed, that we may be ourselves blessed of Him. Every age and condition does this discourse summon to praise the Lord; kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth; both young men and maidens—and what is new in this miracle, the tender and innocent age of babes and sucklings hath obtained the first place in raising to God with thankful confession the hymn which was of God taught them in the strains in which Moses sang before to the people when they came forth out of Egypt—namely, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” - Oration on the Psalms, I
Methodius exhibits a strong view of evil, guilt, and punishment corresponding with choices rather than nature. He's clear that humans aren't evil by nature. Without sinful acts of personal freedom, there isn't punishment in his view. These ideas of his don't seem compatible with a doctrine of perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. Additionally, he refers to babies as being at the "innocent age".
"Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become on or the other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from them." - Homily VIII, Chapter XVI
The implication of this text is that humans aren't born bad and therefore guilty but rather become bad and therefore guilty through their own sins.
"We should be free from vices and sin. For no one is born sinful, but if our affections are given to that direction they can become vices and sinful, but if we use our affections well they become virtues." - Divine Institutes, Book VI, Chapter XVI
Continuing in the same line of thought, Lactantius says nobody is born sinful. Rather, in his mind we become sinful.
“Eusebius, an infant without sin by reason of his age, going to the place of the saints, rests in peace” - ILCV, 2155 (cited in Baptism in the Early Church, p. 459)
This is one of the earliest surviving Christian tomb inscriptions. In it, we find a statement concerning the spiritual condition of a deceased infant. We're told that this infant is "without sin" due to his age and he's gone to be with the saints. This could possibly refer to being buried among Christians, going to heaven, or perhaps both. The statement concerning the infant's state of being "without sin" indicates the belief that being "with sin" comes about as a child ages. The state of being "with sin" is not the condition of the infant from conception.
"Paul does not mean by this that because one man sinned everybody else had to pay the price for it even though they had not committed the sin, for that would be unjust. Rather he says that from its beginning in Adam humanity derived both its existence and its sinfulness." - Commentary on Romans, 5.18
Acacius does not interpret Romans 5 as meaning that all humans are held guilty of Adam's sin. He doesn't affirm that idea. He affirms that our sinfulness can be derived from Adam. So our inclinations and faculties that lead us to sin are derived from him. But his guilt is not given to us. In Acacius' mind, the one who commits the sin pays the penalty for it.
.jpg/440px-Ephrem_the_Syrian_(mosaic_in_Nea_Moni).jpg)
"There the married state finds rest after having been anguished by the pangs of giving birth, brought on by the curse and by the pain of childbearing; now it sees the children whom it had buried amid laments, pasturing like lambs in Eden; exalted in their ranks,glorious in their splendours, they are like kindred of the spotless angels." - Hymns on Paradise, Hymn 7.8
"The river of humanity consists of people of all ages, with old, young, children and babes, infants in their mothers’ arms and others still unborn, in the womb. Such is the sequence of Paradise’s fruit: firstfruits issued forth with the autumn harvest, wave upon wave, fecund with blossoms and fruit." - Hymns on Paradise, Hymn 10.13
“If we momentarily throw aside the veil from our eyes and glance at that place, we will rue our delay which we have prolonged in this world, the harbor of debts,* where merchants each day suffer great loss, where ships are wrecked and cargoes are seized. Blessed are the children who have passed through it without toil. In Paradise these sheep may pasture without fear, while Satan laments that he has left no mark on them; lust too is downcast, not having stained them, but virginity rejoices as she reigns in these chaste temples that were in no wise sullied. Happy the person held worthy to reach their place of meeting.” - Hymns on Paradise, 14.10-11
Ephrem details a positive view concerning the fate of young children who die. They're "like lambs in Eden" and "are like kindred of the spotless angels." This likely conveys innocence. He also speaks of children who have passed through the world without toil, hadn't been marked by Satan, and weren't stained by lust. Ephrem doesn't unpack all of this language for us clearly. It seems proper however to see him as saying the children aren't corrupted in various ways that would have corrupted them if they lived longer. This could perhaps be a reference to innocence and a lack of guilt in light of his prior statements.
"Hence it is evident that our Lord assumed the natural affections to establish His real incarnation, and not by way of semblance of incantation, and that all the affections derived from evil that besmirch the purity of our life, He rejected as unworthy of His unsullied Godhead. It is on this account that He is said to have been “made in the likeness of flesh of sin;” not, as these men hold, in likeness of flesh, but of flesh of sin. It follows that He took our flesh with its natural afflictions, but “did no sin.” Just as the death which is in the flesh, transmitted to us through Adam, was swallowed up by the Godhead, so was the sin taken away by the righteousness which is in Christ Jesus, so that in the resurrection we receive back the flesh neither liable to death nor subject to sin." - The Letters to the Sozopolitans, 3
"On the other hand, of the evils of hell the cause is not God, but ourselves. The origin and root of sin is what is in our own control and our free will." - IV Homiletical, Homily IX
"If the origin of our virtues and of our vices is not in ourselves, but is the fatal consequence of our birth, it is useless for legislators to prescribe for us what we ought to do, and what we ought to avoid; it is useless for judges to honour virtue and to punish vice. The guilt is not in the robber, not in the assassin: it was willed for him; it was impossible for him to hold back his hand, urged to evil by inevitable necessity. Those who laboriously cultivate the arts are the maddest of men. The labourer will make an abundant harvest without sowing seed and without sharpening his sickle. Whether he wishes it or not, the merchant will make his fortune, and will be flooded with riches by fate. As for us Christians, we shall see our great hopes vanish, since from the moment that man does not act with freedom, there is neither reward for justice, nor punishment for sin. Under the reign of necessity and of fatality there is no place for merit, the first condition of all righteous judgment. But let us stop. You who are sound in yourselves have no need to hear more, and time does not allow us to make attacks without limit against these unhappy men." - Hexaemeron, Homily VI, Chapter VII
Basil seems to view mortality as the "death" that is transmitted to us through Adam. This death is undone through Christ in the resurrection of the dead when we receive glorified bodies. Lacking from Basil is any idea of guilt being perpetually transmitted. When he touches on the origin and root of sin, Basil doesn't mention Adam or perpetually passed on sin guilt. Rather, he focuses on personal responsibility and abuse of free will as the origin of sin. This doesn't seem compatible with a view that says we have sin accounted to us from our conception. In such a scenario, our control and free will would have nothing to do with the origin and root of our sin. Additionally, Basil says that if virtues and vices do not originate in each person's own actions punishment would be useless. Where there is no free personal action of sin, there is no punishment for sin. Basil clearly grounds each person's judicial punishment for sin in personal actions.
"Although he is speaking of the woman, he said in whom because he was referring to the race, not to a specific type. It is clear, consequently, that all sinned in Adam as in a lump. Once he was corrupted by sin, those he begat were all born under sin. All sinners, therefore, derive from him, because we are all from him. When he transgressed, he lost the gift of God, having become unworthy to eat of the tree of life, and as a result he died. This death is the separation of the soul from the body. There is another death—called the second death—in gehenna. We do not undergo it on account of the sin of Adam; it is acquired by the opportunity one has for one’s own sins." - Commentary on Romans, p.96-97, on Romans 5:12
“It is clear that death did not reign over everyone, because they did not all sin after the manner of Adam’s transgression; that is, they did not all sin by disrespecting God. But who are those who sinned by disrespecting God, if not those who, having disregarded the creator, served creatures, making gods for themselves whom they worshiped to the dishonor of God?….So too, these people, by overlooking God when they serve creatures, sin in a similar way—not in the same way, because the expression “in a similar way” usually includes something that is different. It cannot be said that these people also received the command not to eat of the tree, as did Adam.” - Commentary on Romans, p. 100-101, on Romans 5:14
“For Adam is the type of Christ in this regard alone: the sin that one person committed, one person rectified. For if many died through one person’s trespass, how much more have the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one person Jesus Christ abounded in more people. That is, if many died through one person’s trespass when they imitated his transgression, the grace of God and the gift abounded even further in more people when they took refuge in him. For more people receive grace than died through Adam’s trespass. From this it is clear that the apostle was not referring to the death that is common to all, since absolutely all people die and yet all people do not receive grace. It also is clear that death did not reign in all people, but only in those who are denoted as having died as a result of Adam’s trespass, that is, those whom the apostle says sinned after the manner of Adam’s transgression.” - Commentary on Romans, p.105, on Romans 5:15
"It is clearly different, because as a result of Adam’s one sin those who sinned after the manner of his transgression were condemned, whereas the grace of God through Christ justified people not from a single trespass but from many sins by granting them forgiveness of sins." - Commentary on Romans, p.106, on Romans 5:16
"That is, just as through one person’s trespass all who sinned in the same way deserved condemnation, so too in one person’s righteousness will all who believe be justified."- Commentary on Romans, p.107, on Romans 5:18
“Those whom he spoke of above as all, he here refers to as more and many. For more people—not all—followed Adam’s trespass by transgressing, and many people—not all—will be made righteous through faith in Christ. Death did not reign, therefore, in those who did not sin after the manner of Adam’s transgression.” - Commentary on Romans, p.107, on Romans 5:19
"Finally he wants it to be clear to those who are proud that nobody is incriminated for another’s sin. So no one should be afraid to associate with a sinner or to aid him if he comes to him so that he may be of benefit to him." - Commentary on Galatians 6:5
When it comes to the death we receive from Adam, in Ambrosiaster's mind its physical mortality. He's clear that nobody is damned because of Adam's sin. He says multiple times that it's only those who themselves "sinned after the manner of Adam's transgression" that will experience the second death. So while the ancestry of sin can be traced back to Adam, his sin doesn't condemn anyone's soul. God doesn't hold anyone else guilty for that sin. Moreover, nobody is incriminated for the sins of another according to Ambrosiaster. In his comments on Romans 5:14, he says that death does not reign in everyone and draws a distinction between Adam's sin and everyone else's sin. They are different types. We did not receive the same command he did.
"And learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin , but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will. Listen not, I pray you, to any one perversely interpreting the words, But if I do that which I would not Romans 7:16: but remember Him who says, If you be willing, and hearken unto Me, you shall eat the good things of the land: but if you be not willing, neither hearken unto Me, the sword shall devour you, etc. Isaiah 1:19-20: and again, As you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification." - Catechetical Lectures, IV.19
"And you must know your soul to be endowed with free-will, and to be God’s fairest work in the image of himself. It is immortal in as far as God grants it immortality. It is a rational living creature not subject to decay, because these qualities have been bestowed by God upon it. And it has the power to do what it chooses. For you do not sin because you were born that way, nor if you fornicate is it by chance. And do not take any notice of what some people say, that the conjunctions of the stars compel you to fall into unclean living. Why should you avoid acknowledging that you have done wrong by blaming it onto the stars that had nothing to do with it?" - Catechetical Lectures, IV.18
“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated....But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers." - Oration 40:28"And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift…Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy…And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished." - Oration 40:23“Most Greek writers insisted that sin arises from an abuse of the human free will. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa both taught that infants are born without sin, an idea which stands in contrast with Augustine’s doctrine of the universal sinfulness of fallen humanity.” - Mcgrath, Christian Theology, Chapter 14
“As to the third (the peccatum originale originatum), though Gregory, out of pastoral concern, avoids assigning the "guilt" of Adam's sin to his children,” - Phan, Grace and the human condition, p. 171
We ascertain Gregory's understanding of the fall and its consequences through his baptismal theology. He believed that children begin to be "responsible for their lives" around the age of three when their "reason is matured." Gregory believed that children in their "tender years" have no account of sin to give. In his mind, deceased infants have suffered but haven't done wrong and aren't yet wicked. Some misunderstand and conflate his acceptance of infant baptism under certain circumstances with a belief of inherited Adamic guilt. Notice that he grants infant baptism "if any danger presses." Meaning that it was granted if the infant was on the verge of death. But this baptism wasn't to wash away the guilt of Adam's sin. Rather it was to "seal, sanctify, and initiate" them. Gregory viewed glorification as for those who had goodness accounted to them. He viewed punishment in the end as for those who had wickedness accounted to them. Gregory clearly believed deceased infants were naturally neither good or evil. Therefore, their natural state upon death is neither damnation or glorification. He explains his reasoning in the final sentence of our quote on Oration 40:23. Gregory viewed baptism as something that was spiritually good. So a deceased infant who wasn't yet guilty of sin but was baptized did have goodness accounted to them due to their baptism. Such an infant would therefore be glorified. Gregory didn't affirm infant damnation or inherited Adamic guilt, but he did still come to a slightly different conclusion than us regarding the normative and default fate of infants. Anglican theologian Mcgrath and Catholic theologian Phan come to the same conclusion that we do about Nazianzus. They agree with us that he didn't assign guilt to infants. He viewed them as without sin and that humans only become a guilty sinner when they sin themselves.
Gregory of Nyssa, 335 AD - 395 AD
"Whereas the innocent babe has no such plague before its soul’s eyes obscuring its measure of light, and so it continues to exist in that natural life; it does not need the soundness which comes from purgation, because it never admitted the plague into its soul at all." - On Infants' Early Death, Para. 3
"Certainly, in comparison with one who has lived all his life in sin, not only the innocent babe but even one who has never come into the world at all will be blessed." - On Infants' Early Death, Para. 4
“For we shall not, according to the Jew Nicodemus and his somewhat dull intelligence, change the old man into a child, nor shall we form anew him who is wrinkled and gray-headed to tenderness and youth, if we bring back the man again into his mother’s womb: but we do bring back, by royal grace, him who bears the scars of sin, and has grown old in evil habits, to the innocence of the babe. For as the child new-born is free from accusations and from penalties, so too the child of regeneration has nothing for which to answer, being released by royal bounty from accountability.” - On the baptism of Christ, para. 3
“Most Greek writers insisted that sin arises from an abuse of the human free will. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa both taught that infants are born without sin, an idea which stands in contrast with Augustine’s doctrine of the universal sinfulness of fallen humanity.” - Mcgrath, Christian Theology, Chapter 14Gregory is quite explicit that in his view, the souls of babies are innocent and aren't touched in any way by "the plague". In his mind, innocent babies and all babies who died in the womb will be blessed. Anglican theologian Mcgrath comes to the same conclusion we do about Gregory of Nyssa's view on the spiritual condition of infants.
John Chrysostom, 347 AD - 407 AD
"What then? tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? and how Abraham? and how Job? and how all the rest? And what, I pray? shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it doth so no longer." - Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Homily XXXIX
"As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so doth the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? “Through the sin of one.” But what means, “for that all have sinned?” This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal." - Homilies on Romans, Homily X, Para. 1
When he comments on Romans 5, Chrysostom makes statements that don't convey a belief in inherited/imputed guilt. He seems to believe that mortality is the primary thing that Adam passed on to his progeny. John conveys that people only deserve punishment if they become a sinner through themselves. He says that all dying in Adam the death of sin is said to be of the body."For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner." - Homilies on Romans, Homily X, Para. 7
When it comes to infants, Chrysostom is clear that the souls of children who die are in the hand of God along with the righteous. He doesn't view them as wicked. They are innocent and sinless. When he lists the benefits of baptizing infants, the removal of guilt is not among them. Some of our interlocutors often appeal to infant baptismal texts as proof of inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. John Chrysostom is an explicit example that an affirmation of infant baptism doesn't inherently mean that the infant is guilty of sin."Nor indeed is it possible for a soul, torn away from the body, to wander here any more. For “the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God;” and if of the righteous, then those children's souls also; for neither are they wicked: and the souls too of sinners are straightway led away hence." - Homilies on Matthew, Homily XXVIII.3
"And the first prayer too is full of mercy, when we entreat for the energumens; and the second again, for others under penance seeking for much mercy; and the third also for ourselves, and this puts forward the innocent children of the people entreating God for mercy. For since we condemn ourselves for sins, for them that have sinned much and deserve to be blamed we ourselves cry; but for ourselves the children; for the imitators of whose simplicity the kingdom of heaven is reserved. For this image shows this, that they who are like those children, lowly and simple, these above all men are able to deliver the guilty by their prayers." - Homilies on Matthew, Homily LXXI"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit." - Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian, 1:6:21
"We look in vain in Chrysostom’s writings for the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrines of absolute predestination, total depravity, hereditary guilt, irresistible grace, perseverance of saints, or for the Lutheran theory of forensic and solifidian justification. He teaches that God foreordained all men to holiness and salvation, and that Christ died for all and is both willing and able to save all, but not against their will and without their free consent. The vessels of mercy were prepared by God unto glory, the vessels of wrath were not intended by God, but fitted by their own sin, for destruction. The will of man, though injured by the Fall, has still the power to accept or to reject the offer of salvation." - Philip Schaff, The life and work of John Chrysostom, Chapter XIII
In fact, church historian Philip Schaff recognizes and points out that John Chrysostom didn't affirm hereditary guilt.
“Eve, therefore, will not be saved because of her children, nor will her offspring be condemned because of their mother, or because of their father Adam, as is the opinion of the unwise. Since every man has free will, he is judged according to the nature of his actions to merit great praise or blame. Similarly, on the day of judgement he will be justified or subjected to punishment, as the blessed Paul teaches when he says: For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may account for what he did in his own body, whether good or bad (2Cor 2:10).” - The Book on the Faith, 37
“That children are not punished for parents, nor parents for children, is again taught by God when he says to the prophet Moses: The fathers will not die for the sons, nor the sons for the parents; each one will die in his own sin (Deut 24:16). Again, God takes to task the folly of the sons of Israel, at the time when they were held captive among the Chaldeans because of their abominations. They made a protest - not about themselves, but about their parents - namely, that their parents were the cause of all their abhorrent wrongdoing, and they unjustly complained to God about their captivity, saying to themselves: The way of the Lord is not just, because our fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrens' teeth are set on edge (Ezek 18:2)…When God said: As I live, this saying will never again be spoken in Israel (Ezek 18:3), he taught clearly that they should not continue in that same foolish thinking.” - The Book on the Faith, 38
“Faced with these assertions by God, then, they are insane who condemn the whole world to iniquity and shameful actions because of one man Adam…They should certainly recognize that they drive themselves into committing crimes because they pursue the attractions and desires of the flesh. They should not attribute to others the blame for crimes which they themselves are seen to have committed.” - The Book on the Faith, 39
“But because there are some who, ignorant of the divine scriptures, dare to blurt out detestable and unjust statements concerning Christ with the assertion that he consigns unbaptized infants to the torment of eternal fire (that is usually called 'gehenna' in scripture), let them learn from the divine scriptures that the punishment of eternal fire is not prepared for those who are innocent and totally ignorant of sin, but for those who are known to have broken the law of God; just as the blessed Paul teaches in this way: We know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law (Rom 3:19). And again: For through the law there is knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). And again: For where there is no law there is no transgression (Rom 4:15). And again: But sin is not imputed since there is no law (Rom 5:13). And again: For apart from the law sin is dead; but I for a time lived apart from the law (Rom 7:8-9). Likewise also God says to Moses when he was making a law concerning young people: As I live, and as my name lives; and the glory of the Lord will fill all the earth, because all men who see my glory, and the signs that I worked in Egypt and in this desert, and who tempted me these ten times, and have not listened to my voice - they will not see the land which I swore to give to their fathers; but their sons who are with me here today, who are ignorant of good and evil; every innocent young man - to these will I give the land (Num 14:21-23). Equally our Lord Jesus Christ also teaches that children are totally free from all sin, when he says: Amen, I say to you, unless you be converted, and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 18:3). And again he says to his disciples: Allow the children to come to me, and do not hinder them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Amen, I say to you, whoever will not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter there (Mt 10:14-15). Similarly the blessed Paul also says: Be not children in thinking, but be children in evildoing (1Cor 14:20). Again he teaches about Esau and Jacob, saying: When they were not yet born, and still had not done anything good or evil (Rom 9:11). Children, therefore, as the divine scripture itself taught clearly, being fully innocent, and in no way experienced in wrongdoing, being ignorant even of the distinction between good and evil, certainly are not consigned to the suffering of eternal fire, since the eternal punishment of fire is prepared for the wicked and the sinners.” - The Book on the Faith, 41
Rufinus speaks on guilt, its transmission, and the spiritual condition of infants at length. He says it's unwise to assert that Adam's offspring are condemned by his sin. He cites multiple Old Testament passages to argue for personal responsibility and against the transmission of guilt. Rufinus argues that those who condemn the whole world because of Adam's sin are "insane". He's clear that the blame for crimes of fallen humans is attributed only to the one who perpetrated them. Lastly, he rebukes the belief that deceased unbaptized infants are guilty and damned to eternal fire. He says this punishment is only for those who themselves have broken God's law. He says that infants are "fully innocent, ignorant of the distinction between good and evil, and free from all sin." They therefore "certainly are not consigned" to hell. He cites multiple passages to make this case.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 350 AD - 428 AD
“The principles of their heresy are, in summary, the following. Men sin, they say, by nature and not by intention; and 'by nature' they do not mean that nature which was in Adam when first created (because this, they say, was good because made by a good God), but that nature which was his later after the fall because of his ill conduct and sin. He received a sinful nature in exchange for the good and a mortal nature in exchange for an immortal; it is in this manner and by nature that men became sinners after having been good by nature. It is in their nature and not by a voluntary choice that they acquired sin. The second point is connected to the preceding propositions. They say that infants, even newly born, are not free from sin because, since the disobedience of Adam, nature is fixed into sin and that this sinful nature, as was said, extends to all his descendants. They quote, he says, the verse, "I was born in sin" and others similar: the holy baptism itself; the communion with the incorruptible body for the remission of sins and the fact that these apply to infants as a confirmation of their own opinion. They claim also that no man is just, and this is thus obviously a corollary of their initial position, "because nothing of flesh can be justified before you," he says, and he cites other texts of the same kind.” - Photius’ Bibliotheca, 177, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Against the defenders of Original sin, para. 3-4
“the end of the first volume...which he [Theodore] composed against those who say that sin is present by nature.” - Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part, 162-73, memra 39
“He also cites Ezek. 18:2–4, which refutes the passing of guilt and punishment from one generation to the next, as well as Rom. 2:6, where the same principle of individual responsibility and individual punishment is expressed.” - Kavvadas, Grace for Grace, p.278 citing AOCI I.5.1.174–75.
“Now, transmitting punishment from generation to generation implies transmission of guilt (i.e., of sin) so that considering natural mortality as a penalty for Adam’s sin implies attaching this sin to human nature. Against this teaching, Theodore demonstrates at length the consequences of it regarding Jesus Christ. Since He possesses a complete human nature, if human nature were sinful then even He would not be free from sin. According to Theodore, the fact that the Savior was really free from sin, but experienced death, clearly demonstrates, firstly, that mortality belongs to human nature while sinfulness does not, and, secondly, that mortality is not a punishment for sin, since in that case one should draw from Christ’s death the conclusion that He was guilty of sin.” - Kavvadas, Grace for Grace, p.279 citing AOCI I.5.1.175–76.
“Instead, we shall look at one of the few (if not only) Greek works against the Latin view of Original Sin. Arguing in Against the Defenders of Original Sin, Theodore defends the position that a corrupt nature could be inherited, but that sin itself could not.” - Jaros, Original Sin in the Gallic Monks, p. 142
“What we can conclude about Theodore and Original Sin is that he is in line with the Eastern tradition. It is clear that he denied that infants inherit the guilt of Adam. On Romans 5:12, Theodore interpreted eph ho as ‘because of’ and not ‘in whom.’ Theodore also rejected that baptism removed the inherited effects of Adam's sin.” - Jaros, Original Sin in the Gallic Monks, p. 144
Regarding Theodore, he wrote a 5 book polemical work against inherited Adamic guilt in his day titled "Against the defenders of original sin." This work has been lost to us but survives today in Syriac and Latin fragments. Isaac of Nineveh in the 7th century as well as Photius of Constantinople in the 9th century commented on Theodore's work. Additionally, some contemporary scholars have commented on the extant fragments. He didn't believe that humans were born guilty of Adam's sin. Rather, humans became guilty by their own rebellious choices. Theodore articulated that human mortality does not equate to guiltiness otherwise after the incarnation Jesus would have been a guilty sinner throughout his whole earthly life. It also seems that Theodore didn't believe that water baptism removed Adam's guilt from the recipient; this is clearly due to his belief that Adamic guilt isn't something we inherit from Adam in the first place.
“He finds no fault with offspring on the basis of nature—perish the thought—nor is there any reference to nature in their case; rather, he comments adversely on the mind-set of the parents. That is to say, it is clear from “conceived in iniquities and carried in sin” by the mother that he refers to the fault of the parents, not the offspring, criticizing the mind-set of the former, not the nature of the children, as some foolish people would like to hold. David, in fact, is not referring to himself; how could he say this of his own nature, when God said to him, “I found a man after my own heart,” far from finding fault with his nature but even admiring his use of free will? So David is not saying this of himself; and even if someone mistakenly put a title on the psalm to this effect, it does not bring the drift of the psalm into question. In other words, I appear to have been conceived in sin and never to have been free from wickedness. Now, “I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins my mother carried me” was well put in reference to the people, since later generations failed seriously and followed their parents in sinning…” - Commentary on Psalm 1-81, p. 675
When Theodore comments on the popular original sin prooftext of Psalm 51:5, he says this isn't speaking of the nature of infants. In his mind, there's no fault of offspring on the basis of their nature. He interprets the verse as speaking of parental fault. Theodore's perspective is that even though infants have no fault in their nature, nobody is free from wickedness. Wickedness will always affect us in this life. We're born into fallen and sinful environments. Humans naturally "followed their parents in sinning". This is clearly a reference to personal sin. It seems that Theodore has sinful inclinations and tendencies of all humans in view. Theodore is clear that we're to "perish the thought" that there's a fault with offspring on the basis of nature. This indicates Theodore doesn't have a view of perpetually inherited guilt in mind.
"Sin is not Adam's transgression, but the index of each one's volition. But we did not undertake the transgression, for by succession all should be transgressors, and should not be rebuked by God. which are transgressed by the necessity of natural succession. But now it is not so: because we do not all transgress the commandment, nor do we all keep it. Hence it is clear that transgression does not originate from necessity, but from pleasure. But if you say, the Lord came for her sake: wherefore he did not completely destroy her in baptism. but everyone even now has the power to transgress, or not? Why transgressions which are spontaneous. as we have shown, no one undertakes out of necessity; yet from this necessity we undertake successive death: which is alienation from God. First, indeed, this is a man, alienated from God. nor could we live in God: that is why the Lord came to revive us through the bath of regeneration and to reconcile us to God, which he also accomplished. For this reason we did not accept the transgression, since that which also reigned over those who had not sinned in the similitude of Adam's transgression would necessarily have reigned over him as well." - Patrologia Graeca, 65.1018
Following the sentiment of many in the East, Marcus says that if we all undertook Adam's transgression and are therefore transgressors ourselves by necessity, there would be no grounds for rebuke by God. This is because transgression, and rebuke as a result, originates from active willing not by the necessity of nature. Marcus seems to clearly state that we do not take on "the transgression" (referring back to Adam's transgression).
“For the law of sin is really what the fall of its first father brought on mankind by that fault of his, against which there was uttered this sentence by the most just Judge: “Cursed is the ground in thy works; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and in the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread.” This, I say, is the law, implanted in the members of all mortals, which resists the law of our mind and keeps it back from the vision of God, and which, as the earth is cursed in our works after the knowledge of good and evil, begins to produce the thorns and thistles of thoughts, by the sharp pricks of which the natural seeds of virtues are choked, so that without the sweat of our brow we cannot eat our bread which “cometh down from heaven,” and which “strengtheneth man’s heart.” The whole human race in general therefore is without exception subject to this law. For there is no one, however saintly, who does not take the bread mentioned above with the sweat of his brow and anxious efforts of his heart. But many rich men, as we see, are fed on that common bread without any sweat of their brow.” - Conference XXIII, Chapter XI
We will begin our citations of John Cassian with Conference 23 where he makes explicit mention of Adam's first sin and the fall. John focuses on the "law of sin" as what Adam's sin brought onto mankind. He then comments on how after the knowledge of good and evil the earth is cursed in our works and we begin having thorns and thistles of thought. To fully understand what John means by "law of sin" we need to read further to grasp what this entails in his mind.
“But because by reason of his state of human frailty he felt that he was captive, i.e., led away to carnal cares and anxieties which the law of sin and death causes, he groans over this law of sin under which against his will he had fallen, and at once has recourse to Christ and is saved by the present redemption of His grace. Whatever of anxiety therefore that law of sin, which naturally produces the thorns and thistles of mortal thoughts and cares, has caused to spring up in the ground of the Apostle’s breast, that the law of grace at once plucks up. “For the law,” says he, “of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath set me free from the law of sin and death.” - Conference XXIII, Chapter XV
“For what is it to be led captive to the law of sin but to continue to perform and commit sin?” - Conference XXIII, Chapter XV
“For I do not suppose that this law of sin denotes crimes or can be taken of the offences mentioned above, of which if a man is guilty he does not serve the law of God with the mind, from which law he must first have departed in heart before he is guilty of any of them with the flesh. For what is it to serve the law of sin, but to do what is commanded by sin?” - Conference XXIII, Chapter XV
“though with the mind I serve the law of God, yet with the flesh I confess that I serve the law of sin, i.e., by the occupations of my human condition am sometimes dragged down from heavenly to earthly things and the height of my mind is brought down to the level of care for humble matters.” - Conference XXIII, Chapter XVI
In Chapters 15 and I6 of Conference 23, John Cassian summarizes the law of sin as carnal cares, thoughts, and earthly things that lead us to commit sin ourselves. But we must first depart the law of God in the heart before we're guilty of anything contained by the law of sin. John seems to be saying that what Adam brought to mankind was the fact that we all face sinful inclinations and inevitably sin ourselves. He does not say we are guilty of the law of sin from birth or by nature but that rather we must first depart in heart ourselves before we become guilty.
“For example, do not we see those natural impulses of the flesh not only in boys in whom innocence still anticipates the discernment of good and evil, but even in little children and infants, who although they have not even the slightest approach to lust within them, yet show that the impulses of the flesh exist in them and are naturally excited? Do not we also see that the deadly pricks of anger already exist in full vigour likewise in little children? and before they have learnt the virtue of patience, we see that they are disturbed by wrongs, and feel affronts offered to them even by way of a joke; and sometimes, although strength is lacking to them, the desire to avenge themselves is not wanting, when anger excites them. Nor do I say this to lay the blame on their natural state, but to point out that of these impulses which proceed from us, some are implanted in us for a useful purpose, while some are introduced from without, through the fault of carelessness and the desire of an evil will. For these carnal impulses, of which we spoke above, were with a useful purpose implanted in our bodies by the providence of the Creator, viz.: for perpetuating the race, and raising up children for posterity: and not for committing adulteries and debaucheries, which the authority of the law also condemns.” - Book VII, Chapter III
John Cassian touches on this idea more clearly in Book 7. He speaks of boys who are innocent yet there is a future anticipation of knowing good and evil. Recall in Conference 23 where John said "after the knowledge of good and evil, begins to produce the thorns and thistles of thoughts, " He goes on in Book VII to say that the seeds of this can be seen at a young age anticipating a future time of thorns and thistles sprouting up. All the while, John does not blame the natural state of humans. Some of these "impulses" are meant for good, but we abuse them and turn them into that which condemns us.
“There are some things besides in the dress of the Egyptians which concern not the care of the body so much as the regulation of the character, that the observance of simplicity and innocence may be preserved by the very character of the clothing. For they constantly use both by day and by night very small hoods coming down to the end of the neck and shoulders, which only cover the head, in order that they may constantly be moved to preserve the simplicity and innocence of little children by imitating their actual dress. And these men have returned to childhood in Christ and sing at all hours with heart and soul: “Lord, my heart is not exalted nor are mine eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters nor in wonderful things above me. If I was not humbly minded, but exalted my soul: as a child that is weaned is towards his mother.” - Book I, Chapter III
Elsewhere, John Cassian speaks of "the simplicity and innocence of little children". He also says that men return to this selfsame childhood in Christ. This is likely referencing a return to the innocence had before personally sinning.
“It cannot then be doubted that there are by nature some seeds of goodness in every soul implanted by the kindness of the Creator: but unless these are quickened by the assistance of God, they will not be able to attain to an increase of perfection, for, as the blessed Apostle says: “Neither is he that planteth anything nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.” But that freedom of the will is to some degree in a man’s own power is very clearly taught in the book termed the Pastor, where two angels are said to be attached to each one of us, i.e., a good and a bad one, while it lies at a man’s own option to choose which to follow. And therefore the will always remains free in man, and can either neglect or delight in the grace of God.” - Conference XIII, Chapter XII
John Cassian also points out that there are "by nature some seeds of goodness in every soul." He does not seem to believe that human souls are entirely condemned, spiritually dead, and under God's wrath from conception.
“It is only natural that this difference should be made, for the Eastern Church has always held a milder view of the effect of the Fall than that which has been current in the West since the days of Augustine; and, indeed, Cassian, in making his protest against the rising tide of Augustinianism, was in the main only handing on the teaching which he had received from his Eastern instructors.” - Gibson, The Works of John Cassian, Prolegomena, Chapter I
“According to Cassian, what is needed from God for the human will is direction. In contrast to Augustine, Cassian perceived the condition of the will not as enslaved to sin, free only for evil, but as “more readily inclined to vice either through want of knowledge of what is good, or through the delights of passion.” - Weaver, Divine grace and human agency, p. 109
Various scholars and historians have made similar observations about John Cassian's understanding of the fall and the condition of the will.
“We must inquire how Adam, our first forefather, transmitted to us the penalty imposed upon him for his transgression. He had heard "Earth thou art and to the earth shalt thou return" (Gen 3: 19), and from being incorruptible he became corruptible and was made subject to the chains of death. But since he produced children after falling into this state we, his descendants, are corruptible, coming from a corruptible source. Thus it is that we are heirs of Adam's curse; for surely we have not been visited with punishment as though we disobeyed with him the divine command which he received, but because ... become mortal he transmitted the curse to the seed he fathered. We are mortal because we come from a mortal source” - Doctrinal Questions and Answers, 6
“Indeed, when we turned away from the face of the all-holy God because the human mind diligently occupied itself with “evil from its youth,” we began to live a life even more devoid of reason, and “death prevailed and swallowed [us] up,” as the prophet says, and Hades “enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth without ceasing.” When we became imitators of the transgression in Adam, in accordance with which “all sinned,” we were subject to the same penalty as he was. But the earth under heaven did not remain without aid. Sin was taken away. Satan fell. Death was brought to nothing.” - Commentary on Romans, 182-183
“So our nature contracted sin “through the disobedience of the one man” (that is, Adam). That is how “the many were made sinners”—not because they transgressed along with Adam (since they did not yet exist), but because they were of his nature, which had fallen under the law of sin. Just as human nature was enfeebled with decay in Adam through his disobedience (and that is how the passions entered into it), so also it has been freed once again in Christ. He was obedient to God the Father and “committed no sin.” - Commentary on Romans, 187
In the writings of Cyril which have survived to us today, there exists a commentary on Romans. Cyril repeatedly clarifies that mankind didn't disobey with Adam and isn't punished as such. Furthermore, he says we are subject to the same penalty as him when we "became imitators" of the transgression. It's in this way that "all sinned". It's important to note that rejection of being with Adam when he sinned and denying our existence with him in the garden marks a key departure from Augustine's framework of original sin.
“Again, if only one soul was made from which are derived the souls of all men who are born, who can say that he himself did not sin when the first man sinned?” - Augustine of Hippo, The Problem of Free Choice, p. 196
“In his final, incomplete work to Julian of Eclanum, he insists that every soul (and not only every body) was contained in Adam when he sinned: this is the only way Augustine believes that his doctrine of inherited guilt can be sustained.” - A History of Mind and Body in Late Antiquity, p. 223
This is evident in Augustine's own writings. For the sake of brevity, we will not include it. Still, in Augustine's letter 166, he writes to Jerome. He seems to confess his inability to consistently affirm his view of inherited Adamic guilt if humanity wasn't seminally present with Adam when he sinned.
“To a quite remarkable extent, the Greek Fathers carried on in their time-honoured fashion, emphasizing above all else the universal mortality which has spread as the result of Adam's sin, but steering clear of any imputation of his guilt. Cyril of Alexandria states quite explicitly that we did not actually sin in Adam, a suggestion which he regards as absurd because we were not born then, and confines the effects of the fall to the resulting corruption of our nature. That might seem to be a reasonably Augustinian conclusion, except that Cyril's understanding of 'nature' was much more precise and limited than Augustine's. In particular, he knew nothing of the deep moral and psychological undertones which so deeply coloured Augustine's treatment of the subject.” - Gerald Bray, Original Sin in Patristic Thought, p. 46
Anglican theologian Gerald Bray has the same assessment of Cyril that we do. He includes Cyril as one of the Greek Fathers who understands that imputed Adamic guilt is not one of the consequences of the fall. Bray further distinguishes Cyril's understanding from Augustine's by pointing out how Cyril had a more precise understanding of nature and is therefore not reasonably Augustinian in his views of the fall's consequences.
.png)
"St. Paul says that when Adam sinned he became mortal because of it and passed both on to his descendants. Thus death came to all men, in that all sinned. But each person receives the sentence of death not because of the sin of his first ancestor but because of his own sin." - On Romans 5:12, IER, Migne PG 82 col. 100
"Death reigned over even those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s sin. For even if they did not break the same commandment, they did other things which were wrong." - On Romans 5:14, IER, Migne PG 82 col. 100
"For it is not, as the madmen of the Messalians think, that baptism only imitates a razor, taking away previous sins: for this is bestowed from the superabundant. For if this was the only need for baptism, why should we baptize infants who have not yet tasted sin?" - Compendium of Heresies, 5.18
Theodoret emphasizes mortality as what is directly passed on from Adam to his descendants. He also doesn't believe all humans participated with Adam when he sinned. Rather, each person receives the sentence of death "because of his own sin." Additionally, he critiques the Messalians sect's view on baptism and says that baptism doesn't take away previous sins for infants because they "have not yet tasted sin", indicating that infants aren't yet guilty of sin.
“Worthy child, circled round by the rampart of the cross, innocent, undarkened by the filth of sin, little Theudosius, whose parents in purity of mind intended to bury him in the holy baptismal font, was snatched away by shameless death; yet the ruler of high Olympus will give rest to any member lying beneath the noble sign of the cross, and the child will be heir to Christ.” - Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum XII. 5750 (cited in Baptism and Change in the early Middle Ages, p. 131)
This quote comes from a tomb inscription in southern Gaul dated to the 5th century. In it, Parents speak of their young child who died unbaptized. Yet, the parents say that their young child hadn't yet been darkened by the filth of sin and was innocent. They believe the fate of their child was that he'd be "heir to Christ" indicating a distinctively positive fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment