Augustine & Original Sin

[Rival]

One of the general differences between Western and Eastern Christianity is in their view of 'Original Sin'. A while ago I came across this blog post that details how Augustine may have been wrong about OS because of a misreading of the Greek and Latin texts. This is the main basis for mainstream RC and Protestant views of OS, though it is not the only view acceptable to Catholics it is the dominant one.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this:

"Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

The Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”."

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle WisdomGentle Wisdom

 

[Windwalker]

One of the general differences between Western and Eastern Christianity is in their view of 'Original Sin'. A while ago I came across this blog post that details how Augustine may have been wrong about OS because of a misreading of the Greek and Latin texts. This is the main basis for mainstream RC and Protestant views of OS, though it is not the only view acceptable to Catholics it is the dominant one.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this:

"Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

The Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”."

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle WisdomGentle Wisdom

Yes, the doctrine of original sin, leaves something to be desired. Experientially speaking, it makes zero sense. People are not born inherently flawed. We make children that way through cultural programmings. Why would Jesus say you need to become as a little child in order to see Truth? Children are not inherently fallen. They are inherently connected to God, just without a name. To become as a child, means to see the world before the pollution steals that Mystery from us.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd like to know your thoughts on this:

My thought is that Hebrews and Romans provide an avenue of explanation for how sin is atoned and hence how Adam's sin should be viewed. According to these we have one man, Jesus, convicted by God and condemned to death though he does nothing wrong, and they then argue that this means that the problem with all people is that we have corrupt desires. We being of the same stuff as Adam have the same flaw and are thus condemned for the same reason.

This does not explain the situation in Genesis, and that could be why Augustine doesn't like it. In Genesis Adam makes the choice to become wise, which seems like it should be considered a good thing. How is it a flaw? How is it the wrong thing to do? Doesn't it, instead, seem like God is at fault for forbidding it? Perhaps Augustine has a systematic way around this which involves his translation, so he preserves the idea that God is good and that what Adam chooses is wrong. Perhaps it is through his original sin concept.

 

[LightofTruth]

One of the general differences between Western and Eastern Christianity is in their view of 'Original Sin'. A while ago I came across this blog post that details how Augustine may have been wrong about OS because of a misreading of the Greek and Latin texts. This is the main basis for mainstream RC and Protestant views of OS, though it is not the only view acceptable to Catholics it is the dominant one.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this:

"Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

The Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”."

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle WisdomGentle Wisdom

The thing that passes to all of mankind because of Adam's sin is death. We all sinned in Adam because we share the same nature he had when he sinned. it is the very nature of man which has been condemned to death. The law does that.

Paul says, "for as in Adam all die" ...."even so in Christ shall all be made alive". We are all by nature in Adam, but none are by nature in Christ. Therefore, the only "all" to be made alive are those in Christ.

 

[Rival]

The thing that passes to all of mankind because of Adam's sin is death. We all sinned in Adam because we share the same nature he had when he sinned. it is the very nature of man which has been condemned to death. The law does that.

Paul says, "for as in Adam all die" ...."even so in Christ shall all be made alive". We are all by nature in Adam, but none are by nature in Christ. Therefore, the only "all" to be made alive are those in Christ.

So have you anything to say about Augustine and his apparent mistake?

 

[LightofTruth]

So have you anything to say about Augustine and his apparent mistake?

I don't see the difference whether it's translated "in whom" or "because".

If you want to argue that all die because all sin. I would disagree. I believe all die because Adam sinned. Meaning that we are all in Adam when he sinned. And it is because of his sin that we all die.

 

[Rival]

I don't see the difference whether it's translated "in whom" or "because".

If you want to argue that all die because all sin. I would disagree. I believe all die because Adam sinned. Meaning that we are all in Adam when he sinned. And it is because of his sin that we all die.

Are you aware of the Orthodox Christian take on Original Sin?

Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin » Saint John the Evangelist Orthodox Church (saintjohnchurch.org)

Instead of original sin, Orthodoxy uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make a key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so.

 

[LightofTruth]

Are you aware of the Orthodox Christian take on Original Sin?

Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin » Saint John the Evangelist Orthodox Church (saintjohnchurch.org)

Instead of original sin, Orthodoxy uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make a key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so.

What made Adam capable of doing so(sinning)?

I posted the verse from Galatians because Paul said "for as In Adam all die".

What does Paul mean by that? "in Adam all die"

 

[Rival]

What made Adam capable of doing so?

I posted the verse from Galatians because Paul said "for as In Adam all die".

What does Paul mean by that? "in Adam all die"

That's the whole point. Paul never said 'in'.

 

[LightofTruth]

That's the whole point. Paul never said 'in'.

I referenced the wrong book. It was 1 Cor. 15:22 where Paul uses the word "in".

Are you saying the word is not there?

 

[Rival]

I referenced the wrong book. It was 1 Cor. 15:22 where Paul uses the word "in".

Are you saying the word is not there?

I don't know. If you could bring the original Greek that'd be great. That's not the issue here though; the issue here is the way this particular passage is translated wrongly in Latin, giving rise to a possibly faulty understanding of sin.

 

[LightofTruth]

I don't know. If you could bring the original Greek that'd be great. That's not the issue here though; the issue here is the way this particular passage is translated wrongly in Latin, giving rise to a possibly faulty understanding of sin.

1 Cor 15:22

For as
ὥσπερ (hōsper)
Adverb
Strong's Greek 5618: Just as, as, even as. From hos and per; just as, i.e. Exactly like.

in
ἐν (en)
Preposition
Strong's Greek 1722: In, on, among. A primary preposition denoting position, and instrumentality, i.e. A relation of rest; 'in, ' at, on, by, etc.

Adam
Ἀδὰμ (Adam)
Noun - Dative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 76: Adam, the first man, the first parent of the human race. Of Hebrew origin; Adam, the first man; typically man.

From the link you provided I read:

"Augustine taught that original sin is transmitted to the descendants of Adam and Eve through sexual reproduction."

What is transmitted from Adam is the same thing that was transmitted to Eve. "this is flesh of my flesh".

Adam became capable of sin when God said "You shall not".

Whether God gives His "you shall not" to certain people or not, they still die. Because "this is flesh of my flesh"

 

[Nakosis]

One of the general differences between Western and Eastern Christianity is in their view of 'Original Sin'. A while ago I came across this blog post that details how Augustine may have been wrong about OS because of a misreading of the Greek and Latin texts. This is the main basis for mainstream RC and Protestant views of OS, though it is not the only view acceptable to Catholics it is the dominant one.

I'd like to know your thoughts on this:

"Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

The Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”."

Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle WisdomGentle Wisdom

I've asked a similar question before and find that believers in OS read read what is necessary into other parts of the Bible to support the narrative of OS. The theology that one accepts sets the foundation of how one interprets the Bible.

Most Christians in my experience accept that they have a intuition provided by the Holy Spirit. That kind of conviction tends to trump logical argument.

 

[Rival]

1 Cor 15:22

For as
ὥσπερ (hōsper)
Adverb
Strong's Greek 5618: Just as, as, even as. From hos and per; just as, i.e. Exactly like.

in
ἐν (en)
Preposition
Strong's Greek 1722: In, on, among. A primary preposition denoting position, and instrumentality, i.e. A relation of rest; 'in, ' at, on, by, etc.

Adam
Ἀδὰμ (Adam)
Noun - Dative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 76: Adam, the first man, the first parent of the human race. Of Hebrew origin; Adam, the first man; typically man.

From the link you provided I read:

"Augustine taught that original sin is transmitted to the descendants of Adam and Eve through sexual reproduction."

What is transmitted from Adam is the same thing that was transmitted to Eve. "this is flesh of my flesh".

Adam became capable of sin when God said "You shall not".

Whether God gives His "you shall not" to certain people or not, they still die. Because "this is flesh of my flesh"

I'd prefer if it you stop trying to sermonise on my thread.

Thanks. That passage isn't about sin, it's about death.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

I'm talking about Original Sin. Did you read the blog post in full? Here's the problem:

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Augustine was indeed right to oppose the teaching (or alleged teaching) of the British or Irish teacher Pelagius, that humans are intrinsically good and can make themselves acceptable to God by good works. But Augustine’s view of the matter takes things too far in the opposite direction, further than can be justified by the biblical text.

For the far more likely meaning of the Greek text of Romans 5:12 is that all are counted as sinners because each person individually has sinned. On this view there is perhaps some kind of tendency to sin passed down from Adam to others, but there is no actual guilt.

 

[LightofTruth]

I'd prefer if it you stop trying to sermonise on my thread.

Thanks. That passage isn't about sin, it's about death.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

I'm talking about Original Sin. Did you read the blog post in full? Here's the problem:

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Augustine was indeed right to oppose the teaching (or alleged teaching) of the British or Irish teacher Pelagius, that humans are intrinsically good and can make themselves acceptable to God by good works. But Augustine’s view of the matter takes things too far in the opposite direction, further than can be justified by the biblical text.

For the far more likely meaning of the Greek text of Romans 5:12 is that all are counted as sinners because each person individually has sinned. On this view there is perhaps some kind of tendency to sin passed down from Adam to others, but there is no actual guilt.

Yes, it's about death. And so is Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Adam sinned and the entire human race was condemned..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When I realized that Augustine actually suggested that children born with terrible deformities could actually be explained by their already-fallen nature due to "original sin," I put Augustine down and never picked him up again.

Witness his Confessions in which he claims, “no one is free from sin in your sight, not even an infant whose span of earthly life is but a single day” Of his own infancy he says, “What then was my sin at that age? Was it perhaps that I cried so greedily for those breasts? Certainly if I behaved like that now, greedy not for breasts, of course, but for food suitable to my age, I should provoke derision and be very properly rebuked. My behavior then was equally deserving of rebuke.” A child, crying because it's hungry, should be derided and rebuked -- that's what he says.

One hates to imagine what the sainted Bishop of Hippo thought of what kids do to diapers.

 

[Rival]

Adam sinned and the entire human race was condemned..

I'll try again.

This belief is based on what is likely a mistranslation perpetuated by Augustine. The more likely meaning of that passage is that because of what Adam did, sin is possible, not that folks are born with sin or guilt; this would also negate free will. It's much more in line with the original Greek in this passage that Paul had a view of sin that was similar to the Orthodox Christian view; that is, that we are capable of sin, not that we carry any inherent sin or guilt. Death is not even mandated, as Enoch and Elijah didn't die.

 

[LightofTruth]

I'll try again.

This belief is based on what is likely a mistranslation perpetuated by Augustine. The more likely meaning of that passage is that because of what Adam did, sin is possible, not that folks are born with sin or guilt; this would also negate free will. It's much more in line with the original Greek in this passage that Paul had a view of sin that was similar to the Orthodox Christian view; that is, that we are capable of sin, not that we carry any inherent sin or guilt. Death is not even mandated, as Enoch and Elijah didn't die.

I think it's incorrect to say: "because of what Adam did, sin is possible".
That sounds as if it wasn't possible for Adam to sin. Yet he did. So, what made it possible for Adam to sin?

 

[Rival]

I think it's incorrect to say: "because of what Adam did, sin is possible".
That sounds as if it wasn't possible for Adam to sin. Yet he did. So, what made it possible for Adam to sin?

Where is what Adam did called sin? Also, you're really trying diverting from the topic here.

'Sin' is not mentioned anywhere here Genesis 3:1–24 ESV - Now the serpent was more… | Biblia

So you think that Augustine was correct in his understanding? Even the Latin itself is ambiguous. I'm not going to explain this to you again, though, since it's all in the blog post.

 

[LightofTruth]

Where is what Adam did called sin? Also, you're really trying diverting from the topic here.

'Sin' is not mentioned anywhere here Genesis 3:1–24 ESV - Now the serpent was more… | Biblia

So you think that Augustine was correct in his understanding? Even the Latin itself is ambiguous. I'm not going to explain this to you again, though, since it's all in the blog post.

Sticking to the verse in question. Paul says that "by" or "through" "one man sin entered the world". And in verse 14 Paul mentions Adam's transgression".

God told Adam not to eat from the tree. Adam did. Therefore, Adam sinned.