Article II (I) Original Sin
[1] The adversaries approve Article II, “Original Sin,” but in such a way that they actually condemn our definition of original sin, which we gave in passing. Here, right at the outset, Your Majesty will discover that the Confutation’s writers were lacking not only judgment, but also honesty. We simply wanted to mention the things that original sin includes. But these men, by creating a misleading interpretation, cleverly twist a statement that in itself contains nothing wrong. So they say, “To lack fear of God and to lack faith is actual guilt.” Therefore, they deny it is original sin.
[2] Clearly, these sorts of subtleties start in the schools, not in the emperor’s council. Even though such sophistry can be easily refuted, we ask that the Augsburg Confession in German be examined, so that all good people will understand that we do not teach anything absurd in this matter. This will free us from the suspicion of teaching something new. For there it is written:
It is further taught that since Adam’s fall all human beings, who are naturally conceived, are born in sin. From their mother’s womb they are all filled with evil desire and the inclination toward evil. By nature, they have no true fear of God and no true faith in God.
[3] As this passage demonstrates, we teach that those who are born according to the fleshly nature have concupiscence. This means people not only lack fear and trust in God, but also do not even have the power or gifts to produce fear and trust in God. What fault can be found with this point? Indeed, we think that we have explained and defended ourselves well enough to good men. For in this sense the Latin description denies to nature the ability, gifts, and energy to produce fear and trust in God. In adults, we deny the ability actually to do anything truly good. So, when we mention concupiscence, we understand not only the acts or fruit, but also the constant inclination of the nature.
[4] Now we will show more fully that our description agrees with the usual and ancient definition. First, we must show why we prefer to use these words in this place. In their schools, the adversaries confess that “the material” (as they call it) “of original sin is concupiscence.” We should not have passed by this fact in framing our definition, precisely because some are offering philosophical speculations in a way that is not appropriate for teachers of religion.
[5] Some of them claim that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in human nature, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality. ‹They say that it is not inherent in our nature, but is rather a burden› put on us ‹as a result of Adam’s sin›, not that we have any such depravity of our own. Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on account of original sin, just as a child born of a slave woman becomes a slave not as a result of any personal fault, but as a result of his mother’s condition. [6] To show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we used the word concupiscence. With the best intention, we have explained this term as “diseases” and said that “the nature of human beings is born corrupt and full of faults.”
[7] We have not only used the word concupiscence, but we have also said that “the fear of God and faith are lacking.” We added this comment because the scholastic teachers do not understand the definition of original sin well enough. They take what they received from the Fathers and extend the definition of original sin. They argue that the evil inclination (fomes) is a quality (like a blemish) on the body. With their usual folly, they ask whether this quality is caused from the contagiousness of the apple or from the breath of the serpent, and whether medicines can cure the condition. They suppress the main point with such questions. [8] So, when they talk about original sin, they do not mention the more serious faults of human nature, such as ignorance of God, contempt for God, total lack of fear of God and confidence in God, hatred of God’s judgment, fleeing from God when He judges us, anger toward God, despairing of God’s grace, putting trust in things of this world, and so forth. The Scholastics do not notice all these diseases that are totally contrary to God’s Law. They even say that human nature is entirely capable of loving God above all things and fulfilling God’s commandments “according to the substance of the act.” These diseases are totally contrary to God’s Law, but the Scholastics do not notice them. They do not even realize that they are contradicting themselves. [9] For what else is being able, by one’s own strength, to love God above all things and fulfill His commandments except original righteousness? [10] If human nature is so strong that it is able, on its own, to love God above all things, as the Scholastics confidently affirm, what then is original sin? Why do we need Christ’s grace if we can be justified as a result of our own righteousness? Why do we need the Holy Spirit if we are strong enough on our own to love God above all things and fulfill God’s commandments? [11] Is there anyone who does not realize that our adversaries’ ideas are absurd? They recognize the less serious diseases in human nature, but the more serious they do not even acknowledge. Scripture everywhere warns us, as the Prophets constantly complain, about putting our confidence in our human abilities, contempt for God, hating God, and similar faults with which we are born. [See Psalm 13 and other passages, such as Psalm 14:1–3; 140:3; 36:1.] [12] After the Scholastics mixed philosophical speculations about the perfection of nature [the light of reason] with Christian doctrine, they credited more than was possible to the ability of free will. They taught that people are justified before God by philosophical or civic righteousness. We, too, confess that such things are subject to reason, and so to some degree are within our power. However, as a result of their speculations they could not see the inner uncleanness of human nature. [13] This can only be evaluated and understood on the basis of God’s Word, which the Scholastics do not use very often in their discussions.
[14] These were the reasons why we also mentioned concupiscence in our description of original sin, and why we deny to human nature the ability to fear and trust in God. We wanted to show that original sin contains these diseases: ignorance of God, contempt for God, not having fear and trust in God, the inability to love God. These are the chief faults of human nature because they conflict with the First Table of the Ten Commandments [Exodus 20:3–11].
[15] We have not said anything new. The ancient definition of original sin, understood correctly, says precisely the same thing. “Original sin is the absence of original righ-teousness.” But what is righteousness? Here the Scholastics wrangle over philosophical questions. They do not explain what original righteousness is. [16] In the Scriptures, righ-teousness consists not only in obeying the Second Table of the Ten Commandments ‹which are about good works in serving our fellowman›, but also the First Table, which teaches about fearing God, faith, and loving God. [17] Therefore, original righteousness includes not only physical health in all ways, as they contend, but also these gifts: a sure and certain knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, and the desire and ability to give God these things. [18] Scripture testifies to this when it says in Genesis 1:27 that man was made in the image and likeness of God. What else was this image and likeness other than that man was created with wisdom and righteousness so that he could apprehend God and reflect God? Mankind was given the gift of knowing God, fearing God, and being confident in God. [19] This is how Irenaeus and Ambrose interpret the likeness to God. Ambrose not only says many things to this effect, but especially declares, “That soul is not, therefore, in the image of God, in which God is not [dwelling] at all times.” [20] Paul shows in Ephesians 5:9 and Colossians 3:10 that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth. [21] Lombard is not afraid to say that original righteousness “is the very likeness to God which God implanted in man.” [22] We recount the opinions of the ancients, which in no way interfere with Augustine’s interpretation of the image.
[23] The ancient definition of original sin is that it is a lack of righteousness. This definition not only denies that mankind is capable of obedience in his body, but also denies that mankind is capable of knowing God, placing confidence in God, fearing and loving God, and certainly also the ability to produce such things. For even the theologians themselves teach in their schools that these are not produced without certain gifts and the aid of grace. In order that the matter may be understood, we say that these gifts are precisely the knowledge of God and fear and confidence in God. From these facts it appears that the ancient definition says precisely the same thing that we say, denying fear and confidence toward God. It denies not only the actions, but also the gifts and ability to produce these acts.
[24] Of equal importance is the definition of original sin found in the writings of Augustine. He is used to defining original sin as concupiscence (wicked desire). He means that when righteousness had been lost, concupiscence came in its place. Since diseased nature cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal things. By nature, when we are secure, we hold God’s judgment in contempt. When we are terrified, we hate God’s judgment. This is why Augustine includes both the defect and the vicious habit that has come in its place in his definition of original sin. [25] Concupiscence is not only a corruption of physical qualities, but also, in the higher powers, a vicious turning to fleshly things. These people do not realize the contradiction in what they are saying. At the same time, they attribute to mankind a concupiscence that is not entirely destroyed by the Holy Spirit and also the ability to love God above all things.
[26] We are right in our description of original sin when we say that it is not being able to believe God and not being able to fear and love God. We are right when we say that it includes concupiscence, which seeks fleshly things contrary to God’s Word. This means when it seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also fleshly wisdom and righteousness. Therefore, it holds God in contempt when it trusts in these as good things.
[27] It is not only the ancient teachers, but even the more recent teachers (at least the wiser ones among them), who teach that original sin is both the defects I have mentioned and concupiscence. Thomas Aquinas says:
Original sin includes the loss of original righteousness, and with this a disorderly arrangement of the parts of the soul; therefore, it is not pure loss, but a corrupt habit.
[28] Bonaventure says:
When the question is asked, “What is original sin?” the correct answer is that it is immoderate concupiscence. The correct answer is, also, that it is a lack of the righteousness that is due. And in one of these replies the other is included.
[29] This is also Hugo’s opinion when he says that “original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh.” He is saying that when we are born, we bring with us ignorance of God, unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God. [30] When he mentions ignorance, he includes these other things. These opinions also agree with Scripture. Paul sometimes clearly calls it a defect, as in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God.” In another place, he calls it concupiscence, “at work in our members to bear fruit for death” (Romans 7:5). [31] We could cite more passages relating to both parts, but when a fact is so clear there is no need of further testimonies. The intelligent reader realizes easily that to be without the fear of God and without faith are more than actual guilt. They are abiding defects in our unregenerate nature.
[32] When it comes to original sin, we hold nothing different from either Scripture or the Church catholic. Rather, we cleanse from corruptions and restore to light the most important declarations of Scripture and the Fathers, which have been covered over by the sophistry and controversies of the theologians of our day. It is more than clear that modern theologians do not notice what the Fathers mean when they speak about a “defect.” [33] The knowledge of original sin is absolutely necessary. The magnitude of Christ’s grace cannot be understood unless our diseases are recognized. ‹Christ says in Matthew 9:12 and Mark 2:17, “Those who are well have no need of a physician.”› The entire notion that a person is righteous is mere hypocrisy before God. We must acknowledge that our heart is, by nature, destitute of fear, love, and confidence in God. [34] For this reason the prophet Jeremiah says, “After I was instructed, I slapped my thigh; I was ashamed, and I was confounded” (31:19). Likewise, “I said in my alarm, ‘All mankind are liars’” (Psalm 116:11). That is, they do not think correctly about God.
[35] Here our adversaries attack Martin Luther because he wrote that “original sin remains after Baptism.” They add that this point was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty will discover a clear slander on this point. Our adversaries know in what sense Luther intended this remark that original sin remains after Baptism. Luther always writes that Baptism removes the guilt of original sin. However, the material, as they call it, of the sin (concupiscence) remains. He also adds that the Holy Spirit, given through Baptism, begins to put to death the concupiscence and begins to create new movements within a person. [36] Augustine speaks in the same way when he says, “Sin is forgiven in Baptism, not in such a way that it no longer exists, but so that it is not charged.” Here he confesses openly that sin exists. It remains, although it is not counted against us any longer. Augustine’s judgment on this point was so agreeable to those who came after him that it is often quoted in the decrees of Church councils. In Against Julian, Augustine says:
The Law, which is in the members, has been overturned by spiritual regeneration and remains in the mortal flesh. It has been overturned because the guilt has been forgiven in the Sacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, because it produces desires, against which believers struggle.
[37] Our adversaries know that Luther believes and teaches this, and since they cannot deny this, they instead try to pervert his words in an effort to crush an innocent man.
[38] They argue that concupiscence is a penalty, but not a sin. Luther maintains that it is a sin. It has been said above that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence. If they don’t like this, then let them argue with Augustine. [39] Besides, Paul says in Romans 7:7, “I would not have known what it is to covet [concupiscence] if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” Likewise, “I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (Romans 7:23). [40] No amount of sophistry can overthrow these points. They clearly call concupiscence sin, which is not charged against those who are in Christ [Romans 8:1], although by nature it is deserving of death [Romans 6:23] where it is not forgiven. [41] All controversies aside, this is what the Fathers believe. Augustine, in a long discussion, refutes the opinion of those who think that concupiscence in a person is not a fault, but merely an incidental and inconsequential matter just as color of the body or ill health is said to be an adiaphoron.
[42] But when our adversaries argue that the evil inclination (fomes) is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture, but simply the entire Church, contradict them. Who has ever dared to say that the following things, even if perfect agreement could not be reached, are indifferent matters: doubt about God’s wrath, His grace, God’s Word, anger at the judgments of God, being provoked because God does not at once deliver one from afflictions, murmuring because the wicked enjoy a better fortune than the good, to be urged on by wrath, lust, the desire for glory, wealth, and so on? [43] Godly people acknowledge these things in themselves, as appears in the Psalms and the Prophets. But in the scholastic academies they took from philosophy entirely different ideas: desires and inclinations are neither good nor evil, neither praiseworthy nor worthy of blame. Likewise, that sin is only sin if it is a voluntary action. Philosophers were expressing such ideas about civil righteousness, not about God’s judgment. They unwisely add other ideas as well, saying that nature is not evil. Properly understood, we do not reject this idea, but it is not right to take this understanding of what God creates as good and apply it to original sin. This is precisely what we read in the works of the Scholastics, who wrongly mingle philosophy or civil teachings about ethics with the Gospel. [44] These matters were not only disputed in the schools, but as is usually the case, were carried from the schools to the people. These teachings prevailed and nourished confidence in human strength and suppressed the knowledge of Christ’s grace. [45] Therefore, Luther wanted to declare how great the consequences of original sin are and how weak human beings are as a result. So he taught that these remnants of original sin [after Baptism] are not, by nature, adiaphora in people, but that we need Christ’s grace so that they are not counted against us as sin. And, to put them to death [mortify them], we need the Holy Spirit [Romans 8:13].
[46] The Scholastics minimize sin and punishment when they teach that people can fulfill God’s commandments under their own power. But in Genesis, the punishment imposed because of original sin is described differently. For there human nature is subjected not only to death and other bodily evils, but also to the devil’s kingdom. In Genesis 3:15, there is this fearful sentence that proclaims, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.” [47] Defects and concupiscence are both sin and punishment. Death and other bodily evils, and the dominion of the devil, are properly understood to be punishments. Human nature has been delivered into slavery and is held captive by the devil [Colossians 1:13]. He fills human nature with a passionate desire for wicked opinions and errors and pushes it to sins of every kind. [48] Just as the devil cannot be conquered except by Christ’s help, so we cannot free ourselves from this slavery by our own strength. [49] World history shows how great and powerful the devil’s kingdom is. The world is full of blasphemies against God and wicked opinions. The devil keeps all tied up many hypocrites who appear holy and who are wise and righteous in the world’s eyes. [50] Even greater vices are seen in other people. Since Christ was given to us to remove both these sins and these punishments and to destroy the devil’s kingdom, sin, and death [1 John 3:8], we will never be able to recognize Christ’s benefits unless we understand our evils. For this reason our preachers have diligently taught all about these things. They have not delivered anything that is new, but have set forth Holy Scripture and the judgment of the Holy Fathers.
[51] We think this will satisfy His Imperial Majesty about the childish and trivial sophistry the adversaries use to pervert our article on original sin. We know that we believe correctly, in harmony with the Church catholic of Christ. If the adversaries renew this controversy, there will be more than enough of us to reply and to defend the truth. In this case our adversaries, to a great extent, do not understand what they are saying. They often speak in a contradictory way and do not explain, either correctly or logically, what is the essence of original sin and what they call a “defect.” We are unwilling here to examine their arguments in any further subtle detail. We think it is worthwhile just to recite, in customary and well-known words, the belief of the Holy Fathers, which we also follow.