I. Original Sin
Status of the Controversy
The Chief Questions In This Controversy
[1] Is original sin really, without any distinction, a person’s corrupt nature, substance, and essence? Is it the chief and greater part of his essence (i.e., the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers)? Or even after the fall, is there a distinction between original sin and a person’s substance, nature, essence, body, and soul, so that the nature itself is one thing and original sin is another, which belongs to the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature?
Affirmative Statements
The Pure Teaching, Faith, and Confession according to the Standard and Summary Declaration Mentioned Before
[2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man’s nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Genesis 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God’s creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God’s work and the devil’s work.
[3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care. For this doctrine (that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin) conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith about creation, redemption, sanctification, and the resurrection of our body. It cannot stand with them.
[4] God created the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the fall. But He also created our bodies and souls after the fall. Even though they are corrupt, God still acknowledges them as His work, as it is written in Job 10:8, “Your hands fashioned and made me.” (See also Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 45:9–10; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:28; Psalm 100:3; 139:14; Ecclesiastes 12:1.)
[5] Furthermore, God’s Son has received this human nature [John 1:14], but without sin. Therefore, He did not receive a foreign nature, but our own flesh in the unity of His person. In this way He has become our true Brother. Hebrews 2:14 says, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same things.” Again, “For surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore He had to be made like His brothers in every respect, … yet without sin” [2:16; 4:15]. [6] In the same way, Christ redeemed human nature as His work, sanctifies it, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, received, redeemed, or sanctified. He will not raise it, adorn it, or save it in the elect. In the ‹blessed› resurrection original sin will be entirely destroyed [1 Corinthians 5:51–57].
[7] The distinction can easily be discerned between (a) the corrupt nature, (b) the corruption, which infects the nature, and (c) the corruption by which the nature became corrupt.
[8] 3. On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man’s body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Romans 3:10–12]. As the Church sings:
Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human.
[9] This damage cannot be fully described [Psalm 19:12]. It cannot be understood by reason, but only from God’s Word. [10] We affirm that no one but God alone can separate human nature and this corruption of human nature from each other. This will fully come to pass through death, in the ‹blessed› resurrection. At that time our nature, which we now bear, will rise and live eternally without original sin and be separated and divided from it. As it is written in Job 19:26–27, “After my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold.”
Negative Statements
Rejection of the False, Opposite Teachings
[11] 1. We reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a debt based on what has been committed by another person ‹diverted to us› without any corruption of our nature.
[12] 2. We reject and condemn the teaching that evil lusts are not sin, but are created, essential properties of human nature. This is taught as though the above-mentioned defect and damage were not truly sin, because of which a person would be a child of wrath without Christ ‹not ingrafted into Christ›.
[13] 3. We likewise reject the Pelagian error. It alleged that human nature even after the fall is not corrupt, and especially in spiritual things human nature has remained entirely good and pure in its natural powers.
[14] 4. We reject the teaching that original sin is only a slight, insignificant spot on the outside, smeared on human nature, or a blemish that has been blown upon it, beneath which the nature has kept its good powers even in spiritual things.
[15] 5. We reject the teaching that original sin is only an outward obstacle to the good spiritual powers and not a spoiling or lack of the powers. It is not like when a magnet is smeared with garlic juice, and its natural power is not removed, but only blocked; or when a stain can be easily wiped away, like a spot from the face or paint from a wall.
[16] 6. We reject the teaching that in a person the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but a person still has something good in him, even in spiritual things (e.g., capacity, skill, aptitude, or ability in spiritual things to begin, to work, or to help working for something good).
[17] 7. On the other hand, we also reject the false teaching of the Manichaeans, who taught that original sin, like something essential and self-sustaining, has been infused by Satan into human nature and intermingled with it, like when poison and wine are mixed.
[18] 8. We reject the teaching that the natural man does not sin, but something else sins apart from man and, on account of this, human nature is not accused but only original sin in the nature.
[19] 9. We also reject and condemn as a Manichaean error the teaching that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt person. This teaching states that a distinction between the corrupt nature (as such) after the fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from each other even in thought.
[20] 10. Now, original sin is called by Dr. Luther “nature sin,” “person sin,” and “essential sin.” This is not because the nature, person, or essence of man is itself—without any distinction—original sin. He uses such words in order to show the distinction between original sin, which belongs to human nature, and other sins, which are called actual sins.
[21] 11. Original sin is not an actual sin that is committed. It is inherent to the nature, substance, and essence of humanity. So even if no wicked thought should ever arise in the heart of a corrupt person, no idle word should be spoken, no wicked deed should be done, human nature is still corrupted through original sin. Original sin is born in us because of the sinful seed and is a source of all other actual sins, such as wicked thoughts, words, and works, as it is written in Matthew 15:19, “out of the heart come evil thoughts.” Also [Genesis 8:21 says], “The intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” (See also Genesis 6:5.)
[22] 12. There is also to be noted well the different uses of the word nature, by which the Manichaeans hide their error and lead astray many simple people. For sometimes this word means the essence ‹the very substance› of man, as when it is said, “God created human nature.” At other times it means the attitude and the base quality of a thing, which belongs to its nature or essence, as when it is said, “The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and way of man is to sin, and is sin.” Here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that belongs to the nature or substance.
[23] 13. Now, consider the Latin terms substantia (substance) and accidens (a nonessential quality). They are not words of Holy Scripture and, besides, are unknown to the ordinary person. So they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people. Simple people should be spared them.
[24] But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly kept in disputes about original sin. For they are well known and used without any misunderstanding to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.
[25] The distinction between God’s work and that of the devil is made in the clearest way by these terms. For the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way—with God’s consent—corrupt the substance created by God.