The Formula of Concord - Solid Declaration

I. Original Sin

[Status of the Controversy]

[1] First of all, a controversy about original [German: inherited] sin has arisen among some theologians of the Augsburg Confession. What is it precisely? One side argued this: through Adam’s fall, mankind’s nature, substance, and essence are corrupt. Since the fall, the nature, substance, and essence of a human being (or, the chief, highest part of his essence, i.e., the rational soul in its highest state or chief powers) is original sin itself. This has been called “nature-sin” or “person-sin” because it is not a thought, word, or work, but the nature itself. From original sin, as from a root, spring all other sins. So since the fall, there is now no difference whatever between the nature and essence of mankind and original sin because the nature is corrupt through sin.

[2] The other side taught, in opposition, that original sin is not truly the nature, substance, or essence of mankind (i.e., a person’s body or soul, which even now, since the fall, are and remain God’s creation and creatures in us). But original sin is something in mankind’s nature, body, and soul, and in all a person’s powers. It is a horrible, deep, inexpressible corruption of mankind’s nature and powers. So mankind lacks the righteousness in which he was originally created. In spiritual things he is dead to good and perverted to all evil. Because of this corruption and inborn sin, which dwells in man’s nature, all actual sins flow forth from the heart. Therefore, a distinction must be maintained between the nature and essence of the corrupt person and his body and soul, which are God’s creation and creatures in us even since the fall. These are distinct from original sin, which is the devil’s work, by which the nature has become corrupt.

[3] This controversy about original sin is not unnecessary wrangling. If this doctrine is rightly presented from, and according to, God’s Word, and separated from all Pelagian and Manichaean errors, then the benefits of the Lord Christ and His precious merit, also the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, are better known and praised even more (as the Apology says). Furthermore, due honor is rendered to God if His work and creation in mankind is rightly distinguished from the devil’s work, by which human nature has been corrupted. [4] Therefore, to explain this controversy in the Christian way and according to God’s Word, and to maintain the correct, pure doctrine of original sin, we will collect from the above-mentioned writings the thesis and antithesis into brief chapters, that is, the correct doctrine and its opposite.

[Affirmative Statements]

[5] 1. First, it is true that Christians should regard and recognize the actual transgression of God’s commandments as sin; but sin is also that horrible, dreadful hereditary sickness by which the entire human nature is corrupted. This should above all things be regarded and recognized as sin indeed. Yes, it is the chief sin, which is a root and fountainhead of all actual sins. [6] By Dr. Luther it is called a “nature sin” or “person sin.” He says this to show that, even if a person would not think, speak, or do anything evil (which, however, is impossible in this life, since the fall of our first parents), his nature and person are nevertheless sinful. Before God they are thoroughly and utterly infected and corrupted by original sin, as by a spiritual leprosy. Because of this corruption and because of the fall of the first man, the human nature or person is accused or condemned by God’s Law. So we are by nature the children of wrath, death, and damnation, unless we are delivered from them by Christ’s merit.

[7] 2. Second, the following is also clear and true, as Article XIX of the Augsburg Confession teaches: God is not a creator, author, or cause of sin. By the instigation of the devil through one man, sin (which is the devil’s work) has entered the world (Romans 5:12; 1 John 3:7). Even today, in this corruption, God does not create and make sin in us. Original sin is multiplied from sinful seed, through fleshly conception and birth from father and mother [Psalm 51:5]. God at the present day still creates and makes the human nature in people.

[8] 3. Third, reason doesn’t know and understand what this hereditary evil is [Psalm 19:12]. As the Smalcald Articles say, it must be learned and believed from the revelation of Scripture. The Apology briefly summarized this under the following main points:

[9] a. Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, hereditary evil is the guilt by which we are all in God’s displeasure and are, by nature, children of wrath, as the apostle shows (Romans 5:12–14 [; Ephesians 2:3]).

[10] b. Second, original sin is a complete absence or lack of the created state of hereditary righteousness in Paradise, or of God’s image, according to which man was originally created in truth, holiness, and righteousness. At the same time, original sin is an inability and unfitness for all the things of God. Or, as the Latin words read, “The definition of original sin takes away from the unrenewed nature the gifts, the power, and all activity for beginning and accomplishing anything in spiritual things.”

[11] c. Original sin (in human nature) is not just this entire absence of all good in spiritual, divine things. Original sin is more than the lost image of God in mankind; it is at the same time also a deep, wicked, horrible, fathomless, mysterious, and unspeakable corruption of the entire human nature and all its powers. It is especially a corruption of the soul’s highest, chief powers in the understanding, heart, and will. So now, since the fall, a person inherits an inborn wicked disposition and inward impurity of heart, an evil lust and tendency. [12] We all by disposition and nature inherit from Adam a heart, feeling, and thought that are, according to their highest powers and the light of reason, naturally inclined and disposed directly against God and His chief commandments [Matthew 22:36–40]. Yes, they are hostile toward God, especially in divine and spiritual things [Romans 8:7]. For in other respects, regarding natural, outward things that are subject to reason, a person still has power, ability, and to a certain degree understanding—although very much weakened. All of this, however, has been so infected and contaminated by original sin that it is of no use before God [Romans 8:8].

[13] d. The punishment and penalty of original sin, which God has imposed upon Adam’s children and upon original sin, are death, eternal damnation [Romans 3:23], and also other bodily, spiritual, temporal, eternal miseries. These include the devil’s tyranny and dominion. So human nature is subject to the devil’s kingdom [Colossians 1:13] and has been surrendered to his power. It is held captive under his sway, who stupefies and leads astray many a great, learned person in the world through dreadful error, heresy, and other blindness, and otherwise rushes people into all sorts of crime.

[14] e. Fifth, this hereditary evil is so great and horrible that, only for the sake of the Lord Christ, can it be covered and forgiven before God in those baptized and believing. Furthermore, human nature, which is perverted and corrupted by original sin, must and can be healed only by the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit [Titus 3:5]. However, this healing is only begun in this life. It will not be perfect until the life to come [Ephesians 4:12–13].

[15] These points, which have been quoted here only in a summary way, are set forth more fully in the above-mentioned writings of the common confession of our Christian doctrine.

[Pelagian and Manichaean Errors]

[16] This doctrine must be kept and guarded so that it may not turn either to the Pelagian or the Manichaean side. For this reason the contrary doctrine about this article, which is condemned and rejected in our churches, should also be briefly stated.

[17] 1. First, in opposition to the old and the new Pelagians, the following false opinions and dogmas are condemned and rejected: original sin is only guilt, because of what has been committed by another person, without any corruption of our nature.

[18] 2. Sinful, evil lusts are not sins, but states or created and essential characteristics of the nature.

[19] 3. Or the teaching that the above-mentioned defect and evil are not properly and truly sin before God, because of which a person without Christ must be a child of wrath and damnation, also in the dominion and under Satan’s power ‹unless he is grafted into Christ and is delivered through Him›.

[20] 4. The following and similar Pelagian errors are also condemned and rejected: nature, even since the fall, is said to be uncorrupt and that especially in spiritual things it is entirely good and pure. In its natural powers it is said to be perfect.

[21] 5. Original sin is only outward—a slight, insignificant spot sprinkled or a stain dashed on the nature of mankind. Or it is a corruption only in some outward things. Under and with original sin, human nature still possesses and retains its integrity and power even in spiritual things.

[22] 6. Original sin is not a spoiling or a lack, but only an outward difficulty for these spiritual good powers. It is like when a magnet is smeared with garlic juice. Its natural power is not removed by the juice, but only hindered. Nor can this stain of original sin be washed away easily, like a spot from the face, or paint from the wall.

[23] 7. Those who teach that human nature has been greatly weakened and corrupted through the fall, but that it still has not entirely lost all good in divine, spiritual things are also rebuked and rejected. They teach that what is sung in our churches, “Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human,” is not true, but from natural birth human nature still has something good in it, even though it is small, little, and slight. They suggest human nature has a capacity, skill, aptness, or ability to begin, to effect, or to help effect something in spiritual things. [24] About outward, temporal, worldly things and transactions, which are subject to reason, there will be an explanation in the following article.

[25] These and similar contrary doctrines are condemned and rejected because God’s Word teaches that the corrupt human nature, of and by itself, has no power for anything good in spiritual, divine things, not even for the smallest things, such as good thoughts. Not only is this true, but the corrupt nature can do nothing in God’s sight of and by itself. It can only sin (Genesis 6:5; 8:21).

[26] In the same way this doctrine must also be guarded on the other side against Manichaean errors. So the following erroneous doctrines are rejected and so are similar doctrines: in the beginning, human nature was created pure and good, but after the fall original sin is infused and mixed with the nature from outside itself by Satan (as something essential). It is like when poison is mingled with wine.

[27] Human nature was originally created pure, good, and holy in Adam and Eve. Sin did not enter their nature through the fall in the way enthusiastically taught by the Manichaeans, as though Satan had created or made some evil substance and mixed it with their nature. By Satan’s seduction through the fall, Adam lost his created state of hereditary righteousness according to God’s judgment and sentence. Human nature is perverted and corrupted as a punishment, by this deprivation or deficiency, want, and injury, that was caused by Satan. So now human nature is passed down (together with this defect and corruption) to all people, who are conceived and born in a natural way from father and mother. [28] Since the fall, human nature is not created pure and good at first, but only afterward corrupted by original sin. In the first moment of our conception the seed from which a person is formed is sinful and corrupt [Psalm 51:5]. Furthermore, original sin is not something by itself, existing independently in, or apart from, the nature of the corrupt person. It is neither the real essence, body, or soul of the corrupt person or the person himself. [29] Original sin and human nature (corrupted by original sin) cannot and should not be distinguished as though the nature were pure, good, holy, and uncorrupted before God, while original sin alone (which dwells in human nature) is evil.

[30] Augustine writes that the Manichaeans teach that it is not the corrupt person who sins because of inborn original sin, but something different and foreign in a person. And so, God does not accuse and condemn by the Law human nature as corrupt by sin, but only original sin in it. For, as stated above in the thesis (i.e., in the explanation of the pure doctrine about original sin), the person’s entire nature, which is born in the natural way from father and mother, is entirely and to the farthest extent corrupted and perverted by original sin. Human nature is corrupt in body and soul, in all its powers, as regards and concerns the goodness, truth, holiness, and righteousness created with it in Paradise. Nevertheless, human nature is not entirely exterminated or changed into another substance, which could be called unlike our nature according to its essence and, therefore, cannot be of one essence with us.

[31] Because of this corruption, a person’s entire corrupt nature is accused and condemned by the Law unless the sin is forgiven for Christ’s sake [Galatians 3:10–11].

[32] The Law accuses and condemns our nature, not because we have been created human by God, but because we are sinful and wicked. Since the fall, human nature is condemned, not because its essence is God’s work and creation in us, but because and so far as it has been poisoned and corrupted by sin.

[The Corrupt Nature]

[33] Original sin is like a spiritual poison and leprosy, as Luther says [LW 7:233]. It has poisoned and corrupted the whole human nature. So we cannot show and point out to the eye, human nature by itself or original sin by itself. Nevertheless, there is the corrupt nature, or essence of the corrupt person (body and soul—the person himself) whom God has created. (Original sin dwells in a person. It also corrupts the nature and essence of the entire person.) And there is original sin, which dwells in human nature or essence and corrupts it. They are not one and the same thing. For example, in outward leprosy the body that is leprous and the leprosy on or in the body are not one thing, properly speaking. But a distinction must also be maintained between our nature as created and preserved by God (in which sin is indwelling) and original sin (which dwells in the nature). These two things can, and must, be considered, taught, and believed separately according to Holy Scripture.

[34] Furthermore, the chief articles of our Christian faith drive and compel us to preserve this distinction. For instance, in the article of creation, Scripture testifies that God has created human nature not only before the fall, but that it is God’s creature and work also since the fall. (See Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 45:11; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:25; Revelation 4:11.)

[35] Job says:

[36] David says:

[37] In the Ecclesiastes of Solomon it is written, “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

[38] These passages clearly testify that God, even since the fall, is the creator of mankind. He creates his body and soul. Therefore, corrupt mankind cannot, without any distinction, be sin itself. Otherwise, God would be a creator of sin. Our Small Catechism also confesses this in the explanation of the First Article, where it is written:

Likewise, in the Large Catechism it is written:

Nevertheless, this same creature and work of God is sadly corrupted by sin. For the material from which God now forms and makes man was corrupted and perverted in Adam and is thus passed along by inheritance to us.

[39] Here pious Christian hearts justly ought to consider God’s unspeakable goodness. God does not immediately cast from Himself this corrupt, perverted, sinful material into hellfire. No, He forms and makes the present human nature from it (which is sadly corrupted by sin) in order that He may cleanse it from all sin, sanctify, and save it by His dear Son.

[40] From this article, the distinction is now clearly and indisputably found. Original sin does not come from God. God is not sin’s creator or author. Nor is original sin God’s creature or work, but it is the devil’s work.

[41] If there was no difference at all between the nature or essence of our body and soul (which is corrupted by original sin) and original sin (by which the nature is corrupted) one of the following would be true: because God is the creator of our nature, He also created and made original sin, which would also be His work and creature. Or, because sin is the devil’s work, Satan would be the creator of our nature, of our body and soul. They would also have to be Satan’s work or creation if, without any distinction, our corrupt nature was thought to be sin itself. Both of these teachings are contrary to the article of our Christian faith. [42] Therefore, in order that God’s creation and work in mankind may be distinguished from the devil’s work, we say that it is God’s creation that a person has body and soul. Also, it is God’s work that a person can think, speak, do, and work anything. For “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). But human nature is corrupt. Its thoughts, words, and works are wicked. This is originally Satan’s work, who has corrupted God’s work in Adam through sin. From Adam, sin is passed down to us by inheritance [Romans 5:12].

[43] Second, in the article of Redemption the Scriptures testify forcefully that God’s Son received our human nature without sin. So He was in all ways—sin excluded—made like us, His brethren (Hebrews 2:14–17). Therefore, all the old orthodox teachers have maintained that Christ, according to His received humanity, is of one essence with us, His brothers. For He has received His human nature, which in all respects (sin alone excluded) is like our human nature in its essence and all essential attributes. They have condemned the contrary doctrine as obvious heresy.

[44] If there were no distinction between the nature or essence of corrupt mankind and original sin, one of the following must be true: Christ did not receive our nature, because He did not receive sin. Or because Christ received our nature, He also received sin. Both of these ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. God’s Son received our nature, and not original sin. Therefore, it is clear from this fact that human nature (even since the fall) and original sin are not one and the same thing. They must be distinguished.

[45] Third, in the article of Sanctification Scripture testifies that God cleanses, washes, and sanctifies mankind from sin [1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 1:7] and that Christ saves His people from their sins [Matthew 1:21]. Sin, therefore, cannot be a person himself. For God receives a person into grace for Christ’s sake. But God remains hostile to sin eternally. Therefore, it is unchristian and horrible to hear that original sin is baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, sanctified and saved, and other similar expressions found in the writings of the recent Manichaeans. We will not offend simpleminded people with further examples.

[46] Fourth, in the article of the Resurrection Scripture testifies that precisely the substance of our flesh, but without sin, will rise again [1 Corinthians 15:42, 54–57]. In eternal life we shall have and keep precisely this soul, but without sin.

[47] If there was no difference at all between our corrupt body and soul and original sin, one of the following would be true (contrary to this article of the Christian faith): our flesh will not rise again at the Last Day, and in eternal life we shall not have the present essence of our body and soul, but another substance (or another soul), because then we shall be without sin. Or ‹at the Last Day› sin will also rise again and will be and remain in the elect in eternal life.

[48] It is clear that this teaching (with all that depends on it and follows from it) must be rejected. For it is asserted and taught that original sin is the nature, substance, essence, body, or soul itself of corrupt mankind. It is taught that between our corrupt nature, substance, and essence and original sin there is no distinction whatever. For the chief articles of our Christian faith forcefully and emphatically testify why a distinction should and must be maintained between mankind’s nature or substance (which is corrupted by sin) and the sin (with which and by which mankind is corrupted). [49] A simple statement of the doctrine and the contrary teaching (in theses and antitheses) in this controversy is enough in this place for the chief issue itself. The subject is not argued at length, but only the principal points are treated, article by article.

[Terms and Expressions]

[50] For terms and expressions, it is best and safest to use and retain the form of sound words used about this article in the Holy Scriptures and the above-mentioned books.

[51] To avoid argument about words and expressions, which are applied and used in various senses, they should be carefully and distinctly explained. For example, it is said that God creates the nature of people. By the term nature the essence, body, and soul of people are understood. But often the character or disposition of a thing is called its nature. For example, it is said that it is the nature of the serpent to bite and poison. In a similar way, Luther says that sin and sinning are the character and nature of corrupt mankind [LW 14:169].

[52] Original sin properly means the deep corruption of our nature, as it is described in the Smalcald Articles. But sometimes the concrete person or the subject (i.e., a person himself with body and soul, in which sin is and dwells) is also included under this term, because a person is corrupted by sin, poisoned, and sinful. For example, Luther says, “Your birth, your nature, and your entire essence is sin,” that is, sinful and unclean [LW 12:307–8, 310, 348].

[53] Luther himself explains that by “nature-sin,” “person-sin,” and “essential sin” he means that not only the words, thoughts, and works are sin, but that the entire nature, person, and essence of a person are altogether corrupted from the root by original sin [LW 52:152; 12:11, 351].

[54] A congregation of ordinary people ought to be spared the Latin words substantia and accidens in public sermons, for they are unknown to ordinary people. But learned people among themselves, or with others to whom these words are not unknown, may use such terms in discussing this subject, as Eusebius, Ambrose, and especially Augustine, and also still other eminent Church teachers have done. For these terms were necessary to explain this doctrine in opposition to the heretics. The terms assume a division that has no middle ground. So everything that exists must be either substantia (i.e., a self-existent essence) or accidens (i.e., an outward thing that does not exist by itself essentially, but is in another self-existent essence and can be distinguished from it). Cyril and Basil also use this distinction.

[55] Among others, the following is a sure, indisputable axiom in theology: every substantia or self-existing essence (so long as it is a substance) is either God Himself or God’s work and creation. In many writings against the Manichaeans, in common with all true teachers, Augustine has condemned and rejected the following statement after due consideration and with seriousness: original sin is man’s nature or substance. Like Augustine, all the learned and intelligent have also always maintained: when something does not exist by itself—it is not a part of another self-existing essence, but exists, subject to change, in another thing—it is not a substantia. That is, it is not something self-existing. Instead, it is an accidens. That is, it is something accidental. So Augustine is accustomed to speak in this way constantly: original sin is not human nature itself, but an accidental defect and damage in human nature. [56] Before this controversy, people spoke in this way, also in our schools and churches, according to the rules of logic, freely and without being suspected of heresy. They were never condemned on this account either by Dr. Luther or any orthodox teacher of our pure, evangelical churches.

[57] It is the indisputable truth that everything that is, is either a substance or an accident (i.e., either a self-existing essence or something accidental in it). This has just been shown and proven by testimonies of the Church teachers. No truly intelligent person has ever had any doubts about this. Therefore, necessity constrains here, and no one can avoid it. If the question is asked whether original sin is a substance (that is, something existing by itself and not in something else) or whether it is a nonessential quality, that is, something not existing by itself but in another, one must confess directly and firmly that original sin is no substance, but an accident (nonessential quality).

[58] For this reason, too, God’s Church will never be able to have permanent peace in this controversy, but instead the dissension will grow stronger and continue if the church’s ministers remain in doubt about whether original sin is a substance or an accident, and whether it is rightly and properly named so.

[59] If the churches and schools are to be thoroughly relieved of this scandalous and very mischievous controversy, it is necessary that everyone be properly instructed about this matter.

[60] But if it is further asked what kind of an accident (nonessential quality) original sin is, that is another question. No philosopher, no papist, no sophist, indeed, no human reason, however sharp it may be, can give the right explanation to this. All understanding and every explanation of it must be derived solely from the Holy Scriptures. They testify that original sin is an unspeakable evil and such an entire corruption of human nature that in it and all its inward and outward powers, nothing pure or good remains. Everything is entirely corrupt, so that because of original sin a person is truly spiritually dead in God’s sight [Ephesians 2:5]. All a person’s powers are dead to what is good.

[61] In this way, then, original sin is not weakened by the word accident (nonessential quality). It is explained according to God’s Word, the way Dr. Luther has written with great seriousness against the weakening of original sin in his Latin exposition of Genesis 3 [LW 1:160–82]. Accident (a nonessential quality) serves only to show the distinction between God’s work (which our nature is, even though it is corrupt) and the devil’s work (the sin that dwells in God’s work and is the most profound and indescribable corruption of it).

[62] Luther, in his treatment of this subject, has used the term accident, and also the term quality, and has not rejected them. But at the same time he has, with special seriousness and great zeal, taken the greatest pains to explain and to impress upon every single reader what a horrible quality and accident it is. For by it human nature is not merely polluted, but is so deeply corrupted that nothing pure or incorrupt has remained in it. His words on Psalm 90 show this:

And again, on Genesis 3 he writes: “We are infected with the poison of original sin from the bottom of the foot to the top of the head, because this happened to us in a still perfect nature” [see LW 1:163].