Reasoning steps: Original sin: guilt or corruption

Verdicts: S14 · Original sin: guilt or corruption. Shared notes and post-750 development: original-sin.

S14.1 (was original-sin/O2): Inherited guilt vs. inherited corruption

Step S14.1.1: Scripture

Rom 5:12, 18–19 (κατεστάθησαν ἁμαρτωλοί); Eph 2:3.

Step S14.1.2: Patristic evidence

Guilt-like: cyprian-osn-s1 (“sins of another” remitted to infants), augustine-osn-s1, councils-carthage-orange-osn-s1. Corruption and mortality: athanasius-osn-s1, chrysostom-osn-s1.

Step S14.1.3: Weighing decision

Reading A: inherited guilt is the universal patristic teaching. Reading B: only corruption and mortality are inherited, and guilt is an Augustinian innovation. Reading C: the East stresses corruption and mortality, while a Western line, pre-Augustinian (Cyprian, c. 253), already speaks of remitting another’s sin in infants. C is chosen. Cyprian’s council rules out B’s claim that Augustine invented the idea. Chrysostom’s explicit gloss (“liable to punishment … not from his own self”) rules out A. Note that Chrysostom still says “liable to punishment”, so even the Greek reading has a penal element.

• Confidence: Medium–high

Step S14.1.4: Source-proximity weighing

See the proximity tiers.

• Scripture (benchmark): Rom 5:18–19 (‘condemnation for all’; κατεστάθησαν ἁμαρτωλοί); Eph 2:3 (‘by nature children of wrath’): some inherited condemnation, not only mortality. (Scripture confidence: medium-high)
• Key sources by tier: Cyprian (T3, w 0.6); Chrysostom (T3, w 0.6); Augustine (T3, w 0.6). Proximity factor: 0.6 (mean tier weight of 3 key source(s)).
• Assessment: The earliest Western witness to an inherited condition remitted in infants is Cyprian (T3). Eph 2:3 and Rom 5:18–19 give the benchmark more support for inherited condemnation than the Eastern ‘mortality only’ reading allows. The modern Orthodox denial of any inherited liability lacks both biblical support and support in Chrysostom. Federal imputation as a formulated scheme is post-750, though Rom 5’s Adam–Christ parallel supports it. Verdict unchanged.

S14.2 (was original-sin/O3): Rom 5:12, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ

Step S14.2.1: Scripture

Greek ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον. In NT usage (2 Cor 5:4; Phil 3:12) it most likely means “because” or “inasmuch as”. The Latin in quo (“in whom”) is a possible reading but a less natural one (BDF §235(2) and most modern versions take it causally; Fitzmyer, ‘The Consecutive Meaning of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in Romans 5.12’, NTS 39 (1993) 321–339, argues ‘with the result that’; neither supports in quo; verified).

Step S14.2.2: Patristic evidence

augustine-osn-s2.

Step S14.2.3: Weighing decision

Reading A: “in whom”, referring to Adam. Reading B: “because all sinned”. B is chosen on the Greek. But Augustine’s doctrine does not rest only on in quo. It also rests on Rom 5:18–19, Eph 2:3, infant baptism and Cyprian. A reading error does not overturn the doctrine.

• Confidence: Medium–high (lexical); medium (impact)

Step S14.2.4: Source-proximity weighing

See the proximity tiers.

• Scripture (benchmark): Not scored against Scripture: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ most likely means ‘because’. A lexical point; no tradition’s doctrine stands or falls on it.
• Key sources by tier: Augustine (T3, w 0.6). Proximity factor: 0.6 (mean tier weight of 1 key source(s)).
• Assessment: A lexical point. Proximity is irrelevant to Greek grammar. Verdict unchanged.

S14.3 (was original-sin/O4): Free will after the fall; Augustine versus the East

Step S14.3.1: Scripture

John 8:34; Rom 7–8; Deut 30:19.

Step S14.3.2: Patristic evidence

chrysostom-osn-s1, augustine-osn-s1; see also salvation S2.

Step S14.3.3: Weighing decision

Reading: the East keeps a weakened but functioning free will and treats the fall as illness and mortality. Augustine treats it as condemnation plus a vitiated nature that needs grace even to begin to will. This is a real difference of emphasis, not a contradiction on the essentials. Both affirm the fall, the need for grace, and infant baptism.

• Confidence: Medium

Step S14.3.4: Source-proximity weighing

See the proximity tiers.

• Scripture (benchmark): Rom 8:7–8 (‘cannot please God’); Eph 2:1 (‘dead’); John 6:44; against that, Deut 30:19. (Scripture confidence: medium)
• Key sources by tier: Chrysostom (T3, w 0.6); Augustine (T3, w 0.6). Proximity factor: 0.6 (mean tier weight of 2 key source(s)).
• Assessment: The sources are T3. Scripture’s inability language (Rom 8:7–8; Eph 2:1) is stronger than the ’emphasis only’ verdict suggests, but that verdict reports the fathers. Verdict unchanged.

S14.4: Is the sinful desire that remains after baptism itself sin?

Step S14.4.1: Scripture

Paul calls the power still at work in him ‘sin which dwells in me’ (Rom 7:17, 20; ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία), and says ‘I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said’ (Rom 7:7): the desire itself (ἐπιθυμία) is what the commandment forbids. Galatians 5:17: ’the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit’. James 1:14–15 draws a line: each one is ’enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin’. Romans 8:1: ’there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’. Paul’s language supports calling the remaining desire ‘sin’; James’s supports a distinction between desire and the sin it produces.

Step S14.4.2: Patristic evidence

Augustine (Era III) addresses the question directly. On Marriage and Concupiscence I.23(25): ‘As arising from sin, it is, I say, called sin, although in the regenerate it is not actually sin’. I.25(28): concupiscence ‘is remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for sin’. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians I.13.27: ’this is called sin … not because it is sin, but because it is made by sin’. Earlier fathers located so far do not take up the question. The Lutheran Apology (II.36) quotes Augustine’s ’not imputed’ and reads it as meaning that sin remains. Sources: augustine-s14x-s1 · augustine-s14x-s2 · augustine-s14x-s3.

Step S14.4.3: Weighing decision

Reading A: the remaining desire is called sin because it comes from sin and leads to it, but in the baptised it is not sin in the proper sense, and its guilt is removed. Reading B: it is truly sin, though God does not count it against the believer. A is chosen. Augustine says in two works that it is ’not actually sin’ and ’not because it is sin’; his ’not imputed’ is explained by ‘its guilt is now taken away’, not by sin remaining. Verdict, in plain terms: the main early witness says the pull toward sin that remains after baptism is called ‘sin’ only because it comes from sin and leads to it; in itself, in the baptised, it is not sin.

• Confidence: Medium. One father, stated in two works; earlier fathers do not address it.

Step S14.4.4: Source-proximity weighing

• Scripture (benchmark): Rom 7:7, 17, 20 and Gal 5:17 call the indwelling desire ‘sin’; Jas 1:14–15 separates desire from the sin it ‘gives birth to’; Rom 8:1. Each side presses one set of texts. (Scripture confidence: medium)
• Assessment: The only direct witness is Era III (Augustine), so the proximity factor is moderate. Scripture is two-sided, so the Scripture scores are level.

S14.4 by tradition

• Catholic (fathers 4/4; Scripture 3/4): Trent V.5: the Church ‘has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin’. Follows Augustine nearly word for word.
• Orthodox (fathers 4/4; Scripture 3/4): Dositheus, Decree 6: the inherited ‘burden’ is not ‘[actual] sin’ but penalty; Decree 16: ‘it cannot be said that there is any sin … that remains, though not imputed’. Matches Augustine’s ’not actually sin’.
• Oriental Orthodox (fathers n/a/4; Scripture n/a/4): Not assessed: no classic Oriental Orthodox text located on whether remaining desire is sin.
• Lutheran (fathers 2/4; Scripture 3/4): Augsburg Confession II: original sin with concupiscence ‘is truly sin’; Apology II.36 on Augustine’s ’not imputed’: ‘Here he confesses openly that sin exists, i.e., that it remains’. Keeps Augustine’s ’not imputed’ but reverses his ’not actually sin’.
• Anglican (fathers 3/4; Scripture 3/4): Art. IX: ‘although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin’. Close to Augustine’s ‘called sin … because it is made by sin’, but does not deny that it is sin.
• Presbyterian (fathers 2/4; Scripture 3/4): WCF VI.5: although ‘pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin’. Reverses Augustine’s ’not actually sin’ while keeping the pardon.
• Reformed Baptist (fathers 2/4; Scripture 3/4): 1689 6.5: ‘both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin’. Same as Presbyterian.
• General Baptist (fathers n/a/4; Scripture n/a/4): Not assessed: Orthodox Creed XV says concupiscence ‘remaineth even in the Regenerate’ but does not say whether it is itself sin.
• Anabaptist (fathers n/a/4; Scripture n/a/4): Not assessed: Schleitheim and Dordrecht do not address the question.