HUMANITY · SIN AND GRACE

Adam: inherited sin, death and personal fault

Augustine, John Chrysostom and the difference between an inherited condition and a personally chosen act.

What is inherited?

Someone can suffer the consequences of another person's act without having performed that act. The theological difficulty arises when an inherited condition is also called sin, condemnation or guilt. Do those words identify personal wrongdoing, membership in fallen humanity, deprivation of communion with God, or liability to death? These possibilities cannot be interchanged without argument. Reading Romans 5 through Augustine and John Chrysostom brings the distinctions into view, but neither author supplies a neutral dictionary for every later Catholic or Orthodox use.

In both readings, Adam belongs within a comparison with Christ. The question is therefore about redemption as well as inheritance: why does humanity need Christ, and what does his grace accomplish beyond correcting bad examples? A contrast between a supposedly punitive West and an entirely nonjudicial East would obscure words and arguments actually present in these texts. Equally, shared language about death and grace does not establish identical accounts of inherited sin. The comparison must follow each argument before drawing a modern conclusion.

Augustine, Merits I.8–12, complete chapter contexts and notes; local 372–563.

Chrysostom, Romans Homily X, opening argument; local 9–177.

Two historical arguments, two English witnesses

Augustine addresses Marcellinus in the treatise whose retained edition gives A.D. 412. Its preceding Retractations dossier describes a controversy over infant baptism and grace, identifies Pelagius and Coelestius, and explains Augustine's earlier restraint in naming opponents. Book I argues against reducing Adam's influence to imitation. His reports of others' arguments remain reports, sometimes mediated through correspondence; they do not replace those opponents' own writings or establish everything that Pelagius personally taught.

Chrysostom's Homily X is an exposition of Romans 5 moving into Romans 6 and an extended exhortation. Its edition preface places the Romans preaching before his Constantinopolitan episcopate, while the exact homily date is not independently established here. The sermon defends the abundance of Christ's gift through the Adam–Christ parallel. Its rhetorical contest with a Jewish opponent belongs to the historical homily; it is neither an independently recovered Jewish position nor a judgment about contemporary Jews.

Augustine and Chrysostom reach this comparison through historical English translations. Their chapter captions, bracketed additions and later notes should be distinguished from the arguments being translated. The Augustine volume credits Peter Holmes and describes Warfield’s American revision; the Romans wrapper credits Morris and Simcox, with George B. Stevens as reviser and annotator.

NPNF First Series V: complete retained Book I and Retractations II.23 dossier, parent 5567–8564; source header and translator rule.

NPNF First Series XI: Romans prefaces, Homily X and its sixteen notes; parent homily 36869–37483.

Augustine: more than a bad example

In I.8–9 Augustine connects bodily death with Adam and rejects the explanation, attributed to opponents, that people inherit only an example to imitate. His argument is that an account based solely on imitation would make the devil the more obvious first exemplar. Adam matters as humanity's progenitor. This inference is tied to infant baptism: infants cannot yet imitate an example, but Augustine holds that they need remission and incorporation into Christ. One must distinguish his reasoning from the claims he characterizes in order to refute them.

You tell me in your letter, that they endeavour to twist into some new sense the passage of the apostle, in which he says: "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;" [235] yet you have not informed me what they suppose to be the meaning of these words. But so far as I have discovered from others, they think that the death which is here mentioned is not the death of the body, which they will not allow Adam to have deserved by his sin, but that of the soul, which takes place in actual sin; and that this actual sin has not been transmitted from the first man to other persons by natural descent, but by imitation. Hence, likewise, they refuse to believe that in infants original sin is remitted through baptism, for they contend that no such original sin exists at all in people by their birth. But if the apostle had wished to assert that sin entered into the world, not by natural descent, but by imitation, he would have mentioned as the first offender, not Adam indeed, but the devil, of whom it is written, [236] that "he sinneth from the beginning;" of whom also we read in the Book of Wisdom: "Nevertheless through the devil's envy death entered into the world." [237] Now, forasmuch as this death came upon men from the devil, not because they were propagated by him, but because they imitated his example, it is immediately added: "And they that do hold of his side do imitate him." [238] Accordingly, the apostle, when mentioning sin and death together, which had passed by natural descent from one upon all men, set him down as the introducer thereof from whom the propagation of the human race took its beginning.

Read Augustine I.9 and attached notes 235–238 in context.

I.10 supplies the positive analogy. Christ does more than offer an example; grace acts within believers and includes baptized infants. Augustine therefore distinguishes Adam as an example for voluntary sinners from Adam as progenitor of those born in a corrupted condition. In I.11 he also distinguishes the sins individuals commit from the one sin in which all participated. Calling every use of his guilt language a claim that an infant personally performed Adam's act would erase that distinction; denying his strong account of inherited sin would erase the other side.

Augustine I.10–11, analogy of grace and actual/original sin; local 441–533, including edition note 246.

Chrysostom: mortality, condemnation and a difficulty

Chrysostom explains the opening Romans 5:12 citation through the mortality of people who did not themselves eat from the tree. At 5:19 he explicitly asks how another person's disobedience could make someone a sinner deserving punishment. His answer interprets sinners here through liability to punishment and condemnation to death. The passage therefore resists inherited personal wrongdoing while still using judicial language. It cannot faithfully be shortened to a contrast between death and every possible sense of condemnation.

Ver. 19. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous. What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word "sinners" mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam's death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object. For it is against a Jew that the contest is, who doubted and made scorn of the righteousness by One. And for this reason after showing that the punishment too was brought in by one upon all, the reason why this was so he has not added. For he is not for superfluities, but keeps merely to what is necessary. For this is what the principles of disputation did not oblige him to say any more than the Jew; and therefore he leaves it unsolved. But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation [1345] , if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious (philosophias). For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it hath introduced other greater blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles. Thus was Abel justified, thus was Abraham, in having slain his son, thus was John, who for Christ's sake was taken off, thus were the Three Children, thus was Daniel. For if we be so minded, not death only, but even the devil himself will be unable to hurt us. And besides there is this also to be said, that immortality awaits us, and after having been chastened a little while, we shall enjoy the blessings to come without fear, being as if in a sort of school in the present life, under instruction by means of disease, tribulation, temptations, and poverty, and the other apparent evils, with a view to our becoming fit for the reception of the blessings of the world to come.

Read the complete Romans 5:19 context and the homily's later exhortation.

He acknowledges that the apostle does not there explain why mortality comes upon descendants, then offers a pastoral answer: mortality can become beneficial through disciplined living and the hope of immortality. That conditional encouragement is not an assertion that all suffering is harmless. His subsequent treatment of baptism and changed conduct also prevents reading the sermon as a theory of inevitable sin requiring no personal response. Grace surpasses the wound, and the hearer is summoned to live accordingly.

Chrysostom, Romans 6:2–4 and the continuing exhortation; local 306–529.

Interpreting Romans 5:12

The English editions preserve different readings of Romans 5:12. Augustine’s I.10–11 uses “in which” and considers whether the reference is to sin or to the one man. Chrysostom’s opening uses “for that all have sinned,” explained through inherited mortality. These formulations help readers follow the authors’ transmitted Latin and Greek traditions. They do not by themselves resolve the Greek connective or show that translation alone caused the theological difference.

The apparatus itself demonstrates disagreement. Stevens's signed note 1339 emphasizes Paul's argument about the power of Christ's grace rather than a complete theory of original sin; note 1341 disputes Chrysostom's handling of sin and law, and 1346 rejects his explanation of the law's purpose. Those are the later editor's readings, not additional statements by Chrysostom. The Greek transliterations and variant notices preserved in the edition are useful evidence about that edition, without amounting to independent critical Greek authentication.

Augustine I.11, complete argument and its editorial notes; local 486–533.

Complete Romans Homily X apparatus, notes 1339–1354; local 532–615. G.B.S. identifies Stevens; unsigned notes remain unassigned.

Named modern readings

The Catholic Catechism, §§402–405, connects humanity’s fallen condition with Adam while expressly denying personal fault in his descendants. It describes deprivation of original holiness and justice, a wounded rather than wholly corrupted nature, mortality and inclination to sin. Baptism removes original sin through Christ’s grace while consequences persist. Section 406 places this doctrinal articulation in Augustine’s fifth-century controversy and later Orange (529) and Trent (1546). Use this official Catholic teaching as its own account, then compare particular Augustinian formulations with it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Fall, §§385–421 and notes 257–308; particularly §§402–406.

The OCA's unsigned Original Sin answer distinguishes Adam and Eve's culpability from the inherited consequences, especially death. It also clarifies hereditary terminology in the Toronto quotation supplied by its questioner. Its account of Catholic inherited guilt cannot be adopted as Catholic self-description. This is an institutional educational answer, not a synodal definition; the questioner's Azkoul and Toronto quotations are not separately authenticated witnesses in this comparison.

Orthodox Church in America, Original Sin, complete questions and answers; individual author and publication date unspecified.

The disagreement needs a precise proposition. Denying descendants' personal commission of Adam's act does not by itself deny an inherited condition requiring healing; affirming such a condition does not by itself assign that personal act to descendants. This comparison corrects a misleading opposition, but does not settle whether the two accounts of inheritance and remission are substantively equivalent.

The OCA's Augustine answer recognizes him as a saint while distinguishing inherited consequences from personal guilt. Respect for a Father need not imply acceptance of every formulation. The answer's broader assertions about translation and Eastern reception remain that answer's historical account, rather than an independently verified reception survey. Its description of Western guilt requires the same qualification.

Orthodox Church in America, St. Augustine & Original Sin, complete question and answer; unsigned and undated.

Fr. John Breck's Lessons from Limbo, dated 2 February 2006, supplies a sharper pastoral objection: inherited-guilt reasoning can encourage a punitive picture of God and troubling conclusions about infants. He also criticizes punitive distortions among Orthodox believers. His account of Catholic theology, his claim to Eastern consensus and his announcement about limbo are attributed commentary, not current doctrinal findings established here. The important challenge is how an account of redemption protects both divine mercy and the distinction between another's act and our condition. Changing terminology alone cannot answer it.

Fr. John Breck, Lessons from Limbo, 2 February 2006; a named pastoral reflection, not a conciliar determination.

Associated writing: baptism leaves a struggle

Augustine's I.70 is particularly useful alongside I.9. Remission does not immediately extinguish concupiscence, and baptized infants who grow up must contend with it through God's help. Adults likewise receive forgiveness without finding every inclination abolished. This separates remission, continuing vulnerability and subsequent chosen sins within Augustine's own treatment. It supports a more careful reading than either making baptism biologically erase mortality or treating continuing struggle as evidence that baptism accomplished nothing.

In infants it is certain that, by the grace of God, through His baptism who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, it is brought to pass that the sinful flesh is done away. This result, however, is so effected, that the concupiscence which is diffused over and innate in the living flesh itself is not removed all at once, so as to exist in it no longer; but only that that might not be injurious to a man at his death, which was inherent at his birth. For should an infant live after baptism, and arrive at an age capable of obedience to a law, he finds there somewhat to fight against, and, by God's help, to overcome, if he has not received His grace in vain, and if he is not willing to be a reprobate. For not even to those who are of riper years is it given in baptism (except, perhaps, by an unspeakable miracle of the almighty Creator), that the law of sin which is in their members, warring against the law of their mind, should be entirely extinguished, and cease to exist; but that whatever of evil has been done, said, or thought by a man whilst he was servant to a mind subject to its concupiscence, should be abolished, and regarded as if it had never occurred. The concupiscence itself, however, (notwithstanding the loosening of the bond of guilt in which the devil, by it, used to keep the soul, and the destruction of the barrier which separated man from his Maker,) remains in the contest in which we chasten our body and bring it into subjection, whether to be relaxed for lawful and necessary uses, or to be restrained by continence. [442] But inasmuch as the Spirit of God, who knows so much better than we do all the past, and present, and future of the human race, foresaw and foretold that the life of man would be such that "no man living should be justified in God's sight," [443] it happens that through ignorance or infirmity we do not exert all the powers of our will against it, and so yield to it in the commission of sundry unlawful things,--becoming worse in proportion to the greatness and frequency of our surrender; and better, in proportion to its unimportance and infrequency. The investigation, however, of the point in which we are now interested--whether there could possibly be (or whether in fact there is, has been, or ever will be) a man without sin in this present life, except Him who said, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" [444] --requires a much fuller discussion; and the arrangement of the present treatise is such as to make us postpone the question to the commencement of another book.

Read Augustine I.70 [XXXIX.] complete, with notes 442–444; local 2949–2998.

What the comparison leaves open

The strongest difficulty remains the relation between inherited liability, personal responsibility and a redemption needed before someone can choose or imitate. Augustine argues from humanity's solidarity in Adam and Christ; Chrysostom challenges a simple inference to personally deserving punishment while still affirming mortality and condemnation. Their texts give reasons for distinguishing senses, without furnishing one harmonized account of every inherited effect. A historical explanation must preserve both the differences and each author's central concern with grace.

Continue through Augustine I.10–11 and I.70, then follow Chrysostom’s movement from Romans 5 into baptism and moral exhortation, with the editor’s disagreements beside it. That context makes comparison of the Catholic and OCA accounts more precise: ask whether they address the same proposition with the same kind of authority. Both inherited death and inherited sin require a careful distinction between personal fault and an inherited condition.

Editions and sources

The historical readings include all of Augustine’s Merits, Book I, with its preceding Retractations II.23 discussion, and the complete Romans Homily X with sixteen notes. The modern accounts are presented through attributed paraphrases. Consult the edition information when comparing their wording and apparatus.