On the Articles: Article IX

The Second Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

IX. Of Original or Birth-sin
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And 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.

To modern ears, this Article can seem both a bit difficult to understand and also challenging in its subject matter. It seems that for most modern Christians there is some level of aversion to directly and deeply discussing and examining issues relating to sin and humanity’s departure from God’s will. The mid-sixteenth century also saw a return to prominence of the heresy of Pelagianism, which resulted in the continental reformers, Rome at the Council of Trent and the English reformers all wanting to clarify their anti-Pelagian stances.

Pelagius was a fifth century Celtic monk who rose to prominence teaching in Rome. His heresy involved the teaching that humanity could, of its own efforts, attain salvation apart from Divine grace. His teachings were universally condemned, however they had significant appeal in that many interpreted his teachings as suggesting that one could attain to salvation simply by being a good person, with the definition of good person now effectively being left up to the individual rather than to God. Even in the case of still regarding sin as sin by God’s definition, Pelagianism seems to have taught that not all fall short, and that by virtue of free will and choice mankind could, again apart from divine grace, avoid sin. While this doesn’t necessarily present a full and accurate picture of Pelagius’s actual teachings, it was a popular understanding that helped contribute to the revival of Pelagianism in the sixteenth century, and explains the specific reference to condemnation of Pelagius in this Article.

The Pelagian view is contrasted with a more Augustinian view that speaks to the corruption of our human nature by sin, and that by this corrupted nature, all people are inclined towards sin. This—ironically—is a far more comforting view of our nature than that of Pelagius, whose view suggests that when we sin it is of our own desires and free will, and utterly unrelated towards any inclination to sin. To Pelagians, we have equal draws towards sinfulness and God and complete free-will to choose, which suggests we all choose completely of our own free will to sin.

Augustine’s formulation of Original Sin has been widely adopted in the Christian West, though in his time it was innovative. Before then, and to this day in the Christian East, the concept of Ancestral Sin was the dominant explanation. Under that formulation, Adam and Eve alone bore the guilt of their sin, but all humanity bore the consequences of their sin.

While the more Augustinian concept of original sin is referred to and would have been far more familiar to the English reformers, the Eastern view of Ancestral Sin is largely consistent with Article IX, with the exception of one of the middle clauses, which states that we are born into condemnation by virtue of this state of sin.

Continuing on, the Article uses a Greek phrase to continue its explanation. The Greek here is transliterated as “phronema sarkos” and could be rendered into English along the lines of “the mind of the flesh” however this would be imprecise and is one of the reasons the original Greek was used in the Article. The concept refers to the idea of the desires of our corrupted human nature. Specifically, by virtue of Adam’s sin, our minds have been corrupted by the power of Satan. Where the Greek sarkos is used is therefore referring to the broader concept of all that is hostile to God, a common reference with respect to flesh and world throughout the New Testament.

The final sentence doesn’t refer to specifically sexual sins, but rather speaks to this same topic, the idea that even in Baptismal regeneration, these consequences of a corrupted nature remain. We remain inclined to sin, even as the sins we ourselves have committed are washed away in the waters of baptism and again when we repent of them and return to God.

This strong admission of a corrupted human nature and proclivity towards sin is an essential declaration in the face of those who would suggest some form of universalism or otherwise attempt to make the claim that not all fall short of God’s glory, to use St Paul’s words. There can be no clear doctrine of salvation without first making clear the need for salvation.