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.

On Human Nature

The First Sunday in Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

 For most children, at some point in their school career they will be asked that basic philosophical question about the nature of humanity. Are humans, by nature, evil or good? It is a complex question that many philosophers throughout the ages have struggled with. For children, it is perhaps a simpler question of examining the world around them and reporting on it.

They see evil, murder, theft, sexual violence, war and conclude that it is part of human nature to do evil. Others might, in the midst of that evil, particularly if they are not touched by it directly or are perhaps by virtue of their parents shielded from it in some way, conclude that humanity is by nature good.

Children who are shielded from the news and other sources of violence might conclude that humans are generally good because that is what they experience around themselves. Those who see evil—murder, theft, sexual violence and immorality and war—might conclude that humans are by nature evil. Sure enough, when something bad happens or someone sins, how common is it for someone to suggest that it is human nature?

Even within Christian communities, when someone speaks of their own trouble with temptation and sin, how common is it for someone to suggest that it is simply human nature that we sin or otherwise succumb to temptation? Is that correct?

It is not. God did not create humanity to sin. Indeed, we are made in his image and likeness.

In the ancient Church, worship was for the saints while it was adoration that was reserved for God. Today, we worship God and adore babies. As Fr Michael McKinnon once joked, however, there is only one adorable baby in human history, and that is Christ himself.

Yet when we consider the nativity and incarnation, it’s not simply to think about the adorable baby he was born as (in both senses, certainly), but rather what the implications of the incarnation are. In this season of Advent, as we anticipate the incarnation, it seems appropriate to consider what Christ’s taking on a human nature implies about our own humanity.

Isaiah contains a number of prophesies related to the coming and incarnation of Christ the Messiah. St John of Damascus, in considering Isaiah 7 which contains the famous prophesy that, “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” (Isa 7. 14), suggested that Christ’s incarnation reflects on human nature itself, that, “by the transgression [of Adam and Eve] we were driven from the natural to the unnatural, but the Lord led us back from the unnatural to the natural. For this is what is the meaning of in our image, after our likeness.”

To St John, then, humans are by nature good, and this is reflected in Scripture both in the creation story of Genesis, but further in the discussion of Christ’s nature and explication on why the incarnation occurred as it did. This view of the natural state of humanity being good, impaired by sin to the unnatural state of sin, was shared by other early fathers of the Church.

St Gregory of Palamas, a 14th century theologian venerated primarily in the East, wrote extensively on the incarnation, again affirming the beliefs of the fathers. He describes how Adam was created undefiled, until he turned aside from God, tempted by the pleasures of the flesh and underwent the defilement of sin. In so saying, he argues again that by nature, man is good and it is the tyranny of sin which, contrary to our created nature, pushes humanity towards evil.

In his own words, “originally God created the first Adam undefiled and he was new until he voluntarily obeyed the devil. He turned aside after the pleasures of the flesh, underwent the defilement of sin, grew old and fell into what is contrary to nature.”

St Gregory spoke to the incarnation of Christ, noting that the purpose of the incarnation was that in coming among as us as man, Christ could take our sins upon himself, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for all and for all time. In order to do this, though, a number of things were needed.

Christ was not conceived by ordinary means, but by the Holy Spirit, such that:

he was the only one neither shapen in iniquity nor conceived in sin, that is to say in the fleshy pleasure, passion and unclean thoughts that belong to our nature defiled by transgression. The point of this was that the nature he assumed should be entirely pure and unsullied, so that he himself would not need to be purified but would, in his wisdom, accept everything for our sake.

Note again how St Gregory stresses, as St John of Damascus did, that human nature had been defiled by the transgression of Adam, yet in Christ’s incarnation and pure life he was able to die, not because of his own sins, but in order that he be a sacrifice for ours. He writes further, “Born of a woman that he might restore the human nature created by him.”

Sin and evil are not humanity’s nature, they are a corruption of our natural state. In as much as Christ had a dual nature, both fully God and fully man, humans too can be viewed, in some respects, as being of a dual nature: our natural state, as we were created before the fall, and our current state, corrupted in sin. In his sacrifice St Gregory writes, Christ has made, “his flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification with abundant power to wash away the defilement of our first parents, and sufficient to sanctify everyone who came after them.”

When we see evil in the world, injustice, violence, hatred or any other kind, it should not be viewed as part of our nature. It is alien to us. What we are seeing is the nature of sin, and often enough lives lived in slavery to it.

St Paul wrote often using the imagery of our slavery and bondage to sin. He also wrote, however, that in Christ there is freedom. Our shackles will be removed. Our sins will be wiped clean. In Christ, we come closer and closer to true human nature, the image and likeness of God in which we were first created.

In this season of advent, it is this reality that we are called to reflect upon. The true meaning of the Nativity of our Lord.