FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Plan of salvation/Original sin: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Thus, LDS theology explicitly rejects the idea that Adam's "original sin" persists in its effects. They discount efforts to insist that all of humanity is thereby tainted, all desires are corrupted, or all infants are damned without baptism. | Thus, LDS theology explicitly rejects the idea that Adam's "original sin" persists in its effects. They discount efforts to insist that all of humanity is thereby tainted, all desires are corrupted, or all infants are damned without baptism. | ||
==Origin of original sin=== | ==Origin of the doctrine of original sin== | ||
One non-LDS author observed: | |||
:The idea of ‘original sin’ has been so commonly identified with traditional Christianity that the rejection of the one has seemed to imply a rejection of the other. It is supposedly an unquestioned assumption of Christian soteriology. In truth, the teaching that all...men are guilty of Adam’s sin, that each person must pay the penalty for, as Augustine declared (''De corrept. et grat.'', 28), is really the product of his legalistic and Neo-platonic imagination. No scholarly work, whether treating the Scriptures or the Fathers, has demonstrated…that the idea of ‘original sin’ belongs to ‘the faith once delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3) or ever existed before Augustine. The same may be said for his theories of Grace and Predestination which accompany it, all of which are the result of his ‘Neo-platonic world-view’ [quoting G. Nygren, ‘The Augustinian Conception of Grace,’ ''Studia Patristica'' 2 (1955): 260]. Many of his contemporaries opposed him [and] … were scandalized by his lack of traditionalism—and not without justification” (39).{{ref|azk1}} | |||
We learn, then, that: | |||
* there is no evidence that the doctrine existed before Augustine | |||
* Augustine's view drew on his legal training, and his background in Greek Neo-Platonism. | |||
* there was great opposition to Augustine's views, because his concept of "original sin" was not the traditional Christian teaching, but a drastic novelty. | |||
* Augustine's novel view of original sin led to alteration in other doctrine, such as his ideas on Grace and Predestination. | |||
===Effect on ideas of grace and predestination=== | |||
One error (Augstine's view of original sin) led to other alterations to Christian doctrine, which previous generations would have found incomprehensible: | |||
:According to Augustine, ‘original sin’ precluded any human cooperation with the divine Grace…. The human will is powerless to choose the good by virtue of the evil inherited from Adam. Unable to choose, he must be drawn irresistably to God by grace. Original sin and predestination are both innovations without support in the Tradition of the Church.{{ref|azk2{{ | |||
Azkoul then translates from G.F. Wiggers, ''Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinisimus und Pelagianismus'' (Hamburg 1821: 448): | |||
:“In reference to predestination the Fathers before Augustine were entirely at variance with him and in agreement with Pelagius…. No ecclesiastical author had ever yet explained the Epistle to the Romans (e.g., Rom. 5.12) as Augustine had…. It was only by a doubtful inference, too, that he appealed to Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc….’”{{ref|azk3}} | |||
===Augustine's mistranslation=== | |||
Part of Augustine's error can be explained by the fact that he did not read or speak Greek. He was forced, then, to rely on Latin translations of both the scriptures and the writings of other early Christians. | |||
As Azkoul goes on to observe: | |||
:The moralist problem concerning the transmission of guilt and death to the descendants of Adam which preoccupied Augustine made a traditional reading of the verse [{{b||Romans|5|12}}] impossible. He not only abused it, but the entire witness of St. Paul with its Hebraic background. Unfortunately, the Bishop of Hippo [i.e., Augustine] did not know Greek and depended on the Latin translation of the New Testament. It was Ambrosiaster who provided, perhaps unwittingly, with Romans 5.12 as a proof-text” (42). The Latin text was rendered: ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.’ The correct translation from the Greek reads: ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world and through sin death; on account of death all have sinned’ (42-3). Neither Origen [whom Augustine read: ''CD'' xi. 23] or Ambrosiaster gave voice to the doctrine of ‘original sin.’…. Quite simply, then, Augustine strayed from the truth, the Apostolic Tradition, and any attempt to justify his innovations by an appeal to some questionable principle of historical interpretation—‘doctrinal development’—will not help“{{ref|azk4}} | |||
==Original sin is not part of all Christian theology== | ==Original sin is not part of all Christian theology== | ||
| Line 43: | Line 74: | ||
==Endnotes== | ==Endnotes== | ||
#{{note|azk1}} Michael Azkoul, “Peccatum Originale: The Pelagian Controversy,” ''Patristic and Byzantine Review'' 3 (1984): 39. | |||
#{{note|azk2}} Azkoul, 40. | |||
#{{note|azk3}} Azkoul, 51, note 5. | |||
#{{note|azk4}} Azkoul, 43. | |||
#{{note|pagels1}} Elaine Pagels, “The Politics of Paradise: Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis 1-3 versus that of John Chrysostom,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 78 (1985): 68. | #{{note|pagels1}} Elaine Pagels, “The Politics of Paradise: Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis 1-3 versus that of John Chrysostom,” ''Harvard Theological Review'' 78 (1985): 68. | ||
Revision as of 06:13, 17 December 2007
| |||||||||||
|
This page is based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, or a frequently asked question.
Question
Why don't Mormons believe the doctrine of "original sin" like the rest of Christianity?
Source(s) of the Criticism
Response
Members of the Church believe that "original sin" as commonly understood in many branches of western Christianity was not a doctrine taught by the Bible, Jesus, or the apostles.
There is a form of "original sin" in LDS theology, but it is a matter that has been resolved through the atonement of Christ:
- And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. (Moses 6꞉53-54)
Thus, LDS theology explicitly rejects the idea that Adam's "original sin" persists in its effects. They discount efforts to insist that all of humanity is thereby tainted, all desires are corrupted, or all infants are damned without baptism.
Origin of the doctrine of original sin
One non-LDS author observed:
- The idea of ‘original sin’ has been so commonly identified with traditional Christianity that the rejection of the one has seemed to imply a rejection of the other. It is supposedly an unquestioned assumption of Christian soteriology. In truth, the teaching that all...men are guilty of Adam’s sin, that each person must pay the penalty for, as Augustine declared (De corrept. et grat., 28), is really the product of his legalistic and Neo-platonic imagination. No scholarly work, whether treating the Scriptures or the Fathers, has demonstrated…that the idea of ‘original sin’ belongs to ‘the faith once delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3) or ever existed before Augustine. The same may be said for his theories of Grace and Predestination which accompany it, all of which are the result of his ‘Neo-platonic world-view’ [quoting G. Nygren, ‘The Augustinian Conception of Grace,’ Studia Patristica 2 (1955): 260]. Many of his contemporaries opposed him [and] … were scandalized by his lack of traditionalism—and not without justification” (39).[1]
We learn, then, that:
- there is no evidence that the doctrine existed before Augustine
- Augustine's view drew on his legal training, and his background in Greek Neo-Platonism.
- there was great opposition to Augustine's views, because his concept of "original sin" was not the traditional Christian teaching, but a drastic novelty.
- Augustine's novel view of original sin led to alteration in other doctrine, such as his ideas on Grace and Predestination.
Effect on ideas of grace and predestination
One error (Augstine's view of original sin) led to other alterations to Christian doctrine, which previous generations would have found incomprehensible:
- According to Augustine, ‘original sin’ precluded any human cooperation with the divine Grace…. The human will is powerless to choose the good by virtue of the evil inherited from Adam. Unable to choose, he must be drawn irresistably to God by grace. Original sin and predestination are both innovations without support in the Tradition of the Church.{{ref|azk2{{
Azkoul then translates from G.F. Wiggers, Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinisimus und Pelagianismus (Hamburg 1821: 448):
- “In reference to predestination the Fathers before Augustine were entirely at variance with him and in agreement with Pelagius…. No ecclesiastical author had ever yet explained the Epistle to the Romans (e.g., Rom. 5.12) as Augustine had…. It was only by a doubtful inference, too, that he appealed to Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc….’”[2]
Augustine's mistranslation
Part of Augustine's error can be explained by the fact that he did not read or speak Greek. He was forced, then, to rely on Latin translations of both the scriptures and the writings of other early Christians.
As Azkoul goes on to observe:
- The moralist problem concerning the transmission of guilt and death to the descendants of Adam which preoccupied Augustine made a traditional reading of the verse [Romans 5:12] impossible. He not only abused it, but the entire witness of St. Paul with its Hebraic background. Unfortunately, the Bishop of Hippo [i.e., Augustine] did not know Greek and depended on the Latin translation of the New Testament. It was Ambrosiaster who provided, perhaps unwittingly, with Romans 5.12 as a proof-text” (42). The Latin text was rendered: ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.’ The correct translation from the Greek reads: ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world and through sin death; on account of death all have sinned’ (42-3). Neither Origen [whom Augustine read: CD xi. 23] or Ambrosiaster gave voice to the doctrine of ‘original sin.’…. Quite simply, then, Augustine strayed from the truth, the Apostolic Tradition, and any attempt to justify his innovations by an appeal to some questionable principle of historical interpretation—‘doctrinal development’—will not help“[3]
Original sin is not part of all Christian theology
Many western Christians assume that "original sin" is a core part of Christian theology. While this may be true for theologies descended from Augustine's innovation, it is not true of Christianity as a whole.
For example, the Eastern Orthodox have quite a different view.
Conclusion
Concluded Elaine Pagels:
- Astonishingly, Augustine’s radical views prevailed, eclipsing for future generations of Western Christians the consensus of the first three centuries of Christian tradition.[4]
Original sin is the innovation. It is a post-Biblical novelty without scriptural support.
Given that the doctrine is explicitly repudiated by modern revelation, the Saints feel no need to accept it.
Clearly, any effort to exclude the Church from Christendom because they reject original sin must also exclude several hundred million Eastern Orthodox as well.
Endnotes
- [note] Michael Azkoul, “Peccatum Originale: The Pelagian Controversy,” Patristic and Byzantine Review 3 (1984): 39.
- [note] Azkoul, 40.
- [note] Azkoul, 51, note 5.
- [note] Azkoul, 43.
- [note] Elaine Pagels, “The Politics of Paradise: Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis 1-3 versus that of John Chrysostom,” Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 68.
Further reading
FAIR wiki articles
The early Christian Church and the Great Apostasy
Jump to Subtopic:
- Evidence of a total apostasy
- Extent of the apostasy
- Reasons why the apostasy occurred
- The office of Apostle within the ancient Church of Jesus Christ
Evidence of a total apostasy
Jump to Subtopic:
- Biblical evidence of an apostasy after Christ
- Evidence of an apostasy after Christ from early Christian history other than the Bible
- Visible evidence of the apostasy
Biblical evidence of an apostasy after Christ
Jump to details:
- Question: Is there any Biblical evidence that the apostasy began?
- Question: Was the apostasy predicted by the Bible not complete?
Evidence of an apostasy after Christ from early Christian history other than the Bible
Summary: Do the Early Church Fathers and other post-Biblical documents shed any light on the apostasy?
Jump to details:
- Question: Is there any evidence of the apostasy from materials from early Christian history besides the Bible?
- Clement of Rome: "For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you"
- Hegesippus: "These also, as there were none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth"
- Ignatius: "the false prophets and the false apostles"
- Irenaeus: "evil is spread abroad among men"
- Tertullian: "Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!"
- Cyprian: Cyprian argued that since the Saints had sunk to such low levels of depravity they rightly deserved the harsh judgments of God
- Cyril of Jerusalem: "For men have fallen from the right faith; and some preach the identity of the Son with the Father...This, therefore, is the falling away"
Visible evidence of the apostasy
Jump to details:
Extent of the apostasy
Jump to Subtopic:
- Complete apostasy after Christ
- Apostasy and the "gates of hell"
- Priesthood on the earth during the apostasy
Complete apostasy after Christ
Summary: Do other Christian denominations believe that no other church on earth is complete, or is this an arrogant belief assumed only by the "Mormons"?
Jump to details:
- Question: Did Christ establish a Church while on the earth?
- Question: Was the apostasy after Christ complete?
- Question: What is the Catholic view of the apostasy?
- Question: What is the reformation view of the apostasy?
- Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe that no genuine Christians exist outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
- Scholarly quotes on the historical evidence for apostasy
Apostasy and the "gates of hell"
Summary: Is Jesus' teaching about "the gates of hell" prevailing against "the rock" inconsistent with a belief in a universal apostasy?
Jump to details:
- Question: Does the fact that Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" mean that universal apostasy was impossible?
- Question: What are the "gates of hell" or "gates of Hades?"
Priesthood on the earth during the apostasy
Jump to details:
- Question: Was the priesthood on earth during the apostasy?
- Question: Since John the Apostle and the three Nephites did not die, then how could there have been a "complete apostasy" on the earth?
Reasons why the apostasy occurred
Jump to Subtopic:
God permitted the apostasy to occur
Summary: If there were some people who would have accepted the Gospel as taught in Mormonism, why did God allow the earthly Church to pass from the earth?
Jump to details:
Relationship of Mormonism to other branches of Christianity
Summary: What does the apostasy doctrine mean with respect to the relationship of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to other branches of Christianity?
Jump to details:
- Question: How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relate to other branches of Christianity?
- Non-LDS Christian Stephen H. Webb: Creedal Christians can learn from LDS views about Jesus Christ and creation
The office of Apostle within the ancient Church of Jesus Christ
Jump to details:
- Question: Was Paul a "real" apostle, with authority over the Church like the original Twelve?
- Question: Were the early apostles married?
- Question: Was the Apostle Paul Married?
- Question: Does the Biblical reference by Paul to "apostles and prophets" refer to Church offices?
- Question: Why did Jesus call Twelve Apostles?
FAIR web site
| Apostasy FairMormon articles on-line |
- Roger Keller, "The Apostasy," FAIR 2004 conference. FAIR link
Dr. Keller is a former Presbyterian minister.
External links
- Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site
Key sources |
|
|||
FAIR links |
|
|||
Online |
|
|||
Video |
|
|||
Print |
|
|||
Navigators |
Printed material
- Elaine Pagels, “The Politics of Paradise: Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis 1-3 versus that of John Chrysostom,” Harvard Theological Review 78 (1985): 67–99.
| Apostasy printed materials |
- Matthew B. Brown, "Evidences of Apostasy," in All Things Restored, 2d ed. (American Fork, UT: Covenant, 2006),1–32. AISN B000R4LXSM. ISBN 1577347129.
- Noel B. Reynolds (editor), Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2005), 1. ISBN 0934893020. off-site (Key source)