5. The consequences of the original sin.
Original sinful death includes being dead in sins (Eph. 2:1, 5) or being estranged from the life that is of God (Eph. 4:16), thus spiritual death. But if the spiritual death is not lifted by faith in Christ, the Redeemer of sins, then eternal death or eternal damnation follows from the bodily death. This has already been explained in more detail above. A few more details may be added. As far as the bodily death is concerned, it has been discussed from the church fathers on until our time whether the words Gen. 2:17: "Which day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die of death" refer to a certain event that will occur later, or whether we should think of a death that occurred immediately with the sin. The latter would be preferable. The time determination "on which day" binds the dying very closely with the act of sinning. The complete separation of soul and body, which occurred only later, was only the conclusion of the dissolution process beginning with the sin. Thus, even now all men, because they are Adam's children and therefore sinners, die from youth. The weaknesses and diseases to which we are subjected in this life are, as it were, only loosenings of the bond between soul and body and preliminary stages of the complete separation that will follow sooner or later.1612) — By far more important is the question why actually eating from the forbidden tree brought death to Adam and Eve. Recent theologians, among them also Delitzsch and Hofmann, have expressed the opinion that death was not actually caused by the transgression of the divine commandment, Gen. 2:17, but rather by the fact that the devil had taken possession of the forbidden tree. As a result, eating from the tree had such an evil effect on "the bodily nature" of Adam and Eve that their sensual desire was directed toward an "object of the corporeal world." Underlying this strange assertion is the interest in giving the first sin the character of άνομία, of going directly against
1612) Thus Gerhard says, Loci, L. De Morte, § 17: Quia venenum illud peccati nos ipsorum (of the first parents) posteri in corpore perpetuo in hac vita circumferimus, ideo etiam mortem nostram in nobis ipsis semper circumferimus, nec repente in mortem incidimus, sed minutatim procedimus.[Google]
662 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 552-3]
the Word of God.1613) But this view contradicts the biblical account. It turns the hindmost first. The devil begins the temptation not by drawing Eve's attention to the edibility and beauty of the fruit of the tree, but by first seeking to raise doubts about God's Word. He gives Eve to consider whether God really gave such a strange commandment. Eve proves well-informed both as to the commandment itself and as to the punishment that God had placed on the transgression of the commandment. She replies, "God has said, 'Do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you die!'" But when the tempter perceives that Eve does not indignantly turn away from him, but that doubts about the truth of the divine Word are stirring in her, he dares to directly contradict the Word of God by asserting that eating from the forbidden tree will not result in death, but in a great advance in knowledge. To this argument against the Word of God Eve agreed, and now she looked at "that of the tree it was good to eat of, and [it was] lovely to look upon, that it was a pleasure (נֶחְמָ֤ד [HEBREW], desirable) tree, because it made wise, and took of the fruit, and ate, and gave her husband also of it, and he did eat." Thus the first sin occurred, and thus it stands established that the first sin also had the character of the ανομία, that is, of the transgression of the divine νόμος clearly recognized but set aside. Therefore, we must say that the fruit of the forbidden tree did not kill because it was bad or evil in itself, but because the eating of this tree was
1613) Delitzsch on the passage in the Genesis Commentary. The quotation printed in Baier-Walther II, 305 is taken from the first edition. In the third edition available to us, however, the earlier explanation is essentially retained; on Hofmann, cf. his Schriftbeweis 2 I, 465 ff. Hofmann also agrees with Delitzsch that the fruit of the tree was evil in itself, p. 477: "The fruit directly affected a corruption of the body, insofar as it serves reproduction, by virtue of a property inherent in itself." Above all, Hofmann is concerned that death be understood not as a consequence of God's wrath on sin, but as an "evil which befalls it through the eating of the fruit." He therefore also wants to translate טֹ֥וב וָרָֽע [HEBREW] "good and bad," not "good and evil.” Rightly says Kliefoth against Hofmann: "Where sin does not begin with enmity against God, neither does redemption begin with reconciliation.” (Der Schriftbeweis des D. v. Hofmann. Schwerin 1859, p. 287.) As is well known, Hofmann also denied the satisfactio vicaria Christi.
663 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 553]
was forbidden by God. Luther deals with this point in his commentary on Genesis in detail, the summa of which is summarized in the words:1614) "Adam sets his teeth in this apple, but in truth he sets his teeth in a thorn, which was God's prohibition and disobedience against God. This is the true and proper cause of this woe, that he sinned against God, and despised his commandment, and followed the devil. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was indeed a good tree, which bore the most noble fruit; but because the prohibition is added to it, and man does not obey it, it becomes a tree much more harmful than all poison. ... Arbor scisntias doni ct mali occiäit virtute verbi prohibentis." — The way by which it came to the first sin has its analogy in the way in our time in the theological world it is denied that God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, is God's Word. The sequence of thoughts can be presented in this way: Should the Scriptures, which speak to us so humanly and in human language, really be the Word of God? This was accepted by the first church, also by the church of the Reformation, and especially by the dogmatists. This is also excusable to a certain extent, because at that time the sense for "reality" was still undeveloped. But since, as a result of the progress in all fields of science, the "developed sense of reality" is the special gift of our time, it is absolutely impossible, even now, to "identify" Scripture and the Word of God. Hereupon the decisive judgment sets in: Scripture is not the Word of God! Therefore, modern theology considers the escape from Scripture into the "pious self-consciousness of the theologizing subject" as inevitable. Conclusion: "All theologians who do theology in this way have actually become like God, yes, above God, because they know even with respect to God's Word what is good in it and what is evil in it. An analogy with the first deception of the devil cannot be mistaken here. — In connection with the fall of man, which took place by eating from the forbidden tree, the question has been raised before and now why the lex paradisiaca (the commandment given to man in paradise) had a seemingly so unimportant, indeed, quite arbitrary content. Would it not have been more appropriate if the
1614) St. L. 1, 117 f. Opp. ex., Erl. I, 120 sq.
664 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 553-4]
"Paradise law" would have referred to the whole Decalogue? Many a Christian has had the same thoughts while reading the story of the Fall. Quaeso te, writes Brenz,1615) quid hoc sibi velit, quod Deus prohibeat esum de fructu arboris et non potius aliud genus peccati? ... Cur non potius recitat Adamo decalogum, quem postea Israelitis in deserto Sinai recitavit? [Google] Brenz answers two things: 1. The decalogue as a natural law was already written into the hearts of Adam and Eve by creation and therefore did not need any special announcement. 2. Therefore, it pleased God to give Adam and Eve a commandment for the practice and probation of their obedience, the contents of which did not already stand written in their hearts. Luther especially emphasizes this point. Whether we take and keep the right position towards God that is due to us as men, becomes decisively apparent in the fact that we submit to His Word of God from the bottom of our hearts even in the case when we do not understand why God speaks, commands and does just this way and not another. Luther says: "After all things were given to Adam that he might use them of his liking either for need or for pleasure, God finally demands (tandem) of him that he should show reverence and obedience at this tree of the knowledge of good and evil and thus have, as it were, an exercise of the service of God." At this point, Luther continues, the matter becomes "theological," whereas in the preceding it was a matter of things belonging to nature or to the domestic and world government. The theologians in particular should take note of this. This is the desperately wicked pest of modern theology, that instead of drawing Christian doctrine from Scripture alone and standardizing it by it, it wants to grasp it "cognitively," as a popular terminus technicus goes, and accept or reject it according to the findings. Against this pestilence—the expression is not too harsh—even those who, by God's grace, mean the Word with all seriousness have to defend themselves throughout life: εἴ τις λαλεῖ ὡς λόγια θεοῦ [“If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God”] (1 Pet. 4:11). That pestilence is also among the consequences of the hereditary corruption which clings to us through the whole life on earth; for among the characteristics of hereditary corruption is not merely propagabilitas a parentibus ad liberos, but
1615) Quoted in L. u. W. 24, 193 f.
665 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 554-5]
also the tenacitas seu pertinax inhaerentia per omnem vitam as the dogmatists speak.1616)
Furthermore, the loss of free will in spiritual matters is one of the consequences of original sin. Actually, this is not a new subject at all. All that can be said in the matter is already contained in the fact that the Scriptures say of every natural man spiritual death (νεκρός- τοϊς παραπτώμάοιν). A special treatise was and is prompted by the fact that the expression "free will" is ambiguous and this ambiguity is misused to deny the "dead-in-sins". Where there is ambiguity of a word (homonymy), the rule generally accepted as correct is to be followed: Bene docet, qui bene distinguit. [“He teaches well who distinguishes well.”] In following this rule it is to be said:
a. If we understand free will (liberum arbitrium) as the fact that man, in contrast to creatures without reason, has a will at all and wants something, then it must be stated that man still has free will even after the Fall. Although fallen man is dead in sins and cannot do anything but sin, non potest non peccare,1617) so he still sins willingly and gladly, because the will to sin is innate in him.1618) We also call this freedom of the will the libertas a coactione or formal freedom. It is contrary to the nature of the will to be forced. Therefore, Gerhard correctly says,1619) that freedom of the will, conceived as freedom from coercion, and bondage in sin, so that man cannot do otherwise than sin, are very much in accord with each other. Consistit arbitrii libertas in homine cum peccati servitute; nam et peccat et non potest non peccare, et tamen libere peccat ac peccare ipsum delectat; quamvis nonnisi ad malum feratur, id tamen libere, id est, ultro et sponte, non invitus aut coactus, eligit totoque impetu ad illud fertur [Google].1620)
1616) Baier-Walther II, 305 sq.
1617) Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13; Rom. 6:13. — Rom. 8:7.
1618) Jn. 3:6: αάρξ by birth, the nature of this Rom. 8:7: το φρόνημα τής σαρκός εχϑρα εις ϑεόν. Likewise Gen. 8:21: יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו [HEBREW].
1619) Loci, L. De Libero Arbitrio, § 29.
1620) The toto impetu, with all its force, is exemplified by the great willingness with which the Unitarians, Lodges, Communists, a part of the
666 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 555-6]
b. If we understand by free will the ability to want what is spiritually good, that is, to believe the gospel of Christ and to fulfill God's Law out of love for God, then after the fall man has no free will, because he cannot recognize the gospel as truth, but considers it foolishness.1621) Nor can he be subject to the Law of God, but is heartily hostile to the same (εχϋ'ρα εις ϑεόν).1622) It is only a question of free will in this sense when we say that man has no free will after the fall and before his rebirth, and in particular that he cannot choose the gospel, but can only reject it. Therefore, so that the status controversiae is not shifted, it is important to keep in mind that it is not a matter of willing per se, but of the object of willing.1623)
c. Besides, it is to be noted that the fallen man still has to some extent the ability to perform an external or civil righteousness (iustitia carnalis, operum, carnis). The "to some extent" (aliquo modo) must be added, because this civil righteousness also stands on very weak feet. The innate evil nature and the inducement of the devil, in whose realm all non-Christians are,1624) prove to be so overpowering that all natural righteousness, education, culture and other supports of civil righteousness prove to be cobwebs with regard to their restricting power. The Apology in the article De Libero Arbitrio says:1625) Habet humana voluntas libertatem in operibus et rebus deligendis, quas ratio per se comprehendit. Potest aliquo modo efficere iustitiam civilem seu
Socialists, etc., reject the Christian religion, Rome curses the Christian doctrine of justification in the Council of Trent, modern Lutherans fight the Scriptures as the Word of God and the satisfactio vicaria.
1621) 1 Cor. 2:14; 1:23.<w:t>1622) Rom. 8:7.
1623) Gerhard, Loci, L. De Libero Arbitrio, § 32: Tota quaestio est de libertate ratione obiecti, circa quod voluntas occupata est. Against Bellarmin's malicious displacement of the status controversiae, Gerhard writes l. c. § 8: Apage igitur tragicas accusationes ecclesiis nostris a Bellarmino in praefatione librorum de libero arbitrio intentatas, quasi arbitrii libertatem tollamus, ipsam naturam violemus et nos ipsos non solum beluarum similes, sed omnino beluas rationis expertes profiteamur! [Google]
1624) Eph. 2:2; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18.<w:t>1625) M. 218, 70, 71. [Trigl. 335, 70 f. 🔗]
667 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 556]
iustitiam operum, potest loqui de Deo, exhibere Deo certum cultum externo opere, obedire magistratibus, parentibus, in opere externo eligendo potest continere manus a caede, ab adulterio, a furto. Quum reliqua sit in natura hominis ratio et iudieium de rebus sensui subiectis, reliquus est etiam delectus earum rerum et libertas et facultas efficiendae iustitiae civilis. Id enim vocat Scriptura iustitiam carnis, quam natura carnalis, hoc est, ratio, per se efficit sine Spiritu Sancto. Quamquam tanta est vis concupiscentiae, ut malis affectibus saepius obtemperent homines quam recto iudicio. Et diabolus, qui est efficax in impiis, ut ait Paulus Eph. 2:2, non desinit incitare hanc imbecillem naturam ad varia delicta. Haec causae sunt, quare et civilis iustitia rara sit inter homines, sicut videmus ne ipsos quidem philosophos eam consecutos esse, qui videntur eam expetivisse. — A handsome series of bogus reasons was and is put forward for the free will of the natural man in spiritual matters. These arguments are registered, treated and refuted in the Doctrine of Conversion, Vol. II, 664 ff. They are as follows: 1. Faith in Christ or conversion and keeping the commandments of God are required of man. 2. Without human cooperation, facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, etc., conversion would be a compulsion. God works only the power to believe in Christ, not the act of faith. 4. Without human participation, the subject of faith would not be man, but the Holy Spirit. 5. Since the reason for non-conversion lies in man, the decisive reason for conversion must, "according to irrefutable logic," lie in man himself. 6. Conversion must be understood as a "moral" process. 7. homo libere se convertit; "faith is "free obedience". 8. iustitia civilis, education, culture, science, etc., also play a role in the conversion of man. 9. Natural man still has the power to use the means of grace, to go to church, to listen attentively, etc.. At the same time, dogma-historical material is also given there. The refutation of the bogus reasons is followed by the highlighting of the actual reasons that are decisive for the assertion of free will in spiritual matters. These are the self-righteousness and self-wisdom flowing from hereditary corruption. This is explained in detail in
668 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Original sin. [English ed. 557]
vol. II, 580-591. Here, too, dogma-historical material is appended.1626)
d. The consequences of the original sin are also the individual sinful actions or actual sins (peccata actualia). The Scriptures trace the individual sinful acts back to the inherent evil state in a very certain way. Thus, Ps. 51 the actual sin of adultery (v. 2) is traced back to its evil source (v. 7: "Behold, I am begotten of sinful seed, and my mother conceived me in sins"). According to John 3:6, all men are σάρξ by their natural birth. But according to Gal. 5:19-21, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, fornication, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, envy, wrath, strife, dissension, rabble, hatred, murder, whoring, devouring, and the like are έργα της σαρκός, works, that is, activities, of inherent corruption. Thus we leave here the section on the sins of fact (peccata actualia).
1626) On the subject of free will, we should read above all Erasmus' De Libero Arbitrio Διατριβή of 1524 and Luther's De Servo Arbitrio of 1525. Erasmus' writing is printed in German translation in the Louis edition of Luther's works, XVIII, 1600 ff. The translation is made after a Strasbourg printing, October 1524. Luther's counter-writing, De Servo Arbitrio, is found in German translation St. L. XVIII, 1668 ff, made after the Erlangen edition, Opp. v. a. VII, 113 sqq. Whoever has become acquainted with Erasmus' arguments in favor of free will in spiritual matters and holds up next to them the arguments with which in recent and most recent times the Lutheran doctrine of Conversion and Election of Grace has been combated as Calvinistic, will not be able to avoid stating a complete consensus, about the almost general failure to understand Luther's De Servo Arbitrio cf. vol. II under the section "Terminology in Relation to God's Will of Grace," pp. 45 ff, also pp. 594 ff. Cf. Baier-Walther II, 300 ff. the antithesis in Quenstedt (Pelagians, Semipelagians, Scholastics, Papists, Arminians, Lutheran Synergists in the 16th and 17th centuries) and the supplement from the writings of modern Lutherans. The old Lutheran theologians mostly have longer treatises de libero arbitrio. Chemnitz, Loci, 1623 I, 174 ff; Examen Conc. Trid. ed. 1667, p. 113 ff. Gerhard, Loci, Berl. II, 238 ff. Quenstedt, Syst. ed. 1715 I, 1076 ff. Hollaz, Exam., Krakevitz 1722 I, 615 ff. — Geschichtliches Uber den Kampf Luthers gegen Erasmus, Einl. zu Bd. XVIII der St. L. Lutherausg., 47 ff. F. Bente, “The Synergistic Controversy', Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books; Triglotta I, 124 sqq. [see BookOfConcord here].
669 ><w:t xml:space="preserve"> Actual Sin. [English ed. 557-8]