The Doctrine Of Sin And Grace And Related Doctrines
Seeberg, History of Doctrine, II, pp. 65, 109 f., 154 f., 229 f., 321 f., 323 f., 374, 387; Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, II, pp. 267–275;
III, pp. 197–209, 343–353; Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte, II, pp.
380–385, 388–429; Otten, Manual of the History of Dogmas, II, pp.
171–195.
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN AND GRACE
AND RELATED DOCTRINES
I. The Anthropology of the Patristic Period
1. THE IMPORTANCE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
While the Christological controversies were agitating the East, other problems, such as those of sin and grace, of the freedom of the will and divine predestination, were coming to the foreground in the West. Their importance can scarcely be overrated from the point of view of practical Christianity. Their bearing on the work of redemption is even more directly apparent than that of the Christological questions. It is in this field that the chief lines of demarcation between the great divisions of Christianity are found.
Says Dr. Cunningham: "There never, indeed, has been much appearance of true personal religion where the divinity of the Son of God has been denied; but there has often been a profession of sound doctrine upon this subject, long maintained, where there has been little real religion. Whereas, not only has there never been much real religion where there was not a substantially sound doctrine in regard to the points involved in the Pelagian controversy, but also—and this is the point of contrast—the decay of true religion has always been accompanied by a large measure of error in doctrine upon these subjects; the action and reaction of the two upon each other being speedy and manifest." Historical Theology I, p 321.
2. THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE GREEK FATHERS. The main interest of the Greek Fathers lay in the field of Theology and Christology, and while they discussed anthropological questions, they touched these but lightly. There was a certain dualism in their thinking about sin and grace, which led to rather confused representations with a preponderant emphasis on doctrines which show a manifest affinity with the later teachings of Pelagius rather than with those of Augustine. In a measure, it may be said, they prepared the way for Pelagianism. In our brief discussion a bare indication of the main ideas prevalent among them must suffice.
Their view of sin was, particularly at first, largely influenced by their opposition to Gnosticism with its emphasis on the physical necessity of evil and its denial of the freedom of the will. They stressed the fact that Adam's creation in the image of God did not involve his ethical perfection, but only the moral perfectability of his nature. Adam could sin and did sin, and thus came under the power of Satan, death, and sinful corruption. This physical corruption was propogated in the human race, but is not itself sin and did not involve mankind in guilt. There is no original sin in the strict sense of the word. They do not deny the solidarity of the human race, but admit its physical connection with Adam. This connection, however, relates only to the corporeal and sensuous nature, which is propagated from father to son, and not to the higher and rational side of human nature, which is in every case a direct creation of God.
It exerts no immediate effect on the will, but affects this only mediately through the intellect. Sin always originates in the free choice of man, and is the result of weakness and ignorance.
Consequently infants cannot be regarded as guilty, for they have inherited only a physical corruption.
It should be noted, however, that there were some departures from this general view. Origen admitting that a certain hereditary pollution attached to every one at birth, found the explanation for it in a pre-natal or pre-temporal fall of the soul, and came very close to a doctrine of original sin. And Gregory of Nyssa came even nearer to
teaching this doctrine. But even the great Athanasius and Chrysostom scrupulously avoided it.
Naturally the doctrine of divine grace that was prevalent in the teachings of the Greek Fathers was profoundly influenced and largely determined by their conception of sin. On the whole the main emphasis was on the free will of man rather than on the operation of divine grace. It is not the grace of God, but the free will of man that takes the initiative in the work of regeneration. But though it begins the work, it cannot complete it without divine aid. The power of God co-operates with the human will, and enables it to turn from evil and to do that which is well pleasing in the sight of God. These Fathers do not always make a clear distinction between the good which the natural man is able to do and that spiritual good which requires the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.
3. THE GRADUAL EMERGENCE OF ANOTHER VIEW IN THE
WEST. This Greek anthropology also influenced the West more or less in the second and third centuries, but in the third and fourth centuries the seeds of the doctrine that was destined to become prevalent in the West gradually made its appearance, especially in the works of Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, and Ambrose.
The traducianism of Tertullian was substituted for the creationism of Greek theology, and this paved the way for the doctrine of innate sin, in distinction from innate evil. His famous maxim was, Tradux animae, tradux peccati, that is, the propagation of the soul involves the propagation of sin. He wedded his doctrine of traducianism to a theory of realism, according to which God created generic human nature, both body and soul, and individualizes it by procreation. In this process the nature does not lose its distinctive qualities, but continues to be intelligent, rational and voluntary at every point and in every one of its individualizations, so that its activities do not cease to be rational and responsible activities. The sin of the original human nature remains sin in all the individual existences of that nature.
Tertullian represents only the beginning of Latin
anthropology, and some of his expressions still remind one of the teachings of the Greek Fathers. He speaks of the innocence of infants, but probably assumes this only in the relative sense that they are free from actual sins; and does not altogether deny the freedom of the will. And though he reduces human efficiency to a minimum, he sometimes uses language that savours of the synergistic theory of regeneration, that is, the theory that God and man work together in regeneration.
In the writings of Cyprian there is an increasing tendency towards the doctrine of the original sinfulness of man, and of a monergistic renewal of the soul. He seems to hold that the guilt of original sin is not as great as that of actual sin. The doctrine of a sinful, as distinguished from a corrupt, nature is even more clearly asserted in the writings of Ambrose and Hilary. They clearly teach that all men have sinned in Adam, and are therefore born in sin. At the same time they do not hold to an entire corruption of the human will, and consequently adhere to the synergistic theory of regeneration, though they appear to be more uncertain and contradictory in this matter than some of the earlier Fathers. All in all we find in them a gradual preparation for the Augustinian view of sin and grace.
Questions for Further Study: Who were the principal representatives of early Greek theology? How did their opposition to Gnosticism influence their anthropology? Did Platonism have any effect on it?
How did they conceive of the original condition of man? Does the fall receive due emphasis in their teachings? How do you account for their conception of sin as corruption rather than guilt? How did they conceive of the propagation of sin? Who were the principal representatives of early Latin theology? How did their anthropology differ from that of the East? How do you account for the difference?
How do creationism and traducianism differ?
Literature:
Morgan, The Importance of Tertullian in the Development of Christian Dogma; Fairweather, Origen and Greek
Patristic Theology; Moody, The Mind of the Early Converts, cf.