Original Sin & Guilt

Do all humans inherit the guilt from the sin of Adam as well as the actual experience of depravity/separation from God (i.e., "original sin")? Or can guilt/culpability only enter the picture when a person can be held responsible for her own choices? Is sin something that is inherited at all or something that occurs when one violates (sins against) the will of God? Or should we scrap most of this discussion and place emphasis on the transferal of death (a la Eastern Orthodoxy) from Adam and Eve to their descendants?

This is one of the areas that generates disagreement among Wesleyan theologians today and throughout the history of Methodism. Let's be clear that there is a distinction between sin/depravity and guilt. [Most] Theologians in the West since Augustine have held that sin is inherited from our first parents and have used the phrase "original sin" to describe this. This assertion holds that all humans are participants in sin, or are born into a sinful state, with an orientation bent towards evil. We should note, also, at this point that sin in the Western Church, typically, carries moral overtones. Doing so makes sin interconnected with guilt. This interconnectedness means that for most of the Church in the West, who take Augustine's lead, "original guilt" is also an accurate expression attributable to all humans; that is, not only do we inherit a sinful orientation, we are also held culpable for our state.

The connection between sin and guilt, however, is not always so strongly linked as this, as is indicated by the difference of opinion in some theologians in my own tradition (Methodism). Some (e.g., John Miley) assert that original guilt cannot be a plausible category because holding someone culpable for an activity in which they have not knowingly and intentionally participated would be unjust. Others (e.g., Albert Knudson) maintain the connection between sin and guilt, but hold sin to such a volitional standard that they deny its hereditary existence. Accordingly, one is not born with a bent towards sin, but given the vastness of the existence of evil in his environment, it is nearly impossible not to capitulate to it and therefore will be held responsible when participating in sin. Though Wesley (the founder of Methodism) may be closer to Miley, his theology presupposes the connection between sin and guilt (as seen in an Augustinian-Calvinistic framework). However, he breaks the connection with his emphasis upon prevenient grace, which according to Wesley cancels the guilt of original sin (though not its existence). This move affirms that an infant's culpability for inheriting sin from her parents is removed until she knowingly and willfully transgresses the law of God and/or is held responsible for responding to the grace of God given her.

I read an article today, however, that puts an entirely different spin on this and calls the West's understanding of "original sin" into question. If you have 10-20 minutes, I would encourage you to read the article written from a position of Eastern Orthodoxy. The expression "original sin" is unknown the any of the Church Fathers (East or West) prior to Augustine (thought the concept may be somewhat present in Tertullian). The earlier Fathers (and Orthodoxy today) affirmed what is termed "ancestral sin" which holds the culpability of the original sin of Adam and Eve solely on them, but that as descendants of our first parents we inherit their fate (i.e., death). Sin, in the East, is more of a concept of disease or illness rather than moral infraction. Hence, if I understand the point correctly, we can be said to have inherited a disease called death, rather than an immoral bent. And this distinction came (partly) from a very important preposition (p. 8 of linked article above). Augustine was not skillful in Greek and relied heavily on Latin translations of the Greek text. So when he read Romans 5.12, which according to the Latin rendering sounds more like sin entered into the world "through (or in) one man (i.e., Adam)" he incorporated that into what would be spelled out as the doctrine of "original sin" and would mean that we are held responsible for the sin of Adam, too. However, the Greek phrase really has more of a "causal" meaning, which would indicate that sin entered into the world "because of one man (i.e., Adam)." The implications of this are significant.

Concepts of "guilt" and a juridical understanding of sin (and hence, salvation) are not key elements of an Eastern Orthodox theology (from what I have encountered), yet they are the bedrocks of soteriological discussions in all families of the Western Church, even among the Wesleyan branch, though we are also favourable toward viewing sin as disease. Such an emphasis, if given, is not to the degree, however, as that of Orthodoxy, since even in Wesley and his successors, there is much treatment given to guilt in discussions of anthropology, hamartiology (theology of sin), and soteriology.